Bible discussion
Bible Talk => Sound doctrine => Topic started by: Jack Koons on June 20, 2013, 08:48:31 am
-
Is it possible for God to be sovereign, AND allow man to exercise his free will, at the same time?
That is the million dollar question!
Calvinism on one end of the spectrum, believing on the absolute sovereignty of God; and Arminianism on the other end of the spectrum, believing in the absolute will of man; or, is there something else?
Covenant Theology vs. Dispensationalism?
These are just two examples of major Doctrines, absolutely opposed to the other; but could there be a balance between the two?
Why is it necessary for men to hold on to one end of the spectrum so hard, that to even consider any other possibility; would be absolute heresy?
Jack
-
Is it possible for God to be sovereign, AND allow man to exercise his free will, at the same time?
That is the million dollar question!
Calvinism on one end of the spectrum, believing on the absolute sovereignty of God; and Arminianism on the other end of the spectrum, believing in the absolute will of man; or, is there something else?
Covenant Theology vs. Dispensationalism?
These are just two examples of major Doctrines, absolutely opposed to the other; but could there be a balance between the two?
Why is it necessary for men to hold on to one end of the spectrum so hard, that to even consider any other possibility; would be absolute heresy?
Jack
The answer to your question is in the bible.
2 Tim 4
2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove , rebuke , exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
I got a good idea Jack, let's all believe the truth.
-
There is only one way and that road is narrow.
You're going to see many people with many different doctrines in heaven, however they will all arrive there on the same road.
-
Hello Zant,
Indeed the road to Heaven is narrow. The we face in theology is that as we pass through time men have a tendency to get 'hung up' on some point of doctrine, and that point then gets 'tweaked' just a little bit from 'center'. That is the reason we have doctrines in Christianity that are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Theologians get so tied up in the pride of being taught, and therefore 'knowing' the truth; they refuse to actually do a balanced study of God's Word on their own. What we end up with in our schools and churches are nothing more than 'parrots' saying "Polly want a cracker". Students are trained to answer general questions, but when faced with things not covered by their teachers, the student (possibly now a teacher) only has the generic answer that doesn't address the question as presented.
For instance, on my topic, "The infallibility of the Bible", most people only know what they have been taught by men like Semler (via his writings), Griesbach (via his writings), Metzger (via his writings), and Wallace rationalism and textual criticism to the point that God's word is becoming the word of men, rather than the word of God. But if you take the time to study the issue yourself, and look at history's evidence outside of these critics; history unfolds in a whole new light.
We are told as we go through college, that looking further into any teaching 'outside of that faith' would be sin.
When I graduated, I found that as I read, and study, I realized that the 'discipline' I had been studying, didn't always 'align' with certain Bible truths. With the Bible as my anchor, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit; I began studying 'the other end' of the spectrum. Things began to make sense.
Yes the road is narrow. You see, I believe man has been, is now, and will always be saved by God's grace. (Does that sound familiar?) I also believe God is sovereign. Finally, I also believe I have a free will (no I'm not a Free Will Baptist).
Jack
-
"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom. 2:13 His statement really narrows it down to the point.
-
"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom. 2:13 His statement really narrows it down to the point.
Absolutely and to follow that up, Romans 3:10 as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE ;
-
We are told as we go through college, that looking further into any teaching 'outside of that faith' would be sin.
By 'that faith' I assume you mean denomination or religion. Just for my own curiosity Jack, what college teaches this?
I realized that the 'discipline' I had been studying, didn't always 'align' with certain Bible truths.
Then I would say if your teachings were not aligned with the Bible, you were taught by false teachers.
Galatians 1:8-9
-
I just post 2 Tim 3:16-17 on another thread. Use the Scriptures to test doctrine and teachings of your church to see that they conform with God's will. If your church is teaching you something that is not biblically correct, leave it.
Remember that when you stay at a church that is not biblically correct you are condoning its teachings. This may affect others that value your judgment into accepting the false teachings.
-
That's good advice, no one should remain in a church they do not agree with doctrinally. (I must admit however, I believe about 95% of church goers, have no idea what they believe, or why.)
So with that said:
Since Adam and Eve knew who God was, were they predestined to disobey God, and thereby bring a sin nature upon all mankind that followed?
Jack
-
Since Adam and Eve knew who God was, were they predestined to disobey God, and thereby bring a sin nature upon all mankind that followed?
It looks like Paul believe so.
Ephesians 1:4 NAS
just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love
-
So Adam and Eve were created pure, and without sin. He talked with God in the cool of the day. Even though God made a covenant with Adam, Adam in fact had no choice in his breaking of the covenant.
So the the greatest part of souls were created to be condemned by God. Why is man sinful? Because he was forced to sin by the preordained council of God, for His own good pleasure. Just like the events of Joseph's life were preordained by God; the rebellion of Adam was preordained by God.
Wow!
Jack
-
I am sorry that the scriptures do not agree with you there is not much I can do with that.
Adam and Eve prove that man is sinful on his own and he needs no help from God.
You have to admit yourself that God knew Adam would sin when he put the tree in the garden.
iPhone post ???
-
When it come to these small things I do have my views but will not fight or agrue about them. I think it is more important for someone to come to know the Lord then decide for themselves these things.
-
Clark
You're correct in one way, this is not a salvation issue but it is a search for the truth. People on both sides of these issues will be standing next to each other in Christ company in heaven someday laughing about it. :)
-
Have you ever wondered why there was a distinction between murder and manslaughter in the Old Testament Law? It is because God is a righteous judge.
Murder was a deliberate act, while manslaughter was not. God is about justice. Not only is God about justice, but He cares more about animals, than some people care about other people.
Notice: Jonah 4: 11 And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?
The implication here by God is that in the 'overthrow' will not only affect the people, but the cattle as well.
My point in that God does not kill needlessly. He values life. If there would be no other reason for predestination not to be correct, this would suffice.
I am not saying the people that are condemned are condemned unjustly, I am saying just the opposite! They are being condemned because God gave them a multitude of witness as to not only His existence, but also to His redemption plan; and they WILLFULLY turned Him down.
Back in the mid 80's to mid 90's I was involved in street evangelism. One Friday night I witnessed to two young Marines about needing Christ. In the end, they looked at me and said, 'Preacher, we know your right'. They shared with me how they knew they had to get saved, but wanted to 'enjoy' being young. They told me they would see me in a few weeks and accept Christ as Saviour. They walked away, got on their motorcycles, and began 'cruising'. About five minutes later they rode past blowing their horns and waving. Then about ten minutes later we heard a loud crash. Those same two young Marines were trying to beat a red light at an intersection. Unfortunately, they failed; and there was a tractor-trailer coming the other way. It was one block from where we were. Both Marines were killed instantly.
Why am I telling you this?
Ezekiel 33 says that God has called us to be a watchman on the wall. To sound the trumpet, and warn the people of danger. If those Marines would have walked by me, and would not have given them warning; their blood would have been on my hands. If they were just two young wicked Marines that weren't part of the 'elect', why would their blood be on my hands? God didn't choose them. They were wicked, and ungodly; they got what they deserved, right? That is predestination.
The reason their blood would have been on my hands is because their souls are precious to God the Father.
Their blood, however, is not on my hands. These two young Marines will stand before God and have no reason to give God for refusing Him. Fifteen minutes before they entered eternity those two Marines were warned of the danger ahead. I do not want to make it sound like I don't care about those Marines, I most definitely did, That is why we were there witnessing on the streets. The point is, I have them the gospel, showing them their need to be saved. But in the final analysts, they CHOOSE not to accept Christ as Saviour; and that is why they are condemned, with their blood on their own hands.
Jack
-
Ezekiel 33 says that God has called us to be a watchman on the wall. To sound the trumpet, and warn the people of danger. If those Marines would have walked by me, and would not have given them warning; their blood would have been on my hands. If they were just two young wicked Marines that weren't part of the 'elect', why would their blood be on my hands? God didn't choose them. They were wicked, and ungodly; they got what they deserved, right? That is predestination.
This is predestination Jack.
Romans 8:28-39
28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. 29 For whom he did foreknow , he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom he did predestinate , them he also called : and whom he called , them he also justified : and whom he justified , them he also glorified . 31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? 32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? 33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth . 34 Who is he that condemneth ? It is Christ that died , yea rather , that is risen again , who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 As it is written , For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. 37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. 38 For I am persuaded , that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present , nor things to come , 39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
It's in the Bible Jack, get over it.
-
The reason their blood would have been on my hands is because their souls are precious to God the Father.
Their blood, however, is not on my hands. These two young Marines will stand before God and have no reason to give God for refusing Him. Fifteen minutes before they entered eternity those two Marines were warned of the danger ahead. I do not want to make it sound like I don't care about those Marines, I most definitely did, That is why we were there witnessing on the streets. The point is, I have them the gospel, showing them their need to be saved. But in the final analysts, they CHOOSE not to accept Christ as Saviour; and that is why they are condemned, with their blood on their own hands.
The truth is if you truly believe in free will than the blood of these two Marines is on your hands. For you failed to convince them of their need for immediate salvation. For if these two young lads were free to make that choice then there is no reason to assume that you could not have influenced their decision.
You can't have it both ways, either they had free will or they were not part of the elect.
A Calvinist on the other hand gives the message of the gospel and answers any questions or gives any assistance to those being ministered to. Calvinist does not know if the person he is talking to is a member of the elect are not. He knows that Christ's sheep shall hear his voice and follow him.
John 10:14 CSB
"I am the good shepherd. I know My own sheep, and they know Me,
John 10:26 CSB
But you don't believe because you are not My sheep.
John 10:27 CSB
My sheep hear My voice, I know them, and they follow Me.
This is cut and dry, those that are not His sheep can not believe, your Marines did not believe. WHY?
-
Are we getting a little angry Zant?
Romans 8:
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to beconformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
This clearly teaches predestination of something; but what is predestinating to happen?
"To be conformed to the image of his Son" ...
Now 'who' is God predestinating to the image of His Son?
"Whom he did foreknowledge" ...
The predestination of this text is NOT Predestination of the ELECT that are better and holier, because they are part of the ELECT.
What you refuse to accept is that God "foreknew" because He is God who would,and wouldn't see the light of the gospel and accept Him as Saviour before the foundation of the world. Based on that knowledge, (who would choose to believe His word, His witness, causing them to repent) they would be His elect, because when they would look to the cross; they would be drawn to Him.
Those who are not drawn, are not drawn because they resist the Holy Spirit.
Acts 7: 51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
This is the problem with predestination, there is no willingness to surrender because of a broken and contrite heart. It's all about, I'm saved because I'm part of the elect.
God gets glory for condemning untold millions of souls because they were "ungodly". When I read my Bible, I see a God who grieves over lost souls.
Any sovereign dictator can rule a country, killing whomever he wishes, if they do not do as he wishes. However, it takes a wise, loving ruler to show his subjects the truth; and thereby get them to follow him through love, and adoration.
The God of the Bible in His wisdom and foreknowledge of the "whosoever" of the "all" of the "world" through all the ages, predestinated those individuals to be conformed to the image of his Son.
To believe anything else would take a deliberate effort to eradicate nearly every "whosoever" said by Jesus. When he said whosoever, He meant whosoever.
Jack
-
Hello Moss,
You need to read Ez 33 before speaking in ignorance.
Ez. 33:
2 Son of man, speak to the children of thy people, and say unto them, When I bring the sword upon a land, if the people of the land take a man of their coasts, and set him for their watchman:
3 If when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet, and warn the people;
4 Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head.
5 He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul.
Nowhere does this text state that you must convince them of anything. It says you must give them the warning.
Notice verse 4 and 5 4 Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head. 5 He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul.
The responsibility of the watchman is to sound the trumpet warning the people. The responsibility of the people is to respond to the warning. It does not say the watchman must take him to see the danger and so fourth; his responsibility is to blow the trumpet, the people have the responsibility of choosing to take heed to the warning, or reject the warning.
This is a type of our responsibility as believers; to blow the trumpet, give the warning. The people then must choose.
Jack
-
Are we getting a little angry Zant?
Romans 8:
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to beconformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
This clearly teaches predestination of something; but what is predestinating to happen?
"To be conformed to the image of his Son" ...
Now 'who' is God predestinating to the image of His Son?
"Whom he did foreknowledge" ...
The predestination of this text is NOT Predestination of the ELECT that are better and holier, because they are part of the ELECT.
What you refuse to accept is that God "foreknew" because He is God who would,and wouldn't see the light of the gospel and accept Him as Saviour before the foundation of the world. Based on that knowledge, (who would choose to believe His word, His witness, causing them to repent) they would be His elect, because when they would look to the cross; they would be drawn to Him.
Those who are not drawn, are not drawn because they resist the Holy Spirit.
Acts 7: 51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
This is the problem with predestination, there is no willingness to surrender because of a broken and contrite heart. It's all about, I'm saved because I'm part of the elect.
God gets glory for condemning untold millions of souls because they were "ungodly". When I read my Bible, I see a God who grieves over lost souls.
Any sovereign dictator can rule a country, killing whomever he wishes, if they do not do as he wishes. However, it takes a wise, loving ruler to show his subjects the truth; and thereby get them to follow him through love, and adoration.
The God of the Bible in His wisdom and foreknowledge of the "whosoever" of the "all" of the "world" through all the ages, predestinated those individuals to be conformed to the image of his Son.
To believe anything else would take a deliberate effort to eradicate nearly every "whosoever" said by Jesus. When he said whosoever, He meant whosoever.
Jack
Let me post it again for you Jack. If posting the Scriptures is an angry act may I be always angry.
Romans 8:28-39
28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. 29 For whom he did foreknow , he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom he did predestinate , them he also called : and whom he called , them he also justified : and whom he justified , them he also glorified . 31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? 32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? 33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth . 34 Who is he that condemneth ? It is Christ that died , yea rather , that is risen again , who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. 35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 As it is written , For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. 37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. 38 For I am persuaded , that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present , nor things to come , 39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
How many Jews did God let die so that God's prophecy of Israel would come to pass in 1948?
-
Hello Moss,
You need to read Ez 33 before speaking in ignorance.
Ez. 33:
2 Son of man, speak to the children of thy people, and say unto them, When I bring the sword upon a land, if the people of the land take a man of their coasts, and set him for their watchman:
3 If when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet, and warn the people;
4 Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head.
5 He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul.
I was responding to your statement and I quote:
The reason their blood would have been on my hands is because their souls are precious to God the Father.
Their blood, however, is not on my hands. These two young Marines will stand before God and have no reason to give God for refusing Him. Fifteen minutes before they entered eternity those two Marines were warned of the danger ahead. I do not want to make it sound like I don't care about those Marines, I most definitely did, That is why we were there witnessing on the streets. The point is, I have them the gospel, showing them their need to be saved. But in the final analysts, they CHOOSE not to accept Christ as Saviour; and that is why they are condemned, with their blood on their own hands.
I believe that the Bible does not contradict itself. Your chosen verse is not contradict Christ words and I'll repost them here in case you forgot.
The truth is if you truly believe in free will than the blood of these two Marines is on your hands. For you failed to convince them of their need for immediate salvation. For if these two young lads were free to make that choice then there is no reason to assume that you could not have influenced their decision.
You can't have it both ways, either they had free will or they were not part of the elect.
A Calvinist on the other hand gives the message of the gospel and answers any questions or gives any assistance to those being ministered to. Calvinist does not know if the person he is talking to is a member of the elect are not. He knows that Christ's sheep shall hear his voice and follow him.
John 10:14 CSB
"I am the good shepherd. I know My own sheep, and they know Me,
John 10:26 CSB
But you don't believe because you are not My sheep.
John 10:27 CSB
My sheep hear My voice, I know them, and they follow Me.
This is cut and dry, those that are not His sheep can not believe, your Marines did not believe. WHY?
Can you answer my question, can you answer anyones questions? Can you respond to Fat's repeated post for John 6?
-
"The truth is if you truly believe in free will than the blood of these two Marines is on your hands. For you failed to convince them of their need for immediate salvation. For if these two young lads were free to make that choice then there is no reason to assume that you could not have influenced their decision."
Let's look at the above:
"The truth is if you truly believe in free will than the blood of these two Marines is on your hands."
If I get up late for work because I choose (in my free will) to ignore my alarm and sleep in; my alarm clock is not responsible. The alarm went off, like it was supposed to. I (me, Jack) CHOOSE to ignore it. I knew the consequences, and thought to myself, "Phooey", I'm not getting up, so there"! THE ALARM CLOCK IS NOT RESPONSIBLE; IT DID IT'S JOB!
"For you failed to convince them of their need for immediate salvation."
Ezekiel 33 states the only responsibility of the watchman is to "blow the trumpet, and warn the people". Notice verse 5: "he heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning". It says nothing about the watchman having any other responsibility.
"For if these two young lads were free to make that choice then there is no reason to assume that you could not have influenced their decision."
Let me make sure I understand you correctly: you are saying, if a person is 'free to make a choice', there is "no reason to assume that you could not have influenced their decision".
For other people that may be reading this, I will say it in a less confusing way.
"If a person is "free to make a choice", there is reason to assume that you could have influenced their decision". Well, duh!
Have you considered that was the ENTIRE REASON FOR THE WATCHMAN?
I want you to understand when I witnessed to those two Marines, it was my intention to influence them as much as possible. BUT THEY MADE THEIR OWN DECISION.
Jack
-
I want you to understand when I witnessed to those two Marines, it was my intention to influence them as much as possible. BUT THEY MADE THEIR OWN DECISION.
So you failed to influence them, and if you would not have failed they may be alive today. If only you could have said the right words. That's so sad, how can you sleep at night.
-
Fat,
You said:
"So you failed to influence them, and if you would not have failed they may be alive today. If only you could have said the right words. That's so sad, how can you sleep at night."
Have you ever read Jeremiah, or Lamentations?
Psalm 126
5 They that sow in tears shall reap in joy.
6 He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaveswith him.
To tell you the truth Fat, that bothered my a long time. The thought of it still bothers me today. When I hear people say things like, "This is cut and dry, those that are not His sheep can not believe, your Marines did not believe. WHY?" I see no compassion. Jesus was moved with compassion.
Matthew 9:36 But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd.
Matthew 14:
14 And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick.
Matthew 15:32 Then Jesus called his disciplesunto him, and said, I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days, and have nothing to eat: and I will not send them away fasting, lest they faint in the way.
Matthew 20:34 So Jesus had compassion on them, and touched their eyes: and immediately their eyes received sight, and they followed him.
Please notice Jesus had compassion on the multitude. They obviously weren't all the "chosen" or "elect"; but He still had compassion on them. So my question is, If they weren't part of the elect; did Jesus have more compassion for their fleshly bodies, than He did for their souls?
Do I need to give you more scripture?
Yes, I'm guilty of having compassion on two Marines. I was doing what God told me to do.
Luke 14: 23 And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.
Fat, when was the last time you had compassion for someone's soul, and tried to compel them to accept Christ as Saviour?
Can you show me a verse that exempts you from having compassion, and compelling them to be saved?
Preaching and teaching the gospel is not simply the passing of information to another; it's a command of God (Who is full of compassion).
Jack
-
Jack if they, your jar-heads, had free will then your compassion has nothing to do with the fact that you failed to influence their will (free choice). Your choice of Scripture about compassion do not address your failure.
If a horse breaks a leg you have compassion and shoot it.
I do believe that the Holy Ghost could have brought them to Christ if He chose to do so.
-
Fat,
Please explain what "shooting" a horse has to do with: A. Marines dying without Christ; and B. Jesus having compassion on the multitudes.
Jack
-
Fat,
Please explain what "shooting" a horse has to do with: A. Marines dying without Christ; and B. Jesus having compassion on the multitudes.
Jack
It has as much to do with the Marines as does compassion with your failure.
-
Fat,
I'm going to explain what happened in the Garden of Eden, and how that applies to us today. Furthermore, I will explain (for the purpose of other viewers) why predestination actually makes God a, 'not so nice person'. On the other hand, I will show that when mankind is truly given the choice whether or not to be saved; it is no longer God condemning the souls of individuals, (as in predestination)) but individuals condemn their own souls, by rejecting Jesus Christ.
Let's begin!
Who is God? God is truly greater than words can tell, greater than the human mind can comprehend. His strength is without measure, His knowledge more than can be put into print. His wisdom greater than all the created beings combined. He lives in the eternal state, which alone is beyond comprehension. He created time, and one day will bring it to its close.
I cannot emphasize two things enough: 1) God not only knows everything (general knowledge such as science, but knows our thoughts, what we have done, what we are doing, but He also knows every choice we will make about everything; great or small. 2) God uses this knowledge (of our future decisions) to provide us with an opportunity to make the right decision in the event that we make a wrong decision.
For example, God told Jonah to go to Nineveh; Jonah chose not to obey, and went in a different direction. However, since God already knew what choice Jonah was going to make, He prepared a fish (whale) to provide Jonah with an environment that would give Jonah an opportunity to rethink his choice. Jonah now had to make a choice: 1) Repent (change his mind about going to Nineveh); or 2) Refuse to repent, and be a yummy meal for the fish. God had a purpose for Jonah; preach to Nineveh. He also used this story for a second purpose; to show all who read this story for generations to come, God will provide us with "opportunities" to fulfill His purpose, and it is always easier (on us) if we obey God sooner, rather than later. Please understand, God knowing what Jonah was going to do both times, is not to be confused with God forcing, or predestinating Jonah to make those decisions. The one (foreknowledge) is God influencing Jonah to make the right decision through a provided circumstance; while the other (predestination) is forcing BOTH of Jonah's decisions, because Jonah had no choice but to act in the fore ordained way that God directed, good or bad.
Let's look at the beginning.
God created the universe in six days, and rested on the seventh day. On Earth, He planted a Garden named Eden, the place where Adam and Eve would live.
Gen. 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
According to the above text there were two trees in the midst of the Garden; the tree of life, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Gen. 2
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Gen. 3
1. Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2. And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3. But of the fruit of the tree whichis in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5. For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Here is where we are:
Adam and Eve are in the Garden of Eden. They DO NOT have a sin nature. They have been presented two conflicting 'stories' of what will happen if they eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: 1) God says, You eat it, you die. 2) Satan says, You eat it, you will not die; and, your eyes will be opened!
One of them is telling the truth, and one of them is lying. It's just that simple. Adam must choose. Eve must choose.
Do I obey God, or do I not obey God; that was not only the question that Adam and Eve faced, it is the one we must face. God has given us His Word, the Bible. Within its pages we find the history of Earth, along with the Commandments of God. We also find the consequences of both obedience, and disobedience of His Commandments.
Like Adam, we are presented with God's side of the story, (found in His Word, the Bible); and Satan's side of the story, found in the "sin nature" (the knowledge of good and evil) we inherited from Adam's "wrong" decision. Adam was created innocent, as we are (although we are born with the "nature" to sin. Adam was innocent until he chose to disobey God. We as children grow up learning through our conscience "good and evil". (We know [even as a child] that it's wrong to steal cookies from the cookie jar, and then lie about it.) As Adam condemned himself when he chose not to obey the Commandant of God, we likewise condemn ourselves when we choose not to obey the Commandments of God written on our hearts (the knowledge of good and evil) that speak to us through our conscience.
Even Wayne Grudem, (a Calvinist) who is a Theologian and Professor of Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary states in his "Systematic Theology" under the heading of "The Covenant of Works" (which in its entirety, is too long to post) , "God sovereignly imposes this covenant on Adam and Eve, and they have no opportunity to change the details—their only choice is to keep it or to break it."
The problem of course with Calvinism however is their definition of "choice". You see, at another place, under the heading of "objections to the doctrine of election", paragraph 1. Titled: Election means that we do not have a choice in whether we accept Christ or not.
"According to this objection the doctrine of election denies all the gospel invitations that appeal to the will of man and asked people to make a choice in whether to respond to Christ invitation or not. In response to this, we must affirm that the doctrine of election is fully able to accommodate the idea that we have a voluntary choice and we make willingly decisions and accepting or rejecting Christ. Our choices are voluntary because they are what we want to do and what we decide to do. This does not mean that our choices are absolutely free because, God can work sovereignly through our desires so that he guarantees it our choice come about as he has ordained, but this can still be understood as a real choice because God has created us and he ordains that such a choice is real. In short, we can say that God causes us to choose Christ voluntarily."
I'm sorry Fat, either the choice is "absolutely free", or it's absolutely "not free", you can't have your cake, and eat it too"!
John 6: 44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up the last day.
John 12:
30 Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.
31 Now is the judgement of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
33 This he said, signifying what death he should die.
John 3
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Numbers 21
8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.
9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.
Notice that Jesus compared the "lifting up" of the brazen serpent with Himself being "lifted up". Just as "any man" lived physically when he beheld the serpent; "whosoever" believeth on Jesus as Saviour when He was "lifted up", "should not perish, but have eternal life".
It doesn't sound like Jesus was talking about the "elect", it sounded like He said, "whosoever"!
Adam had a choice in the Garden of Eden;
The people had a choice in the wilderness; and,
We have a choice today!
2 Peter 3: 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Choose Jesus today!
Jack
-
If you read the "Predestination" thread, you will find out why there is a better way.
Jack
-
I would like to state "for the record, "I AM NOT AN ARMINIAN". I may believe man has a choice in salvation, however, I also believe (as previously stated), I also believe once a person accepts Christ as Saviour, your eternal salvation is secure in Christ. What just took place in the "Predestination thread, (the request to have the thread locked) was a move of desperation on the part of Fat, because he knew he could not continue to answer questions that actually dealt with the difference between the "external" and "internal" call. I clearly stated in the tread my problem is predestination, not security of the believer. Fats "asking" for the thread to be "locked" was a clear indication of his insecurity to be able to answer more difficult questions.
Jack
-
I would like to state "for the record, "I AM NOT AN ARMINIAN". I may believe man has a choice in salvation, however, I also believe (as previously stated), I also believe once a person accepts Christ as Saviour, your eternal salvation is secure in Christ. What just took place in the "Predestination thread, (the request to have the thread locked) was a move of desperation on the part of Fat, because he knew he could not continue to answer questions that actually dealt with the difference between the "external" and "internal" call. I clearly stated in the tread my problem is predestination, not security of the believer. Fats "asking" for the thread to be "locked" was a clear indication of his insecurity to be able to answer more difficult questions.
Jack
I'm going to stop you right here, I do like pissing matches between posters.
You should be aware that most Arminians believe in the preservation of the saints. So just to let you know your are an Arminian.
Also it was you on the other thread that refused to answer questions. The thread is still there and readers can make up their own minds and can see if the question of effective (internal) and general ( external) calling has been addressed by Phat.
Admin Dude
-
Admin Dude,
It sounds to me like you stand in a biased position, and therefore see through the same "filters" as does Fat. And for the record, I have debated many Arminians, and not one of them has ever said I was an Arminian; to the contrary, they actually called me a Calvinist. I personally believe both are wrong; they see through their filters and you see through yours.
Here is my question for you? In the regeneration process, (that point before salvation is received, [no indwelling Holy Spirit]), how does the person who is "dead in sins" hear God, since "dead" people can't hear?
Jack
-
Admin Dude,
It sounds to me like you stand in a biased position, and therefore see through the same "filters" as does Fat. And for the record, I have debated many Arminians, and not one of them has ever said I was an Arminian; to the contrary, they actually called me a Calvinist. I personally believe both are wrong; they see through their filters and you see through yours.
Here is my question for you? In the regeneration process, (that point before salvation is received, [no indwelling Holy Spirit]), how does the person who is "dead in sins" hear God, since "dead" people can't hear?
Jack
There are no Calvinist that do not believe in effective calling, there are 5 point and 4 point Calvinist but the point usually in contention is limited atonement not irresistible grace.
How can they both be wrong? Either God's uses 'irresistible grace' or He does not.
Where does it say that the Spirit can not soften the heart from outside?
Read how God controlled the heart of the Pharaoh.
Now that is the last time I play this game with you. You continually refuse to answer Phat's and Mac's questions while you demand answers from him. I play a deferent game, don't test me.
-
God never forces us to do anything. He does however create an environment that will 1) Let us see the truth; 2) Influence us to make the right decision.
God will not force anyone to be saved, but He makes the penalty of rejecting Him well known. He also by the same token does not force anyone to be forever lost by withholding the truth from them.
What every person receives is the truth from God, and a lie from Satan. Each person must make the decision before death, to believe God, or not. The unfortunate truth however is that Satan is really good a blinding the eyes of most people while on planet earth.
Man can do nothing to aid in the receiving of, or keeping the salvation given by God. Salvation is by faith in the The Lord Jesus Christ, that He will forgive all sin, past present, and future. One must understand that he, or she is deserving of the wrathfully judgement of God, and totally rely on the finished work of God. Furthermore we must understand that we an man have no, and will never have any righteousness of our own to present to God. His righteousness, and His righteousness alone is the only righteousness we can ever claim.
The only part we have in both salvation, and service, is to trust the Word of God, surrendering to Him by faith. That surrender, is the only "choice" we have the ability to do. When we surrender to God, He saves us. As we continue to surrender, we enter into the 'rest' of serving Him.
Jack
-
"Quote from: Jack Koons on Today at 12:34:18 PM
Admin Dude,
It sounds to me like you stand in a biased position, and therefore see through the same "filters" as does Fat. And for the record, I have debated many Arminians, and not one of them has ever said I was an Arminian; to the contrary, they actually called me a Calvinist. I personally believe both are wrong; they see through their filters and you see through yours.
Here is my question for you? In the regeneration process, (that point before salvation is received, [no indwelling Holy Spirit]), how does the person who is "dead in sins" hear God, since "dead" people can't hear?
Jack
There are no Calvinist that do not believe in effective calling, there are 5 point and 4 point Calvinist but the point usually in contention is limited atonement not irresistible grace.
How can they both be wrong? Either God's uses 'irresistible grace' or He does not.
Where does it say that the Spirit can not soften the heart from outside?
Read how God controlled the heart of the Pharaoh.
Now that is the last time I play this game with you. You continually refuse to answer Phat's and Mac's questions while you demand answers from him. I play a deferent game, don't test me."
According to Dr. Wayne Grudem, Professor of Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary, who is a Calvinist, states the following concerning "effectual calling", (this was actually posted by Fat):
"On page 680 under objections to the doctrine of election, paragraph 1. Titled: Election means that we do not have a choice in whether we accept Christ or not.
According to this objection the doctrine of election denies all the gospel invitations that appeal to the will of man and asked people to make a choice in whether to respond to Christ invitation or not. In response to this, we must affirm that the doctrine of election is fully able to accommodate the idea that we have a voluntary choice and we make willingly decisions and accepting or rejecting Christ. Our choices are voluntary because they are what we want to do and what we decide to do. This does not mean that our choices are absolutely free because, God can work sovereignly through our desires so that he guarantees it our choice come about as he has ordained, but this can still be understood as a real choice because God has created us and he ordains that such a choice is real. In short, we can say that God causes us to choose Christ voluntarily."
You stated:
"Now that is the last time I play this game with you. You continually refuse to answer Phat's and Mac's questions while you demand answers from him. I play a deferent game, don't test me."
The following was taken from Wikipedia under "Covenant Theology". (Fat actually used the opening sentence of the opening paragraph to support his view.) this is the opening sentence of the third paragraph:
"As a framework for biblical interpretation, covenant theology stands in contrast to dispensationalism in regard to the relationship between the Old Covenant with national Israel and the New Covenant in Christ's blood. "
I disagree. I gave answers according to what I believe, as did they. The problem is in the "framework for biblical interpretation" that I use is different than yours. And according to you, Fat, and possibly others; that just makes me wrong to start with. I hate to inform you of a simple fact: just because you, and your fellow Calvinists believe your right, does not make it so. I'll be the first to admit, that just because I believe something, doesn't make it right either.
The answers I gave may not have suited your fancy, but they were answers nevertheless.
As per your questions:
"How can they both be wrong? Either God's uses 'irresistible grace' or He does not."
God grace is not "irresistible". I taught a class years ago on 'grace and mercy'. In short, grace is, getting from God what you do not deserve; while mercy on the other hand is, not getting what we do deserve. Think of this if you would: Can you tell me anything good you have, that you deserve? The answer is, No. Now, do you believe that you deserve to go to Hell for your sins? Yes. Why aren't you there? Because God is showing you mercy. Do you deserve God's mercy? No. Even God's mercy is part of His grace; why? He is giving you something you do not deserve. With all that said, have you ever seen someone resist the loving grace of God? I have. God graciously worked with the Israelites for centuries, through the Holy Spirit. Yet they resisted. Acts 7:51 "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." Was it not in the grace of God that the Holy Spirit reached out to the Jews? Absolutely, yet they resisted.
"Where does it say that the Spirit can not soften the heart from outside?
Read how God controlled the heart of the Pharaoh."
This was part of Fat's reply #62:
"Calvinist believe there are two types of Calling by God.
External Call
Matthew 22:14
For many are called, but few are chosen.
Internal Call
Romans 8:30
Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He also called: and whom He called, He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified."
Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't an "external call" that which is from without; while the "internal call" is from within? Hence the names, "external call", and "internal call".
And yes, God did control the heart of Pharaoh; He hardened it.
Jack
-
"Quote from: Jack Koons on Today at 12:34:18 PM
Admin Dude,
It sounds to me like you stand in a biased position, and therefore see through the same "filters" as does Fat. And for the record, I have debated many Arminians, and not one of them has ever said I was an Arminian; to the contrary, they actually called me a Calvinist. I personally believe both are wrong; they see through their filters and you see through yours.
Here is my question for you? In the regeneration process, (that point before salvation is received, [no indwelling Holy Spirit]), how does the person who is "dead in sins" hear God, since "dead" people can't hear?
Jack
There are no Calvinist that do not believe in effective calling, there are 5 point and 4 point Calvinist but the point usually in contention is limited atonement not irresistible grace.
How can they both be wrong? Either God's uses 'irresistible grace' or He does not.
Where does it say that the Spirit cannot soften the heart from outside?
Read how God controlled the heart of the Pharaoh.
Now that is the last time I play this game with you. You continually refuse to answer Phat's and Mac's questions while you demand answers from him. I play a deferent game, don't test me."
According to Dr. Wayne Grudem, Professor of Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary, who is a Calvinist, states the following concerning "effectual calling", (this was actually posted by Fat):
"On page 680 under objections to the doctrine of election, paragraph 1. Titled: Election means that we do not have a choice in whether we accept Christ or not.
According to this objection the doctrine of election denies all the gospel invitations that appeal to the will of man and asked people to make a choice in whether to respond to Christ invitation or not. In response to this, we must affirm that the doctrine of election is fully able to accommodate the idea that we have a voluntary choice and we make willingly decisions and accepting or rejecting Christ. Our choices are voluntary because they are what we want to do and what we decide to do. This does not mean that our choices are absolutely free because, God can work sovereignly through our desires so that he guarantees it our choice come about as he has ordained, but this can still be understood as a real choice because God has created us and he ordains that such a choice is real. In short, we can say that God causes us to choose Christ voluntarily."
You stated:
"Now that is the last time I play this game with you. You continually refuse to answer Phat's and Mac's questions while you demand answers from him. I play a deferent game, don't test me."
The following was taken from Wikipedia under "Covenant Theology". (Fat actually used the opening sentence of the opening paragraph to support his view.) this is the opening sentence of the third paragraph:
"As a framework for biblical interpretation, covenant theology stands in contrast to dispensationalism in regard to the relationship between the Old Covenant with national Israel and the New Covenant in Christ's blood. "
I disagree. I gave answers according to what I believe, as did they. The problem is in the "framework for biblical interpretation" that I use is different than yours. And according to you, Fat, and possibly others; that just makes me wrong to start with. I hate to inform you of a simple fact: just because you, and your fellow Calvinists believe your right, does not make it so. I'll be the first to admit, that just because I believe something, doesn't make it right either.
The answers I gave may not have suited your fancy, but they were answers nevertheless.
As per your questions:
"How can they both be wrong? Either God's uses 'irresistible grace' or He does not."
God grace is not "irresistible". I taught a class years ago on 'grace and mercy'. In short, grace is, getting from God what you do not deserve; while mercy on the other hand is, not getting what we do deserve. Think of this if you would: Can you tell me anything good you have, that you deserve? The answer is, No. Now, do you believe that you deserve to go to Hell for your sins? Yes. Why aren't you there? Because God is showing you mercy. Do you deserve God's mercy? No. Even God's mercy is part of His grace; why? He is giving you something you do not deserve. With all that said, have you ever seen someone resist the loving grace of God? I have. God graciously worked with the Israelites for centuries, through the Holy Spirit. Yet they resisted. Acts 7:51 "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." (General calling or effective calling?) Was it not in the grace of God that the Holy Spirit reached out to the Jews? Absolutely, yet they resisted. There are TWO types of callings being discussed, you just can't get your head around that.
"Where does it say that the Spirit can not soften the heart from outside?
Read how God controlled the heart of the Pharaoh."
This was part of Fat's reply #62:
"Calvinist believe there are two types of Calling by God.
External Call
Matthew 22:14
For many are called, but few are chosen.
Internal Call
Romans 8:30
Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He also called: and whom He called, He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified."
Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't an "external call"(general calling) that which is from without; while the "internal call"(efective calling) is from within? Hence the names, (general calling), and (efective calling). Just man made terms.
And yes, God did control the heart of Pharaoh; He hardened it.
Jack
Sorry you didn't take my warning Jack, find your fight somewhere else. You got one more post if you choose and you're out of here.
Good by.
-
That's good advice, no one should remain in a church they do not agree with doctrinally. (I must admit however, I believe about 95% of church goers, have no idea what they believe, or why.)
Disagree with what you have said but agree with what I think you mean.
There are doctrinal issues you should leave a church for but there are many you should not leave over.
I have yet to see a large group for mature Christians agree on everything.