Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

God's Part and Man's Part in Salvation
John G. Reisinger ^ | John G. Reisinger

Posted on 02/08/2003 7:43:01 AM PST by Matchett-PI

God and man must both do something before a man can be saved.

Hyper-Calvinism denies the necessity of human action, and Arminianism denies the true nature of the Divine action.

The Bible clearly sets forth both the divine and human as essential in God's plan of salvation.

This is not to say, as Arminianism does, God's part is to freely provide salvation for all men, and man's part is to become willing to accept it.

This is not what we said above, nor is it what the Bible teaches. In order to understand what God's Word really says and to try to answer some "straw dummy" objections, we shall establish the subject one point at a time.

ONE: A man must repent and believe in order to be saved. No one was ever forgiven and made a child of God who did not willingly turn from sin to Christ.

Nowhere does the Bible even hint that men can be saved without repentance and faith, but to the contrary, the Word always states these things are essential before a person can be saved.

The one and only Bible answer to the question "What must I do to be saved?" is "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."

TWO: Every one who repents and believes the gospel will be saved.

Every soul, without any exception, who answers the gospel command to come to Christ will be received and forgiven by the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Philip Bliss put the truth to music when he said, "Whosoever will, forever must endure...

If we can be absolutely certain about anything, we can be sure that Christ will never void His promise to receive "all who come to Him." As old John Bunyan said, "Come and welcome" is the Savior's eternal word to all sinners.

THREE: Repentance and faith are not vicarious but are the free acts of men.

Men, with their own mind, heart, and will must renounce sin and receive Christ. God doesn't repent and believe for us~we repent and believe.

Turning from sin and reaching out in faith to Christ are the acts of man, and every man who so responds to the gospel call does so because he honestly desires to do so.

He wants to be forgiven and he can only be forgiven by repenting and believing.

No one, including God, can turn from sin for us, we must do it.

No one can trust Christ "in our place," we must personally, knowingly, and willingly trust Him in order to be saved.

Now someone may be thinking, "But isn't that what the Arminian teaches?"

My friend, that is what the Bible teaches-and teaches it clearly and dogmatically.

"But don't Calvinists deny all three of those points?"

I am not talking about, or trying to defend, "Calvinists" since they come in a hundred 'varieties.

If you know anyone that denies the above facts, then that person, regardless of what he labels himself, is denying the clear message of the Bible.

I can only speak for myself, and I will not deny what God's Word so plainly teaches.

"But haven't you established the doctrine of free-will and disposed of election if you assent man must repent and believe and it is his own act?"

No, we have neither proven freewill nor disproved election ... since it is impossible to do either.

We have merely stated exactly what the Bible says a man must do in order to be saved.

Let us now look at what the Scripture says a sinner is able to do and what he is not able to do.

FOUR: The same Bible that states man must repent and believe in order to be saved, also emphatically states that man, because of his sinful nature, is totally unable to repent and believe.

All of man's three faculties of mind, heart, and will, which must be receptive to gospel truth, have neither the ability to receive such truth nor even the desire to have such ability.

In fact the exact opposite is true.

Man's total being is not only unable to either come, or want to come, to Christ, but every part of his nature is actively opposed to Christ and truth.

Rejecting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is not a passive "non-action," but a deliberate volitional choice.

It is deliberately choosing to say "no" to Christ and "yes" to self and sin.

No one is "neutral" in respect to God and His authority.

Unbelief is just as much a deliberate act of mind, heart, and will as is faith.

This is what Jesus meant in John 5:40 when He said, "You will (you are deliberately making a choice) not to come to me."

Yes, unbelief is an act of the will. In fact unbelief is active faith, but unfortunately it is faith in myself.

To believe and preach points One, Two, and Three, without also preaching number Four is to grossly misrepresent the gospel of God's grace.

It is to give a totally false picture of the sinner and his true need.

It shows only half of the man's sin.

It misses the most crucial point of a lost man's need, namely, his lack of power or ability to overcome his sinful nature and its effects.

The "gospel" which is concocted out of this view is only a half gospel. It is at this point that modern evangelism so miserably fails.

It confuses man's responsibility with his ability, and falsely assumes that a sinner has the moral ability to perform all that God has commanded.

The "cannot" texts of scripture are either totally ignored or badly twisted by this perversion of the true gospel of God's saving grace.

Please note a few texts of Scripture that dogmatically state some things that a lost man cannot do:

Man cannot see-until he first be born again. (John 3:3)

Man cannot understand-until he first be given a new nature. (I Cor. 2:14)

Man cannot come-until he first be effectually called by the Holy Spirit. (John 6:44-45)

We do not have space to go into all the "cannots," but these three are sufficient to show that a sinner absolutely cannot (notice it is not "will" not) come to Christ until God first does something in that sinner's nature.

That "something" is what the Bible calls regeneration, or the new birth, and it is the exclusive work of God the Holy Spirit.

Man has no part whatever in regeneration.

FIVE: The new birth, or regeneration, is God giving us the spiritual life that enables us to do what we must do (repent and believe), but CANNOT DO because of our bondage to sin.

When the Bible says man is dead in sin, it means that man's mind, heart, and will are all spiritually dead in sin.

When the Bible speaks of our being in "bondage to sin," it means that our entire being, including our will, is under the bondage and power of sin.

We indeed need Christ to die and pay the penalty of our sin, but we just as desperately need the Holy Spirit to give us a new nature in regeneration.

The Son of God frees us legally from the penalty of sin, but only the Holy Spirit can free us from the power and death of our depravity in sin.

We need forgiveness in order to be saved, and Christ provides complete forgiveness and righteousness for us in His death.

However, we also need spiritual life and ability, and the Holy Spirit provides it for us in regeneration.

It is the Holy Spirit's work of regeneration that enables us to savingly receive the atoning work of Christ in true faith.

God is a triune God, and no person can understand His 'so great salvation" until he sees each blessed Person of the Godhead playing a distinct and necessary part in that salvation.

No man can declare the "glorious gospel of grace" and leave out the Father's sovereign electing love and the Holy Spirit's regenerating power as essential parts of God's work in saving sinners.

To speak of "God's part" in salvation as only being one of "providing" forgiveness and man's part as "being willing" to accept it is to ignore both the Father's work of election and the Spirit's work of regeneration.

This not only makes man a full "partner" with God in the work of salvation, it credits man with playing the decisive roll in the deal.

How dreadful, and ridiculous, to give Christ the glory for His work on the cross, and then give sinners the credit for the Father's work in eternity (election) and the Spirit's work in our hearts (regeneration).

It does great dishonor to the Sovereign Spirit to say, "The Holy Spirit will perform His miraculous work of quickening you unto life as soon as you give Him your permission."

That's like standing in a graveyard saying to the dead people, "I will give you life and raise you up from the grave if you will only take the first step of faith and ask me to do it."

What a denial of the sinner's total spiritual inability.

Amazing!

The root error of the Arminian's gospel of freewill is its failure to see that man's part, repentance and faith, are the fruits and effects of God's work and not the essential ingredient's supplied by the sinner as "man's part of the deal."

Every man who turns to Christ does so willingly, but that willingness is a direct result of the Father's election and the Holy Spirit's effectual calling.

To say, "If you will believe, God will answer your faith with the New Birth," is to misunderstand man's true need and misrepresent God's essential work.

SIX: The Scriptures clearly show that faith and repentance are the evidences and not the cause of regeneration.

Suppose a man who had been dead for twenty years greeted you on the street one day.

Would you conclude that the man had gotten tired of being dead and "decided' to ask a great doctor to perform a miracle and give him life?

I'm sure you would instead, exclaim in amazement, "Man what happened to you? Who brought you back to life?"

You would see he was alive because he was walking and breathing, but you would know these were evidences of a miracle having been performed on him from without and not the results of his own power of will.

Just so when a spiritually dead man begins to perform spiritual acts such as repentance and faith-these spiritual "fruits" show that the miracle of the new birth has taken place.

Let me illustrate this with a Biblical example. Acts 16:14 is a clear proof of the above.

By the way, as far as I know, this is the only place in the New Testament that uses the phrase "opened heart," and the Bible gives the whole credit for this "opening" to God's power and not to man's will.

Modern evangelism does the exact opposite and credits the opening of the heart to the power of man's "free will."

Remember that we are not discussing whether man must be willing to open his heart. We settled that under points One, Two, and Three.

We are looking now for the source of power that enabled man to perform that spiritual act.

Arminianism insists that man's free will must furnish the willingness or power, and the Bible says that the Holy Spirit of God furnishes that power or ability in the new birth.

Let us examine the one text in Scripture that uses the phrase "opened heart" and see if it agrees with our previous points:

"And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul." (Acts 16:14)

The NIV says: "The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul's message."

First of all we note that Lydia did indeed "attend" or listen to the words of Paul.

She gladly heard and willingly believed his message. As we have already shown, she had to do this in order to benefit from the gospel and be saved.

Lydia's attending," or hearing and believing, illustrates points One, Two, and Three above, and refutes hyper-Calvinism, (which says the elect will be saved regardless of whether they hear and believe the gospel or not).

Lydia did choose to believe, and she herself did it only because she wholeheartedly wanted to.

She did not do it "unwillingly" nor did God hear and believe for her.

It was her own response and it was a most willing response.

Next, we notice exactly what God did. We see here demonstrated what God must do before Lydia can be saved.

(1) He provided a salvation of "by grace through faith" that could be preached. Obviously "the things spoken" by Paul were the gospel facts concerning the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and surely this Lamb is God's gracious provision.

(2) God also brought the message of His provision to Lydia. He sent a preacher to tell her about this great plan of salvation.

God went to a lot of trouble to provide such a gospel-He gave His only begotten Son up to death.

He went to great ends to provide such a preacher as Paul-read about it in Paul's testimony in Acts 22.

It is at this point that Arminianism departs from the Bible and proceeds to apply human logic to the above truths.

They tragically fail to look at the rest of the Biblical text and see that God must do something else.

(3) God must open Lydia's heart (or give her spiritual life) so she will be able to believe.

Her natural mind is blind, her natural heart is averse to God, and her will is in bondage to sin and spiritual death.

Only the power of God can free her from this graveyard of spiritual depravity.

The giving of this life and power is solely the work of God.

Notice that the Bible explicitly gives God alone the credit for Lydia's heart being opened.

It is impossible not see that in this text unless you simply refuse to accept what God clearly says.

Look at the words carefully: . . whose heart the LORD OPENED...

Notice also how clearly the Holy Spirit teaches us the relationship between the cause and the effect in the conversion of Lydia.

God was the One Who opened Lydia's heart, that is the cause, and He did so in order that she might be able to attend to the truths that Paul preached, that is the effect.

Now that is what the Word of God says!

Do not bluster about "dead theology" or throw Calvin's name around in derision, just read the words themselves in the Bible.

If you try to deny that the one single reason that Lydia understood and believed the gospel was because God deliberately opened her heart and enabled her to believe, you are fighting God's Word.

If you try to get man's "free will" as the one determining factor into this text, you are consciously corrupting the Word of God.

God's grace not only provides salvation, but His power also gives us the ability to both desire and receive it He works in us "both to will and to do."

His working in us to "will" is the new birth, and, I say again, this work of regeneration (new birth) is totally the work of the Holy Spirit.

The moment we lose sight of this distinction between being "saved by faith" (the act of man) and being "born again by the Holy Spirit" (the act of God), we are heading for confusion and trouble.

We will be convinced that man is able to do what the Bible emphatically states he is unable to do.

The necessity of the Holy Spirit's work being thus theologically denied, it will not be long before it is ignored in actual practice.

This is the plight of modern day evangelism.

Since the evangelists are convinced that the new birth is within the power and ability of man's will, their man made "me theology" has become far more important than the theology of the Bible, and organization and advertising are absolute essentials to success while the necessary work of the Holy Ghost is all but forgotten.

It is true that lip service is given to the need to "Pray for the Holy Spirit's guidance," and cards asking people to "promise to pray every day" are always sent out months in advance of the big campaign.

However, some people are not sure if the promise to pray or the other pledge (to give money) which is always included ( "only your gifts can make this great campaign possible") is the most important to the success of the campaign.

But that's another subject for another day....


TOPICS: Apologetics; Current Events; Ecumenism; Evangelical Christian; Mainline Protestant; Religion & Culture; Skeptics/Seekers; Theology
KEYWORDS: arminianism; calvinism; christianity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 681-698 next last
To: Seven_0
Read the word..it is the fourth generation after they are enslaved..did you think God does not know what he is talking about?

Gen 15:14   And also that nation,*** whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. ***
  
  Gen 15:15   And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.
  
  Gen 15:16  ** But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites [is] not yet full. **
221 posted on 02/14/2003 7:02:01 AM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
So do agree with Wesley on the "second Blessing ",and that you can loose your salvation?

A Wesleyan Pastor told me that Foreknowlege = predestination...Ummmmmm

222 posted on 02/14/2003 7:04:16 AM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration; CCWoody; the_doc; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; RnMomof7
"Acts 2:23 states Foreknowledge as in knowing something before something else."

Interesting ~OPINION~ you have there. If "foreknowldge" only means "knowing something before something else", then it seems a bit odd that Acts 2:23 doesn't tell us what was KNOWN before.

So, what to make of "foreknowldge" in Acts 2:23? Well, it seems to me, that since there is no OBJECT of the "foreknowing", then it is a bit premature to suggest that this "pre-knowing" is of something in particular. Rather, we can make better sense of "foreknowldge" by defining it as the EXPERTS (i.e. ~NOT~ you!) do: pre-arrangement.

If "foreknowledge" is to be understood or defined ONLY as "to know something before", then we are left with an INCOMPLETE thought! The passage makes no sense that way. Leave it up to the arminian to add thoughts and words which are foreign to the text! LOL!

No, Acts 2:23 ALREADY has made clear that God has "DETERMINED" Christ's work on the cross to be so. The phrase "determinate counsel" clearly tells us this already. If Christ's task on the cross were ONLY left to the free will actions of men, it would be INCORRECT for the Bible to tell us that God had already DETERMINED what his job would indeed be.

How on earth could ~God~ determine that Christ would indeed die upon the cross by wicked hands if that task was ONLY a result of men's free-will actions??

To insist that ONLY men's free-will actions were responsible for Christ's death on the cross takes all the meaning out of that passage. But it would be consistent with the hyper-dispensationalist arminian position that Jesus' death was an "OOPS".

No, Acts 2:23 flatly REJECTS that Christ's death was an "OOPS". This passage tells us in very EXPLICIT terms that God DETERMINED that Christ would suffer on the cross. To deny this would be to turn the gospel on its head!

"Now, just because the Greek word in 1Pet.1:20 is translated as Foreordain (correctly) does not mean that the Greek word (Proginosko) means foreordain anywhere else!

Context gives meanings to words."

LOL! You are a piece of work. You just get done chastizing me and claim ~MY~ context is mere "opinion", yet ~YOUR~ interpretation of the context is the way it is, I guess, LOL!

"Now, both of the verses have the same Greek word found in 1Pet.1:20, are they to be translated as saying forordained?"

No, they need not both be translated as "foreordained". We already know that "proginosko" (foreknow)~means~ "predestined". The EXERTS (again, ~NOT~ you) have already told us this to be so. So, being intelligent readers, we need not have a word we know to mean "predestined" translated as the synonymous "foreordained".

Jean

223 posted on 02/14/2003 10:34:29 AM PST by Jean Chauvin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
"But other predestination than this, either to life or death eternal, the scripture knows not of."

~This~ definition of "predestination" completely turns the actual definition on its head. Election isn't "to elect". Predestination is no longer "to predestinate".

These words, in the arminian system, have absolutely no meaning whatsoever.

What comfort! LOL!

Jean

224 posted on 02/14/2003 10:38:18 AM PST by Jean Chauvin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; Seven_0
Read the word..it is the fourth generation after they are enslaved..did you think God does not know what he is talking about?
Gen 15:14 And also that nation,*** whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. ***
Gen 15:15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.
Gen 15:16 ** But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites [is] not yet full. **

You missed out on a verse

Gen 15:13 And God said to Abram, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years

Four generations = Four hundred years? 100 years for each generation? Really? Do you think, maybe, that God is speaking symbolically here? Just maybe?

225 posted on 02/14/2003 12:43:45 PM PST by ponyespresso (I know that my Redeemer lives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Joshua was born "Hoshea" (salvation) but Moses changed his name to "Yehoshua" (Yahweh is salvation). This is the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek name "Iesous" (Jesus). His name is symbolic of the fact that although he is the leader of the Israelite nation during the conquest, the Lord is the Conqueror.

So do you ~think~ God had a plan?

An angel of the LORD came down and told Zacharias that he would name his child John (Luke 1:13). The angel Gabriel was sent from God to tell Mary she will bear a son, and she will call Him Jesus (Luke 1:31) These are wholly different situations than someone being born with one name and then somebody else coming along and changing it.

And besides, none of this is dealing with my original question; When God chose Moses to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, at that time did He know that Moses would strike the rock twice and incur the punishment of the LORD and be forsaken to enter Canaan?

226 posted on 02/14/2003 1:06:25 PM PST by ponyespresso (I know that my Redeemer lives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: ponyespresso; RnMomof7
"Four generations = Four hundred years? 100 years for each generation? Really? Do you think, maybe, that God is speaking symbolically here? Just maybe?"

Speaking symbolically, Absolutly! I also have these same questions, but just because something is symbolic, does't mean that it is not literal. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but let me give you some of my observations. The 4 generations and the 400 hundred years are both literal with the same endpoint but not the same start point.

The number 4 in scripture speaks of trial, testing, experience, and when applied to man, failure. I am being sketchy here for lack of time, but look at how many four's we have here. The children of Israel, 40 years in the wilderness; Abraham, the fouth day of the second creation; Numbers, the fourth book.(perhaps you have noticed by now, the theme in Numbers, experience wandering 40 years)

There were 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 more from David to the captivity, and 14 more to Christ. All these numbers are significant. The propetic character, eliminates the possibility, of extra generations.

All the details look forward to when, at the end of forty centuries, the trial of man ends, and judgement is carried out at the cross. Let me know if I need to explain further. I did not intend to connect the number 4 to number 14 (which is 2 sevens).

227 posted on 02/14/2003 3:09:10 PM PST by Seven_0
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: ponyespresso
In the Bible a generation is 100 years..

NAS

13   God said to Abram, "Know for certain that (16) your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where (17) they will be enslaved and oppressed (18) four hundred years.
14   "But I will also judge the nation whom they will serve, and afterward they will come out (19) with many possessions.
15   "As for you, (20) you shall go to your fathers in peace; you will be buried at a good old age.
16   "Then in (21) the fourth generation they will return here, for (22) the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete."

KJV

13   And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
14   And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.
15   And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.
16   But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.

NKJ

13Then He said to Abram: "Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years. 14And also the nation whom they serve I will judge; afterward they shall come out with great possessions. 15Now as for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried at a good old age. 16But in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete." 17And it came to pass, when the sun went down and it was dark, that behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a burning torch that passed between those pieces.

YLT

13   and He saith to Abram, `knowing -- know that thy seed is a sojourner in a land not theirs, and they have served them, and they have afflicted them four hundred years,
14   and the nation also whom they serve I judge, and after this they go out with great substance;
15   and thou -- thou comest in unto thy fathers in peace; thou art buried in a good old age;
16   and the fourth generation doth turn back hither, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete.'

Four generations = Four hundred years? 100 years for each generation? Really? Do you think, maybe, that God is speaking symbolically here? Just maybe?

How old was Abraham when he died? How old was Moses? Your sarcasm only notes your inability to understand what a Generation was in early biblical times

You may want to read what Moses wrote..

My God speaks with authority

Note he said the "time of the Armorite was not yet complete?"

1Ki 21:26   And he did very abominably in following idols, according to all [things] as did the Amorites, whom the LORD cast out before the children of Israel

And did God mean 400 years?

Exd 12:40   Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, [was] four hundred and thirty years

My God speaks truth to His people

Num 23:19 God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

228 posted on 02/14/2003 3:59:37 PM PST by RnMomof7 (Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: ponyespresso
And besides, none of this is dealing with my original question; When God chose Moses to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, at that time did He know that Moses would strike the rock twice and incur the punishment of the LORD and be forsaken to enter Canaan?

This is the answer to your question..It is obvious to anyone that reads the word with understanding and discernment that God knew from before the foundation of the earth that a man naned Joshua would lead Hid people into the promised land..I have shown that to you in Gods words..

You show a disregard for of prophecy and typology.

Joshua a type of Christ

Joshua, then, represents Christ, not as coming down in person to take possession of the earth, but as leading His people through the power of the Holy Ghost, who acts and dwells in the midst of this people. Yet in Joshua, as in all other typical persons, those errors and sins are found which betray the weakness of the instrument, and the fragility of the vessel in which, for the time, God has condescended to put His glory.

God knew Joshua before the foundation of the earth and He elected him to lead His people into a land flowing with milk and honey...just as He had foreordained and told us prophetically under the authorship of the Holy Ghost

229 posted on 02/14/2003 4:08:20 PM PST by RnMomof7 (Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: Seven_0
Flag to 228 and 229
230 posted on 02/14/2003 4:09:28 PM PST by RnMomof7 (Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Jean Chauvin; xzins
Acts 2:23 states Foreknowledge as in knowing something before something else." Interesting ~OPINION~ you have there. If "foreknowldge" only means "knowing something before something else", then it seems a bit odd that Acts 2:23 doesn't tell us what was KNOWN before. So, what to make of "foreknowldge" in Acts 2:23? Well, it seems to me, that since there is no OBJECT of the "foreknowing", then it is a bit premature to suggest that this "pre-knowing" is of something in particular. Rather, we can make better sense of "foreknowldge" by defining it as the EXPERTS (i.e. ~NOT~ you!) do: pre-arrangement. If "foreknowledge" is to be understood or defined ONLY as "to know something before", then we are left with an INCOMPLETE thought! The passage makes no sense that way. He Leave it up to the arminian to add thoughts and words which are foreign to the text! LOL!

The text makes perfect sense to anyone who can read English! (Experts-LOL!)

Websters American Dictionary of the English Language states that Foreknowledge means knowledge of a thing before it happens, prescience.

How is that for an expert?

No, Acts 2:23 ALREADY has made clear that God has "DETERMINED" Christ's work on the cross to be so. The phrase "determinate counsel" clearly tells us this already. If Christ's task on the cross were ONLY left to the free will actions of men, it would be INCORRECT for the Bible to tell us that God had already DETERMINED what his job would indeed be.

No, God can factor in man's free will decisions and still accomplish what He wants.

You Calvinists really underestimate God! LOL!

How on earth could ~God~ determine that Christ would indeed die upon the cross by wicked hands if that task was ONLY a result of men's free-will actions??

Note how you twist what I said into what you want me to say to match your system

God did not only used man's free will, He accomplished what He wanted while allowing man choices.

For example, the Jews wanted to stone Christ, but no one could kill Him until He went to the Cross.

The free will of man and the Sovereignty of God are reconciled and man is responsible for the crime of the Cross while God allowed it to accomplish His purpose.

To insist that ONLY men's free-will actions were responsible for Christ's death on the cross takes all the meaning out of that passage.

I never said that man alone was responsible for the Cross.

The subject of the crucifixion brings up an interesting question: who killed Jesus Christ?....There rests a five-fold responsiblity for the crucifixion:

Judically: The Romans (1Cor.2:8)

Nationally: The Jews (Matt.27:25)

Physically: Jesus Christ (John 10:18)

Theologically: God the Father (Isa.53:10

Practically: mankind (2Cor.5:21)

But it would be consistent with the hyper-dispensationalist arminian position that Jesus' death was an "OOPS".

No 'oops' involved, just typical Calvinist strawman arguments that cannot handle what the Arminians/Wesleyians/Baptists are saying about man having a choice to make and that God, either for or against God

God's absolute omniscience provides the only key to the reconcilation of God's 'sovereignty' and human freedom. If God knows with geniune certanity what any man could and would do in any situation, then he can bring about his purposes by ordering the appropriate situations without violating man's freedom (Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism, p.392)

If the question be asked whether the moral agent has freedom to act otherwise as God forsees he will act, it may be replied that the human will because of its inherent freedom of choice is capable of electing the opposite course to that divinely foreknown; but he will not do so. If he did so, that would be the thing which God foreknew. The divine foreknowledge does not coerce, it merely knows what the human choice will be....The men who crucified Christ did precisely what a thousand years before had been predicted and therefore determined they would do,even to saying, 'he trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him, let him deliver him seeing he delighted in him (Psa.22:8 cf Matt.27:43).(Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol1, p.196)

No, Acts 2:23 flatly REJECTS that Christ's death was an "OOPS". This passage tells us in very EXPLICIT terms that God DETERMINED that Christ would suffer on the cross. To deny this would be to turn the gospel on its head!

Yes, as 1Pet.1:20 states, thus the word Forordained used.

God foreknew all events that would occur and how it would end with Christ's death. Christ said as much to the disciples and rebuked them for not understanding the prophecies relating to His death (Isa.53, Psa.22).

"Now, just because the Greek word in 1Pet.1:20 is translated as Foreordain (correctly) does not mean that the Greek word (Proginosko) means foreordain anywhere else! Context gives meanings to words." LOL! You are a piece of work. You just get done chastizing me and claim ~MY~ context is mere "opinion", yet ~YOUR~ interpretation of the context is the way it is, I guess, LOL! "Now, both of the verses have the same Greek word found in 1Pet.1:20, are they to be translated as saying forordained?" No, they need not both be translated as "foreordained". We already know that "proginosko" (foreknow)~means~ "predestined". The EXERTS (again, ~NOT~ you) have already told us this to be so. So, being intelligent readers, we need not have a word we know to mean "predestined" translated as the synonymous "foreordained".

LOL! so the Greek word proginosko in those verses that I gave you (Acts.26:5,2Pet.3:17) mean Predestinated!

Try inserting that word in them and see what sense they make! LOL!

(Acts.26:5) Lets see, Paul states that the Jews knew his manner of life from the beginning so that must mean they either Forordained him or they predestinated him!

231 posted on 02/15/2003 1:46:52 AM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Jean Chauvin; xzins; Corin Stormhands; Revelation 911; ShadowAce
This is from Wesley's comments on Acts. 2:23.

Note how Wesley states that God did know what would happen.

The current view of open theology was not that of Arminius or Wesley.

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God - The apostle here anticipates an objection, Why did God suffer such a person to be so treated? Did he not know what wicked men intended to do? And had he not power to prevent it? Yea. He knew all that those wicked men intended to do. And he had power to blast all their designs in a moment. But he did not exert that power, because he so loved the world! Because it was the determined counsel of his love, to redeem mankind from eternal death, by the death of his only - begotten Son.

232 posted on 02/15/2003 1:53:46 AM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Jean Chauvin; xzins
~This~ definition of "predestination" completely turns the actual definition on its head. Election isn't "to elect". Predestination is no longer "to predestinate". These words, in the arminian system, have absolutely no meaning whatsoever. What comfort! LOL!

Agreed.

There is a predestination to be conformed to the image of Christ and thus, eternal security for Church age believers (Rom.8)

But at least Wesley understood that God'cannot and would not pick some and condemn others when He could save all if He so chose. (1Tim.2:4, 2Pet.3:9)

233 posted on 02/15/2003 1:57:34 AM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; xzins
So do agree with Wesley on the "second Blessing ",and that you can loose your salvation? A Wesleyan Pastor told me that Foreknowlege = predestination...Ummmmmm

Just because I cite someone doesn't mean I agree with everything they say.

The point that Wesley was making was that God is not arbitrary and cannot be unfair.

Choosing some and damning others based on His own choice, for no objective reason would be so.

The scriptures state very clearly that is not God's nature (1Tim.2:4, 2Pet.3:9, Jn.3:16)

As an Independent Baptist, I believe in eternal security not the perservance of the saints .

So, hopefully, you will not do anything to doubt that you are one of the 'elect' as many Calvinists come to think, not really being sure of their salvation since they can always 'fall away' thus, revealing that they were not really the 'elect' at all!

234 posted on 02/15/2003 2:09:04 AM PST by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Your#234)........................Amen!

The scriptures state very clearly that is not God's nature (1Tim.2:4, 2Pet.3:9, Jn.3:16)

Maranatha!

Romans 10:17

Maranatha!

BTTT

235 posted on 02/15/2003 4:51:19 AM PST by maestro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Just because I cite someone doesn't mean I agree with everything they say.

My point is if Wesley was so wrong about your salvation and the second blessing and the revolutionary war..just maybe he was wrong about this too.

236 posted on 02/15/2003 7:58:33 AM PST by RnMomof7 (Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
The point that Wesley was making was that God is not arbitrary and cannot be unfair. Choosing some and damning others based on His own choice, for no objective reason would be so.

That implicitly assumes that God owes salvation to any man, or that because He saved you, He must save me as well. But that just isn't the case.

237 posted on 02/15/2003 8:10:35 AM PST by jude24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; Seven_0
In the Bible a generation is 100 years..

Do you have anywhere else in the Bible where that is so? I noticed you only quoted different translations, not different scritpure verses. If it is a uniform concept that one generation is 100 consistently throughout the Bible, could you please post some other verses to confirm this?

Num 23:19 God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Do you understand the context of that verse? Balak, the king of Moab, had heard of the victories that the Israelites had won right near Moab (Num. 21:21-34), and was afraid that they would destroy Moad as well, so he sent for Balaam to curse the Israelites. However, the LORD said to Balaam that he would not curse them, for they are blessed (Num. 22:12). Balaam later vows to the LORD to only speak the words that the LORD give him, thus when Balaam is allowed to go to Balak, and Balak thinks that Balaam is going to curse the Israelites, Balaam instead speaks the word of the LORD and blesses them.

That is the context of that verse, simply that the LORD has promised to bless the Israelites and not curse them, and the words He gives to Balaam are faithful to that promise. The specificity that you (and others) want to apply to that specific text just isn't there.

If I promise to give my kids breakfast, I can give them toast and jam, or cereal, or scrambled eggs, or pancakes; but by giving my children any of these, I have fulfilled my promise. That is all that is going on here. Yes, the LORD is faithful to His promises! Amen and Amen!! However, in general, His promises are not as specific as we would like to think they are (which is why any discussion about the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ does not apply here, because those promises were specific, and specifically fulfilled.)

So, in the end, project what you want onto Num. 23:19, but in my opinion you are reading in waaaay too much specificity into that verse.

238 posted on 02/15/2003 9:44:14 AM PST by ponyespresso (I know that my Redeemer lives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; Seven_0
This is the answer to your question..It is obvious to anyone that reads the word with understanding and discernment that God knew from before the foundation of the earth that a man naned Joshua would lead Hid people into the promised land...

Yes, but he wasn't named Joshua from birth was he? Not like the way John the Baptist or Jesus was named from birth? So then, couldn't Caleb just as easily had his name changed to Joshua to fit into that event? And, besides, it is not prophesied anywhere in Scripture that "a man named Joshua shall lead the Israelites into Canaan" is it? I mean, if there is, please show me the chapter and verse.

I have shown that to you in Gods words.

You have done nothing of the sort. You have not given me one single Scripture to prove your point, all you have done is misrepresented Num. 23:19 and quoted the exact same verses from many different translations, instead of providing many different verses (from any single translation) to help establish your point.

You show a disregard for of prophecy and typology.

No, I just try not to read into Scripture what is clearly not there is all. If anything, that shows a far higher level of respect than one who tries to project their own worldview all over God's Holy Word.

239 posted on 02/15/2003 9:57:50 AM PST by ponyespresso (I know that my Redeemer lives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: ponyespresso
Yes, but he wasn't named Joshua from birth was he? Not like the way John the Baptist or Jesus was named from birth? So then, couldn't Caleb just as easily had his name changed to Joshua to fit into that event? And, besides, it is not prophesied anywhere in Scripture that "a man named Joshua shall lead the Israelites into Canaan" is it? I mean, if there is, please show me the chapter and verse.

Might it be that the name change was a part of Gods plan? Don't you think it a bit "odd" that he is considered a "type" of Christ?

He was born "Hoshea" (salvation) but Moses changed his name to "Yehoshua" (Yahweh is salvation)

And, besides, it is not prophesied anywhere in Scripture that "a man named Joshua shall lead the Israelites into Canaan" is it?

Exd 3:10   Come now therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people the children of Israel out of Egypt

Did Moses fulfill this prophecy? Did God ever tell Moses that he would lead them into the promised land..or only that he would lead them out of Egypt?

Do you believe that God has foreknowlege? Do you think He was surprised by Moses disobedience?

No, I just try not to read into Scripture what is clearly not there is all. If anything, that shows a far higher level of respect than one who tries to project their own worldview all over God's Holy Word.

Actually I do not think you read Gods word as written I think you read into it what you want it to say..not what it says..

240 posted on 02/15/2003 12:06:51 PM PST by RnMomof7 (Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 681-698 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson