Posted on 01/05/2010 9:46:47 PM PST by the_conscience
You've made no legitimate points.
Just admit you don’t believe in Christ bearing our punishment and be done with it.
I won't admit it because it is a lie.
It’s like saying Catholics don’t “worship” Mary when if you Google it you get 10,000 hits taking a person to all sorts of Catholic sites about worshiping Mary.
False again.
Do you have any truth in you?
Remember this?
A TV contest show with God (lots of white beard) and Kruger (belly, baseball cap).
The Host: — The aswer IS Wisconsin!!! God now has 4,875 points and Mr. Krugner... Mr. Kruger still hasn’t scored even a single point.
First off, Bob would have to recognized that he was in trouble and needed help, wouldn't he? He would have to recognized that he is in danger of drowning. If you took a baby and threw it into the river, they would not realize what drowning was. So in Bob case, he learned about drowning enough to know that he was in trouble. Now how would Bob have reached that conclusion unless he was given the wisdom to know his predicament.
When the USAF threw Bob the rope, Bob didn't sit there and debate whether or not he should grab the rope. Bob's wisdom told him to grab on.
What you're missing in your scenario is who gave Bob the insight and wisdom that he was drowning and needed to grab that rope?
Pro 2:6 For the LORD gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding;
1Co 1:30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus , who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption,
1 Cor 1:30 says it all. Christ was our wisdom from God to be saved. Christ was our righteousness for salvation. Christ is our sanctification. And Christ will redeem us.
To be honest I think you have OVER studied..
.Our faith is not an intellectual pursuit it is a spiritual one... Scripture tells us the the cross is foolishness to the perishing, it does not matter how much they study they will not get it. In some ways that is also true for us.. I,like you, argued against Calvinism for months.. right here on this forum. The Calvinists were pulling their hair out at me.. then one day as I sat to read my scriptures for the day...It jumped off the pages at me.. The intellectual arguments did not move me, the debate did not move me, trading scripture quotes did not move me...but on that day the Holy Spirit did.
We can not intellectually understand something like election,it is against everything we ever learned about independence and freedom .
We want to believe we wanted God, somehow that desire will make us dearer to Him... But God’s word says no one wants Him, no one looks for Him, that He will have mercy on who He wants to have mercy.. That just does not mesh to what we think we know about God
I know I did fall on my knees because I wanted to, I needed to.. but I also know I did not initiate the events that brought me there...
God was the 1st cause.
So please put aside the intellect and the Calvinist /Arminian debate and defend the gospel and let God speak to you in his word as you study.
If he so ordains I believe you will see it.. if not He continues to use you where you are.
This is not an issue of salvation it is a matter of doctrine on the glory of God..
BTW Did you know the original Mr Rogers was a Presbyterian minister??
Isn’t the will of man the free will, one that can say no to God if he chooses ??
“”God smacks us in the face again and again. God uses a 2 by 4 “”
Well....God is good and bestows his blessing but we can freely reject it and turn away,but God still pines for all our hearts to love Him and follow His will that is always goodness
...I will shew thee all good Exodus 33:19
God is light, and there is no darkness in him (1 John1:5).
From Saint Anthony The Great.....
“He is good, and He only bestows blessings and never does harm, remaining always the same. We men, on the other hand, if we remain good through resembling God, are united to Him, but if we become evil through not resembling God, we are separated from Him. By living in holiness we cleave to God; but by becoming wicked we make Him our enemy. It is not that He grows angry with us in an arbitrary way, but it is our own sins that prevent God from shining within us and expose us to demons who torture us. And if through prayer and acts of compassion we gain release from our sins, this does not mean that we have won God over and made Him to change, but that through our actions and our turning to the Divinity, we have cured our wickedness and so once more have enjoyment of God’s goodness. Thus to say that God turns away from the wicked is like saying that the sun hides itself from the blind.”-Saint Anthony The Great
Analogies always lack something, but even exploring what they lack helps us to see.
“First off, Bob would have to recognized that he was in trouble and needed help, wouldn’t he?”
Yes. And certainly ancient man was well aware that he needed something or someone. As bad as the sacrifices were, they certainly show that folks were aware of some terrible need - no one throws babies onto fires unless they have huge awareness of need.
Modern man knows as well. When I met Christians, I KNEW I lacked what they had. And while I’ve met plenty who didn’t care about anything involving God, there are a great many non-Christians who are aware of their need.
“Now how would Bob have reached that conclusion unless he was given the wisdom to know his predicament.”
Past experience. The terror when your car is sliding away in 4 feet of water. The feeling you are not in control.
God’s grace. God’s revelation. The order of the seasons and natural world demonstrate that this world is not a chance event. Some reject that revelation, and God gives them up to their desire - but I reject the idea that man is not aware of God until being born again.
Rather than rely on analogies, let’s use scripture for a moment.
“9For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 FOR ALTHOUGH THEY KNEW GOD, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.”
But we still are in agreement on the main point - that we are only aware of our need because of God’s revelation, which he gives by grace.
“When the USAF threw Bob the rope, Bob didn’t sit there and debate whether or not he should grab the rope. Bob’s wisdom told him to grab on.”
Yes, and when I met Christians, I knew I lacked what they had. God’s revelation? Of course. By his grace, with no merit of mine, he displayed before me what he can do if acknowledged as God. Was it irresistible? Well, I sure didn’t feel like fighting, so maybe. But I’ve seen others with equal or greater revelation turn their backs on it...and I’ve seen what happens when man refuses God.
” For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
I’ve known brilliant engineers and fine scientists who rejected God. If anyone should be able to see it, they should. Why did they reject whatever revelation they had? Don’t know.
But I know God commands them to repent and believe, and will punish them if they refuse. And I know we must believe for the Holy Spirit to seal us to a new inheritance.
And I know “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”
“So please put aside the intellect and the Calvinist /Arminian debate and defend the gospel and let God speak to you in his word as you study.”
I don’t think the Calvinists would give me many points for intellect. And mostly, I’ve just quoted scripture - what does the scripture say the Gospel is?
And it says this: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”
Not rocket science stuff. Repent. Believe. Be saved.
As I’ve said before, I like the man who said, “If the Bible says the whale swallowed Jonah, I believe. And if it said Jonah swallowed the whale, I’d believe THAT!”
So I ask - where are the scriptures that say we are saved by election, or that faith is a gift, or that Jesus did NOT come because he loved the world, but because he loved the elect?
And that's exactly the position of Rome. "Work to earn it."
"Sealed" refers to the Holy Spirit making Himself known to us in our lives. But the free gifts of ears to hear and eyes to see and a heart of flesh and a renewed mind all precede faith. And those gifts that result in saving faith by each fallen recipient were determined to be delivered by the Giver from before the foundation of the world. He has always known who were His because He made them that way. (1 Cor. 4:7)
We must be born again before we can know the things of God. These gifts enable men to respond in a lively and true faith. They make the words of Scripture come alive in our hearts. It is how God purposed to bring His children to Him. Faith does not save; grace saves through faith.
You say after we belive then we become sons, but that is not what Scripture teaches...
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will" -- Eph. 1:4-5"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
From CALVIN'S COMMENTARY ON EPHESIANS 1
The foundation and first cause, both of our calling and of all the benefits which we receive from God, is here declared to be his eternal election. If the reason is asked, why God has called us to enjoy the gospel, why he daily bestows upon us so many blessings, why he opens to us the gate of heaven, - the answer will be constantly found in this principle, that he hath chosen us before the foundation of the world. The very time when the election took place proves it to be free; for what could we have deserved, or what merit did we possess, before the world was made? How childish is the attempt to meet this argument by the following sophism! "We were chosen because we were worthy, and because God foresaw that we would be worthy." We were all lost in Adam; and therefore, had not God, through his own election, rescued us from perishing, there was nothing to be foreseen. The same argument is used in the Epistle to the Romans, where, speaking of Jacob and Esau, he says,
But though they had not yet acted, might a sophist of the Sorbonne reply, God foresaw that they would act. This objection has no force when applied to the depraved natures of men, in whom nothing can be seen but materials for destruction. In Christ This is the second proof that the election is free; for if we are chosen in Christ, it is not of ourselves. It is not from a perception of anything that we deserve, but because our heavenly Father has introduced us, through the privilege of adoption, into the body of Christ. In short, the name of Christ excludes all merit, and everything which men have of their own; for when he says that we are chosen in Christ, it follows that in ourselves we are unworthy. That we should be holy This is the immediate, but not the chief design; for there is no absurdity in supposing that the same thing may gain two objects. The design of building is, that there should be a house. This is the immediate design, but the convenience of dwelling in it is the ultimate design. It was necessary to mention this in passing; for we shall immediately find that Paul mentions another design, the glory of God. But there is no contradiction here; for the glory of God is the highest end, to which our sanctification is subordinate. This leads us to conclude, that holiness, purity, and every excellence that is found among men, are the fruit of election; so that once more Paul expressly puts aside every consideration of merit. If God had foreseen in us anything worthy of election, it would have been stated in language the very opposite of what is here employed, and which plainly means that all our holiness and purity of life flow from the election of God. How comes it then that some men are religious, and live in the fear of God, while others give themselves up without reserve to all manner of wickedness? If Paul may be believed, the only reason is, that the latter retain their natural disposition, and the former have been chosen to holiness. The cause, certainly, is not later than the effect. Election, therefore, does not depend on the righteousness of works, of which Paul here declares that it is the cause...4. According as he hath chosen us.
"For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth." (Romans 9:11.)
The entire commentary on Ephesians is terrific.
And while a "sophist from the Sorbonne" doesn't sound like the worst thing in the world to be, why take a chance? Pastry can only take us so far. 8~)
Amen!
What does predestination mean, in scripture? It occurred to me I might be looking at it wrong - that predestination (predetermined destination) might mean that those he foreknew were predestined to a goal, to a destination. And election is TO something, but not to being born again. After all, in a human election, whoever meets a predetermined criteria (most votes cast, most votes cast but must be over 50%, most votes cast by eligible voters and women don’t vote (1800s - the Golden Age of democracy!), whoever meets a criteria set in advance is elected - TO go and hold office.
I agree with you that election and predestination have different technical meanings, but I would say the two terms are inseparable Biblically speaking. As you say "election" refers to a choice, in this case God's choice. He is the entire electorate:
So the elect are simply those whom God has chosen for obedience to Christ, e.g., salvation. Predestination refers to one having the power to effectuate a given outcome. You and Alamo-girl could elect me to be the President of Mars, but you do not have the power to effectuate the establishment of my reign, as it were. :) God, OTOH, does have the power to effectuate the salvation of those He elects. That is predestination. (So in your above, the actual going to and taking hold of that office goes to predestination. God has the power to make it certain.) Here we see them together:
Election is unto salvation, we are elected before we are saved. Being born again is part of what the already elect are predestined to do in order to be saved. So, you are right that election does not go directly to being born again as opposed to other things (like justification or perseverance).
And in Romans 29-30, those God calls are also the same as those he foreknew, as are the ones justified, sanctified, and glorified.
Yes, God decided to elect those upon whom He decided to have mercy. Those elect and only those elect are the ones whom He then justified, sanctified, and glorified.
God determined, before creation, who would be saved - ‘whosoever believeth’. These he foreknew, and he predestined them to be conformed to his Son. And he has & will call, justify, sanctify and glorify them so his will is achieved.
If I am following you, then this goes back to whether God elected according to His own sovereign will before creation, OR, did God elect based on the free will decisions of man after the fact (by peeking into the future). If your interpretation is correct then I can't see how it would be proper to say that "God elected". In fact, it would be man electing himself with God just copying down the results and saying "I'm good with that". :) That would make election a purely passive action, and it would not match the example above. In the above, your result would be that I simply declared myself President of Mars, and then you and Alamo-girl looked at each other, shrugged your shoulders and said "OK, if you say so". :) For Biblical election to have any real meaning it must be through the active and sovereign decision of God.
God has predestined...well, Calvin says a list of names, I say ‘whosoever believeth’...to be: “conformed to his Son”, adopted, and obtain an inheritance.
Calvin, I, and other Reformers would say that God elected a list and then predestined that list to .......
Predestination sets the end state: sons, conformed to His Son, adopted by God and with a certain inheritance.
I would say that election sets the end state, salvation. Predestination is the manner of instituting that end state. The elect are not born as adopted sons, however they are still elect when born nevertheless. God predestinates that at some time during their lives the elect will become the adopted sons of God.
The word eklektos appears 24 times in 22 verses:
Thank you for those verses. I see them as being consistent with what I have said above.
FK: “Does God do anything for people within time to help bring them to faith? If “no”, then there is no problem here. But if God DOES act within time then His foreknowledge INCLUDES His own actions AND the results of those actions. This creates a paradox.”
Maybe. John MacArthur claims there are paradoxes that we are meant to accept rather than explain. I agree. As a Sola Scriptura kind of guy, I get nervous when we move beyond what God has revealed and start discussing details we were not provided with.
But the paradox isn't there upon the reading. Under the Reformed view there is no paradox. The paradox is only created by the free will view. The Reformed view contains no information or details that are not provided us in scripture.
At our service last night, our pastor (who isn’t Catholic) pointed out these verses:
I saw that picture you posted a while ago. I took particular note of that book of SATAN in his bookshelf (blue, lower left in picture). SO, YOUR PASTOR IS AN ADMIRER OF SATAN IS HE!!!!! Hmmmmmmm. :)
A more explicit revelation of God isn’t always a good thing, in the sense that those who reject it will have greater guilt than one whose revelation was creation, the seasons, etc.
I guess it depends on how you look at it. IMO, the elect should always prefer a more explicit revelation because that is how we know Him better. That is sanctification, so we should always want it. The non-elect will never get sanctifying revelation.
FK: “For example, we start with the assumption that God’s predestination means that He set the condition of faith for salvation and He used His foreknowledge to peek at who those people would be, and then He “predestined” them. This would be God not interfering with the free will choice of man to believe or not. Further, we assume that God acts in some way within time (by grace, leading, or other means) to help bring people to faith, without forcing. The paradox is that God can’t leave man’s free will unfettered because when He peeks at everyone’s free will yes/no decision He must also be peeking at the peoples’ reactions to HIS actions. That would put the decisions back in God’s hands (since God chooses His own actions) and thwart the free will “predestination as category” idea.”
This sounds like the ‘Can we see an atom?” argument...our looking would disturb the atom, so what we would see would no longer be the true atom. But I don’t see it as such a dilemma applied here. My son is in his 20s. Money burns a hole in his pocket. I’m not even sure he has a pocket! So do I give him money to help him out? No. I see no reason to hand him money he will waste. Based on past experience, rather than perfect foreknowing, I refuse to hand him money he could really use. My actions impact his, but it is still his choice when he spends food money on a video game.
I don't see how what I said relates to the ‘Can we see an atom?” argument. Key to my argument is the way you view foreknowledge and election. My argument applied to the example of your son would have you creating the paradox of deciding how much money to give your son today based on your crystal ball view of how he will spend in the future, GIVEN how much you have already (by then) decided to give him today. You would be looking at your own actions in the future in order to make a decision today that you have already made, in effect. That is a created paradox that is not required by scripture. It is a CHOICE (Oh Ho :) to create that paradox.
FK: “God gives a new heart to those He chooses first, and then with that new heart the person chooses to take God’s hand and begin the dance.”
We risk error when we try to tie God’s hands and say he must do X before Y. And when I say we must believe first, I take the same risk as those who say God must give a new heart first.
How are God's hands tied? It doesn't matter to me HOW He does what He does. I don't "need" it to be my way. I just think that is how the Bible says He does it, and I consider the implications following if He did it some other way.
However, the new heart argument is largely based on the idea that we are “DEAD” in our sin. But we also read that we are slaves of sin, servants of sin, children who sin, sick...
I don't think these ideas conflict. Being DEAD in sin is as opposed to having eternal LIFE, as Jesus describes it. This describes a spiritual condition alone. Being slaves to sin or righteousness describes both a spiritual and a physical condition. We commit physical sins and do physical good works while we are on earth.
Also, the idea of ‘prevenient’ grace is that God starts working in our lives to save us, and that which he does prior to conversion is prevenient grace, and afterward is called saving grace.
If it is God's grace, then I don't see how it can change based on human decision. Grace is grace, and if God only gives prevenient grace then He couldn't care less, it would follow, which of His creation winds up in Heaven with Him. He would abdicate His right to make that decision. But if God DID care about who He wanted with Him then He would give saving grace to those people, His elect.
And I reject the idea that God must save you fully and make you born again prior to belief.
Why does the idea of God saving you fully (He does all the work) not appeal to you? It appeals to me since I tend to blow things. God does not. The stakes are too high. :)
And I reject the idea God hates those who aren’t on his list. The rich young ruler walked away - yet Jesus loved him.
Well, the Bible describes it differently in different places. We have your above, but we also have God hating Esau. There are different kinds of love. In one sense God loves all people since what He created was good. He shows this love in part by providing for our existence here on earth. But the kind of love that wishes to be with His creation for eternity is reserved for only a few.
FK: “If one is already a full believer before regeneration, then what does regeneration do?”
People aren’t full believers before conversion. I didn’t tell anyone about my conversion in the 7th grade, and a couple of months later we moved. For the first year or more, I thought every time I sinned I lost salvation, and needed to convert all over again. I converted a LOT before the 9th grade - I may hold the record for the most ‘conversions’ in history.
I'm sorry I don't think I follow. What would constitute a fully saved believer to you, Biblically speaking? And whatever your answer, does being born again happen before or after that point?
When scripture tells someone to repent, or believe, and that faith is the means of our salvation, I take that at face value.
I understand, and personally, I am willing to admit that the Arminian view might be a more natural sounding reading on the surface. What can I say, that was my view too for a long time. :)
With a hundred verses on that side, I use those to provide light for 3 or 4 verses that seem to say otherwise. The more verses I can take at face value, the better my interpretation is. It is like mathematical modeling of biological systems...you take the model, make predictions, and then see how closely the predictions match reality. The fewer disconnects, the better the model.
If we think of it in these terms then we have to consider the quantity in the whole Bible. You might have a bunch of verses that can be read to support free will, but we also have hundreds of verses supporting the revelation of the nature of God. ALL of those verses support the sovereignty arguments that Reformers make. We have hundreds of verses that say God really is omnipotent, and omniscient, and truly loving, and will do as He pleases, and that He has a plan which He is executing within time, etc. etc. All of those verses go against the idea that God leaves it all up to us. So, perhaps it is really not as one-sided as you are saying when we take the whole Bible into consideration.
“Ephesians 1:11 doesn’t say his predestination is to salvation”
Eph. 1:11 is part of the “doxology” (vs. 4ff) the subject of which is salvation. Verse 11 just continues the theme.
“This is not subtle. God smacks us in the face again and again. God uses a 2 by 4 - won’t you listen?”
Point out one verse that says God has relinquished the use of his absolute sovereignty in order to give mankind indeterministic (uncaused) free will.
Then explain:
How can God be omniscient if indeterminate free will is correct? If he knows all things, he knows which things, though present to him, are future from our perspective. He knows what time it is in human history. How can God know even as present to him something which is future to us without that event being determined?
How can there be predictive prophecy if indeterminate free will is correct? There is no way God can guarantee the fulfillment of any prophecy concerning anyone’s future actions; he can do nothing which will causally determine anyone to do what is predicted.
How is the inspiration of the scriptures possible if indeterminate free will is correct? If the writers of scripture had continued to write without the Holy Spirit, they would have written at their own impulse and initiative and there would be no guarantee that what God wanted was written.
If indeterminate free will is correct, of what value is the “sealing” or the “pledge” of the Holy Spirit? It must always be possible for a believer to reject Christ and lose his salvation. No matter how strong the inclination toward continued faith, believers still must be able to turn away or they would not be free in the indeterministic sense.
I agree. The only way we are aware of our need is because of God's grace. Unless God gives this grace, we will remain unaware.
I’ve known brilliant engineers and fine scientists who rejected God. If anyone should be able to see it, they should. Why did they reject whatever revelation they had? Don’t know.
Everyone, and I mean everyone, at one time in their life fell under Romans 1. No one seeks after God. No, not one. Why don't "brillant" people see? You've answered that question yourself. God must give His grace so they see. He must open up our spiritual eyes to see and ears to hear. Being brilliant has nothing to do with the wisdom from above.
1Co 1:18-29 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE." ... but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God.
The message of the cross is utter folly to those who are blinded. We need to pray that God will open their eyes. That is the difference between them and us. And, just remember, God tells us that He has "chosen" the foolish things to shame the wise. So that kind of puts us in our place.
John 5: 37 Moreover, the Father who sent me has testified on my behalf. But you have never heard his voice nor seen his form, 38 and you do not have his word remaining in you, because you do not believe in the one whom he has sent. 39 You search 14 the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf. 40 But you do not want to come to me to have life.
Is there any Jesus in your Christianity? Jesus told us that sola scriptura is used by those who think that they have eternal life through them. Wrong, says he. You must come to Christ for everlasting life - the Church that He created and the Holy Spirit commissioned. Not self-hypnosis over self-interpretation of Scripture, which Scripture itself proscribes.
The only 'us' of Calvinism is an elite group of those whose belief in the elected limo merely greases the slide into the punishment eternal.
So the elect are simply those whom God has chosen for obedience to Christ, e.g., salvation. Predestination refers to one having the power to effectuate a given outcome. You and Alamo-girl could elect me to be the President of Mars, but you do not have the power to effectuate the establishment of my reign, as it were. :) God, OTOH, does have the power to effectuate the salvation of those He elects. That is predestination.
Amen!
(I'd vote for you, FK, but who wants to live on Mars anway? There's nothing there but rock. And no internet connection.)
Your examples are still analogous to spiritual death. In Ezekiel Chapter 37 we see the Lord is sovereign - breathing life into dry bones.
But in any case the text we have does not say she saw the Father.
I think RnMomof7 was sort of contesting the saintliness of St. Faustina on the ground that she claimed to see something she could not have seen. I got into it because I didn’t see in the text what RnMomof7 saw. I’m not invovlved much with St Faustina, though I pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet and have “Jesus, I trust in you,” among my much used prayers.
“And that’s exactly the position of Rome. “Work to earn it.””
Faith or believing is only called a work once in scripture - and then Jesus calls it the work God requires. In every other passage, it is contrasted with works.
So saying we are required to have faith or believe is NOT works, as used in scripture. As used by Calvin? Don’t care. If God’s word says we must repent & believe to be saved, it is so. Neither Calvin nor anyone else can overrule what God has said.
“”Sealed” refers to the Holy Spirit making Himself known to us in our lives.”
Not likely. Sealed is what you did to authenticate a document.
“The ancient seal was a stamp or engraving set in stone, metal or some hard substance like crystal. It was usually a symbol or a figure that was used to make an impression on clay or wax, or some other soft substance.
It was usually attached to an object like a possession or a document, in order to give it authenticity, ownership or authority. It was used often in the ancient world, especially in Egypt, Babylonia and Assyria and surrounding nations including Israel.”
http://www.bible-history.com/sketches/ancient/seals.html
So when it says, “In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.” it means that when they heard the gospel and believed, they were authenticated as Christians and sons and heirs by the gift of the Holy Spirit. This proves we can count on God’s promise, for he has sealed us with himself!
1 Cor 4:7 says “7For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?”
And in the analogy I gave, who would praise Bob for being rescued from the rising water? What did Bob do that was special? The rescuer was the US Air Force. All Bob did was hold on to the rope.
“We must be born again before we can know the things of God.”
Contrary to scripture.
“So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.” - Romans 1
Can we follow God and obey as sons from a willing heart? Not without being born again.
“21For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.” - 1 Cor 1
If we would obey God, we must repent and believe. What does scripture SAY?! “it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.” Not to save the elect, or to give belief to those he saved, but to save those who believe. THAT is God’s will, and Calvin doesn’t get a vote.
You once again offer Ephesians 1:4-5, and I suppose I cannot blame you - there are very few passages that even suggest predestination as taught by Calvin.
Let’s look again at what it says, instead of what Calvin taught that it says. From Young’s Literal Translation:
“4 according as He did choose us in him before the foundation of the world, for our being holy and unblemished before Him, in love,
[The blessing in verse 3 was done IAW his choice of us. Now, HOW DID HE CHOOSE US? Did he pull our names off a list, or choose to save those who believe? EITHER one can fit this passage, but only one of the two fits the other 500 or so verses about how we are saved.]
5 having foreordained us to the adoption of sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will...”
[It was always God’s plan and will that those who believe would become sons. We were predestined for adoption, and to be conformed to Christ Jesus. This verse doesn’t address HOW we are saved, but what will happen to the saved.]
I often read Calvin’s Commentaries, but his belief drove his interpretation of these verses, rather than letting scripture speak for itself. These verses do not address HOW we are saved, but that he has always planned to save some and make us sons - but if he does it by a list of names or by saving those who believe is not answered here.
“Faith does not save; grace saves through faith.”
Truly. We are saved by grace thru faith, not thru election. The grace of God motivates him to reveal himself to us. The choice we have is one he gives us. If we respond with faith, then we are saved BY grace THRU faith. If we are picked by election, then we would correctly be described as saved by grace thru election.
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.