Paul taught that Revelation 20:4 was a current reality

[Spiritual Israelite]

And here we go again with the able versus unable thing. You're missing the point, SI. The natural condition, the condition from birth, of the human heart, because of the consequences of Adam's sin, is to be wholly inclined against God.

This is not true. This is something that Calvinism has made up and is not taught anywhere in scripture.

Instead, Jesus said "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." (Luke 18:16-17).

If people were "wholly inclined against God" from birth, then what Jesus said would not make any sense. It would mean He was saying "The kingdom of God belongs to such as these little rebels who are wholly inclined against God". Which obviously He would not say because He obviously knew that little children are not "wholly inclined against God" and that no one is "wholly inclined against God" from birth, as Calvinists like yourself falsely claim.

In Romans 1 Paul taught that people who know God but who do not thank Him or worship Him as God "become vain in their imaginations" and "become fools". They are not born that way. They become that way by choice. And they have no excuse for making that choice (Romans 1:20). If the only way they could repent and have faith is if God gave them repentance and faith, then they would have an excuse for not doing so (they couldn't possibly repent and believe without God giving them repentance and faith in that case). But, scripture says they do not have any excuse. Calvinism gives them one.

For unbelievers, the reason they have no excuse is that they, even having clearly seen all that can be known about God, still suppressing the truth ~ which itself is a decision ~ in unrighteousness.

The implication of them having no excuse for their unbelief is that they are expected to believe and should believe instead. This implies that they chose not to believe even though they could have chosen to believe instead. So, the reason they don't believe is entirely their own fault. But, Calvinism says that they don't believe and can't believe because God hasn't given them faith. So, in Calvinism, the reason for their unbelief is because God chose not to give them faith.

To us, maybe so, but to Him, no; this is His purpose of election, as Paul says.

And what is that purpose? Do you not think it would be revealed in scripture? I see no reason why not. So, what do you think is His purpose of election, keeping in mind that you believe He only chose to elect some people (I think we could safely say a minority of people) while choosing to leave the rest of the people He created in a lost state destined for hell and eventually the lake of fire for eternity? So, in your answer please address His purpose for those that He created while purposely making it so that they would be guaranteed to spend eternity in the lake of fire.

I disagree with this statement as a whole, not "in its entirety," but, specifically, that God hardened Pharoah's heart because Pharoah had already hardened his own heart. I do agree, though, that Pharoah hardened his own heart. Now, this may seem contradictory to you, but not so; if you say that, then you might as well say God contradicted Himself:

"...the LORD said to Moses, “When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles that I have put in your power. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go..." (Exodus 4:21), and "...the LORD said to Moses, “...you shall speak all that I command you, and your brother Aaron shall tell Pharaoh to let the people of Israel go out of his land. But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, Pharaoh will not listen to you..." (Exodus 7:1-4). And before Moses and Aaron even approach Pharoah... "the LORD said to Moses, “Pharaoh’s heart is hardened; he refuses to let the people go..."

And then, here is the "because" part: "...Pharaoh’s heart remained hardened, and he would not listen to them, as the LORD had said."

Pharoah did make a conscious choice not to listen to Moses and Aaron, and in this way, Pharoah did indeed harden his heart. We agree on that. But it is also true that God hardened Pharoah's heart, just as He told Moses He would. Both are true, so therefore, they have to be resolved in some way, and there is no way to do it than this: Pharoah hardened his own heart, of his own free will and accord, but only because God had ordained it to be so.

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't just talking about the time during which Pharoah hardened his own heart and then God hardened his heart and so on. as is written about in scripture. What I'm talking about is how to Pharaoh come to have a hardened heart in the first place which led him to become an evil dictator? So, I'm talking about what made him be that kind of person even before he became the Pharaoh of Egypt? He was born that way or he chose to be that way? I believe it's the latter.

So your statement above is inverted to opposite what it should be; Pharoah hardened his own heart, of his own free will and accord, but only because God had ordained it to be so.

Again, I'm going back earlier in his life than that. I understand that at that point God decided to use Pharoah as an example and use him for His purposes. I'm not arguing against God doing that kind of thing. Do you understand what I'm saying? I'm questioning how Pharaoh became that kind of person in the first place before he became the leader of Egypt.

Pharoah did not somehow "cause God to do what He did."

I'm not saying that. It's clear to me at this point that you do not understand what I was trying to get at. I hope you didn't spend too much time on this because I'm afraid you wasted some time arguing with a straw man.

God always does what He does for His own glory, even using the will and actions of men and women to do so.

Yep. I'm not saying otherwise. Okay, I'm going to skip the rest of this about Pharaoh and move on from there.

Right, but you can't then discount Romans 9:14-18. You have to hold all of these things together, recognize the tension, and reconcile them in some way, I realize you don't mean to be, but you're basically holding that the latter passages you cited nullify the former. That just cannot be done.

Nope. I'm not doing that at all. I have reconciled them. You just missed it somehow.

Again, while it's true that God has mercy on who He will have mercy and hardens who He will harden without anyone being able to tell Him who He should have mercy on or who He can harden, He decided to give everyone the opportunity to receive His mercy. How else can you interpret Him wanting to have mercy on all people (Romans 11:30-32)?

You assume that a statement saying He will have mercy on whoever He wills means that He will have mercy on some for reasons only He knows while the rest not only don't receive His mercy but don't even get an opportunity to receive His mercy. That's a very bad assumption which can't be reconciled with Him wanting to have mercy on all people.

My view, on the other hand, reconciles both passages together because it doesn't deny that the decision of who to have mercy on is God's alone, but at the same time it acknowledges that His decision was to give the opportunity for all to receive His mercy, which He didn't have to do but did so because He is love (1 John 4:8,16). But, He made receiving mercy conditional upon people repenting of their sins and believing in His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. He didn't have to do that, but that's what He chose to do.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That's a very good question. Just on a human level, personally speaking, how can you or I be really desirous of something coming to be, but at the same time resolved not to make that something happen? Why would we make such a decision? Well, there could be several reasons, right? In God's case, there is a very, very good reason for His not acting on this desire... several actually, and they all ultimately have to do with Him and His glory.

Here is the question (well, 2 questions actually) I had asked, just for reference.

"Since scripture clearly teaches that God wants all people to repent and to have mercy on all people and for all people to be saved, why don't all people repent and why doesn't God have mercy on and save all people?".

It seems that you agree with me that God does indeed want all people to repent and to have mercy on all people and for all people to be saved?

Your response to my question seems like mostly a non-answer. In my view, the question I asked is very easy to answer. Not all people repent because some choose not to and God doesn't save everyone because He makes everyone responsible to choose to repent and believe and some choose not to do so. In your view, it's apparently very hard to answer.

I guess your answer to the questions I asked is it ultimately has to do with Him and His glory, which is a very vague answer. What do you mean by that?

Hmmm, yes, we are all accountable to God, but some/many will not acknowledge that, right?

Right. But, what are those who you believe God chose not to give faith to accountable for exactly?

So does this make them more powerful than God?

Certainly not, as I'm sure you will agree. So again, reconciliation of these things is necessary...

Of course it doesn't, but what is the point of that question?

No one has any excuse for not acknowledging and worshiping God. No Calvinist would suggest otherwise.

So, what do you think is the reason that some don't, keeping in mind that they don't have any excuse for not doing so?

Ah, well, I say Arminianism does that. It inadvertently makes people out to be sovereign over God ~ or at the very least, that God's sovereignty is not really sovereignty at all, and that His will is dependent upon ours, which is directly opposite of what we know about God's elect and one's membership in said elect or lack thereof, that "it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy."

This is absolutely false. Now, I am not sure if my personal view lines up completely with Arminianism or not. I'm not an expert on Arminianism. I've never read anything Arminius wrote, for example. But, assuming my view lines up with that or is close to that, then you are definitely off base here.

In my view, God is sovereign over all people and all things. That people have free will and are made responsible to make choices does not lessen God's sovereignty whatsoever. He sovereignly chose to make it that way, to make people responsible and accountable. No one told Him to do that. He was not obligated to make it that way. So, someone choosing to humble himself or herself while acknowledging their sins and acknowledging that they can't save themselves and need the blood of Jesus to save them, is absolutely not a case of making oneself sovereign over God. Rather, the person is accepting the responsibility that God has given them to choose who they will serve and to choose how to respond to His command to repent of their sins.

Calvinism misinterprets what it means when it says "it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy". That doesn't mean the human will isn't involved in salvation, it means the human will wasn't involved with how mercy and salvation would come about and wasn't involved in God's decision on who would receive His mercy. He alone decided that He wanted to have mercy on all people so He acted on that desire by sending His Son to die for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:1-2).

No, Calvinism certainly affirms this, and I have said so over and over and over. That you agree is fabulous.

You said this in response to me saying "If everyone has this so-called "general call of the gospel", which I agree is the case, then it only follows that everyone can potentially respond favorably to it, but Calvinism denies this.".

Can someone respond favorably to the general call of the gospel, which I would think would involve repenting of their sins and putting their faith in Christ, and not be saved? If so, how? If not, how can what you said here be true in relation to Calvinism? Calvinism does not believe that everyone can potentially be saved. So, please explain your answer here. What is the purpose of the so-called "general call of the gospel" if not to call people to repentance, faith in Christ and salvation?

Right; outwardly speaking, very generally and very publically, "Many are..." (everyone is) "...called/invited..." (and thus eligible) "...but few are chosen." This is exactly what Jesus says in Matthew 22;14.

What do you think them being called/invited makes them eligible for exactly? That parable portrays a call to salvation. So, that would mean everyone is eligible to be saved since everyone is called/invited to salvation. But, Calvinism doesn't teach that.

You understand then, the difference between the outward call of the Gospel and the inward call by God issued by His Spirit. But you seem to keep trying to backtrack out of it somehow, which is... puzzling.

No, it's puzzling how you don't seem to want to acknowledge that what you call "the outward call of the Gospel" is a genuine invitation for people to accepth God's offer of salvation. And God does offer salvation to all people, as scripture teaches.

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people.

If you read that parable in Matthew 22:1-14, you can see what the result is of either outright rejecting the invitation or not fully accepting it. The ones represented in the parable who were invited but outright rejected it are the first century Jews who rejected Christ. It says their city would be burned as punishment for their rebellion and we know what happend to Jerusalem in 70 AD. Then it talks about the invitation going out to the highways which represents the gospel going out to the Gentile nations. And then there is a description of a guest arriving but he doesn't have his wedding garment on. He is then cast into outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Now, please tell me, if what you call "the outward call of the gospel", is not a genuine call/invitiation to salvation to all people that all people are able to accept if they choose to do so, then why is there severe punishment for those who don't fully accept the call/invitation?

Ah, well, not chosen by God (before the foundation of the world) to be conformed to the image of Christ (Ephesians 1). As hard as it may be for us to accept, God made one for honorable use and another for dishonorable use. In both cases, His use.

Not from birth! As I have already told you before. And I gave the example of Pharaoh. He was not a vessel made for dishonorable use from birth. He was chosen to be that kind of vessel only after he had chosen to become an evil dictator who was against God and His people. Nowhere does it say that God makes someone for dishonorable use right from birth. That's where you are mistaken. He does that after someone has already made their own choice of who they want to serve and their own choice about whether or not they want to serve God.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Why? Well, as Paul says, "God, desired (desires) to show His wrath and to make known His power, and has endured (endures) with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory ~ even us whom He has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles."

This is not an answer as to why someone doesn't repent and put their faith in Christ in the first place. If we look again at Romans 1 the kind of people who are vessels of wrath "BECOME vain in their imaginations" and "BECOME fools" rather than being born that way. You make the mistake of thinking these people were born that way and had no choice to be any other way because that's how God wanted it to be for them, but that is not taught in scirpture. What you quoted doesn't address how vessels of wrath become vessels of wrath in the first place.

So, how do they become vessels of wrath in the first place? By God's design and His purpose? No! God forbid! That would be a contradiction of His command and desire for them to repent (Acts 17:30, 2 Peter 3:9), His desire to have mercy on them (Romans 11:30-32), His Son dying for their sins (John 3:16, 1 John 2:1-2) and His desire for them to be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-6). The only way to reconcile these scriptures I just referenced here with people becoming vessels of wrath prepared for destruction is that they willingly chose to refuse to repent and to reject Christ despite God wanting them and commanding them to repent.

Why else does God get angry with them and take His wrath out on them except that they choose to go against what He wants them to do? It would not make sense for Him to be angry at them otherwise. And He wouldn't get angry at them for not repenting and believing unless He expects them to do so and they are fully capable of doing so. Calvinism doesn't take any of this into account for whatever reason.

If, as Paul has said, "what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them," that "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," then how can they still have any excuse? They cannot. So no, they are most certainly invited, and it is our privilege to be commissioned by God to go out and extend that invitation to everyone.

Invited to what exactly? It's clear to me that they are invited to become part of the bride of Christ (again, see Matthew 22:1-14). Not everyone would be invited if not everyone was capable of accepting the invitation/offer, right?

Right, and I would add that they had all the information they need to accept the outward call. Sure.

This is what I said that you are ageeing with here:

"And what is the result if they continue to reject it their entire lives even until their deaths? They are sent to hell, right? So, who is responsible for that? The unbelievers themselves are responsible because they had no excuse for rejecting the call of the gospel just like those who don't acknowledge and worship God have no excuse for that.".

So, if unbelievers are held responsible for ending up in hell despite basically getting an invitation to go to heaven, why are you a Calvinist? Doesn't this mean that the only reason they end up in hell is because they chose to reject God's offer of salvation despite it being a geniune offer that they could and should have accepted instead? I believe so, but that doesn't line up with the idea that they don't believe because they can't believe without God giving them faith, as Calvinism teaches.

If they don't believe simply because they can't believe due to not being given faith, then what is the reason that God's wrath is on them and they end up being punished and sent to hell? The only thing that makes sense is that they had free will and truly could have chosen to accept the invitation, but chose to reject it instead. But, if Calvinism was correct and someone can only believe if God gives them faith while having no real choice of their own in the matter, then there would be no basis for people to be condemned and punished for not believing.

Absolutely not...

This was in response to me saying "Calvinism says that they are not really responsible.".

Really? What exactly do you think people are held responsible for?

No, certainly I would acknowledge that, but the outward call is not salvific... not conferring salvation upon someone. Much in the same sense as our baptism by water by any method of people of any age is outward and not conferring of salvation.

Of course the call of the gospel doesn't automatically result in salvation if that's what you mean. But, it is an offer of salvation to all people (Titus 2:11). That is what is portrayed in Matthew 22:1-14.

RIght; cited above, and again, what does Jesus say in Matthew 22:14 (the very next verse; interesting that you didn't include it...). There, Jesus says, "many are called, but few are chosen."

There was no particular reason I didn't include it. I just wanted to quote the parable itself to make my point, which ends in verse 13. Jesus sums it up in verse 14. I have quoted that verse on this forum many times, but usually in relation to end times discussions relating to the bride of Christ or in relation to what the Greek word translated as "few" means in a different verse by showing what it means in that verse (relatively few, not literally few - a multitude of people are chosen/saved, but relatively few in relation to all people).

Calvinism makes what you call the outward call/invitation of the gospel meaningless because it says that salvation is entirely up to God with people having no choice in the matter. So, Calvinism has some people being invited/called to accept the gospel who are not even capable of accepting it. It makes no sense.

Hm. Interesting question. I guess I would ask a question in response. Why would they not?

This was in response to me saying "Now, if this general gospel call is not a call to salvation, as it seems you believe, then why is it that those who reject the invitation/call, end up being punished for rejecting it?".

Very interesting that you chose not to answer the question and instead asked a question in response. I take that to mean you don't have an answer to that question.

My answer to your question is that there is no reason why they wouldn't be from my perspective. But, from the Calvinist perspective, I don't see any reason for them to be punished for not accepting the gospel if, as Calvinism teaches, they can only accept it if God gives them faith. In Calvinism, they don't have any control over whether they accept the gospel or not because that is determined entirely by God. So, why should they be punished in that case? That makes no sense. Punished for what exactly? Not doing something that they are not even capable of doing? Is that how punishment works? No.

Because, SI, over and over again, you say ~ unwittingly or inadvertently as may be ~ otherwise, that we can thwart God's purpose of election and salvation itself, that we can resist the salvific call of God, that we can resist the Holy Spirit in this way. We cannot.

Yes, we can and many do. I've already shown the example of the ones Stephen rebuked for resisting the Holy Spirit. You think this way because you have the wrong understanding of God's purpose of election and salvation. His purpose in election and salvation is to make it possible for everyone to repent, believe, receive mercy and be saved because that is His desire. He does not desire all to repent and be saved without acting on that desire. That's ridiculous. No, of course He did act on it because of His grace and His love. That's why Jesus died for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:1-2) so that the whole world would have the offer of salvation (Titus 2:11).

 

[PinSeeker]

PinSeeker: The natural condition, the condition from birth, of the human heart, because of the consequences of Adam's sin, is to be wholly inclined against God.​

This is not true. This is something that Calvinism has made up and is not taught anywhere in scripture.

"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." (Paul, 1 Corinthians 2:14)

John Calvin did not "make it up," Spritual Israelite.

If people were "wholly inclined against God" from birth, then what Jesus said would not make any sense. It would mean He was saying "The kingdom of God belongs to such as these little rebels who are wholly inclined against God". Which obviously He would not say because He obviously knew that little children are not "wholly inclined against God" and that no one is "wholly inclined against God" from birth, as Calvinists like yourself falsely claim.

I already spoke to this, SI. Jesus was referring to the trusting nature of children, and saying that we, as children of God, should be the same way... having a childlike faith.

In Romans 1 Paul taught that people who know God but who do not thank Him or worship Him as God "become vain in their imaginations" and "become fools". They are not born that way. They become that way by choice.

Nope. See above. We're going back and forth on this, for which there is no need.

Calvinism gives them one.

Only in your way of... "thinking." :)

And what is that purpose?

As I said above, everything God does is for His own glory. And to this specifically, Paul says in Romans 9, asking the question, but only for effect, "What if God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known His power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory ~ even us whom He has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?"

Do you not think it would be revealed in scripture?

It is; see above.

What I'm talking about is how to Pharaoh come to have a hardened heart in the first place which led him to become an evil dictator?

Hmm, well, all we know as far as that goes is that he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, and thus would not to listen to God regarding letting the Hebrews go. I'm not so sure he was an "evil dictator," SI; he did have Joseph as his second in command and gave a lot of folks, including Jacob/Israel, sanctuary through the famine, right? <chuckles> Really, for all we know, Pharoah might have been a pretty nice fellow. :)

He was born that way or he chose to be that way? I believe it's the latter.

Well, it's not really about being "evil" in the say you're saying that, SI. You don't have to do bad things to people to be evil in God's eyes, Spiritual Israelite. So in the Biblical sense of 'evil,' to your statement here, it's both the former and the latter.

PinSeeker: Pharoah did not somehow "cause God to do what He did."

I'm not saying that.

But you have said several times in no uncertain terms that God only does what He does in response to what we do.

Okay, I'm going to skip the rest of this about Pharaoh and move on from there.

Good call. :)

Nope. I'm not doing that at all. I have reconciled them. You just missed it somehow.

No, I saw your... well, rationalization... :) Several times now. :)

Again, while it's true that God has mercy on who He will have mercy and hardens who He will harden without anyone being able to tell Him who He should have mercy on or who He can harden, He decided to give everyone the opportunity to receive His mercy.

And there's the rationalization again. Who God gives mercy to and who He hardens depends on God alone, according to His will; there is nothing anywhere in Scripture that even suggests God's will regarding anything depends on man's, and it is against Paul's very point in that very passage, that it depends not on man's will but God's.

How else can you interpret Him wanting to have mercy on all people (Romans 11:30-32)?

Again, you said before, "You should not interpret a verse like Romans 9:18 and draw conclusions from it without taking other scripture like Romans 11:30-32 into account." Well, fine; I agree, but as I said in response, "You can't then discount Romans 9:14-18."

You assume that a statement saying He will have mercy on whoever He wills means that He will have mercy on some for reasons only He knows...

We don't know why some are elect and some are not, no. We only know that He made that choice ~ actually, the only active choice was who to predestine to be conformed to the image of His Son, as I said ~ before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1). Why did He do this? Well, all we know is, again, what Paul tells us in Romans 9:22-24, that God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory ~ even us whom He has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles.

while the rest not only don't receive His mercy but don't even get an opportunity to receive His mercy.

Ohhh... they have every opportunity, as we see in Jesus's parable in Luke 16. There, in the parable, the rich man is told by Abraham, "Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things..." So the rich man replies, "...if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent." To which Abraham says, "If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead." God gave us His Word, and that should be sufficient... and is. But as Paul says in Romans 1... yes, we're back to this yet again... "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For 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."

My view, on the other hand, reconciles both passages together...

It very clearly rationalizes for one at the expense of the other.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Ah, there it is. I knew this was coming long ago, as you may remember; I tried to draw it out of you then.

No, I don't remember that. Why play games? You don't need to try to draw anything out of me. Just be direct and transparent.

So, yeah, God's 'foreknowledge..." Let's focus on Romans 8:29. When Paul says "those He foreknew," here, he's talking, not about everybody, but a limited group that God "foreknew." From this we automatically know that Paul cannot be talking about a mere cognitive knowledge, as in just knowing something before it happens, because in that sense, God "foreknows" everybody without exception. In various passages in the Bible, "to know" is used in both senses, though not both at the same time; this "knowing" we should understand in the same sense as loving. and not just that but in a particular way reserved for some but not given to others. This is true both in the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New:

So, 'foreknew' of Romans 8:29 is virtually synonymous as 'foreloved' and even 'fore-chose,' which fits perfectly with what this same Paul says in Ephesians 1, that God "chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him... In love He predestined us for adoption to Himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will..."

I cut out some of your post just to save some space with the hope of not going over 10,000 characters again so I have to split things up.

Anyway, I can acknowledge that you may be right about Romans 8:29 as far as what the Greek word translated as "foreknew" means even though that word can also mean "to have knowledge beforehand" according to the Greek resource I'm using (blueletterbible.org). It could have a similar meaning to being "fore-chose" (if that's a word) and predestined.

But, that is just one of the verses I referenced, so you can't just then conclude that God's election in relation to salvation has nothing to do with His foreknowledge of the future. The Greek word translated as "foreknew" in Romans 8:29 is "proginōskō", but in the following verse the Greek word translated as "foreknowledge" is "prognōsis".

1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

In this case, election appears to be according to the Father knowing the future beforehand. I say that because that is how it is used in the only other verse that the word is used in:

Acts 2:23 This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.

Jesus was handed over to His captors because it was God's plan and based on His knowing ahead of time what was going to happen. He used His knowledge of what was going to happen to bring about His plan to have His Son sacrified for the sins of the whole world.

So, yes, salvation is based partly on God's foreknowledge of the future. Maybe Romans 8:29 can't be used to prove that, but I believe 1 Peter 1:1-2 can.

LOL!

I didn't say anything funny.

As you will agree, God's predestination is of His elect, for adoption to Himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will (Ephesians 1 again). But SI, by purposing this for some, by predestining some, that necessarily means that by elimination, He purposely did not predestine others.

Of course. But, since His foreknowledge of the future plays in a role in that we can't just say He predestines people for reasons that He only knows as Calvinism falsely teaches. Repeatedly, scripture tells us why people are saved and why they are condemend. It's not because of some unknown reason that God only knows, it's because people are saved by God's grace through personal faith in Jesus Christ and not by works. How salvation comes about is no mystery and no secret. God holds everyone responsible to repent and believe and the only reason some don't is because they choose not to and not because God didn't give them faith and repentance. Or else there would be no reason for God's wrath to be on them and no reason for their condemnation and punishment.

The simple fact is, He chose some instead of others ~ as with Jacob and Esau.

This is what Calvinism does. It takes scripture out of context repeatedly. When Paul wrote about Jacob and Esau in Romans 9 he was not talking about Jacob being chosen to salvation and Esau not. No! Goodness sakes! All you have to do is read the Old Testament scriptures that Paul was referencing to see that was not the case. Do you not know that election has more than one meaning and is not only used in relation to salvation? Election is sometimes used in relation to God's purposes. That is the what the reference to Jacob and Esau is about.

Please read this:

Genesis 25:21 Isaac prayed to the Lord on behalf of his wife, because she was childless. The Lord answered his prayer, and his wife Rebekah became pregnant. 22 The babies jostled each other within her, and she said, “Why is this happening to me?” So she went to inquire of the Lord. 23 The Lord said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger.”

Now, with the above passage in mind, read this:

Romans 9:10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

If you read the OT text for context, you should see that it was the election of a nation that Paul had in mind in Romans 9. Not the election of an individual to salvation. And that nation was Israel. That is the nation God elected to be the one through which salvation would come in the form of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. That is what Romans 9:10-13 is about. It is not about the individual Jacob being elected to salvation and the indivdual Esau not being elected to salvation as Calvinism imagines.

This is His purpose ~ His purpose, SI, not ours ~ of election.

You are drawing conclusions about the election to salvation based on scripture that speaks of the election of a nation to be the one that salvation would come through. It is because of misinterpretations like this that you end up drawing the wrong conclusions about salvation and how it works.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

He has mercy on some/many, but He hardens others, all according to His will. That He hardens some does not mean in any way that He predestines them to be evil or against Him. Such a thought is ridiculous.

Do you agree that He wants to have mercy on all people as Romans 11:30-32 indicates? If so, what is the reason that He doesn't have mercy on some people? Is He incapable of acting on His desires? Of course not, right? Wouldn't He want to at least give people the opportunity to receive mercy if He wants to have mercy on them? Of course He would! Why not? Yet, Calvinism says that He doesn't even give some people the opportunity to receive mercy. Talk about ridiculous...

However...

As I have said, that part ~ the evil thing ~ is already the natural human condition of all, as we can see throughout Scripture, from Genesis on up, starting with Genesis 3 and 4, really, but:

• In Genesis 6:5, Moses writes, "The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." This is the result of Adam's Fall.

But, what led to it becoming this way? You're not addressing that. As I have pointed out before, Romans 1 indicates that people "become vain in their imaginations" and "become fools". That means they were not previously vain and not previously fools before becoming vain fools. What does that tell you? Does it tell you they were born that way? Clearly not, right? Is Romans 1 talking about all people? No. So, Genesis 6:5 says nothing about WHY people have faith or why they are rebellious and that is what I am trying to discuss here.

• We see it again in Jeremiah 17:9, where we read "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?"

Context, man! You are interpreting verses in isolation without looking at the surrounding context. That's a typical problem for Calvinism.

So, let's actually look at the context of that verse. Is it talking about all the hearts of all people?

Jeremiah 17:7 But blessed is the one who trusts in the Lord, whose confidence is in him. 8 They will be like a tree planted by the water
that sends out its roots by the stream. It does not fear when heat comes; its leaves are always green. It has no worries in a year of droughtand never fails to bear fruit.” 9 The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it? 10 “I the Lord search the heart and examine the mind, to reward each person according to their conduct, according to what their deeds deserve.”

Clearly, this is not talking about all people in verse 9. Surely, "the one who trusts in the Lord, whose confidence is in him" does not have a deceitful heart. So, again, this verse is not addressing why some have deceitful hearts and some don't. Calvinism would say that is just how God made things to be and it's not because of a free will choice that people make. But, scripture doesn't teach that.

• And again from David, as I have said, in Psalm 51:5, when he says, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me."

Another misinterpreted verse. I'll again reference this passage:

Luke 18:16 But Jesus called the children to him and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 17 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

Calvinism teaches that Psalm 51:5 means that people are totally depraved and sinful from birth. Which is utterly ludicrous! Can babies sin? LOL! Of course not. That can't possibly be what that verse means. All it means is that everyone is born with what some call a "sinful nature" or tendency to sin, but surely that can't be acted out until someone is conscious of what they are doing, which babies obviously are not.

If people were totally depraved and sinful even from birth then Jesus surely would not have said what He did in Luke 18:16-17 that I quoted above.

• And again in Isaiah 53, where the prophet writes, "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned ~ every one ~ to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all."

Yep. That does along with Romans 3:23 which says all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. No secret here. But, the question is, can someone recognize that they are a sinner and choose to repent after being made aware of their condition without the need for God to basically cause (make, force, whatever word you want to use) them to repent? I believe so, but Calvinism says they can't. Yet, scripture says Jesus calls sinners to repentance. He doesn't call people to wait around and see if God gives them repentance and faith or not. He calls them to repent NOW! Before it's too late. Calvinism takes the urgency completely away from the preaching of the gospel and from the need for repentance. That is terrible!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

• And again in Romans 1 and 2, where Paul says of unbelievers, "They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them" (Romans 1:29-32) and of believers, "in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things" (Romans 2:1)
• And again in Romans 3:23, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."
• And ~ you know, there are more, but I'll stop with this one from Paul to believers in Ephesians 2:1-3 ~ "...you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience ~ among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind..."

This just cannot be avoided; this "total depravity of man," as John Calvin called it, is literally all through Scripture.

No, it is not. What Calvin did all through scripture was misinterpret it. None of the scriptures you referenced teach total depravity. Not even close! What they teach is that all people are sinners. Well, yeah. No kidding. But, what they don't teach is that sinners are incapable of acknowledging their sins before God without God having to basically make them do that. Again, I feel the need to remind you that Paul taught in Romans 1 that people "become vain in their imaginations" and "become fools" who aren't thankful and don't worship God while having no excuse for that. Calvinism gives them an excuse by saying they are totally depraved from birth and never have any capability of confessing their sins and putting their faith and trust in Jesus for salvation. What better excuse could they have for not repenting and believing than that? But, in reality, they have no excuse.

Yes it does... Pharoah's choice, I agree. But again, God doesn't decide what He's going to do based on our decisions;

This is false and not taught in scripture. It's true that we can't decide what God is going to do, but it's not true that God doesn't ever make decisions based on our decisions. He does. Please read the following:

Jonah 3:1 Then the word of the Lord came to Jonah a second time: 2 “Go to the great city of Nineveh and proclaim to it the message I give you.” 3 Jonah obeyed the word of the Lord and went to Nineveh. Now Nineveh was a very large city; it took three days to go through it. 4 Jonah began by going a day’s journey into the city, proclaiming, “Forty more days and Nineveh will be overthrown.” 5 The Ninevites believed God. A fast was proclaimed, and all of them, from the greatest to the least, put on sackcloth. 6 When Jonah’s warning reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust. 7 This is the proclamation he issued in Nineveh: “By the decree of the king and his nobles: Do not let people or animals, herds or flocks, taste anything; do not let them eat or drink. 8 But let people and animals be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. 9 Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish.” 10 When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened.

God was going to destroy Nineveh if it's people didn't repent within 40 days of Jonah delivering His message to them. It wasn't an empty threat. But, since they did choose to repent, God chose to relent and not destroy them. So, this is a clear example of God making a decision based on what people decided to do. Calvinism has the mistaken impression that this concept somehow would reflect weakness in God, but that is ridiculous. God being merciful and patient with people and lovingly giving them more time to repent is a reflection of His character. God is love (1 John 4:8,16).

His will does not hinge on that of man.

In terms of things that He decrees by His will, that is true. No one can thwart His will. But, in terms of His desires (not to be confused with His will), they can be thwarted. But, only because He chose for it to be that way because of making man responsible and accountable and giving man free will. This is not a reflection of any kind of weakness of God, but rather is a reflection of His love that He gives all people plenty of opportunity to repent and be saved. If some didn't even have that opportunity because God chose to not give them that opportunity, then that would violate His character of being patient with people and loving people.

But yes, God uses all things both in bringing glory to Himself and working all things together for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.

For those who love Him. Not for those who don't love Him. And do people love Him automatically? No. We're not puppets or robots. Love, like faith, is something that comes from reason and from the heart and the will. It is not automatic. It can only come about by choice.

Right, but neither one of us are universalists, and what I am getting at in saying this is that, in response to your statement here, that even though, yes, He wants to have mercy on all people, still, He doesn't.

Why not? Would would He want to do that, but not even make a way so that all people would at least have the opportunity to receive God's mercy, as you believe?

We agree, I think, that not all are His elect, and not all will be saved, so, did He somehow forget about those people? Does Jesus in Matthew 25 say to those on His left, "You know, darn it, I forgot all about you guys. Oh well, sorry..."...? Or anything like that? Well, no. He tells them He never knew them, but again, Jesus, as God, knows everything and everybody, so that is to be understood in the same sense as 'foreknew' in Romans 8:29 above.

Let's get to the real meat of this matter. What is the reason that those on the left end up being "cast into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt 25:41) to experience "everlasting punishment" (Matt 25:46). Based on my understanding of what Calvinism teaches, it is because that was God's will for them before the foundation of the world. Would you agree? If so, I find that to be just completely unacceptable and unbelievable. That does not line up with His character! Scripture says that God loves all people (John 3:16). What kind of love would He be showing those people if He doesn't even give them any opportunity to be saved and predestined them for the lake of fire for eternity? Please address this in detail.

What, that things you have said are your opinions? So you "completely disagree" that your opinion is your opinion? Hm. That seems a bit of an odd thing to say...

LOL. Do you seriously think that I would completely disagree that my opinion is my opinion? Why would I do that? Ridiculous. You obviously just completely misunderstood what I said. Why not say "I must have misunderstood you, so can you clarify?" instead of asking me that ridiculous question? Anyway, moving on...

Okay, back to Stephen and Acts 7...

Answered at least twice above... and again below...

Ah, well, I agree; it's clear to me that they, as unbelievers ~ "uncircumcised in heart and ears" ~ were ignoring the general, outward call of God by His Spirit and, well, dwelling in sin, or, as Paul says in Romans 1, knew God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, yet still not only did these evil things themselves but gave approval to others who practice them.

Ignoring the general, outward call of God by His Spirit for them to do what exactly? And whatever it is, it's something that God fully expected them to do, right? Which would explain why Stephen was angry at them for resisting the Holy Spirit?

 

[PinSeeker]

... how do they become vessels of wrath in the first place? By God's design and His purpose?

You got it! :) As if I haven't been clear about this several times before now... :) Is there anything able to preclude God's will? Again, from Paul in Romans 9, "You will say to me then, 'Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?' But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the Potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known His power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory ~ even us whom He has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?" And again from Ephesians 1, "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us for adoption to Himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will..." So, to your question here, yes. A resounding yes.

No! God forbid! That would be a contradiction of His command and desire for them to repent...

Ohhh, desire again. Goodness gracious. Round and round we go...

Calvinism doesn't take any of this into account for whatever reason.

It doesn't rationalize it away, or consider it "unfair," as Arminianism does.

Invited to what exactly? It's clear to me that they are invited to become part of the bride of Christ (again, see Matthew 22:1-14). Not everyone would be invited if not everyone was capable of accepting the invitation/offer, right?

Oh, my.

PinSeeker: Absolutely not.​

This was in response to me saying "Calvinism says that they are not really responsible.".
Really? What exactly do you think people are held responsible for?

Hm. I'm going to throw that right back to you. Do you really think Calvinists think unbelievers are not responsible for anything in the eyes of God? Surely not.

... if unbelievers are held responsible for ending up in hell despite basically getting an invitation to go to heaven, why are you a Calvinist? Doesn't this mean that the only reason they end up in hell is because they chose to reject God's offer of salvation despite it being a geniune offer that they could and should have accepted instead? I believe so, but that doesn't line up with the idea that they don't believe because they can't believe without God giving them faith, as Calvinism teaches.

You know, with all due respect, Spiritual Israelite, I'm not concerned with how things seem to you. I do understand why some things seem the way they do to you, though. But just to clarify what you say here, really, even this is precluded, by... Well, as Jesus says, "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will never cast out" (John 6:37).

...if Calvinism was correct and someone can only believe if God gives them faith while having no real choice of their own in the matter...

The issue is why anyone is given faith in the first place, having not had it previously, when they were dead in their sin.

Of course the call of the gospel doesn't automatically result in salvation if that's what you mean. But, it is an offer of salvation to all people (Titus 2:11). That is what is portrayed in Matthew 22:1-14.

Well, thank you for including verse 14 this time; yes, "...many are called, but few are chosen."

There was no particular reason I didn't include it.

Okay, fine. :)

I just wanted to quote the parable itself to make my point, which ends in verse 13. Jesus sums it up in verse 14. I have quoted that verse on this forum many times, but usually in relation to end times discussions relating to the bride of Christ or in relation to what the Greek word translated as "few" means in a different verse by showing what it means in that verse (relatively few, not literally few - a multitude of people are chosen/saved, but relatively few in relation to all people).

Okay, yes, agreed, but what you say here is beside the point here. :)

Calvinism makes what you call the outward call/invitation of the gospel meaningless because it says that salvation is entirely up to God with people having no choice in the matter.

No, that's only how you... choose (see what I did there?)... to characterize it. But hey, yes, nobody had annnnnnny choice in how God chose to create the world and... well, manage it. :)

So, Calvinism has some people being invited/called to accept the gospel who are not even capable of accepting it. It makes no sense.

Nope. That's just you doing what you accuse me of: creating a strawman argument. So be it. You're surely not the first, and you won't be the last. :)

PinSeeker: Hm. Interesting question. I guess I would ask a question in response. Why would they not?​

This was in response to me saying "Now, if this general gospel call is not a call to salvation, as it seems you believe, then why is it that those who reject the invitation/call, end up being punished for rejecting it?".

Very interesting that you chose not to answer the question and instead asked a question in response. I take that to mean you don't have an answer to that question.

No answer to your question of "...if this general gospel call is not a call to salvation, as it seems you believe, then why is it that those who reject the invitation/call, end up being punished for rejecting it?" No, that's not the case; it surely doesn't mean that... :) The question itself is very flawed; I do not believe "the general gospel call is not a call to salvation." So it make the question itself null and void.

My answer to your question is that there is no reason why they wouldn't be from my perspective.

Okay, well, see above. :)

But, from the Calvinist perspective, I don't see any reason for them to be punished for not accepting the gospel if, as Calvinism teaches, they can only accept it if God gives them faith.

Well, they can't accept the things of the Spirit if they're not born of the Spirit.

That makes no sense. Punished for what exactly? Not doing something that they are not even capable of doing? Is that how punishment works? No.

Hoo, boy. :) Round and round and round...

I've already shown the example of the ones Stephen rebuked for resisting the Holy Spirit.

Right, and I've demonstrated ~ from Scripture ~ your errant thinking on this. :)

You think this way...

Well, no I don't... :)

...you have the wrong understanding of God's purpose of election and salvation...

We think the same of each other. Okay. :) This round and round and round... and your constant mischaracterizations of Calvinism... and your rationalizations regarding various passages of Scripture... have to end somewhere. But hey, that's your choice. :)

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." (Paul, 1 Corinthians 2:14)

John Calvin did not "make it up," Spritual Israelite.

Here is yet another verse that you are misinterpreting. It's getting tiring having to correct all your misinterpretations.

What is that verse talking about? A person's ability to humble themselves, repent and put their faith in Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior? No! Context! Please start learning to look for the context in scripture instead of plucking individual verses out of scripture and interpreting them in isolation without any consideration of their context.

1 Corinthians 12:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

So, the context of what Paul said in verse 14 is related to "the deep things of God", as can be seen by looking at the context starting in verse 10. Things like the gospel message and people's need to repent and have faith for salvation are not part of "the deep things of God" that Paul was referencing here. If you continue reading into 1 Corinthians 3, you can see that the deep things of God would be what Paul referred to as the meat or solid food of God's word as opposed to the milk. In 1 Corinthians 3, Paul rebuked people for still only understanding the milk and not yet being ready for the solid food. So, the deep things of God would include the kind of things we're talking about here. Surely, no person who does not have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them can possibly understand these deeper things that we're talking about. Many Christians can't even understand these things.

So, you can't use 1 Corinthians 2:14 to support your previous claim that "The natural condition, the condition from birth, of the human heart, because of the consequences of Adam's sin, is to be wholly inclined against God.". That verse does not support that claim whatsoever.

I already spoke to this, SI. Jesus was referring to the trusting nature of children, and saying that we, as children of God, should be the same way... having a childlike faith.

But, you say they are "wholly inclined against God" from birth. What's this "trusting nature" you speak of? If they are "wholly inclined against God" then they certainly would not have any "trusting nature" in relation to Jesus and His gospel.

As I said above, everything God does is for His own glory. And to this specifically, Paul says in Romans 9, asking the question, but only for effect, "What if God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known His power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory ~ even us whom He has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?"

Again, that passage has nothing to do with God making someone a vessel of wrath even from birth. God forbid! What kind of God would He be in that case? Could we say "God is love" in that case? No. Yet, He is.

No one is saying that God can't do as He wishes with people. That isn't what we're debating. What I'm getting at is, did those vessels of wrath have an opportunity to repent at some point before God decided to use them for His purposes (like Pharaoah, for example)? Can you please address that instead of saying things that you should know we both agree on?

Hmm, well, all we know as far as that goes is that he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, and thus would not to listen to God regarding letting the Hebrews go. I'm not so sure he was an "evil dictator," SI; he did have Joseph as his second in command and gave a lot of folks, including Jacob/Israel, sanctuary through the famine, right? <chuckles> Really, for all we know, Pharoah might have been a pretty nice fellow.

Oh yeah, I'm sure he was a great guy. God always takes His wrath out on nice people by killing them as a way to show His appreciation. ;)

But you have said several times in no uncertain terms that God only does what He does in response to what we do.

I have never said that in any way, shape or form. I absolutely do not believe that. But, does He sometimes do things in response to what we do? Of course He does! Do you think He never responds to your prayers? I showed the example of how He responded to the repentance of tne Ninevites. You need to read more carefully so that you stop misrepresenting my beliefs.

No, I saw your... well, rationalization... :) Several times now. :)

:):):):)

And there's the rationalization again.

Yep. You do understand that rationalization isn't necessarily a bad thing? I'm giving reasons for why I believe what I do and you seem to not give them any thought and avoid addressing them directly a lot of times. You just give your pat answers most of the time, it seems.

Who God gives mercy to and who He hardens depends on God alone, according to His will; there is nothing anywhere in Scripture that even suggests God's will regarding anything depends on man's, and it is against Paul's very point in that very passage, that it depends not on man's will but God's.

Do you understand that I have not said otherwise? Are you really reading what I'm saying? What I'm saying is that, yes, God gives mercy to whoever He pleases without man telling Him who to have mercy on, according to His will. But, it just so happens that it's His will that He give everyone the opportunity to receive His mercy. That's why it says "For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." (Romans 11:32). So, I am explaining what that verse means. You, on the other hand, don't seem to have any explanation for it. You apparently think God desires to have mercy on all people but purposely makes it so that is not even possible. Which makes no sense.

Again, you said before, "You should not interpret a verse like Romans 9:18 and draw conclusions from it without taking other scripture like Romans 11:30-32 into account." Well, fine; I agree, but as I said in response, "You can't then discount Romans 9:14-18."

I'm not discounting Romans 9:14-18! Are you kidding me? I have addressed it and you know it. Whether you agree with my interpretation or not is beside the point. You can't say I'm discounting it. I absolutely am not.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You got it! :) As if I haven't been clear about this several times before now... :) Is there anything able to preclude God's will?

In the other 40 times you asked me this did I ever answer yes? No, I didn't. But, you still think you have to ask me that again. I guess you are a robot that just repeats the same things over and over again just like your doctrine teaches that we all are. Just robots that God programs and nothing more.

Nothing precluded God's will to legitimately offer salvation to all people.

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people.

Ohhh, desire again. Goodness gracious. Round and round we go...

Do you have something against desire? Do you believe that God desires to have mercy on all people as Romans 11:32 says or do you just have something against the concept of desire that prevents you from accepting that scripture? Do you believe that God desires for all pepole to be saved as it says in 1 Timothy 2:3-6 or is your phobia against desire too much to overcome for you to accept what that scripture teaches?

Oh, my.

Great answer. I asked a legitimate question and this is all you can come up with. Yep, this discussion is definitely nearing its end.

Hm. I'm going to throw that right back to you. Do you really think Calvinists think unbelievers are not responsible for anything in the eyes of God? Surely not.

LOL. By now, you know that the main topic of discussion is in relation to salvation so that's the perspective I've mostly been speaking from.

So, no, I don't really think that, but at the same time I'm not exactly sure what Calvinists think unbelievers are responsible for in the eyes of God? What do you think they are responsible for?

You know, with all due respect, Spiritual Israelite, I'm not concerned with how things seem to you.

No due respect needed. I don't expect you to be concerned about that. I'm certainly not concerned with how things seem to you, either.

I do understand why some things seem the way they do to you, though. But just to clarify what you say here, really, even this is precluded, by... Well, as Jesus says, "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will never cast out" (John 6:37).

What was your reason for posting that verse? I agree with it wholeheartedly, so I hope you didn't post it as an attempt to refute anything I've said. If that was your intention then that would mean you don't even understand my view.

The issue is why anyone is given faith in the first place, having not had it previously, when they were dead in their sin.

That's an issue for you, not for me since I don't even believe that saving faith is something that God gives to people. Being dead in sin is not equivalent to being unconscious and unable to do anything. It means your sin separates you from a relationship with God, but does not mean you are unable to understand the gospel and unable to respond to it with repentance and faith.

Well, thank you for including verse 14 this time; yes, "...many are called, but few are chosen."

As if I purposely avoided that before for some reason, which I did not. I agree wholeheartedly with what that verse says.

Okay, yes, agreed, but what you say here is beside the point here.

Of course it was, but since you seemed to think I purposely avoided including Matthew 22:14 for some reason, I felt the need to explain how that was not the case.

Nope. That's just you doing what you accuse me of: creating a strawman argument. So be it. You're surely not the first, and you won't be the last.

I said "So, Calvinism has some people being invited/called to accept the gospel who are not even capable of accepting it.". Are you telling me that is wrong? Are you telling me that Calvinism teaches that everyone who is invited/called to accept the gospel, which is all people, are capable of accepting it?

No answer to your question of "...if this general gospel call is not a call to salvation, as it seems you believe, then why is it that those who reject the invitation/call, end up being punished for rejecting it?" No, that's not the case; it surely doesn't mean that... :) The question itself is very flawed; I do not believe "the general gospel call is not a call to salvation." So it make the question itself null and void.

What do you think is the purpose of the so-called "general gospel call" then?

Hoo, boy. :) Round and round and round...

Hoo, doggy. You sure don't like to address any questions about why God punishes people and sentences them to an eternity in the lake of fire while keeping in mind that you believe that was His will for them. I can see why that would make a Calvinist uncomfortable. Hoo, boy. That one sure is hard to explain. Best to not even try, right.

Right, and I've demonstrated ~ from Scripture ~ your errant thinking on this.

You maybe think you have but not in any convincing way whatsoever.

We think the same of each other. Okay. :) This round and round and round... and your constant mischaracterizations of Calvinism...

Nope. I have not done that. You just don't like to think about the ramifications of what you believe when I point them out. I am not mischaracterizing Calvinism at all. This is what Calvinists always claim when their view is refuted. They know it's been refuted so they just claim that it's been mischaracterized to try to gloss over that.

and your rationalizations regarding various passages of Scripture

Haven't done that either. There's no reason to resort to this dishonesty. We can have an honest discussion without resorting to making things up about the other person.

... have to end somewhere. But hey, that's your choice.

You mean you think I have a choice? Are you sure? Maybe there's hope for you, after all.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Continued from above... :)


Ah, so you're asking, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" Right? That's the question Paul is attributing to his hearers, in Romans 9:19.

Actually, no. I am not asking that at all. It's clear at this point that you do not understand some of what I believe and I don't know what to do to get you to understand it. I find no fault in God using Pharaoh the way He did. I mention that because that is an example Paul gave of what he was talking about in Romans 9 just before that verse. So, that example applies here.

What I find fault in is the Calvinist idea that God planned before the foundation of the world for Pharaoah to be totally depraved from birth and planned for him to be the evil ruler of Egypt who would keep God's people as his slaves. I find fault in the Calvinist teaching that God doesn't really love all people because He predestines some people, like Pharaoh, to never in their lives have any opportunity for salvation which means he predestines them to an eternity in the lake of fire. I find fault with the Calvinist idea that God condemns and punishes people for not believing in His Son (John 3:18, 2 Thess 1:7-9) despite them not being given faith and having no chance at all of believing in His Son. Scripture says God is love and that is not a description of a God of love.

So, do you understand now what I believe or is it just hopeless for you to understand?

And then further, (vv.20-21), "But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?"

See above. I'm not asking any questions like that. I don't see it as God planning for Pharaoh to be the way he was from birth, but rather that God saw an evil person like that and used him to display His wrath and show His power and make His name known throughout the earth like it says in Romans 9:17.

Other than that, I would end where Paul does in Romans 11:33-36, saying, with Him, "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and how inscrutable His ways! 'For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been His counselor?' 'Or who has given a gift to Him that he might be repaid?'"

Be careful how literally you take that. Who has known the mind of the Lord? What does that mean? Well, we certainly aren't Him and aren't capable of fully knowing and understanding His thoughts. However...

1 Corinthians 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.

Okay, fair enough... But God loves all His creation.

Do you really believe that? I ask that because I'm wondering, from the Calvinist perspective, how exactly does God love those who He predestined to condemn, take His wrath out on and cast into the lake of fire for eternity?

Yet still, He chooses to have mercy on whom He will and to harden whom He will... I would submit to you, Spiritual Israelite, that even His punishment is really an act of love. If a parent punishes his or her child, why does he or she do it? Because he or she does not love his or her child anymore? Well no...

To correct them and lead them to a life of doing what is right. Now, when it comes to unbelievers being punished on judgment day, is that for the purpose of correcting them so they will change their ways and do what is right? No, it's eternal punishment. What is your explanation for that? Is that an act of love? Clearly not. His act of love for them would have come previously when He offered them salvation (Titus 2:11).

But they will regret (to put it mildly) having been given every opportunity to repent and believe, even having been endured with great patience, and even given great measures of grace through it all, but still chosen to remain in rebellion against God. This regret will be their anguish. We see that with the rich man in Jesus's parable at the end of Luke 16.

But, your doctrine says that someone can only repent and believe if God gives repentance and faith to them. So, what would they be regretting from the Calvinist perspective? That God didn't give them faith and repentance? We both know that is not the context of Luke 16:19-31. The regret is over something the rich man knows he should and could have done, but willfully chose not to. That's the only thing that makes sense.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The outward call of salvation. See, you seem to agree, and then you keep backtracking and, well, really, refuting yourself.

No, you just don't understand what I'm saying. So be it. But, I absolutely am not refuting myself. That's ridiculous. Give me a break.

Spiritual Israelite, Who is the real Writer of Scripture? As I'm sure you will recall, "all Scripture is breathed out by God"... Paul says this in 2 Timothy 3:16.

Of course. So, don't ask me questions that you know I already know the answer. It's a waste of time.

This implies that God the Father is the source or origin of what is recorded in Scripture, of course, but also that God, through the Holy Spirit, used human authors to write what He revealed in the Bible. They were not mere copyists or transcribers. The Holy Spirit superintended the writing of Scripture, so much so that He is the real Author.

You don't need to tell me this. Goodness sakes....

My point, then, is that the Holy Spirit really issues both the outward call of the Gospel and of Scripture (which is general to all) and the inward call of God in the conferring of salvation upon/within the person (which is issued specifically only to God's elect).

So with that in mind, read Acts 7:51 again. Stephen calls those to whom he is speaking "uncircumcised in heart and ears." Now, remember what Paul says in Romans 2:28-29 (which he wrote probably sometime within the time setting of all the events Luke records in Acts). Paul says, "no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God." So Stephen is saying they are unconverted, and thus they always reject the Holy Spirit's call because of this uncircumcision in heart and ears." In other words, they always reject the outward, general call of salvation because they are unbelievers. And this fits perfectly with what Jesus tells the Jews to whom He is speaking in John 10. When they ask Him, "If you are the Christ, tell us plainly,” Jesus says, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep."

Yes, but why are they unbelievers in the first place? That's what you miss. Why are they hard of spiritual hearing and seeing?

Matthew 13:15 For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’

Notice how it says they have closed their own eyes. They have plugged their own ears. Their hearts BECAME calloused. They did that to themselves. By choice. They alone are responsible for not believing in Christ. It isn't because they were not given faith as determined by God before the foundation of the world, as Calvinists believe. It's because they chose not to believe. And look what else it says. If they hadn't close their own eyes, they otherwise could have seen, heard and understood and turned to Christ and He would have healed them spiritually. This puts the responsibility of repentance and faith in response to the gospel squarely on man and not on God, as Calvinism does. Calvinism places the responsibility for them not believing on God because He chose not to give them faith. My view puts the responsibility on man where it belongs. Otherwise, there is no reason for a day of judgment. Judged for what? Failing to do what they had no ability to do or weren't given the gift to do? Nonsense.

And I have never said such. But it does say that being dead in sins means that people will not make this choice.

What says that? Scripture says that Jesus calls sinners who are dead in their sins to repentance. Jesus fully believed that sinners who were dead in sins could make that choice and many did. But, you say they will not? You are contradicting scripture.

Those people will not call upon the name of the Lord. The ones that will call upon the name of the Lord are the ones that the Lord calls.

Nope. Here's that verse again. Matthew 22:14. Many are called, but few are chosen. You are acting as if all who are called are chosen. Again, you are contradicting scripture.

So dead is not really dead? That's pretty much what Arminians say...

Do you understand what the word dead means? It doesn't seem like it. It doesn't mean having no consciousness. When we physically die do we lose consciousness or do we retain our consciousness as our souls go to heaven (see Revelation 6:9-11)? To be physically dead simply means to be separate from our bodies and is not a case of losing all consciousness.

Being spiritually dead in sins does not equate to someone having no ability to be conscious of sin and no ability to be sorry for his or her sins and no ability to acknowledge to God that he or she is a sinner in need of His mercy. You are creating a definition for death that doesn't exist.

 

[Timtofly]

Certainly Peter was aware of the consequences of denying, so constraint of fate is present when someone denies Jesus, right?

Peter was not even aware of what Jesus said a few hours earlier. Peter gave himself no time to think about his actions. He should not have even been at that fire. He already drew a sword and cut off an ear. Why do you think Peter remembers Jesus' words when he was only thinking of fighting and keeping Jesus from being obedient to God?

Peter was being driven by his flesh, and before he knew it, denied he even knew Jesus, because he was some place he should not have been.

"And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept."

He did not even remember what Jesus said, until after he had already done what Jesus said he would do.


You make it sound like Peter was going back and forth thinking "will I or won't I?". "Will I do what Jesus said or not"? No, Peter had forgotten, so no, Peter was not aware of the consequences, nor was he even conflicted about what Jesus warned him about, because he was not thinking at all but acting out of impulse of human understanding. Until his memory kicked in when he heard the rooster crow again.

I have pointed out that acting out of impulse is not the definition of free will. So why is Peter's actions even a matter of free will. Your point is that God said it would happen and it did. It would have happened even if God had not said it would. The verse is not making a doctrinal statement that God in His foreknowledge was forcing Peter to go against Peter’s will or God's will. Even if foreknowledge happened, then Jesus just saw what Peter would do, not that Peter was forced to do it, because God knew it would happen. Nor did Jesus tell Peter and force him to do it, because he would do it anyway.

You are trying to force the issue, that Peter had to do it with or without a choice, because the lack of choice means the lack of free will. Well duh! If Peter had taken the time to stop and think and reason it out and remembered what Jesus said, he could have chosen not to do it and went home like the rest of the disciples. No one was forcing Peter to act impulsively, not even God.

 

[Timtofly]

No, I would say it's quite possible to make impulsive decisions. People do things without really thinking very, very often

I would say that acting impulsively, and not thinking equates to the fate side of the equation, or as some put it; acting naturally without thinking, or the devil made me do it.

Therefore they say free will cannot exist, because we would have have always done it that way naturally.

Free will is the ability to have a choice without being coerced by fate or God. The example of Peter here is that God said he would do it, thus it was already determined. However it was not God that predicted it, but Peter acting impulsively. Which was the point Jesus was making to begin with, when Peter impulsively denied to what Jesus had said about the sheep being scattered that was already a prophecy that would come to pass.

One could point out Peter chose not to be among the scattered sheep of his own free will, to later be proven he did something worse than just running away. Once Peter entered impulse mode, all choices and decisions were no longer viable.

I think the issue is that free will goes against human nature, one reason why many deny it even exists.

The point of determinism is valid but not directly of God to be. Most don't accept the fact God took away Adam's incorruptible physical body, and gave Adam a physical body of corruption and death. That was God determining one's will would be bent towards sin and rebellion against God. That was the punishment of death though, physical. Not something Adam did, but the direct result of Adam's disobedience, was God putting humankind from Adam and Eve into a state of death. The will would not be at odds, living in direct disobedience to God. That punishment was God letting humans decide on their own to be righteous, not that God would force us to be righteous. Then God added the fact that our righteousness would not save us nor remove us from that state of Death, but only God would.

None of that dictates that free will cannot exist, but does work. Except free will cannot save a person. One cannot choose to escape death, but can only trust that God will change us. That is not what calvanism teaches though. The "church" had inserted themselves into the position that the human church could redeem mankind outside of God's plan. Calvanism was a response against the apostate church. Free will just means we can freely choose the gift of salvation or freely reject that gift of salvation. Our choice has no effect on what God already did on the Cross. Our sin was already paid for prior to creation, and Adam's disobedience. The result of our choice determines our eternal destination, not that God forces us into the second death, without our ability to choose.

Calvanism instead of being focused against the apostate church, then turned into a doctrine that attacked the very Word of God, by even using Scripture to contradict other Scripture.

For one simple example: In Romans 1, Paul did not define a hyper-sinner. Meaning taking an idea to the extreme. Paul called them reprobate, where God steps in and removes one's choice of redemption. Thus taking away the free gift of salvation. That is limited Atonement, because God set a limit to that Atonement, that would not cover that individual past a certain point.

But that is not what many hold in the doctrine of Calvanism. They set a limit in God's foreknowledge that some would never be redeemed from before creation. Just like this argument of God's foreknowledge of Peter’s denial. Because God already knew the end, He chose not to include the majority in His act of redemption on the Cross.

I am not sure, that if people understood that free will was an ability to act against our own nature, that would help clear up what free will is? Most think free will is just doing as we please with our sinful human nature. Free will is not the lack of constraint, but the ability to make a choice about an action that may or may not happen.

Human nature constrains us against God's will. God constrains us against our sinful nature. Free will should be viewed as us choosing to work in God's will without being constrained to do so. That is true liberty and freedom. But sinful humans define their terms, and most do not even acknowledge God, but chose against their will to include God somewhat unwillingly in the definition. I am sure many would just settle on fate as the constraining factor, to allow determinism to to stand outside of one's control. For one, I would say that fate does not exist, thus begrudgingly have to accept that point that other humans do. Since fate does not exist, the argument that determinism does because of fate, would mean determinism does not exist either. And the point free will cannot exist because of determinism, would also mean free will does exist, because determinism does not.

God did set laws into creation that determine boundaries, thus nature does not allow one to just do as they please. But that is not fate, nor determinism. Even most would not say fate is doing as one pleases. Some people are smart enough to see that just being selfish is one's worse enemy. They just invent this condition called fate, to transfer the responsibility, as one is constrained to mostly act against one's will. They have attempted to divorce themselves from human nature by redefining human nature and calling it fate.

 

[grafted branch]

If Peter had taken the time to stop and think and reason it out and remembered what Jesus said, he could have chosen not to do it and went home like the rest of the disciples. No one was forcing Peter to act impulsively, not even God.

Ok, let’s run with the idea that Peter could’ve not made the denial. That means Jesus has the potential to lie.

Based on this assumption then maybe Peter didn’t make the denial after all, maybe Peters’ denial was just a fabricated story to make it look like Jesus told the truth. Maybe Peter wept after the cock crowd twice because he then knew Jesus wasn’t telling the truth and Peter felt like he just wasted the last several years of his life. All this is potentially true if Jesus has the potential to lie.

Are you kidding me? Peter had to make the denial once he was told he would do so by Jesus, no doubt about that.

Let me ask you this, can a future beast or Antichrist use their own free will to not overcome the saints? Not to implement the mark of the beast? If these questions are true then for all we know the Antichrist could’ve come and gone already, maybe he got saved a some church rally or something, who knows.

 

[Timtofly]

In a manner of speaking, but it will actually be an inumerable multitude -- as the stars of heaven, the grains of sand on the seashore, as God told Abraham.

Not in a manner of speaking. Still only a few compared to every soul, conceived.

You also have God with two wills: one, that all come to repentance. Two, that not all can even come to repentance. So which will have you concocted, that is not true of God?

 

[Timtofly]

Okay, fair enough... But God loves all His creation. Yet still, He chooses to have mercy on whom He will and to harden whom He will

Yet you have a contradiction here.

Did God harden all prior to creation, or is that on an individual basis? Once again one is using foreknowledge to determine what God did before creation. So did God do something prior to creation or after a person had been around for dozens of years? If God told Moses He would harden Pharaoh's heart, did that mean God already did that prior to creation, or yet still a future event?

Also I am not sure how these individual examples define God's redemption plan, which is a totally different point to creation.

One could also point out a difference between a hardened heart in one instance, and a reprobate condition in a totally seperate instance. Both are not conditions determined from birth, but from choices one makes over a lifetime.

God did not harden Pharaoh's heart because it was already hardened by choice, nor would hardening Pharaoh's heart really work if it was Pharaoh's will to let them go. It would seem God hardened Pharaoh's heart, because Pharaoh could not make up his mind. If Pharaoh kept changing his mind, that would indicate that he still was making choices for and against, but God was not done working until the death angel Passover happened. If Israel had left a week earlier, there would have been no Passover.

When people claim he had no choice in the matter, they seem to forget that Pharaoh kept changing his mind which is having the ability to choose one way or the other. Pharaoh could not keep his heart hardened, so God stepped in and took away that double mindedness. Obviously once God hardened Pharaoh's heart, that removed free will and Pharaoh's ability to choose. But that certainly does not prove there is no free will. Nor does that mean Pharaoh's heart was hardened prior to creation because of God's foreknowledge.

But then people claim that because of God's foreknowledge, the Atonement was limited to only those whom God chose. Nope, God's foreknowledge did not stop God's will that any should perish, so all were covered by the Atonement, until a point the Lamb's book of life was unsealed, and only then would names be removed. Even though God hardened Pharaoh's heart way back then, his name is still in the Lamb's book of life, and will only be removed at the GWT Judgment, if that is Pharaoh's will. The choice is still a free will option even after thousands of years in sheol.

Pharaoh's heart was not hardened for his eternal destination. God hardened Pharaoh's heart to change the course of Israel's history, and set up the Passover in preparation for the act of Salvation on the Cross. So saying that God chooses whom He will as vessels of honor or vessels of condemnation is not proof that the Atonement itself was limited to only an "elect" few.

Paul starts out Romans 9 giving us his personal opinion, and then reconciling that opinion using Scripture. Just like most posters do.

"That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh."

But no where in that chapter should it be implied that God only provided limited Atonement for a select few. Paul was not saying that since God hardened Pharaoh's heart, that only a select amount of humanity would be redeemed.

"What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction....?"

This is a question not a statement of declaration. Paul is asking can God go against His own will and endure those God fitted to live against God's Will. The question is never answered by Paul. Paul does point out that Israel should have taken advantage of God's Law and grace but did not. And Paul pointed out the Gentiles outside of the Law did not have to remain condemned, but could enter the righteousness God set up in the Law. So no one was left without an excuse to receive Salvation, not even because of some alleged "limited Atonement".

Should we assume that after the Reformation, calvanism had it all figured out, even though Paul himself never gave a definitive answer?

 

[Timtofly]

Ohhhhh... I do... See above.

Romans 8:29

"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. 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."

Once again which is the largest group? Those at the start or those glorified? Since you have stated this foreknowledge is not just knowing something, but choosing these people, and God is not willing that any should perish, then those God foreknew, even by your definition is all who were ever conceived. Then each step gets smaller until we have those glorified.

We know that all will not be glorified in this creation, even though your amil eschatology takes over where your calvanism falls short.

The thousand year reign has billions glorified in Paradise, while billions will be justified on earth, all the while trillions are waiting in sheol to even stand in judgment. I say trillions because no one knows how many people lived on the earth prior to the Flood.

Certainly the church has not been glorified at this point. Even if you deny those souls in heaven do not have a physical body, they have been justified, or they would not be allowed in God's presence. We are not justified, because we still have Adam's dead corruptible flesh, and cannot drop into visit those in heaven by choice. Certainly you have been called and predestinated along with "foreloved". Many are still on the fence, at some point in this explanation by Paul.

So how can you still say there is only one group and one size from beginning to end?

 

[Timtofly]

Are you kidding me? Peter had to make the denial once he was told he would do so by Jesus, no doubt about that.

No, you are kidding yourself to think Peter had to deny. Did Peter have to cut off the ear of the person coming to arrest Jesus? Did Peter have to flee, when the OT prophet said he was supposed to?

Peter did not have to be remorseful either.

 

[Timtofly]

Let me ask you this, can a future beast or Antichrist use their own free will to not overcome the saints? Not to implement the mark of the beast?

God places the mark on those who receive the mark. Humans will have the choice to either chop off their head, or God will mark them as being removed from the Lamb's book of life.

The point of being overcome is that it is God's will that Jesus and the 144k vacate Jerusalem, so Satan can have 100% control of earth.