The Second Death Destroys Man's False Amill Theory

[PinSeeker]

Clearly, telling someone to read something carefully that they said themselves and obviously already read implies that you think they didn't read it carefully.

It can, but it can mean something entirely different, and in this case did. Only, "I'm going to say this, and read it carefully." There was nothing to it other than that. Would you now dictate what I meant by what I said? Would you impose an entirely different motive and context on me? I hope not, because that would be terribly hypocritical.

I say that the earth will be changed as you do, just with a different understanding of how that will occur.

Which is what I have said in different ways many times.

...why did God ever destroy the earth with a flood?

As far as I know it was still the same earth...

That caused some things to cease to exist.

Yes, "things," living things, but not the earth itself. The face of the earth was not... damaged.

I'm saying you make it confusing for me, not for you.

Right, which is a you thing, as I have said. But even what I have said is not confusing, really, it just, well, confuses the things you believe. I mean, it should; it should call them into question. Yeah, I mean, many of the things I have said should cause you to... oh, reexamine some of the things you have said. But then there's this thing called humility...

I can't help it that I find you to be hard to follow sometimes.

Fair enough. But there have been very very few times you've asked me to clarify anything; all I get, pretty much, is "No, no, no!" So... you don't have to, but I think it would be very fair to say that a good bit of it is just willful ignorance. Not to say, "you are ignorant," but that you just refuse to consider things a bit differently. Well, okay.

We just have a bit different way of explaining things, so we end up not understanding each other sometimes.

Right, so do we then just shut each other off? I don't...

It's no one's fault, but you're always looking to place the blame somewhere.

Your choosing not to consider something is your own fault. Like I said, fair enough, but it is what it is. If I were to do that, then yeah, that would be my own fault.

Wrong. That's utterly ridiculous. <guffaws>

Yes you arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre... <smile> Again, denial ain't just a river in Egypt! <smile>

That's like saying my belief that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with literal, physical fire instead of Him doing it as a consuming fire is a case of being selective.

I'm almost afraid to ask, but you do believe that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with literal, physical fire, don't you?

Yes, but it was a literal picture of what will figuratively and spiritually happen to unbelievers at the end of this age and for eternity. This is why I spoke of the things of the Old Testament, like the law being far greater than their Old Testament manifestation. The woodenly literal things of the Old Testament are only indicative and point to their true New Testament ~ even eternal ~ manifestation. Now, case in point, that may be hard for one to wrap his head around and really grasp, but it is not "confusing" or hard to understand in and of itself.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

They are capable. But, as Paul says in Romans 1, they exchanged the truth for a lie, and this is an act of volition. No one is forced to do that. Therefore, they have no excuse.

If it's an act of volition, doesn't that mean they could have chosen to not exchange the truth for a lie instead? I believe so, but that isn't what Calvinism teaches. I believe Calvinism gives them an excuse because it says that they are not capable of doing anything else but exchanging the truth for a lie due to God not choosing them before the foundation of the world and due to them supposedly being totally depraved from birth.

<chuckles> And because of your Arminian soteriology (whether you attribute that to yourself or not)... same back atcha. Plus, you're... well, I won't say 'confused" about it but you're mis-attributing certain things to Calvinism itself.

No, I'm not mis-attributing anything to Calvinism.

Sure and they do, but being one of God's elect does not depend on man's willing or doing but on God's mercy.

That's your understanding of Romans 9:16, but I have a different understanding that actually matches up with the rest of scripture. God doesn't have to have mercy on anyone if He doesn't want to and that isn't dependent on man at all. That is up to God. But, the part of the story that you fail to even mention is that God wants to have mercy on all people. So, that's why He offers salvation to all people (Titus 2:11) and why Jesus died, not for our sins only, but the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:1-2).

Romans 11:30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32 For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Who has God bound over to disobedience? Everyone. For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23). So, who did God bound over to disobedience that He may have mercy on them? Everyone. Not just a select few, as Calvinism teaches. Everyone gets a legitimate opportunity at salvation.

Well, it probably would be about the 4,936th time. <smile>

Then we could have a private conversation about this instead if you want since it's been discussed there so many times already. Or not. But, let's try not to have it go on for several pages here, at least, since this is the Eschatology forum and not the Soteriology forum.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

As far as I know it was still the same earth...

Obviously. You're missing the point and...so be it. Not worth trying to spell it out any further.

Yes, "things," living things, but not the earth itself. The face of the earth was not... damaged.

The earth itself was changed significantly (do some research if you don't think so), which is my point about what will happen when God renews the earth by fire. It won't be a completely different earth, but it will be changed and won't be exactly like the earth is now.

Right, which is a you thing, as I have said.

Everything you say is a you thing and what I say is a me thing. No kidding. No point in saying that.

But even what I have said is not confusing, really, it just, well, confuses the things you believe. I mean, it should; it should call them into question. Yeah, I mean, many of the things I have said should cause you to... oh, reexamine some of the things you have said. But then there's this thing called humility...

How are you being humble by acting like it's only me that should reexamine some things, but not you? LOL. Again, you have no self awareness.

Fair enough. But there have been very very few times you've asked me to clarify anything; all I get, pretty much, is "No, no, no!"

Welcome to my world. LOL! You have so much lack of self awareness.

So... you don't have to, but I think it would be very fair to say that a good bit of it is just willful ignorance. Not to say, "you are ignorant," but that you just refuse to consider things a bit differently. Well, okay.

That's not true at all. I consider what you're saying and I disagree with it (when I can understand it).

Yes you arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre... <smile> Again, denial ain't just a river in Egypt! <smile>

No one is in denial more than you are. Deny deny deny. It's what you do.

Of course a Scientologist wouldn't understand. Kidding. The point is that you say I'm being selective in seeing 2 Peter 3:10-12 as being literal, physical fire instead of God's figurative consuming fire, so would you apply that to how I interpret Luke 17:26-30 to be talking about literal, physical fire coming down on Sodom as well? If not, why not?

 

[PinSeeker]

If it's an act of volition, doesn't that mean they could have chosen to not exchange the truth for a lie instead?

Sure. Of course.

I believe so, but that isn't what Calvinism teaches.

What you... think... Calvinism teaches. But it doesn't. A false attribution.

I believe Calvinism gives them an excuse...

Okay, but considering what I said directly above, maybe you should re-think this, right? I mean, I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but come on. The premise for your believing this, that Calvinism does not teach that they could have chosen to not exchange the truth for a lie instead, is false, so... maybe you should re-think things in that light. Right?

because it says that they are not capable...

We've talked about this, too, SI. To say someone is not capable of something, can have different meanings, can be said in different senses. Even Jesus says, "With man this is impossible," right? Well, in a certain sense ~ the wrong one, that, woodenly speaking, he can't ~ it is very much possible. But if understood correctly ~ in the correct sense, that because of the natural disposition of his heart he won't ~ it's impossible.

...of doing anything else but exchanging the truth for a lie due to God not choosing them before the foundation of the world and due to them supposedly being totally depraved from birth.

This is the result of the Fall. He fell into this state, and it has been the natural human condition from birth. This is what places everyone in need of salvation. From birth. And, if you want to blame Adam, go right ahead, but you're really blaming yourself, too, and very much correctly. Adam fell short of the glory of God, and as a result, we "all fall short of the Glory of God." "Just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned."

No, I'm not mis-attributing anything to Calvinism.

Yes you are. I don't mean to say you're intentionally doing it, but you are indeed doing it.

That's your understanding of Romans 9:16, but I have a different understanding that actually matches up with the rest of scripture.

LOL! Well, I'll say this, that in the many conversations I've had on this board of this nature, I quote from the gospels, Romans 9 and 11, John 1 and 3, Ephesians 1 and 2, 1 Timothy, Colossians, 1 Peter 1, and even back into the Old Testament with Exodus, Deuteronomy, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the Psalms (not an exhaustive list), and the only thing I ever get back is "No, no, no." I'm like, "Hey, you know, okay, if you have some different understanding of those passages, then tell me... maybe you'll change my mind..." and I never get any kind of alternate understanding of those passages. But, maybe this time will be different...

God doesn't have to have mercy on anyone if He doesn't want to and that isn't dependent on man at all.

Right. Exactly what Paul says in Romans 9. And Moses, in Exodus, which is actually Moses quoting God Himself.

But, the part of the story that you fail to even mention is that God wants to have mercy on all people.

Ah yes, as if that's never been part of any of these discussions... LOL! Yes, His heart is that everyone would be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. 1 Timothy 2:4. No, I do mention that, of course, but ~ as is the case so often in all kind of theological discussions, people at least sometimes understand certain things in different senses than they are actually in.

So, that's why He offers salvation to all people (Titus 2:11) and why Jesus died, not for our sins only, but the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:1-2).

Yes, but there's this little thing called His justice that He does not compromise. And the fact is that if God could withhold His mercy and compassion from everyone ~ because no one deserves it in any way ~ thereby leaving everyone to his or her own selfish desires, as Paul puts it in Romans 1, if He so chose, and He would be perfectly just in doing so. But then there is grace, which moves Him to... as Paul says in Romans 9 (and Moses ~ actually God Himself ~ says in Exodus)... have mercy on whom He will have mercy, compassion on whom He will have compassion. And then this manifests itself in that the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the triune God, gives the person new birth, even while we were still dead in our sin. This is God's amazing grace.

Who has God bound over to disobedience? Everyone. For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).

Sure. This is a result of the fall. So, you're... kind of... well not "kind of," you are... stating your belief in... total depravity... GASP! <smile>... even from birth... GASP! <smile>

So, who did God bound over to disobedience that He may have mercy on them? Everyone. Not just a select few, as Calvinism teaches.

Calvinism does not teach "a select few" in this sense... see above; another false attribution. The "select few" ~ His elect ~ are those who receive God's mercy and compassion (Romans 9), those who, as Paul says in Ephesians 1, God "chose in Him before the foundation of the world, that (they) should be holy and blameless before Him." It is these that, "in love He predestined for adoption to Himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will, to the praise of His glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved." Now, here's one of those places where I would ask for... any kind of alternate explanation... <smile>

Everyone gets a legitimate opportunity at salvation.

Absolutely.

Then we could have a private conversation about this instead if you want since it's been discussed there so many times already. Or not. But, let's try not to have it go on for several pages here, at least, since this is the Eschatology forum and not the Soteriology forum.

Whatever you like.

The earth itself was changed significantly...

Ohhhh, I agree, but... well, 'changed' in a much different sense than you. The earth ~ even all of creation ~ was radically changed when Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden tree in Genesis 3, and it will be changed again... changed back. <smile>

...when God renews the earth by fire. It won't be a completely different earth, but it will be changed and won't be exactly like the earth is now.

Yes, our God is a consuming fire. And... yes, see directly above concerning this "change"...

Everything you say is a you thing and what I say is a me thing. No kidding.

Ohhhh, SI. You know exactly what I was saying. Don't try to change the context in which I said what I said. I don't do that to you, and I've seen you get really angry when others have done that to you. Yeah, not cool.

How are you being humble by acting like it's only me that should reexamine some things, but not you?

In saying that, I'm not making some kind of statement of totality or exclusiveness. Sure, there are probably a lot of things I should reexamine, and I do.

LOL. Again, you have no self awareness.

There it is again. Quit being an ass, SI. It's just ridiculous, and you're really heaping coals on your own head.

I consider what you're saying and I disagree with it (when I can understand it).

Right, because you just refuse to consider things a bit differently. This is called lack of humility.

Now, by that, I'm not saying or implying that anyone, including me, is perfect in humility, which shouldn't even be necessary to actually say, but considering recent history...

But I mean, it just is what it is.

No one is in denial more than you are. Deny deny deny. It's what you do.

No, it's what you have done throughout this conversation. It's a you thing, as it pertains to the... well, at times a conversation, but at other times not so much... the conversation we've had here. Oh, I guess you could say I deny your denials... <smile>

Continued...

 

[PinSeeker]

The point is that you say I'm being selective in seeing 2 Peter 3:10-12 as being literal, physical fire instead of God's figurative consuming fire...

It's been a while now, but I don't think your understanding of 2 Peter 3 was specifically what I had in mind regarding your selectivity. It was more concerning your selectivity in John's Revelation. That 2 Peter 3 passage is closely related, though.

...so would you apply that to how I interpret Luke 17:26-30 to be talking about literal, physical fire coming down on Sodom as well? If not, why not?

No, I don't. We talked about the suddenness context of that (and in Matthew) before. The only thing mentioned there even anywhere close to any kind of mention of literal fire is... maybe, by some kind of stretch... the lightning flashes of verse 24, but Jesus says there, "as the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other," so I think the only takeaways from that, really, are that it will be seen everywhere and that it will be very sudden. So, no, I don't apply the selective thing to your interpretation here, but... something else... <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Davidpt]

It's been a while now, but I don't think your understanding of 2 Peter 3 was specifically what I had in mind regarding your selectivity. It was more concerning your selectivity in John's Revelation. That 2 Peter 3 passage is closely related, though.


No, I don't. We talked about the suddenness context of that (and in Matthew) before. The only thing mentioned there even anywhere close to any kind of mention of literal fire is... maybe, by some kind of stretch... the lightning flashes of verse 24, but Jesus says there, "as the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other," so I think the only takeaways from that, really, are that it will be seen everywhere and that it will be very sudden. So, no, I don't apply the selective thing to your interpretation here, but... something else... <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

What I don't get about some of these interpreters such as SI, does not Revelation 19 involve the 2nd coming? And the fact SI agrees it does, where then anywhere in Revelation 19 does it give the impression anyone is being burned to a crisp because the surface of the entire planet is literally engulfed in flames?

To then use the imagery of feasting birds to convey this is absurd. If the entire planet is literally engulfed in flames, the last thing anyone would be doing is using imagery of feasting birds to convey this. The smoke and heat alone would kill every bird in the sky, therefore, sending them to their deaths, and certainly not they feasting on human remains instead. Even though the feasting birds might not be literal, maybe it is maybe it isn't, but even if it isn't, the point is, one doesn't use imagery like that to convey that the entire planet is engulfed in flames since it would be nonsensical that there could be any feasting birds remaining alive to even feast on anyone to begin with, per a scenario like that.

 

[PinSeeker]

What I don't get about some of these interpreters such as SI, does not Revelation 19 involve the 2nd coming? And the fact SI agrees it does, where then anywhere in Revelation 19 does it give the impression anyone is being burned to a crisp because the surface of the entire planet is literally engulfed in flames?

Good question. <smile>

To then use the imagery of feasting birds to convey this is absurd. If the entire planet is literally engulfed in flames, the last thing anyone would be doing is using imagery of feasting birds to convey this.

Yes. I mean, one of the main things of Revelation all the way through, and the visions that John is being given, is that they are absolutely shocking... in English terms it's what we call metonymy. You know that, I think. But yes, the image of feasting birds for the entire earth being somehow on fire? I mean, just in terms of metonymy, I guess it is somewhat applicable, for something so shocking as the entire planet engulfed in flames as you say, the image of feasting birds seems utterly in comparison, which is the exact reverse of the pattern of the images John is conveying.

The smoke and heat alone would kill every bird in the sky, therefore, sending them to their deaths, and certainly not they feasting on human remains instead. Even though the feasting birds might not be literal, maybe it is maybe it isn't, but even if it isn't, the point is, one doesn't use imagery like that to convey that the entire planet is engulfed in flames since it would be nonsensical that there could be any feasting birds remaining alive to even feast on anyone to begin with, per a scenario like that.

Neither one is woodenly literal. But like I said, if the planet were destined to be literally engulfed in flames for any period of time ~ which it isn't, but if ~ then the image given John in that vision would be much, much, much more shocking than feasting birds, and really even the idea of a flaming planet. The pattern of the visions in Revelation is that the images being "shown" are much more shocking ~ and fantastical, in many cases ~ than the real thing(s) it they symbolize.

Good points, David.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes you are. I don't mean to say you're intentionally doing it, but you are indeed doing it.

So, you think of yourself as being the ultimate authority on what Calvinism teaches then? I'm not misrepresenting it. Period. You can't prove otherwise. If what I say doesn't apply to some of what you believe, then you must have your own brand of Calvinism separate from what Calvinists typically believe.

Sure. This is a result of the fall. So, you're... kind of... well not "kind of," you are... stating your belief in... total depravity... GASP! <smile>... even from birth... GASP! <smile>

No, I'm not. Grow up.

Calvinism does not teach "a select few" in this sense... see above; another false attribution. The "select few" ~ His elect ~ are those who receive God's mercy and compassion (Romans 9), those who, as Paul says in Ephesians 1, God "chose in Him before the foundation of the world, that (they) should be holy and blameless before Him." It is these that, "in love He predestined for adoption to Himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will, to the praise of His glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved." Now, here's one of those places where I would ask for... any kind of alternate explanation... <smile>

Why do you lie and act as if any but those who you believe God predestined without them having any choice in the matter could possibly be saved? You want to come across as if you agree with me that every person has a legitimate chance to be saved, but you don't really believe that. Who do you think you're fooling? Certainly, a typical Calvinist does not believe that.

Ohhhh, SI. You know exactly what I was saying. Don't try to change the context in which I said what I said. I don't do that to you

LOL! You are hilarious. So hypocritical.

, and I've seen you get really angry when others have done that to you. Yeah, not cool.

It's not cool for me to get angry when people misrepresent my beliefs? I disagree.

There it is again. Quit being an ass, SI. It's just ridiculous, and you're really heaping coals on your own head.

LOL. You were saying something about me getting angry? Look at you here. Are you going to claim you're not getting angry here or do you always swear when you're not angry?

Right, because you just refuse to consider things a bit differently. This is called lack of humility.

Who are you to tell me that I haven't considered the things you're talking about? It's a lack of humility on your part to act like you know me better than I know myself.

No, it's what you have done throughout this conversation. It's a you thing, as it pertains to the... well, at times a conversation, but at other times not so much... the conversation we've had here. Oh, I guess you could say I deny your denials... <smile>

LOL. You have no idea how hypocritical you are.

 

[PinSeeker]

So, you think of yourself as being the ultimate authority on what Calvinism teaches then?

Oh my goodness. Well, by the same token, do you? Wow. It is what it is.

I'm not misrepresenting it.

Not on purpose, no. <smile>

No, I'm not.

You actually did. You actually stated the correct understanding of total depravity, and affirmed it. "Grow up?" That's quite silly. You did... in saying, "Who has God bound over to disobedience? Everyone. For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)," you absolutely did. The question is, why has God bound everyone over to disobedience? Because, Spiritual Israelite, Adam, as the federal head of the human race, disobeyed God. That particular sin was not bequeathed to the human race, to all his progeny, but the state he (and Eve) fell into as a result of that... having a sinful heart, dead in sin, in need of salvation, from birth. There's Romans 5:12 once again... "sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned..." This is the natural state of man, which John Calvin coined "total depravity."

Why do you lie...

Comment dismissed out of hand...

...as if any but those who you believe God predestined without them having any choice in the matter could possibly be saved?

This is putting the cart before the horse, as it were. What you're saying, Spiritual Israelite ~ and this will prompt another "grow up" from you, I guess, but so be it ~ is that either:

a.) we predestined ourselves...​

or​

b.) God predestined us because we chose him (or that He looked down the corridors of time, so to speak, and saw who would choose Him and thus predestined those... in which case, the same is true, that we predestined ourselves...​

Both of which make God's predestination not predestination at all but rather a "post-destination," which is a perfectly ridiculous thought.

You want to come across as if you agree with me that every person has a legitimate chance to be saved, but you don't really believe that. Who do you think you're fooling? Certainly, a typical Calvinist does not believe that.

They do actually; the people you're attributing Calvinism to are actually hyper-Calvinists. Yes, hyper-Calvinism is actually a thing, and there are folks out there who would fit under that umbrella. Hyper-Calvinism is not true Calvinism, but a distortion of it which basically emphasizes the sovereignty of God to an extreme degree, with regard to the salvation of God's elect and soteriology in general, and even de-emphasizes... to the point of excluding altogether... man's free will and its relevancy in the salvific process, which is exactly what you're reacting so strongly against. And I, as a Calvinist, join you in that, actually. John Calvin, if he were with us to day, would react against that just as strongly as you are now... and so do true Calvinists like me.

LOL! You are hilarious. So hypocritical.

Again, comment dismissed out of hand... You were, in what you said, changing the context of what I said. I didn't and don't mean you purposely did that, but you did. It was what it was. Yes, neither one of us gets to change the context of what the other has said. But ~ Spiritual Israelite ~ stating the implication, or the subsequent outworking, of something the other actually did say is perfectly fair, for either one of us. But that's not what you did.

It's not cool for me to get angry when people misrepresent my beliefs?

I'm not angry. You are ~ were, at least, in what you said ~ being an ass. It was what it was.

Who are you to tell me that I haven't considered the things you're talking about?

In what you have said (over and over again), it is evident that you refuse to consider things a bit differently, than you do currently.

You have no idea how hypocritical you are.

We can all be hypocritical from time to time. But as for me here, no.

Grace and peace to you, SI.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Not on purpose, no. <smile>


You actually did. You actually stated the correct understanding of total depravity, and affirmed it. "Grow up?" That's quite silly. You did.

I see that denial is still not just a river in Egypt.

This is putting the cart before the horse, as it were. What you're saying, Spiritual Israelite ~ and this will prompt another "grow up" from you, I guess, but so be it ~ is that either:

a.) we predestined ourselves...​

or​

b.) God predestined us because we chose him (or that He looked down the corridors of time, so to speak, and saw who would choose Him and thus predestined those... in which case, the same is true, that we predestined ourselves...​

Both of which make God's predestination not predestination at all but rather a "post-destination," which is a perfectly ridiculous thought.

The answer is neither, so you have proved once again that you're not understanding what I'm saying, which requires you to first take your Calvinist glasses off. He predestined that anyone who believes in Christ would be conformed to His image. How else to make sense of the fact that God wants everyone to repent and be saved? If everything was completely up to God, then it would not be true that He wants everyone to repent and to be saved because in that case everyone would repent and be saved.

They do actually; the people you're attributing Calvinism to are actually hyper-Calvinists. Yes, hyper-Calvinism is actually a thing, and there are folks out there who would fit under that umbrella. Hyper-Calvinism is not true Calvinism, but a distortion of it which basically emphasizes the sovereignty of God to an extreme degree, with regard to the salvation of God's elect and soteriology in general, and even de-emphasizes... to the point of excluding altogether... man's free will and its relevancy in the salvific process, which is exactly what you're reacting so strongly against. And I, as a Calvinist, join you in that, actually. John Calvin, if he were with us to day, would react against that just as strongly as you are now... and so do true Calvinists like me.

No, Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism are the same when it comes to believing that God alone determines who will be saved with man having no choice in the matter. Hyper-Calvinism takes it beyond that by thinking that God alone determines everything that happens and not just things related to salvation.

You acting as if Calvinists believe in free will is very deceptive as you do NOT believe that all people are fully capable of either choosing to repent and believe in Christ or choosing to refuse to repent and accept Christ. You believe that the choice in salvation is entirely up to God and His choice is not based on anything that man does or believes.

I'm not angry. You are ~ were, at least, in what you said ~ being an ass. It was what it was.

LOL. Again you prove that denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

In what you have said (over and over again), it is evident that you refuse to consider things a bit differently, than you do currently.

I don't need to consider those things anymore as I have considered them in the past. It's a lie for you to try to claim that I've never considered them.

 

[PinSeeker]

I see that denial is still not just a river in Egypt.

You did. RIght back atcha. I even quoted your exact words. That IS the crux of Calvin's Total Depravity. And if you truly understand that, then that should inevitably get the ball rolling for you. But you do you.

The answer is neither...

Right, but because you said what you said, which was that God "saw who would choose Him and then chose them," then you have to answer one of those two options. But yes, neither is correct, because the premise, that God "saw who would choose Him and then chose them," is incorrect... and is directly contrary to Jesus's statement to His disciples (and by extension us), that "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide..." (John 15:16) It is what it is.

He predestined that anyone who believes in Christ would be conformed to His image.

So you're saying, once again, that this predestination depends on our believing, which is not correct... His predestination depends solely on His will, which is precisely what Paul says in Ephesians 1:4-5, "In love He predestined us for adoption to Himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will, to the praise of His glorious grace, with which He has blessed us in the Beloved." Spiritual Israelite, I say this with all due respect, but you cannot escape this. You cannot.

How else to make sense of the fact that God wants everyone to repent and be saved?

That question has been asked and answered dozens of times, SI. To put it very succinctly, God's desires do not trump His justice.

The issue really is that we have to see 1 Timothy 2:4 not in the wooden sense that what God wishes always comes to be, so therefore is not equivalent to saying that all people will be saved to come to the knowledge of the truth, as that would be a statement of universalism, which we both agree is not Biblical at all and in fact antithetical to what is Biblical. That verse and others like it must be understood in the sense that though He desires this for all, He has resolved, before the foundation of the world, to change the hearts of some (by and through the working of the Holy Spirit, of course) ~ have mercy and compassion... salvific grace on some ~ His elect, those whom Paul calls vessels of mercy in Romans 9, and not others, those whom Paul calls vessels of wrath in Romans 9. And he has every right to do this, as Creator (the potter in his metaphor there in Romans 9). This also cannot be denied. As I said, no one deserves this, but He has grace ~ unmerited favor ~ on some.

If everything was completely up to God, then it would not be true that He wants everyone to repent and to be saved because in that case everyone would repent and be saved.

True repentance is a gift of the Holy Spirit. As Paul says in Romans 2:4, God’s kindness leads us to repentance, and this is a work of the Holy Spirit.

No, Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism are the same when it comes to believing that God alone determines who will be saved with man having no choice in the matter. Hyper-Calvinism takes it beyond that by thinking that God alone determines everything that happens and not just things related to salvation.

To put it succinctly, hyper-Calvinists basically say, "Well we don't have to do anything... nothing is required of us... because God will do it... He'll make it happen." That's what you're reacting so strongly against, and you're right in doing that; John Calvin and any good Calvinists would do likewise.

You acting as if Calvinists believe in free will is very deceptive as you do NOT believe that all people are fully capable of either choosing to repent and believe in Christ or choosing to refuse to repent and accept Christ.

The issue is really in what sense one means "truly capable of," or "can." I said above in my second paragraph, "you cannot escape this," which is to say that woodenly speaking, you can, but not with any validity or credibility in relation to God's Word. We have to hold to God's sovereignty and His purpose as the only first thing in that depends on nothing else in the salvation of any one person, else we make God out to be not sovereign, because His choosing us, having mercy and compassion on us, His elect, is dependent on something other than His own will (which is contrary to Romans 9:16, Ephesians 1:5, Ephesians 2:4-10, and so many other passages. But that is not true. But yes, woodenly speaking, you can do all these things ~ in the mere sense that you can say what you want to say ~ but still... it is what it is.

You believe that the choice in salvation is entirely up to God and His choice is not based on anything that man does or believes.

That's what Scripture says. Romans 9:16 ~ "it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" ~ and Ephesians 1:4-5 ~ "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" ~ in particular cannot be denied.

I don't need to consider those things anymore...

So be it.

It's a lie for you to try to claim that I've never considered them.

I didn't say that. You're once again putting words in my mouth, regardless of whether you realize it or not. I do say that, you should reconsider. That I said, "it is evident that you refuse to consider things a bit differently" is not equivalent to saying you've never considered anything, much less what we're talking about. Still, if you refuse to do that for any reason, which, again, you evidently do, then, so be it.

Again you prove that denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

Pfffft. <wave off>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Right, but because you said what you said, which was that God "saw who would choose Him and then chose them," then you have to answer one of those two options.

There is no "right, but....". If you agree that I'm right, then there's no buts about it. Also, I did not say that God "saw who would choose Him and then chose them,", so why are you putting that in quotes as if I said that? That's rather dishonest of you. That is not what I believe.

But yes, neither is correct, because the premise, that God "saw who would choose Him and then chose them," is incorrect...

I agree that is incorrect, which is why I didn't say that.

and is directly contrary to Jesus's statement to His disciples (and by extension us), that "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide..." (John 15:16) It is what it is.

This illustrates yet again your lack of ability to discern the context of scripture. He was not talking about choosing people for salvation there. He was talking in the context of choosing them to be His closest disciples. Even Judas Iscariot was chosen in that sense! Are you going to try to claim that Judas was chosen for salvation from the foundation of the world?

John 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? 71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

So you're saying, once again, that this predestination depends on our believing, which is not correct...

No, it depends on God predetermining that anyone who believes in His Son Jesus Christ would be conformed to His image. Predestination has nothing to do with God choosing certain individuals for salvation before the foundation of the world.

His predestination depends solely on His will, which is precisely what Paul says in Ephesians 1:4-5, "In love He predestined us for adoption to Himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of His will, to the praise of His glorious grace, with which He has blessed us in the Beloved." Spiritual Israelite, I say this with all due respect, but you cannot escape this. You cannot.

I'm not trying to escape it. I embrace it. You are arguing with a straw man yet again. I'm telling you that you don't know what predestination means because you apparently think it's talking about God predestining certain specific individuals like you and me, before the foundation of the world, but that isn't the case. Instead, He predestined ANYONE who would believe to be adopted as sons through Jesus Christ. That includes us, but He didn't have us specifically in mind in predestination, but rather anyone who would believe. Predestination has nothing to do with God looking into the future and selecting who would be saved and who would not.

That question has been asked and answered dozens of times, SI. To put it very succinctly, God's desires do not trump His justice.

Of course. When did I say otherwise? This is such a colossal waste of time because you misunderstand so much of what I believe and end up making these straw man arguments.

The issue really is that we have to see 1 Timothy 2:4 not in the wooden sense that what God wishes always comes to be, so therefore is not equivalent to saying that all people will be saved to come to the knowledge of the truth, as that would be a statement of universalism, which we both agree is not Biblical at all and in fact antithetical to what is Biblical.

Of course I'm not saying that. But, if God desires something, does He not at least make it possible for His desires to come to fruition? of course He does! But, you apparently don't think so. His desire for all people to be saved does not demand that all people will be saved, but at the same time it would not make sense for Him to desire all people to be saved, but not even make a way for all people to have the opportunity to be saved. But, He did make a way to give all people the opportunity to be saved by sending His Son to die for the sins of not ours only, but of the whole world (1 John 2:1-2).

That verse and others like it must be understood in the sense that though He desires this for all, He has resolved, before the foundation of the world, to change the hearts of some (by and through the working of the Holy Spirit, of course) ~ have mercy and compassion... salvific grace on some ~ His elect, those whom Paul calls vessels of mercy in Romans 9, and not others, those whom Paul calls vessels of wrath in Romans 9. And he has every right to do this, as Creator (the potter in his metaphor there in Romans 9). This also cannot be denied. As I said, no one deserves this, but He has grace ~ unmerited favor ~ on some.

In your view, then, His desires mean nothing and He doesn't act on them. I think that is nonsense. If He truly desires all people to repent and to be saved, as scripture teaches that He does, then He would at least give everyone that opportunity if His desire was genuine. And He does.

True repentance is a gift of the Holy Spirit. As Paul says in Romans 2:4, God’s kindness leads us to repentance, and this is a work of the Holy Spirit.

He does not make us repent. He makes us responsible to choose to do so. Otherwise, there was no reason for Jesus to be so upset at the scribes and Pharisees for not repenting and no reason for Stephen to get angry with them and say this to them...

Acts 7:51 “You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit!

Think about it. Why would it even bother Stephen that they were resisting the Holy Spirit if them repenting and responding favorably to the Holy Spirit was entirely dependent on God?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

To put it succinctly, hyper-Calvinists basically say, "Well we don't have to do anything... nothing is required of us... because God will do it... He'll make it happen." That's what you're reacting so strongly against, and you're right in doing that; John Calvin and any good Calvinists would do likewise.

What do you think that people are required to do (not talking about physical acts here, by the way) in their own volition (by their own choice that God does not make for them) in relation to salvation?

The issue is really in what sense one means "truly capable of," or "can."

Leave it to you to make something simple complicated. How can you not know what those simple words mean?

I said above in my second paragraph, "you cannot escape this," which is to say that woodenly speaking, you can, but not with any validity or credibility in relation to God's Word.

How does this relate to someone being capable of repenting and believing or not? Do you believe that all people are capable of hearing the gospel and choosing in their own volition how to respond to it, or do you believe that how someone responds to it is up to God to decide?

We have to hold to God's sovereignty and His purpose as the only first thing in that depends on nothing else in the salvation of any one person, else we make God out to be not sovereign, because His choosing us, having mercy and compassion on us, His elect, is dependent on something other than His own will (which is contrary to Romans 9:16, Ephesians 1:5, Ephesians 2:4-10, and so many other passages. But that is not true. But yes, woodenly speaking, you can do all these things ~ in the mere sense that you can say what you want to say ~ but still... it is what it is.

Your understanding of God's sovereignty is flawed. If God decided to give all people free will and to make everyone responsible to use free will to choose to repent and believe or not, does that take anything away from His sovereignty? No! It would be God alone who decided how salvation would work in that case and not man. That's what God being sovereign means. That He dictates the rules of salvation, not us. Him making man responsible to choose takes nothing away from His sovereignty. His sovereignty has nothing to do with Him having control over every aspect of salvation with man having no real part in it other than to just do what God predestined him to do. If God wants to give people free will and the ability and responsibility to choose, then He can do that and I obviously believe He did.

It's both true that God will have mercy on whoever He wants without man having any say in who He wants to have mercy on and that God wants to have mercy on all people (Romans 11:30-32). It wasn't man's decision for God to make salvation possible for all people, it was God gracious decision to offer salvation to all people (Titus 2:11) and it's a genuine offer that all people are capable of choosing to either accept or reject.

That's what Scripture says. Romans 9:16 ~ "it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy" ~ and Ephesians 1:4-5 ~ "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" ~ in particular cannot be denied.

I don't deny what those scriptures say, of course. But, I deny that you understand them properly. I don't think either of us purposely denies anything scripture says. But, I obviously believe you misinterpret those scriptures and you think that of me.

I didn't say that. You're once again putting words in my mouth, regardless of whether you realize it or not.

Welcome to my world! LOL! You do that to me often, so how can you complain about it? Did I do that on purpose? Absolutely not.

I do say that, you should reconsider. That I said, "it is evident that you refuse to consider things a bit differently" is not equivalent to saying you've never considered anything, much less what we're talking about. Still, if you refuse to do that for any reason, which, again, you evidently do, then, so be it.

Whatever. If I have spent plenty of time considering it in the past, why do I need to keep considering it even more now? I've considered it enough to determine that it's not true. So, what is the problem with that? It only makes sense to have a problem with it if I've never considered it and said that I never would.

 

[PinSeeker]

He was not talking about choosing people for salvation there.

Yes, He was. If you read what Paul says of everyone who is born again of the Spirit ~ yeeeeees yes, I know you have read it before... LOL! ~ you will see that what Paul says mirrors intimately what Jesus said to His disciples in John 15. You and I are both among Jesus's disciples. We're not apostles, of course; after the original twelve, the age of the apostles passed. All those who are in Christ are Christ's disciples ~ His followers ~ and there is no such thing as anyone closer than another... although, yes, some have a greater gift of faith by the Holy Spirit than others, and this is the will of the Lord, Who apportions to each gifts of the Spirit according to His will. But even so, all that's needed is faith like a mustard seed, right?

No, it depends on God predetermining that anyone who believes in His Son Jesus Christ would be conformed to His image.

LOL! Literally the same thing. Yes, belief in Christ is important, but belief comes because of faith, which is worked in a person by the Holy Spirit ~ the person is inwardly assured in his heart and convicted by the Holy Spirit of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1). You're putting the cart before the horse ~ and saying that God's mercy and compassion on His elect depends on their willing and running, which is exactly opposite Romans 9:16. As I said, you can do this, in the sense of being very capable of that... <smile> ...but are wrong in doing so, and in that sense you cannot.

Predestination has nothing to do with God choosing certain individuals for salvation before the foundation of the world.

Absolutely contrary to Ephesians 1:4-6... "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, to the praise of His glorious grace, with which He has blessed us in the Beloved."

I embrace it.

You embrace something that is objectively wrong. You're surely not alone in doing so, but so it is.

You are arguing with a straw man yet again.

You're a straw man? I had no idea... LOL!

I'm telling you that you don't know what predestination means because you apparently think it's talking about God predestining certain specific individuals like you and me, before the foundation of the world, but that isn't the case.

Well, we don't have to wonder what predestination is. The very word indicates that you are destined for something outside of you before you even embark on the journey. And you start the journey not because you believe, but because you have been predestined... by God, of course. What are we then predestined by God for? Well, to be conformed to the image of His Son, Jesus Christ. You know all this. And only those among God's elect will be predestined in this way, and being among God's elect depends not on a man's (or woman's) willing or running/doing, but on God, Who has mercy. Why does He have this mercy, well, it's not because we merit it in any way for anything we have said or done or even believed, but of His will and His will alone. Otherwise, God's grace is not grace at all.

Instead, He predestined ANYONE who would believe to be adopted as sons through Jesus Christ.

"...He... (God the Father) "...chose us in Him..." (Christ, God the Son) "...before the foundation of the world..." (before the world even existed) "...that we should be holy and blameless before Him..." (God the Father) "In love He..." (God the Father) "...predestined us for adoption to Himself..." (God the Father) "...as sons through Jesus Christ..." (God the Son) "...according to the purpose of His will..." (God the Father's will) "...to the praise of His glorious grace..." (God the Father's glorious grace) "...with which He..." (God the Father) "...has blessed us in the Beloved..." (Christ, God the Son)" (Ephesians 1:4-6)

Parenthetical expressions mine, of course, but they are inarguable. The only things in there about us, Spiritual Israelite, are about us on the receiving end, being given these things, what has been done for us, given to us. We can take no credit for anything, even belief, which cannot happen without faith, which is a gift of God through the working of His Holy Spirit and therefore a Spiritual gift. Even now, we pray to God ~ and this is in Scripture, namely Mark 9:24 ~ "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief."

Predestination has nothing to do with God looking into the future and selecting who would be saved and who would not.

That makes you a little better than a lot of Arminians... <smile> But still, you're pretty Arminian... <smile> You still say that our belief is why we are predestined, when the truth is we believe because we were predestined. Our belief is directly because of our faith, which is:

• the assurance of God and the conviction of the Holy Spirit
• the gift of God given us in being born again of the Spirit (even while we were still dead in our sin)

Of course. When did I say otherwise?

The effect of what you say quite often is the issue.

This is such a colossal waste of time because you misunderstand so much of what I believe...

The issue is your belief itself.

...if God desires something, does He not at least make it possible for His desires to come to fruition?

That's the wrong question, Spiritual Israelite. The question is, despite God's desire, might there be some good reason why He doesn't bring those desires to fruition? Even on a personal level, you or I may desire something, but for some good reason not act on that desire.

...His desire for all people to be saved does not demand that all people will be saved, but at the same time it would not make sense for Him to desire all people to be saved...

But His desire for His own glory ~ which involves exacting His perfect justice, among many other things ~ trumps His desire that all would be saved. By that same token, Spiritual Israelite, I'm sure it was not His desire that His Son be made a curse and hung on a tree. But yet as Isaiah says, "it was the will of the LORD..." ~ it actually pleased God the Father ~ "...to crush Him..." (Christ; Isaiah 53:10). Why? Because God's justice had to be satisfied, which is the sense in which He was pleased. Someone worthy had to pay the wages of sin, and Christ did it on our behalf. And this pleased God. Despite any desire to the contrary. You know this. You know this.

, but not even make a way for all people to have the opportunity to be saved. But, He did make a way to give all people the opportunity to be saved by sending His Son to die for the sins of not ours only, but of the whole world (1 John 2:1-2).

Absolutely. Salvation through Christ is available to all. In this sense, as I have said, Christ's sacrifice is universal. But it is only effective for God's elect, and that's the sense in which Christ's sacrifice, His atonement, is limited. And the latter is where John Calvin's Limited Atonement is firmly couched. A lot could be offered, but really all that needs to be said in support of this is that God's Word never returns to Him void; it always accomplishes that for which it was sent. Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh, as you know, and He was sent by God the Father for the express purpose of accomplishing the redemption of God's elect, and that He did. Again, yes, in a certain sense it is for all, but in a different sense it was only for the Elect, and in that latter sense, it was 100% effective... Christ HImself has returned to God the Father and has redeemed every single one of us ~ He has not and will not lose even one ~ to God.

Continued...

 

[PinSeeker]

The wheels on the bus go round and round... <smile>

He does not make us repent. He makes us responsible to choose to do so.

Right, but the Holy Spirit is the One Who leads us to do so, as I said, and this is the will of the Father. He does not lead everyone to do so; again, as Paul says in Romans 1... just a few sentences before Romans 2:4... God has given them over to their own selfish desires.

Why would it even bother Stephen that they were resisting the Holy Spirit if them repenting and responding favorably to the Holy Spirit was entirely dependent on God?

Oh, you mean as if I haven't? LOL! Stephen was admonishing them for rejecting Christ as the Messiah. If they had been born again and given faith ~ which is how we all come to belief in Christ, and it is this sense in which John Calvin's irresistible grace is properly understood ~ then they would not have rejected Christ. Again, if one is born again of the Spirit, he or she then has a new spirit ~ a new heart, one of flesh rather than stone ~ and is then no longer of the devil, doing the will of his or her father the devil (John 8) but has become of God and does the will then of His Father God. And why? Because in this sense, it cannot be resisted... the desire regarding whose or Whose will to do has changed, and then even of himself or herself, he is irresistibly compelled to do the will of God. Not because anyone forced him or her to, but because of his or her own desire, which was formerly the opposite.

Do you believe that all people are capable of hearing the gospel and choosing in their own volition how to respond to it...

Yes. You say that I (and Calvinists) don't, but I (we... well, good Calvinists anyway, those who actually understand John Calvin correctly <smile>) do.

...or do you believe that how someone responds to it is up to God to decide?

The decision God makes, Spiritual Israelite, is only indirectly influenced by God, in the sense that He gives mercy and compassion only to those to whom He chooses to do so. Those on the... right side of this decision are the ones that at some point in their lives God will give this mercy and compassion to in a tangible way by giving them new birth of the Holy Spirit and thus faith. And then, having been born again of the Spirit and in possession of this faith, this assurance and conviction of God by the Holy Spirit, will respond, even in and of themselves ~ of their own free will and accord ~ positively. Unless and until that happens, they will remain ~ of their own free will and accord ~ dead in their sin, of their father the devil.

If God decided to give all people free will and to make everyone responsible to use free will to choose to repent and believe or not...

He did, but in Adam, they chose ~ in him, as the federal head of the human race ~ to do exactly the opposite. In disobeying God, Adam plunged the entire human race into disobedience and rebellion. We are all naturally, as children of Adam, at enmity with God ~ and the gravity of that cannot be over-emphasized. From birth, we are dead in our sin, just as David said of Himself.

It's both true that God will have mercy on whoever He wants without man having any say in who He wants to have mercy on and that God wants to have mercy on all people (Romans 11:30-32).

I have denied neither. John Calvin did not. No good Calvinist does. All spoken to above.

I don't deny what those scriptures say, of course.

But inadvertently you do. See above.

But, I obviously believe you misinterpret those scriptures and you think that of me.

Right, but there's only one of us that's really making any effort to interpret those Scriptures in our conversation, Spiritual Israelite, and that's not you. I keep saying, and not just to you, give me an alternative explanation, and I'll consider it. Specifically to you, among other things, give me an alternative explanation of Ephesians 1:4-6 (cited above at least two times).

Whatever. If I have spent plenty of time considering it in the past...

Okay, well, I say not enough. <smile>

So, what is the problem with that?

No problem. <smile>

Are we done yet? <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes, He was. If you read what Paul says of everyone who is born again of the Spirit ~ yeeeeees yes, I know you have read it before... LOL! ~ you will see that what Paul says mirrors intimately what Jesus said to His disciples in John 15. You and I are both among Jesus's disciples. We're not apostles, of course; after the original twelve, the age of the apostles passed. All those who are in Christ are Christ's disciples ~ His followers ~ and there is no such thing as anyone closer than another... although, yes, some have a greater gift of faith by the Holy Spirit than others, and this is the will of the Lord, Who apportions to each gifts of the Spirit according to His will. But even so, all that's needed is faith like a mustard seed, right?

You say He was talking about choosing people for salvation in John 15:16, so I will assume that you believe Judas Iscariot was saved then. Is that correct?

John 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? 71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

LOL! Literally the same thing. Yes, belief in Christ is important, but belief comes because of faith, which is worked in a person by the Holy Spirit ~ the person is inwardly assured in his heart and convicted by the Holy Spirit of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1). You're putting the cart before the horse ~ and saying that God's mercy and compassion on His elect depends on their willing and running, which is exactly opposite Romans 9:16. As I said, you can do this, in the sense of being very capable of that... <smile> ...but are wrong in doing so, and in that sense you cannot.

You are completely misrepresenting what I believe, but that is expected at this point. I'd explain it again, but what is the point? You didn't understand all the other times I explained it to you, so it's a waste of time.

Absolutely contrary to Ephesians 1:4-6... "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, to the praise of His glorious grace, with which He has blessed us in the Beloved."

What I said is not contrary to what is written there at all. Only in your Calvinist mind. You clearly refuse to even think for a second about what I'm saying, so you don't even know what I actually believe. You have your preconceived notions of what I believe and you stick with that instead of paying attention to what I actually say.

You embrace something that is objectively wrong. You're surely not alone in doing so, but so it is.

Meaningless comment from someone who is unable to refute what I believe, as you are proving with every post you make.

You're a straw man? I had no idea... LOL!

Are you a clown? This topic is just a joke to you?

Well, we don't have to wonder what predestination is. The very word indicates that you are destined for something outside of you before you even embark on the journey.

What you are missing is that a certain type of people was predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ (those who trust and believe in Him) and not certain individuals.

And you start the journey not because you believe, but because you have been predestined... by God, of course.

We are not predestined to believe. It does not say that. It was predestined that whoever believes will be conformed to the image of Christ, which does not just happen immediately, but happens over time as we mature in the faith.

What are we then predestined by God for? Well, to be conformed to the image of His Son, Jesus Christ. You know all this.

Yes, I know all this but, unlike you, I know what it actually means.

And only those among God's elect will be predestined in this way, and being among God's elect depends not on a man's (or woman's) willing or running/doing, but on God, Who has mercy. Why does He have this mercy, well, it's not because we merit it in any way for anything we have said or done or even believed, but of His will and His will alone. Otherwise, God's grace is not grace at all.

I agree with that. Yet, you think I don't. Therefore, you do not understand what I believe and you are arguing with a straw man (and it's not me who is the straw man, it's the imaginary straw man in your head).

"...He... (God the Father) "...chose us in Him..." (Christ, God the Son) "...before the foundation of the world..." (before the world even existed) "...that we should be holy and blameless before Him..." (God the Father) "In love He..." (God the Father) "...predestined us for adoption to Himself..." (God the Father) "...as sons through Jesus Christ..." (God the Son) "...according to the purpose of His will..." (God the Father's will) "...to the praise of His glorious grace..." (God the Father's glorious grace) "...with which He..." (God the Father) "...has blessed us in the Beloved..." (Christ, God the Son)" (Ephesians 1:4-6)

Parenthetical expressions mine, of course, but they are inarguable. The only things in there about us, Spiritual Israelite, are about us on the receiving end, being given these things, what has been done for us, given to us. We can take no credit for anything, even belief, which cannot happen without faith, which is a gift of God through the working of His Holy Spirit and therefore a Spiritual gift. Even now, we pray to God ~ and this is in Scripture, namely Mark 9:24 ~ "Lord, I believe; help my unbelief."

Why do you think that belief is something that someone can take credit for? Our requirement to repent and believe is not something we can take credit for. It involves humbling ourselves and acknowledging our sins and that we can't save ourselves. That is the opposite of trying to take credit for salvation.

Tell me, if a random person came up to you and asked you what they needed to do to be saved, what would you tell them?

That makes you a little better than a lot of Arminians... <smile> But still, you're pretty Arminian... <smile>

Put whatever label you want on it if it helps you more easily refer to what I believe. I couldn't care less. Based on what I've seen, I think I'm more of a Provisionist than an Arminian. But, whatever. Who cares. Call me a Semi-Arminian if you want. I'll continue to call you a Calvinist since you seem okay with that label, but I won't call you a hyper-Calvinist since you made it clear that you're not.

You still say that our belief is why we are predestined, when the truth is we believe because we were predestined.

No. You don't get it. You are continually misrepresenting my view because of you assumption that I'm an Arminian and therefore must believe certain things. My beliefs about salvation are not influenced whatsoever by Calvinism, Arminianism or any other -ism. We are predestined, not because of anything man does or believes but because God decided completely on His own before the foundation of the world that He would conform anyone who believed in His Son to the image of His Son. Tell me where in that statement that I'm saying "that our belief is why we are predestined". You won't find it.

Our belief is directly because of our faith,

Huh? LOL. Ridiculous statements like this really illustrate how ludicrous your beliefs about this really are.

which is:

• the assurance of God and the conviction of the Holy Spirit
• the gift of God given us in being born again of the Spirit (even while we were still dead in our sin)

Saving faith is not the gift of God. That is not taught anywhere in scripture. Instead, scripture teaches that salvation and eternal life are the gift of God and it comes about by His grace through our faith in Christ and not by works. Calvinists misinterpret Paul and think that if it's our own faith then we can boast, but he said it's through faith and not by works, so he contrasted faith with works (like James did in James 2) and only said we could boast if salvation was by our works, not if it's by our faith.

That's the wrong question, Spiritual Israelite.

LOL. That's what people say when they have no answer to a question. I was a legitimate question and this was what you came up with to get around answering it.

The question is, despite God's desire, might there be some good reason why He doesn't bring those desires to fruition?

No. The God I know does not have any desires that He does nothing about to even make them possible to come to fruition.

Even on a personal level, you or I may desire something, but for some good reason not act on that desire.

Don't be ridiculous and try to compare us to God.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

But His desire for His own glory ~ which involves exacting His perfect justice, among many other things ~ trumps His desire that all would be saved.

How is it perfect justice for God to purposely make it so that some are saved by His choice alone and everyone else is not saved by His choice alone and those who are not saved are punished and tormented for eternity...for who knows what reason that God only knows (from the perspective of your view)? How can it even be true that He desires all to be saved in your view when you also believe that He purposely ensures that all being saved is impossible by not choosing all people to be saved? How can you think that He genuinely desires all to be saved in that case? It makes no sense.

By that same token, Spiritual Israelite, I'm sure it was not His desire that His Son be made a curse and hung on a tree.

Sure, it was. That's like saying it wasn't His desire for all people to be saved, but you acknowledge that it was. He desired for His Son to be made a sacrifice for the sins of the whole world because that was the only way to fulfill His desire to give all people the opportunity to be saved.

But yet as Isaiah says, "it was the will of the LORD..." ~ it actually pleased God the Father ~ "...to crush Him..." (Christ; Isaiah 53:10).

You say it wasn't His desire even though it pleased Him. You make no sense.

Why? Because God's justice had to be satisfied, which is the sense in which He was pleased. Someone worthy had to pay the wages of sin, and Christ did it on our behalf. And this pleased God. Despite any desire to the contrary. You know this. You know this.

LOL. Yes, I know this. But, do you know that Jesus paid the wages of sin for the whole world, as in all people in the world? Even for false teachers and false prophets who deny Him and "bring in damnable heresies" and "upon themselves swift destruction"?

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Absolutely. Salvation through Christ is available to all.

Come on. You do not really believe that. That is not what Calvinism teaches. Answer this. Do you believe that any random person you come across on the street has a legitimate opportunity to be saved without it being completely dependent on God's choice alone from before the foundation of the world? I don't know how you could say yes because, according to Calvinism, those who are not God's elect can't possibly be saved and never could possibly be saved because it says it's entirely up to God's choice and He already determined before the foundation of the world that they would not be among His chosen who are saved.

In this sense, as I have said, Christ's sacrifice is universal.

In what sense exactly? Be as specific as possible.

But it is only effective for God's elect,

What does this mean exactly and why is it only effective for God's elect?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Right, but the Holy Spirit is the One Who leads us to do so, as I said, and this is the will of the Father. He does not lead everyone to do so; again, as Paul says in Romans 1... just a few sentences before Romans 2:4... God has given them over to their own selfish desires.

You're always only looking at part of the story instead of the whole story. Read what Paul wrote just before that in Romans 1. Yes, God gives them over to their selfish desires, but do they have any excuse for having those selfish desires? No, they do not. God expected them to not suppress the truth that they know and instead glorify Him as God and be thankful to Him. Calvinism gives people an excuse for not doing that and the excuse is that they were not chosen by God and could not help but suppress the truth and to not repent.

Oh, you mean as if I haven't? LOL!

This was your response to me saying "Why would it even bother Stephen that they were resisting the Holy Spirit if them repenting and responding favorably to the Holy Spirit was entirely dependent on God?". Were you responding to something else with that question? How does it have anything to do with what I said, which had nothing to do with you, but rather had to do with Stephen and the unbelieving Jews he was talking to?

Stephen was admonishing them for rejecting Christ as the Messiah.

Why do you think he did that? Isn't it your belief that there was no chance for them to do anything but reject Christ rather than accept Him and put their faith in Him?

If they had been born again and given faith ~ which is how we all come to belief in Christ,

No, it isn't. Scripture never teaches this.

and it is this sense in which John Calvin's irresistible grace is properly understood ~ then they would not have rejected Christ.

Okay, so think about this. In your view the only way that they could have not resisted the Holy Spirit while rejecting Christ is if they were born again and were given faith. So, in that case, isn't the reason that they rejected Christ because of what God did not do for them rather than them being irresponsible? Why were they to blame and deserving of Stephen's scorn for not doing something (believing in Christ) that only God could make them do by giving them faith?

The decision God makes, Spiritual Israelite, is only indirectly influenced by God, in the sense that He gives mercy and compassion only to those to whom He chooses to do so. Those on the... right side of this decision are the ones that at some point in their lives God will give this mercy and compassion to in a tangible way by giving them new birth of the Holy Spirit and thus faith. And then, having been born again of the Spirit and in possession of this faith, this assurance and conviction of God by the Holy Spirit, will respond, even in and of themselves ~ of their own free will and accord ~ positively. Unless and until that happens, they will remain ~ of their own free will and accord ~ dead in their sin, of their father the devil.

You are not making any sense. Someone having free will implies that they have more than one option that they can legitimately choose. However, in your view, those who are dead in their sin are born that way and never had any choice to be any other way because you say it's only by God's choice that anyone becomes no longer dead in their sin. So, you trying to say that you believe in free will is just ridiculous. How can free will involve only one legitimate option to choose from?

He did, but in Adam, they chose ~ in him, as the federal head of the human race ~ to do exactly the opposite. In disobeying God, Adam plunged the entire human race into disobedience and rebellion. We are all naturally, as children of Adam, at enmity with God ~ and the gravity of that cannot be over-emphasized. From birth, we are dead in our sin, just as David said of Himself.

That is false. If that was true, then, to be consistent, you would have to believe that all babies who die go to hell because you say babies are dead in sin. So, is that what you believe? If so, it's complete nonsense. Paul certainly didn't teach that. Instead, he taught this...

Romans 7:9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

Paul taught that he was not dead in sin until he became aware of what sin is by way of the commandments in God's law. So, do you agree with Paul or are you going to insist on contradicting something that Paul taught?

Right, but there's only one of us that's really making any effort to interpret those Scriptures in our conversation, Spiritual Israelite, and that's not you.

LOL!!! That is complete nonsense and 100% false. Who do you think you're fooling with such nonsensical comments like this? Only yourself.

I keep saying, and not just to you, give me an alternative explanation, and I'll consider it.

LOL! How can I believe that when I already have more than once? I know you do not pay much attention to some of what I'm saying, at least. You have proven that. So, why should I explain it to you yet again when you will either not pay attention or ignore it again?

Specifically to you, among other things, give me an alternative explanation of Ephesians 1:4-6 (cited above at least two times).

I already have! Oh, yes, I have! Clearly, it's a waste of my time to do so.

Okay, well, I say not enough. <smile>

And I say the same to you, of course.

Are we done yet? <smile>

Apparently not, but you can be done any time you want to be, as you've told me as well. Don't blame me if you can't stop. LOL.

 

[Davy]

Funny!

When Amillennialists that come here can't find any Premill's to argue with, they turn on themselves and argue!! Funny! Makes sense, because Amill's don't actually keep to what Bible Scripture teaches anyway.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Funny!

When Amillennialists that come here can't find any Premill's to argue with, they turn on themselves and argue!! Funny! Makes sense, because Amill's don't actually keep to what Bible Scripture teaches anyway.

As if Premills never argue with each other? LOL! You argue with other Premills frequently, so I guess the joke is on you! LOL! You are so lacking in self awareness.