toldailytopic: Did God choose an eternity ago who would, and who wouldn't, be saved?

[elohiym]

According to Acts, the gospel is preached persuasively with men able to receive or reject Christ, but not apart from the non-coercive influence of the Spirit. If there is no choice, you go down the TULIP road (determinism).

Jn. 1:12; Jn. 3:16 vs Jn. 3:36 Does God believe for us and does Satan unbelieve for the sinner?!

Did YOU freely chose to believe the gospel? Yes or no.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Calvinism. I am not a Calvinist.

:sozo: Just give a straight answer to the question asked!

 

[godrulz]

Did YOU freely chose to believe the gospel? Yes or no.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Calvinism. I am not a Calvinist.

:sozo: Just give a straight answer to the question asked!

I qualified my answer to avoid your deterministic trap. What you mean by your terms and question may not be what I understand it to mean.

You are asking a leading question that is not reasonable without qualification. You did not answer my question as to whether God believers for us and Satan unbelieves for believers.

There are two parties in a reconciled relationship. Don't confuse the grounds and conditions of salvation (lest you have a false dichotomy).
If I say no, you will not believe me. If I say yes, you will misunderstand/misrepresent me (lose-lose with unreasonable people).

Your question is like asking if Jesus is God or a man. In fact, He is the God-Man, so He is both (but depends if you are talking pre-existence or incarnation).

 

[TeeJay]

my question answers yours

chrysostom,

I'm not trying to play games or be rude. If you question answers my question, please illuminate?

God bless, Tom from Mabank, TX

 

[TeeJay]

In the world of the autopilot he can choose to be evil. That is the extent of his "Open theism". And the idea that he will unseal a believer.

Nick M,

I'd like to reply to this, but I'm not sure what you're getting at?

God bless, Tom from Mabank, TX

 

[godrulz]

Nick M,

I'd like to reply to this, but I'm not sure what you're getting at?

God bless, Tom from Mabank, TX

He is probably calling me autopilot and complaining about my free will, anti-OSAS views. I don't think he is Open Theist.

 

[TeeJay]

:shocked:

Do you believe He can deny Himself, too?

Elohiym, Jesus Christ was "tempted in all ways." If He was tempted, then there had to be the POSSIBILITY that He could have sinned. If He is a mindless programmed Being who can't do otherwise, then it would be impossible to tempt him. And even worse, His being tempted and not sinning has no value or meaning.

When you ask can He deny Himself, are you referring to 2 Timothy 2:12-13? If so, this verse supports the doctrine that "members in the Body of Christ" can't lose their salvation. Paul writes that when you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus Christ and believe in your heart that He came in the flesh and died for you and is risen, then the Holy Spirit baptizes you into the Body where you are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise until the day of redemption... (Eph. 1:13-14). The verse reads, "If we are faithless, He remains faithful; HE CANNOT DENY HIMSELF [i.e. His Body; however He will deny rewards]" (2 Tim. 2:13). Also see Rom. 8:35, 37-39; 2 Tim. 1:12; 1 Cor. 5:5; Gal. 5:22-23; Eph. 2:6; 4:30; Phil. 1:6; Col. 3:3, 13.

God bless, Tom from Mabank, TX

 

[TeeJay]

"Free" from what, Tom?

That's what is missing from your definition; it doesn't explain what our choice is free from. The definition from Merriam-Webster does tell us, which is why I use it.

Without telling us what the alleged free choice is free from, the definition you provided is worthless. You can choose vanilla or chocolate! Big deal.

Do you agree that free will, in the context of theology, is the freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention? Yes or no.

Elohiym, I'm trying to have dialogue with you, but you are making it difficult. I'll give you a simple definition in the context of theology.

Humans are free to either accept or reject God.

I don't know how to say it any other way.

God belss, Tom from Mabank, TX

 

[TeeJay]

Why do you assume it is the carnal mind that repents?

Lighthouse, until we accept Jesus Christ, we are all carnal. No?

God bless, Tom from Mabank, TX

 

[TeeJay]

These are questions that puzzle me:
If God knew each individual that would receive salvation before he created Adam ... then what is the purpose of having a judgment day in any shape or form?

Ps82, I don't know why your post was ignored. Perhaps I can answer some of your questions? Here goes:

God did not know Adam UNTIL HE CREATED HIM! Recall that God brought all the animals to Adam TO SEE WHAT HE WOULD CALL THEM. God can't know a person that does not exist. God knows everything knowable that HE NEEDS OR WANTS to know. But knowing a person that does not exist is not knowable.

Why the judgment? Anyone who dies without accepting Jesus Christ's sacrifice for him on the Cross, goes directly to Hell with no "get out of jail free pass." Although their fate is sealed, there is still a judgment so they will know exactly why they are condemned. All who have not accepted Jesus are judged under the law, and "by the law, no flesh will be justified." Paul writes that we will judge angels. So the judgment of these sinners will be delegated to us by God.

Wouldn't everything already be decided and just fall into place in God's plan?

God's desire is that ALL humanity would be saved. But we are free to choose or reject God.

When the process of bringing forth all of the combination s ofgenetic humanity was completed, then the fields would be harvested and that would be the sum of the consequences and decisions?

When Jesus Christ comes again to Israel, He will send His angels to harvest the earth so to speak. His angels will separate the wheat (believers) from the tares (unbelievers).

Now, I think it is interesting to ponder this idea.

After God created mankind with the potential to reproduce - God may have been able to look into the genetic pool of possibilities and predetermined the heart of that individual ... when his/her time came. Therefore, God would know at conception whether that particular individual would be one of his chosen.[/Quote]

Interesting concept! But DNA has to do with the physical make-up of individuals, and this physical make-up probably includes personality, character, etc. And God, Who wrote the DNA code, can look into the womb (IF HE WANTS TO) and read it. And from His reading, He can tell much about what kind of person the baby will grow up to be. But we accept or reject Jesus Christ with the heart, after a decision of the mind, which requires humbling one's self. C. S. Lewis said that one can know that God exists with the mind and still reject Him with the heart. The Pharaoh in Egiypt knew that Moses' God was the real deal, but he hardened his heart to God. Had he accepted Moses' God, God would have blessed Egypt instad of destroying it.

After all, God seemed to know that Jeremiah would be a trustworthy prophet... and chose him as he even was developing within the secrecy of the womb.

A careful reading of Scripture will show that more people "chosen" by God let Him down than obeyed Him. All of His chosen people whom He brought out of Egiypt "with a mighty hand" died on the wilderness floor in unbelief. And yes, God can be a better judge of character than you or I.

Yet - there is another possibility - maybe there are genetic combination s (of humans) that are more 'iffy' due to their weaker character ... yet God does not immediately dismiss them as hopelessly lost... but rather each is given their chance - under the sun.

A good example is Gideon.

It sort of reminds me of what happened between Cain and Abel. God found Abel and his choice of an offering more acceptable than Cain and his ... but God also told Cain this (Gen. 3:7
"If you do well, shalt not you be accepted?"

IOW, Cain still had a choice and a chance.

Exactly! The reason God did not accept Cain's sacrifice is that a blood sacrifice was symbolic of the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Apparently God had made it clear what He expected, but Cain disobeyed. And, yes, God gave Cain a second chance to obey or disobey. It was his choice.

God bless, Tom from Mabank, TX

 

[elohiym]

Humans are free to either accept or reject God.

Your statement is so vague as to be virtually meaningless to me. I still don't know what you think your choices are "free" from. I also don't know what you mean by accept or reject God.

When one is faced with the choice to do one thing or another, the choice is not free from coercion if the consequence is hellfire. Really, you have no choice if you don't want to burn in hellfire.

When one wants to do the "right thing," so as not to burn in hellfire, but lacks the capacity to do it, one is not free to choose to do the "right thing." One is in bondag

 

[elohiym]

Your question is like asking if Jesus is God or a man.

No. My question is simple:

Did YOU freely choose to believe the gospel? Yes or no.

If you understand that faith is gift from God, you should answer no.

If you believe that faith is self-generated, you should answer yes.

For free will to exist--that is a choice free from divine intervention--your faith must be solely self-generated.

 

[14400]

Your question is just as vague. I can answer yes to your question, and it still would not mean that God chooses Bob and not Bill to be saved. God does choose that all those who obey the Gospel will be saved, and all those who do not are not saved. In fact, He did.

"Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" 2 Th 2:6-8

You are confused. What God chose is that all those who are saved will be holy and blameless. He predestined that all those who are saved are accepted in the beloved. We are all adopted children.

Even if your personal interpretation is true, it does not support your theory that God chooses which individuals will be in the dark, and which will be in the light. He simply chooses that those in the light will be separated from those in darkness.

This just tells us how, not who.

Again, you pour your own understanding into the text, and fail to read it correctly (not to mention who the audience is here). Anyone who is saved is called out of darkness, and into His light,

"To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me." Acts 26:18

Context is His disciples whom He chose for a purpose. He did not choose for them to be saved. God knows the heart, and He chose them knowing their hearts.

The Father gives all to Jesus who believe in Him (verse 47). The Father chooses to draw men through the Gospel. This is about how men are saved, not who is individually saved.

Again, those who believe are elected to receive. You fail to understand what you read.

Look at it this way...

Let's say your dad is throwing you a birthday party, and everyone is invited.

At the party there is cake, ice cream, games, and party gifts that are predestined to be given to everyone who comes. Those who accept the invitation, and come to the party, are elected to receive everything the party offers, having been ordained in advance. Your dad determined in advance that all would be invited, but only those who come are chosen to receive.

I've been reading for 83 years dear. and 70 of them studying.

I have been wrong on quite a few occasions, and the WORD has corrected me and instructed me, thankfully.

I can tell your young yet, and you also have a lot of life yet to be corrected as well.


Just remember 1 important thing....God is NOT a respecter of PERSONS, therefore all that you said becomes null in the LIGHT of the Word, for If I were to believe on God out of mine own heart, then He must have respect on THAT and on ME.

So there is no twisting words from the Bible, for God's WORD is TRUTH, and there is NO CONTRADICTION in TRUTH, and what you have said CONTRADICTS what God tells us:


ROMANS 2:11

11.) For there is no respect of persons with God.



ACTS 10:34

34.) Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:




We see a verse that does tell us God has respect unto the work of a man:



1PETER 1:17

17.) And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear:



So as you see, 1PETER "SEEMS" to contradict the PRINCIPLE that God is NOT a respecter of persons, and that the WORKS a person does as in "believing" IN God from their own heart, or Confessing, or professing, or ASKING.

So how can scripture be truth if scripture contradicts scripture?

Simply this; it is NOT the SCRIPTURE that CONTRADICTS scripture, it is the way we perceive, or understand what the WORD means as MAN THINKS IT TO MEAN, and NOT according to how GOD means it.


So to reconcile 1PETER 1:17 to the PRINCIPLE that God is not a respecter of persons...(which includes any work they do or don't do,)... Then we MUST understand this verse to be speaking about ONLY those who God DREW FIRST, and those who CHRIST LOVED FIRST, and those who GOD gave a NEW HEART and HIS Spirit to.

Then we see HARMONY and no more contradiction....


but your young yet, and Lord willing, you have plenty of time for correction.


Don't believe me though! Believe ONLY God through His WORD, and Don't lean upon your own wisdom, but rely only upon God.



Peace

 

[godrulz]

No. My question is simple:

Did YOU freely choose to believe the gospel? Yes or no.

If you understand that faith is gift from God, you should answer no.

If you believe that faith is self-generated, you should answer yes.

For free will to exist--that is a choice free from divine intervention--your faith must be solely self-generated.

This is a false dichotomy, as I suspected. You are begging the question and not considering other options/qualifications.

 

[elohiym]

This is a false dichotomy, as I suspected. You are begging the question and not considering other options/qualifications.

Says you.

Big surprise.

 

[godrulz]

Says you.

Big surprise.

It is true. There is another way to look at things, but explanation is in order vs yes, no...a false dichotomy means there is a better explanation than the two offered (which are not the only two, except in your own mind).

This is like saying is Calvinism or Arminianism true. There are actually other options that are possible, including Molinism and Open Theism.

 

[Nick M]

Feel free to give us an objective interpretation.

Here is his biblical prooftext.

Only if the believer becomes an apostate/falls away/unbeliever. Your mythical believing unbeliever does not exist. Most Open Theists (except TOL/Plot ones) deny OSAS because they are consistent free will theists, not determinists like Calvinists (POTS).:banana:"I quote the bible when necessary...(forget exact verse).. I have books in my library that refute you in detail that you cannot refute. They do a better job than I would in a few posts…...Google may also help....If you study biblical theology (looking at books, authors, etc.) instead of systematic theology or ultradispensationalism, you would see that... As it is, commentators disagree on… I believe sound evangelical scholarship totally refutes what you are saying … He is not worth reading in light of the sound scholarship that exists ..Sound NT scholarship recognizes.... Whole books have been written on it… The vast majority of godly Christians have not heard of MAD. The best of conservative, biblical, evangelical scholarship rejects it if they have heard of it…. Exact reference again? Did you check other versions or a commentary?... Buy a good commentary for the various opinions on… Hermeneutical books point out that… Even in your traditional view, scholars do not express your issues…I am not an expert on MAD and do not consider it a prominent enough view to gain much academic attention…Sound NT scholarship comes to different conclusions…Who was the prominent author (s) who held to it in your movement?.. I think you will be hard pressed to find commentators who would agree with you…As the Bible Knowledge Commentary points out,… it is not even on the radar of credible NT scholars…. I can't condense 30 years of study from a variety of sources into a few posts… any credible commentary or systematic theology will give you the arguments and verses…. I agree with the commentary. .. Listen to the Doctor (D. M. L-Jones), not radio preachers with weak NT backgrounds. …There is a reason it is a marginal view that lacks credibility among NT scholars…"Feel free to refute the many books written that contradict your views…. There is a reason no NT scholar… It is enough solid scholarship to silence MAD… an ignorant JW who blindly follows an organization or their misquoting of our scholars…. You underestimate the caliber of scholars that God has raised up to keep the sheep from falling for false teaching and ignorance on important subjects. Why should I trust you as an expert on things, and reject those with proven track records and godly character/insights? Eph. 4:11-13 vs internet wannabees with no training or accountability…Any credible biblical theology of John and Paul or any credible commentary or NT scholar or average believer has no problem with I Jn. vs Paul.....There are many resources to help you, but you prefer fringe writers over ones that can give you more biblical answers….but I should ignore more credible sources and their documented evidence? Why, pray tell?!.... What school did you go to again?... I went to Bible College in the early 80s, but have no scholastic club except TOL (which is not very scholastic)...MAD confuses corporate, missional issues with individual, redemptive issues....I did not read this in a book (except the Bible), but I think it is a valid observation..They confuse these concepts, a rookie mistake...OSAS makes sense in deterministic Calvinism, not in a free will, relational theism....Nick's view seems to reduce us to sock puppet automatons and requires ignoring large sections of Scripture. He also misunderstands the nature of faith vs works, morals vs metaphysics, Star Trek vs Star Wars, Venus vs Mars, etc You are simplistic to think it is a matter of what the Bible says when you interpret and twist to fit a preconceived idea. It is arrogant to assume that godly, capable, great thinkers through the centuries who reject MAD (new doctrine anyway) are clueless or without the leading of the Spirit….Mormons have a false gospel and false Christ. Pentecostals affirm the same essential, historical, biblical, orthodox truths that you do, but they do not dispensationalize away the gifts of the Spirit for the first century only. Even those who disagree with our distinctives generally do not dispute our common faith in Christ…..I am not incorrect to point out the emphasis on studying Scripture, etc. for truth. The Spirit of Truth does lead us into truth, but you have to explain why so many sincere, godly believers have such a myriad of divisive, doctrinal views despite the same indwelling Holy Spirit, same sincerity, same prayerful study of Word, etc. (hint: noetic effects of sin; bad teaching; subjective, fleshly impressions mistaken for the Spirit, etc.)….. Free will involves self-determining freedom (ability of an agent to determine their actions). It makes love, relationship, moral responsibility possible. Boyd: The agent renders indefinite possibilities (maybe this and maybe that) into definite realities (certainly this or certainly that). Antecedent and external factors influence the agent but cannot determine the agent insofar as the agent is self-determining. The ultimate cause and explanation for a free agent's behavior goes back to the agent, no further. (so God cannot be blamed for sin and evil and we are morally culpable vs deterministic views that impugn His holy character). Acts 2 is post-cross, post-finished work of Christ. You are undermining His finished work (Hebrews shows the superiority of New/reality in Christ over Old/shadows and types) by suggesting there is a temporary 'Jewish/circ' gospel before Paul. Keeping the Law after the Lamb of God sheds His blood is nonsense and futile, even for Jewish Christians. The dividing wall is down because of the cross and there is nothing needed for Jew/Gentile to be one in Christ based on the one true NT gospel. Two gospel theories are not biblical post-cross. MAD confuses eschatological/covenantal issues and soteriological issues. If this sounds robotic, so be it. I will keep pounding away this basic truth till you guys wake up and smell the coffee. His death and resurrection negates any need for a circ gospel. Paul was a messenger of the gospel, not the first one to introduce a new gospel…..A.T. Robertson's Word Pictures commentary correctly deals with the Greek/interpretation in context...he is a Greek master, not a KJV only...sometimes it does make a difference, dudes…You are simplistic to think it is a matter of what the Bible says when you interpret and twist to fit a preconceived idea. It is arrogant to assume that godly, capable, great thinkers through the centuries who reject MAD (new doctrine anyway) are clueless or without the leading of the Spirit….Mormons have a false gospel and false Christ. Pentecostals affirm the same essential, historical, biblical, orthodox truths that you do, but they do not dispensationalize away the gifts of the Spirit for the first century only. Even those who disagree with our distinctives generally do not dispute our common faith in Christ…..I am not incorrect to point out the emphasis on studying Scripture, etc. for truth. The Spirit of Truth does lead us into truth, but you have to explain why so many sincere, godly believers have such a myriad of divisive, doctrinal views despite the same indwelling Holy Spirit, same sincerity, same prayerful study of Word, etc. (hint: noetic effects of sin; bad teaching; subjective, fleshly impressions mistaken for the Spirit, etc.)….. Free will involves self-determining freedom (ability of an agent to determine their actions). It makes love, relationship, moral responsibility possible. Boyd: The agent renders indefinite possibilities (maybe this and maybe that) into definite realities (certainly this or certainly that). Antecedent and external factors influence the agent but cannot determine the agent insofar as the agent is self-determining. The ultimate cause and explanation for a free agent's behavior goes back to the agent, no further. (so God cannot be blamed for sin and evil and we are morally culpable vs deterministic views that impugn His holy character). Acts 2 is post-cross, post-finished work of Christ. Can you find any other source who has come up with this? Did you borrow it from someone?:dunce::dunce::dunce:

 

[Nick M]

Nick M,

Perhaps I misunderstand you and you me? I agree that God CAN sin. He's not a programmed robot that CAN'T DO OTHERWISE. What I'm arguing is that He can't sin and remain sinless JUST BECAUSE HE'S GOD!

It takes to faith to trust Someone who can't do otherwise.

God bless, Tom from Mabank, TX

I don't. But you could say that is semantical. He can not break the law, he is not bound by it.

He (Jesus) could have acted imoral if he wanted to, but he refuses to, and it is against his character. He refuesd to cast simself down and refused to turn stone into food. Jesus was born under the law in the flesh.

This quality is not applicable to us and our no good worthless lives.

 

[Oh no... it's Sozo]

Tom? Response?

 

[TeeJay]

Your statement is so vague as to be virtually meaningless to me. I still don't know what you think your choices are "free" from. I also don't know what you mean by accept or reject God.

I'm not free "from." I'm free "to" either accept or reject God. I value my wife's love for me because she is free to love another. Love can only be given freely. I think my statement is very clear. If it's vague, I don't know what else to do?

When one is faced with the choice to do one thing or another, the choice is not free from coercion if the consequence is hellfire. Really, you have no choice if you don't want to burn in hellfire.

But I do have a choice not to burn in hell. Jesus provided that choice when He died on the Cross--either John 3:16 or John 3:18.

When one wants to do the "right thing," so as not to burn in hellfire, but lacks the capacity to do it, one is not free to choose to do the "right thing." One is in bondag

Let's see if I got this straight:

If man does the right thing, he will not burn in hell.
Man is not free to choose to do the right thing.
Therefore man will burn in hell.

First premise is correct. Second premise false.

Now I will agree that man lacks the capacity to fulfill the righteous requirements of the law. But I don't have to. Jesus fulfilled the righteousness requirements of the law for me.

But I do have the choice, will, free will, option to accept His sacrifice for me. The only impediment stopping man from going to heaven is his unrepentant, hard heart.

God bless, Tom from Mabank, TX

 

[TeeJay]

I don't. But you could say that is semantical. He can not break the law, he is not bound by it.

He (Jesus) could have acted imoral if he wanted to, but he refuses to, and it is against his character. He refuesd to cast simself down and refused to turn stone into food. Jesus was born under the law in the flesh.

This quality is not applicable to us and our no good worthless lives.

Nick M,

The moral laws of thou shall not murder, steal, rape, kidnap, bear false witness, etc. are a description of God. God can't violate these moral laws without changing Himself. "Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne, O God. If Jesus Christ had bowed His knee to Satan, sin would have entered the Godhead, and God would have come undone.

This is wthat separates our God from the capricious pagan gods who can sin JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE GODS. Jesus came in the flesh and fulfilled our part of the contract--He fulfilled the righteous requirement of the law. He could not have fulfilled this righteous requirement of he law and sinned. For if He sinned in the smallest way, then the righteousness requirement of the law would not have been fulfilled.


God bless, Tom from Mabank, TX