How many Calvinists/Arminians do we have?

[Guest]

The basis of the "doctrine of election" is philosophy therefore to counter this idea is to use philosophy also.

the doctrine of election is clear in the Bible. hence the whole "elect" thing.

[Guest]

I am new to this discussion and even though I should, I am not going to read back. I have always believed that people have been predestined to do one thing and that is to walk in the likeness of Christ. Not all will do this, of course, but the saved can and do, thus God's truth of predestination comes about by the fact that in order to be a child of God one must follow after the provider of that trust and that trust lies in Christ alone.

Romans 8:28-30 (New King James Version)

28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

Ephesians 1:4-6 (New King James Version)

4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.

Ephesians 1:10-12 (New King James Version)

10 that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both[a] which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him. 11 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, 12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.

Being a foreknown one and being predestined is not the same term but to be predestined can only be applied to the one foreknown.

nice work allyn

[Guest]

English: Foreknow
Greek:Proginosko

We get the English "prognosis" from this word. When a medical doctor comes up with a prognosis, he doesn't have "foreknowledge". He doesn't know what will happen with the patient. But he has a sound prediction based on his knowledge of the patient's health.

The word translated as "predestination" ought rather to be translated as "pre-appointment." God has appointed people beforehand. But not everyone will keep that appointment.

does a man then get rewarded for showing up?

[Guest]

My apology for writing the following statement I must have offended some people here:

The basis of the "doctrine of election" is philosophy therefore to counter this idea is to use philosophy also.

[Guest]

My apology for writing the following statement I must have offended some people here:

The basis of the "doctrine of election" is philosophy therefore to counter this idea is to use philosophy also.

not that it was offensive, some just completely disagree

for example, if i came in here and said something like "the basis of the "doctrine of free will" is philosophy... i'd probably get some similar reactions

[Guest]

Devin,

Your quote of Barnes:

2 Peter 1:1-3 tells us the specific identity of the audience to whom Peter is writing. Peter writes to a specific group, not to all of mankind. “To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours.” This surely limits the context to the saved, for they have received this faith “by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ”. There is nothing in 2 Peter 3 that indicates a change in audience, and much to tell us the audience remains exactly the same.

And:

for the assumption made by the Arminian is that when 2 Peter 3:9 says the Lord is “patient toward you” that this “you” refers to everyone. Likewise, then, when it says “not wishing for any to perish” but “all to come to repentance,” it is assumed that the “any” and “all” refers to anyone at all of the human race. Yet, the context indicates that the audience is quite specific.

Barnes seems to be confused. He assures us Peter's letter is written to the saved; "this surely limits the context to the saved". Then he asserts that the people the Lord is longsuffering toward, not willing that they should perish, but come to repentance are the elect:

Since this is so, it becomes quite clear that the Arminian is badly misusing this passage by ignoring what Peter is really saying. The patience of the Lord is displayed toward his elect people (the “you” of 2 Peter 3:9). Therefore, the “not wishing any to perish” must be limited to the same group already in view: The elect. In the same way, the “all to come to repentance” must be the very same group. In essence Peter is saying the coming of the Lord has been delayed so that all the elect of God can be gathered in.

If Peter is speaking to the saved, and them only, then what need have they of repentance since they can not fall away? And if Peter is addressing the elect who are not saved as opposed to the unelect unsaved, how can this be determined from the text since Barnes assures us Peter is writing exclusively to those who are already saved, and them alone? And what does he think of the warning against falling away in verse 17?

[_Sean]

Sorry it's been awhile, I just now got some time to type.

By reading what you've just said, since you believe that it is the person's choice to go to hell, do you also believe that a person must make the choice to go to Heaven? I do know that human responsibility is a "must" to the Christian, but I believe that only happens when God saves one who has been predestined to be adopted by Christ (Eph 1:3-6). The man's choice is already made up, for God planned each believer to make that choice, and experience God to glorify Him.

I base the person "choosing" or even storing up wrath against themselves based on Romans 1. It repeatedly pronounces judgment on people who do not acknowledge, thank, glorify God etc. They made those choices.

That's why I asked before what you disagreed with from Steve's lectures. He goes into Ephesians 1 in detail. We (believers) are predestined to be adopted as sons through Christ (not our works). Christ did the work, but we must accept the offer by faith. Faith must be exercised on our part (more on this below). When we are "in Christ" we share in the adoption as sons.

Here is what Albert Barnes said of Romans 9:24. I agree with him.

Romans 9:24 -
Even us ... - See Rom_1:16; Rom_2:10; Rom_3:29-30. To prove that the Gentiles might be called as well as the Jews, was a leading design of the Epistle.
Us - Christians, selected from both Jews and Gentiles. This proves that he did not refer to nations primarily, but to individuals chosen out of nations. Two things are established here.
1. that the grace of God was not confined to the Jewish people, as they supposed, so that it could be conferred on no others.
2. that God was not bound to confer grace on all the descendants of Abraham, as he bestowed it on those selected from the mass, according to his own will, and not of necessity “on the mass” itself.

It says Even us who He also called. If you keep reading after the OT quotations about the Gentiles coming in the context is:

27 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, "THOUGH THE NUMBER OF THE SONS OF ISRAEL BE LIKE THE SAND OF THE SEA, IT IS THE REMNANT THAT WILL BE SAVED;

28 FOR THE LORD WILL EXECUTE HIS WORD ON THE EARTH, THOROUGHLY AND QUICKLY."

So who is god referring to as the lump that he bore with great patience? The one who was of great number but only a remnant will be saved? The one whom the Lord was about to carry out His sentence on? It says Israel. The Israel that stumbled over the stumbling stone (Jesus). And were about to be crushed.

It goes on to say:
30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith;

31but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.

32Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone,

Under discussion in Romans 9 is Israel, the remnant of Israel and the Gentiles who are being grafted onto the remnant Israel.

So while "Us" refers to more than the nation of Israel, the one lump that was to be destroyed is the non-remnant part of Israel as the context seems to go on to suggest. It's also worthy to note that Peter called the church a Holy Nation in 1 Peter 2 and Jesus said that the Kingdom of God would be taken from "you" and given to another nation. So it could be said that "nations" were being spoken of. The church and the "Jerusalem below".

I see in the context that the carnal mind is at enmity with God via a sinful nature, in other words being born in Adam. One must be reborn in Christ to become spiritually minded. That also is the only way to please God, if the Spirit is not in us, then we are not His.

Ok, were going to far off course on this one so lets try again. In a previous post you quoted this part of my post:

All this to say that I believe the difference between the elect and non-elect is the choice they make to accept the gift of Grace, already paid for by Christ Himself.

To which you replied:
For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace because the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the Law of God, neither indeed can it be.

To which I replied by quoting more of the context that stated:
Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.

It comes down to this:
Does man make Himself born again by his own act of choosing/believing? Or does God reveal Himself to a man, and then the man follows Him? Does the Shepherd choose His sheep? Or do the sheep choose their Shepherd?

Actually, I agree with you as you have worded it here. God reveals Himself to men and they (choose) to follow or not. That's what the bible teaches.

Romans 5:2 through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand...

While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all those hearing the Word. And those of the circumcision, who believed (as many as came with Peter), were astonished because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out on the nations also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, Can anyone forbid water that these, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we, should not be baptized? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they begged him to stay certain days.
-Acts 10:44-48

If God gave to them the same gift as to us, they having believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to be able to prevent God?
When they heard these things, they were silent and glorified God, saying, Then God has also granted repentance to life to the nations.
-Acts 11:17-18

Those with faith glorify God, Cornelius had faith, but did not have the Holy Spirit.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.
My point was simply this: Cornelius was devout and feared God before he heard the gospel. He believed when Peter spoke to him and then Cornelius received the Holy Spirit. That means that until Peter proclaimed the Gospel to Cornelius he was still "in the flesh" and if he was in the flesh, as you claimed, he was unable to please God. The important point to note is that Cornelius was able to believe the Gospel and be saved while still canal and "in the flesh". If Cornelius can do it, so can others.

Is not faith a gift from God (Eph 2:8-9)?
Do you think that Cornelius could have stopped the Spirit from falling on him?

First, Steve addressed Ephesians 2:8-9. (That's why I asked what you disagree with him about, this is apparently one of those things you didn't agree with) Faith is not here said to be a gift from God, salvation is. Even John MacArthur (a calvinist with a minor in greek) agrees and stated as much in his book "Faith Works".
As Romans 5 says we have access by faith into Grace. Faith is believing as Romans 4 commends Abraham for. Paul didn't commend God for giving Abraham faith, Paul instead held up Abraham as an example for us, saying:

Romans 4:20 He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, 21 and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. 22 And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.”

Paul's focus is on what Abraham did with the promises of God. Abraham remained fully convinced of them and did not waver.

As far as Cornelius being able to stop the Holy Spirit from falling, I don't see your point at all. Why would he, he was able to receive the gospel while in the flesh, why would he then reject the Holy Spirit?

So then they who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Romans 8:8

Works of the flesh profit a man nothing towards God.

True, but as we have seen from Cornelius you can be "in the flesh" and still exercise faith toward God, a saving faith no less. But that is because faith is not a work and they should not be confused as such:

Romans 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.
5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.

Faith is not a work.

[_Sean]

paidion convinced me ( i think) of the soundness of his position here and the many pages contained therein):

http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.ph ... 7&start=45

that is not to say i understand everything perfectly now, quite the contrary. but i have given up on the "because God is God he doesnt have the same rules as us" argument.

TK

If I get time I'll post a response to Paidion in that thread instead of this one.

[_Sean]

Being a foreknown one and being predestined is not the same term but to be predestined can only be applied to the one foreknown.

nice work allyn

If I'm understanding Allyn correctly I agree with him too. The one who is predestined is the one is is foreknown. As in God foreknew my faith, etc.
I certainly could be predestined individually in that sense.

[Guest]

thats a good bit for me to go over and dwell on, i'll respond at a later time