Results 1 - 9 of 9
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Why won't Calvinists answer directly??? | Job 38:1 | RElderCascade | 1517 | ||
On Saturday I wrote a reply to your main question already, but it is somehow gone now so I can only assume you never got it either. To recap, I explained that I didn't intend to use the Eph 2 passage as the best example of specific or particular atonement as a stand alone verse. I was instead citing it as a great source of revelation regarding the issue faith and choice. Sure, you're right to say that faith when first excersized (appears to be) a choice made by people when looked at by man. We make real choices that are have real consequences. But there is a larger picture and our experience is not reliable to use alone to see the whole picture. So we need to study what is even possible for man to exersize choice over and what things are not possible. Man can not just believe a specific set of propositional truths and seal some kind of transaction thereby, granting him salvation as a reward. It is too big for man, whose depravity is too all encompassing. The text says it is "through" faith not by works, this rules out a first ordered choice made by man or even. It is not "by" faith. The finest texts use "through" and that is significant. Sinful, unregenerate man did not choose ultimately, God did, nothing else is good news. When the Bible gives the universal appeals to believe and be saved it gives us the idea that we can make the same offer, and I think that is right. But that is only for evangelism. There could be no other way we could participate in evangelism, unless we are to believe that there is real hope that the person we are talking to is elect, but we most certianly don't know if they are or not. The Bible makes too many other clear statements regarding God's election of believers for us to be able to to only grab onto the evangelistic appeals and therefore conclude that God did not choose us unto salvation. You are right to say that God must make the first move, but does your silence regarding the second and third moves, etc. mean that you think God's part is exclusively at the cross. Look back at Eph. 1 and see His part was settled in time and space long before that event and it also has nothing to do with us. So when stated to unbelievers we do say it is for them. God willing. I hope I have answered your question. Eph 2:5 ..even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), |
||||||
2 | Why won't Calvinists answer directly??? | Job 38:1 | jg8ball | 1533 | ||
Bottom line. Our views differ on what the term election means and who God chose. If I understand you correctly, you believe that God chose certain people that could be saved (and therefore chose certain people that could not be saved). The people that God chose to be saved are the Elect. I'm not sure if you believe all the Elect will be saved or if only some of the Elect will be saved though. I believe that God offered EVERYONE the opportunity to be saved. Jesus died for the sins of everyone - past, present, and future. I also believe that God wants us to accept His gift by choosing for ourselves to believe in His son. Those that choose to believe are the elect talked about in the Bible. God predestined his plan of salvation and this plan was that EVERYONE could be saved if they believed. Will everyone be saved? NO. Can people do good deeds to get into Heaven? NO. It is only through faith that a person can be saved - ANY person. We all start out the same. It's not until we choose to believe in the Lord that we are separated from this world and united through Christ. How can you read the Bible and interpret that God would choose to save only some people and not others and do this by making us puppets? What sense does it make to beleive that God wants us to worship and love Him and also believe that He choses who will do that? I'm sorry, but God chooses that we ALL worship and love Him, but because He loves us so much, does not want to force us, but rather choose for ourselves. I'm not sure if you have children, but would you rather force them to love you or would you rather have them want to love you for themselves? |
||||||
3 | Why won't Calvinists answer directly??? | Job 38:1 | RElderCascade | 1556 | ||
You're right, God elects all who believe. This is not conditioned on anything in us, it is only by grace. He is no respector of persons -- is a typical way of expressing this in the modern idioms. All the Elect are saved, none are lost. How can you read about the people in Noah’s day and Pharoah and the Philistines and Syria and on and on and not believe that God chooses some for salvation and not others? The Bible is a problematic book if not seen as God ruling in all of the world and the entire universe. What possible sense can be made of "hardening Pharoahs heart"? Is God just a meanie there in the Old Testament? Did He change later on? If a person is tempted to answer yest to both of these questions then that is the largest problem a person can have this side of judgement!!!!! The best analogy I can give you is that it might be best looked at like an author of a novel. Who made up the characters? Are they real in the book? Are they free to act in ways the author doesn't want? But they are not doing only what the author wants -- since they have consisitant personalities and they do only (their thing) what they want to do. Sure, the author uses them to tell a story and it can be about them but I would rather focus on the types of stories that are written for the purpose of the author other than to tell about a character. Many authors write for the purpose of articulating right from wrong (Dosteovsky comes to mind) rather than to merely take a slice out of time for the reader’s benefit. This is a little like the Bible’s focus from the beginning to the end. God has his own purposes. He is the main purpose of it all, not ourselves. His electing us does not make us puppets (in the negative sense--keep in mind there is a positive sense of this as well) any more than than the author’s characters are puppets. Only in poorly written works will this fail, when a story depicts someone acting out of character we resist and loose interest in the shoddy work, because the writer has “puppeted” his characters rather than keep in “character”. We are God’s creatures He is the only one who may decide what to do with us, and not the other way around. I would like to be (a puppet) upheld by his cables on my wrists and elbows and waist and knees and ankles, oh that I could stay there always in His freedom, never to to be dropped and only to know of His omnipotence! To never again worry about needing a lifeline to God! Wouldn’t you want to be a PUPPET also? All who are truly saved are there what else can be meant by Blessed be the God and the Father of our Lord Jesus who has blessed us with all blessings in heavenly places in Him, Holy and blameless before Him in love... |
||||||
4 | Why won't Calvinists answer directly??? | Job 38:1 | Radioman | 1566 | ||
I agree with you: Election is unconditional. The word election is synonymous with choosing, just as elect is a synonym of choose. According to some people's definition of election, it is not choosing at all. Whenever a word in the Bible is interpreted to mean someting other than the ordinary English definition of the word, Beware! Someone is not rightly dividing the word of truth. According to the opinion of some, there is NO Bible doctrine of election. I wonder then: when the Bible speaks of "the elect", whom is it talking about? Thank you for taking a stand for the Bible doctrine of election. | ||||||
5 | Why won't Calvinists answer directly??? | Job 38:1 | RElderCascade | 1578 | ||
You are very encouraging, have you ever read Edwards on this? The reason I ask is because he encourages one to think carefully about the implications of choice -- and his treatise on free will is one of the truly finest things ever written. It is clearly the best essay by an American ever! According Jonathan Edwards the word election must mean choice or cause in some sense. As I understand it, there is a field of inquiry called Biblical Theology and another we know as Systematic Theology. The doctrine of election is not categorized in Biblical Theology, but instead in Systematic Theology. Therefore, we can conclude that it is gotten by looking at the real meaning of the word and harmonizing what does the Bible mean when it talks of predestination. Often, there is a need to do some quality logic along with the observation of Biblical texts in order to even be able to understand the words and ideas there. Some Biblical texts take less thought than others. Do you notice that many people (who have come to inconsistant conclusions) have done a quality job of getting at what the Bible says, but don't do quality logic with what it means --which makes application impossible. Such as drawing conclusions that fit their view of God (which view is limited to a preconceived notion of their own or of their culture's, etc.). |
||||||
6 | Why won't Calvinists answer directly??? | Job 38:1 | Radioman | 1708 | ||
Thank you for your encouraging reply. No, I have never read Edwards on this. But the treatise on free will sounds extremely interesting. I will look for it to read it. I agree with you regarding both election and the process and principles of correct interpretation of the Scripture. Have you noticed that often when anti-electionists are asked to consider Scriptures that support election, they do not reply to any of the Scripture references? They totally ignore them in their replies and then proceed to write a long harangue made up primarily of human reasoning. If they quote any Scripture at all in their replies, it is usually verses that don't have a thing in the world to do with the subject of election. I have also noticed that many, many people ignore the principle that we learn what the Bible MEANS by what it SAYS. For some, if what the Bible says conflicts with what they already believe, they dismiss or explain away the clear verse of Scritpure and stick with their preconceived notion instead. May I recommend if you haven't already done so, that you use the Search function on this website to look up the following. Search for "I want to thank you for the dialogue we" and "WHAT DOES THE BIBLE TEACH ABOUT ELECTION". Both entries were submitted by JVH0212 on 02-28-2001 at 5:24 pm and 5:28 pm respectively. It is the most thorough, yet concise article on the Bible doctrine of election that I've ever seen. It's packed with Scripture. You will find it a good resource for any debates with the people who are pro-man's freewill and anti-Sovereignty of God. Thank you again for a very insightful, well-written reply. | ||||||
7 | Why won't Calvinists answer directly??? | Job 38:1 | RElderCascade | 1762 | ||
Thank you for the lead on the search function. I'll get to that with joy. I am not surprised that JVH0212 wrote such a quality work on this, I have noticed many well thought out articles by that contributor. I have observed some similar tactics of debate in my face to face discussions which have given me a larger goal. I know that we all want to air "our" difficulties with a particular idea so I feel that even if it doesn't get the discussion into the issues and realms I feel are most important to the debate, I've resolved to go there. It makes for more work for me, because I get way off any previously prepared disciplines and find that I seem to have to "wing" it all the way. You're right in reviewing the response to specific veses, therein is the only value to do a quality debate. If we work hard enough at it (by that I mean to stay on point) we will find God will use the whole moment for His good. It is a worship-type experience to consider Him and what is really true about Him. You're very encouraging and I hope I have been to jg8ball. That man chooses isn't in debate, the issue is who enabled him to choose? Did God first regenerate him and then he chose, or did man simply excersize a little something of spiritual life and choose (even while he is dead in sin and treapasses) Isn't it a shame that God would do so much and make such a great offer of Salvation to us as in the parable in Luke 14:16-24 but men are so in love with the world that they won't accept the gift? Edwards treatise on free will does the finest contribution on this by basically saying we do what we want to do most at any given time. If we want to please God more than we want to sin at a time of temptation then we will please God. But if we want to sin more than please God we'll do that. We must be free if we are moral agents, and so we are free. But we are not free to do what is by definition impossible. God gives us faith, He regenerates us first and then we are made spiritually alive and our call is effectual. Edwards does a smashing job of it and it is fun to read the old english. Don't worry if it goes slowly for you because my wife and I once drove J.I. Packer home from a meeting and I asked him how rapidly he expects us to get through the Puritans works. He said that he didn't think even they got in any kind of a hurry to read through works of their contempories, so we should read them slowly and completely. |
||||||
8 | If elect is not choose, then what is it? | Job 38:1 | kalos | 1788 | ||
Thank you for your sensible, scriptural posting of 03-24-2001. I would like to comment on your Note, the part where you say, "That man chooses isn't in debate, the issue is who enabled him to choose?" . . . Exactly! That man chooses is indisputable. Allow me to quote from the Baker Theological Dictionary of the Bible (p. 199, Baker Books, 1996). "In the Scriptures the term 'choose' is used of both God and human beings. With respect to human beings, it covers all human decisions. ...God also makes choices and by a large margin, the term 'choose' is used in Scripture to refer to the choices of God rather than human choices." . . . Footnote: 'Elect' means THE SAME THING AS 'choose.' Here is the dictionary definition of 'elect': "to CHOOSE (as a course of action) especially by preference ( example: might elect to sell the business)." Therefore 'choosing' equals 'election.' (Dictionary definition of 'election': "the right, power, or privilege of MAKING A CHOICE.") . . . My point: when the anti-Calvinist, anti-election, anti-everything crowd refuses to agree with the ordinary meaning of the English words 'elect' and 'choose', they make it impossible to even discuss election. |
||||||
9 | If elect is not choose, then what is it? | Job 38:1 | Xapis | 1791 | ||
I will read the responses that Radioman referenced from you on election, thank you for that. Radioman's response on 3/11 at 12:07 when he referred to Isa 55 is critical to my understanding, or the acceptance of my lack of understanding. It seems to me that it is both,(election and freewill) but I don't understand how it can be. But then I understand that we are predestined according to the foreknowledge of God [1 Peter 1:2](and foreknowledge is one of those untested Accords to me). Are we chosen in Him before the foundation of the world, by all means, but did I have to make a choice, of course. Is God unjust? No way, our whole understanding of justice is based upon who He is. I believe in election, and I work hard at convincing my friends and co-workers that they must choose to accept Him. Peter says that the prophets of old looked diligently and couldn't figure out the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow. I wonder if they debated, with each other one group saying he would "only" suffer and one group saying he would only receive glory. The more I know the more I know that I don't know, but it is ok because my Big Brother knows it all. | ||||||