Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5867 | ||
I think that predestination (God's choosing or election) is being confused here with God's regeneration of human beings. Ephesians 1:4 tells us that we were chosen by him before the foundation of the world. However, I was not born "saved." No Christian believes that. What God's election means is that at some point in my life the Holy Spirit would regenerate me, actually cause me to be spiritually reborn so that I will put my trust in Christ. For me that happened around the age of eleven. Before that I was spiritually dead just as you were before you placed your trust in Christ. What unconditional election holds is that God chose you and I and all the rest of the elect to be reborn before time began. The actual spiritual rebirth takes place in time during our respective lifetimes, however. That is why there are people getting saved every day. God the Holy Spirit works through a variety of means, especially those who are already "new creations" to provide the message of the Gospel. The Holy Spirit transforms the heart of the unbeliever so that she will put her trust in Christ in response to the message. The fact that people are not actually saved until the moment at which they put their trust in Christ's substitutionary death is not a point of dispute between Arminians and Calvinists. We can stand together on that, and that does indeed make us brothers in Christ even if we disagree on the extent of God's role in the whole process. The people in foreign lands (I suppose you mean the people who never hear of Christ) die in their sins, since there is no gospel presented to them. This fits in more with a predestination view than a view that God intends on saving everyone. A God who intends on saving the savage in the jungle is not very powerful if He cannot get the message to them. If he must rely on human beings, that means that he NEEDS us, which is contrary to his sovereignty and omnipotence. Those in foreign lands who hear the message and accept Christ are part of the elect. No problem here. Contrary to your attack on the motives of Calvinists, the doctrine of predestination is no excuse to not evangelize. The largest revival in American history, the First Great Awakening, was spearheaded by Jonathan Edwards, who was a staunch, dyed-in-the-wool, Presbyterian 5-point Calvinist. He certainly didn't argue for sitting back and letting the chips fall where they may. Calvinists hold that God ordained believers as His means of spreading the message of Christ, to glorify God, to shine as lights in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation. God is sovereign, however, and no one's salvation hinges on my decision (or lack thereof) to preach the Gospel to every creature. God will provide the gospel to those who were chosen, and the Holy Spirit will regenerate them (in other words, no one comes to Christ "on their own" according to Calvinism). If it is through my evangelism, I am blessed to be part of God's plan, and I am living for the purpose for which I was re-created (Ephesians 2:10), and I am being obedient to the God who called me (1 Peter 2:9,10). An important point: Calvinists do not hold that the elect have been revealed to humanity. It is stepping way out of line to try and play God and decide for ourselves who God has chosen. This is a complete misrepresentation of unconditional election that some may use to shirk their responsibilities, but I stand with you in saying that it is completely unbiblical. I do not think I am better than anyone else. In fact, I hold that people who think they have any role in their own rebirth are giving themselves reason to boast. Here is what I mean: if the gospel is preached to two individuals at the same time, and one accepts Christ and the other one never does, does that mean that the saved one was wiser or smarter or better (or whatever you would say) than the other one? The Arminian would have a harder time showing how there was no room for boasting (and I have heard many a free-will type scoff at the "stupidity" of the unbeliever with quite the attitude of superiority). The Calvinist say that the Holy Spirit acted in the heart of one and not the other, causing the saved one to believe. This is not because one is better, because as Romans 3 says, we were all equally Christ-haters before God saves us. It is God's sovereign choice not based on our brains or charm or race or gender or eloquence or goodness or kindness or apparent usefulness or our connections. That is why it is termed "unconditional election." God did not save us due to any inherent condition we had that makes us superior to those who are not of the elect. The only atheists we as human beings know are predestined to Hell are the dead ones. People who declare enemies of Christ to be permanently beyond the reach of God's regeneration should take a hard look in Acts 9 at a Pharisee named Saul... Thanks for your comments! --Joe! |
||||||
2 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Makarios | 5912 | ||
Joe, thanks for your input. Your contribution to this subject has immensely helped me to understand the Calvinistic position on election and regeneration a lot more clearly. I think that where we disagree (the "heart" of the matter) is where Christ's blood falls into all of this. If we go all the way back to the original question that started this whole thread, then we see that there is a question of Christ dying only for certain people, or making a distinction thereof. My position is that He died for everyone and yours is that He died only for those who will inherit salvation. Is there any reconciliation here? Perhaps you have already answered the question about satan and how he now stands condemned (because of Christ's Victory on the cross and Resurrection), and how satan no longer holds the keys to sin and death. From your point of view, I presume that it would be possible to assume that satan could continue to have power over those who have not been divinely chosen. However, since I believe that Christ's victory is an open invitation for all to come to a saving knowledge of Him, I would describe the plight of the lost as: satan continues to have power over those who have not been called through a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit.Therefore, is your view "true" in the effect or consequence AFTER we receive Christ? Then a person would most certainly be considered as an elect. Is my view "true" in the effect that a person (who may or may not become saved) may receive salvation? (My view: that Christ's blood was shed for all people) I know that we cannot comprehend or explain the unexplainable. But it is interesting in light of ancient Israel of how God chose just one small group of people for His inheritance. Did all of those other peoples and countries die in their sins? That is a question for only God to answer. As for ancient Israel, only a small number of people (compared with the world at large) knew about the true God and only those would inherit salvation. This fact is interesting in light of what we are talking about. However, Jesus made salvation possible for every kind of people (not just the Jews, but also for the Gentile) as seen in Acts 10:9-18. But in the book of Acts, we read about different accounts back and forth about those who received Christ (the elect) and those who did not (the condemned) wherever Paul went. Since Christ's free gift (at the point of His Resurrection) was accepted by some in the other places where Paul went, would this also give credence to the belief that Christ died for the sins of all? Thanks for the discussion. -Nolan | ||||||
3 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | jesusfreak508@aol.com | 58467 | ||
You think Jesus made salvation possible for everyone, but you are still torn. Everybody goes to Romans 9 on this predestined thing. I get it, but you start from a paradigm that I can't fit myself into. I have no problem accepting predestination. Romans 9 is blunt. But Paul didn't know everything. Jesus said there were things that were only for the Father to know. I believe the Bible is divinely inspired and is the literal Word of God. I even think Paul was dead on in Romans, but sometimes he talked about things from wisdom and some he got out of knowledge. He obviously struggled with women throughout his letters. (I freely submit to my husband and believe that I should, but it's because of God/Genesis and Jesus, not anything that ever came from Paul's pen.)I know that God gave the seperate gifts of Speaking and Translating Tongues, so I don't have a problem accepting that the Spirit was giving Paul things he didn't have a clue of how to interpret. And neither do we. And are we not told this is the way God works? Starting with Babel and going all the way to Jesus who said somethings He taught in such a way as to make sure eyes and ears WERE NOT opened? As the song says, "God is God, and I am Man. I will never understand all the picture He's painting." I can't even see all of it. So, I accept predestiny unquestioningly even though it could raise questions. I don't have them because my starting place when looking at it is that, because God knows who will or won't be part of the elect, He plans accordingly. It's not that we don't have a decision or a choice, it's that He knows what decision or choice we're going to make. It's not all that hard to wrap your brain around either. I do the same thing with my husband and children all the time. I know them; I know what choices they will make in any number of given situations; I even make plans counting on that knowledge of them. Imagine what I could do if I knew them as intimately as God knows each of us. But I want to address the "...in light of ancient Israel of how God chose just one small group of people for His inheritance. Did all of those other peoples and countries die in their sins?" Go to Genesis 5:24 "Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away." Genesis 6:8 "But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord" Then we are told right out that Abraham believed God and that was credited to him as righteousness. And these weren't perfect men. We don't know about Enoch, but Noah got drunk and cursed his own grandson (which curse God had already worked into His plan); and Abraham was fearful of earthly kings and twice stuck his wife out there as a sacrificial goat; word-playing on lies. 'Well, she is my sister so I wasn't really telling you a lie.' If not for God protecting her, Sarai/Sarah would have really been up a creek. So we know God did have relationships, saving relationships, with men before Jesus. And not just in the Seth/Noah/Shem/Abraham/David line either. Melchizedek is the perfect example. The proof that things were going on that God didn't feel like He needed to tell us. It was enough for us to know that it was going on, and He gave us that when He told us about Melchizedek. A King of Salem. Which as I understand it was in the area of Jeru-salem. Which makes sense. God didn't make Jerusalem His holy place just for the Israelites. He'd already claimed it as such, and He eventually brought His chosen people to it. Melchizedek was also the "...priest of God Most High". King and priest in one man. Something forbidden by God to the Israelites. Something that would be in the future reserved for Jesus. (Psalm 110). And read Hebrews 7:1-17. And verse 7 says clearly "And without doubt the lesser person is blessed by the greater." Melchizedek is the greater who blessed Abram/Abraham the lesser. According to verse 2 his name meant "king of righteousness" while his title (King of Salem) meant "king of peace". Verse 3 says "Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever." So if you have a priest, you have a people who worshiped the God the priest served. Hmmm. Verse 4 says, "Just think how great he was: Even the patriarch Abraham gave him a tenth of the plunder!" To my way of thinking, there was a whole people who knew God and did not die in their sins under Melchizedek; there were also those mentioned in the chosen line; so since the Bible doesn't say "and there was no one else", I'm not going to assume there was no one else. Just because He was moving about quietly, it doesn't mean He wasn't moving about. Melanie |
||||||