Unconditional Election or Conditional Election

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
S

StanJ

Guest
[/B][/COLOR]No, sorry, no Scripture backs up your tradition friend. You're also redefining foreknowledge to an unbiblical definition, there is nothing theologically based in your traditionally blurred defining.
You need to take a gander at John 1:13 and put 1:12 in proper context, not out of perspective as you are doing. This truth that it, salvation, is not by willing, or human determination is also supported by Romans 9:11ff, James 1:18, 1 Thess. 1:4; 1 Peter 1:1ff &c.
This is a total strawman and the passages aforementioned dismantle your decisional salvation gospel. IOW yours is pure sentimentalism and has no theological basis.
Furthermore nothing in Scripture says anything about being 'pre-programmed' that is simply being used as a derogatory commentary on the truth. Predestined is the word to use here. God has determined whom He would save based on nothing they have done whether good or bad; 1 Corinthians 1:26ff. Just setting the story straight, fully aware you will not believe the truth here. The other solemn matter is you're merely practicing Romans 9:20.
Denial and assertion does not equate to truth. You have to exegete your point of view from scripture. John 1:12-13 is indeed talking about being born again but not by being predestined by God. He draws us to the reality of who Jesus Christ is and we either accept that reality or don't. Once we accept that reality we are born again. 2 Cor 5:19-20. There is no reason to command those who are not saved to be reconciled if they are going to be reconciled anyhow. John 1:3. There's no need to tell somebody they must be born again if they've already been chosen to be born again. I have no idea what you're getting at by quoting 1st Corinthians 1:26, it has nothing to do with this issue.
 

nowyouseem033

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2014
535
30
28
I answered your post. I can't help it if you don't like the answer. My answer was very clear to anyone who wants to learn. We are the elect because we are saved, we are not elected to be saved. Depending on the context in the New Testament the elect can also be referring to the children of Israel, not because they are saved but because they are a chosen race. Despite that they also have to confess Jesus as Lord and Savior or they are cut off from the Olive Tree, as Paul teaches in Romans 11.
As I'm sure I've told you before, if you don't understand the vernacular of the King James version then you shouldn't use it. I called it from the NET, which is one of the most accurate English versions of today. If you're not willing to accept this linguistically superior version of the Bible then you won't be able to move on in your learning.
There are only three verses in the New Testament that deal with election and I think you should read them and understand what they are saying in the context they're used. They do not represent a doctrine.

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=NET&quicksearch=Election&begin=47&end=73
But explicitly 2 Thessalonians mentions "you were chosen for salvation" I dont know how you get around that. If elect comes after salvation as you claim rather before salvation then election becomes a response of man rather than an act of God. Is that correct or not in conclusion?

Barnes commentary on Romans 9:11 which you presented says this:

According to election - To dispense his favors according to his sovereign will and pleasure. Those favors were not conferred in consequence of the merits of the individuals; but according to a wise plan "lying back" of the formation of their characters, and before they had done good or evil. The favors were thus conferred according to his choice, or election.

It seems to me he roots election in God not in a mans response. Is this true?
Majority of bible commentators agree that election is rooted in Gods sovereign choice and some of these scholars arent even calvinists.

Therefore would you conclude election is linked to what then if not salvation? Simple question.
 
S

StanJ

Guest
But explicitly 2 Thessalonians mentions "you were chosen for salvation" I dont know how you get around that. If elect comes after salvation as you claim rather before salvation then election becomes a response of man rather than an act of God. Is that correct or not in conclusion?

Barnes commentary on Romans 9:11 which you presented says this:

According to election - To dispense his favors according to his sovereign will and pleasure. Those favors were not conferred in consequence of the merits of the individuals; but according to a wise plan "lying back" of the formation of their characters, and before they had done good or evil. The favors were thus conferred according to his choice, or election.

It seems to me he roots election in God not in a mans response. Is this true?
Majority of bible commentators agree that election is rooted in Gods sovereign choice and some of these scholars arent even calvinists.

Therefore would you conclude election is linked to what then if not salvation? Simple question.
Read what I wrote in post 248. If you don't understand and accept that then I can't help you.
 

nowyouseem033

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2014
535
30
28
Read what I wrote in post 248. If you don't understand and accept that then I can't help you.
Your post 248 only proves that 2 Thessalonians does indeed speak of election as linked to salvation. All you did is quote the scripture i quote and then say its this rather than this. But you cannot support your claim that election is not linked to salvation?

You dont even answer what election is linked to then?

No you cannot help me indeed because your hopeless in explaining what you mean by election happening after salvation and cannot simply answer a simple question. You talk of hermeneutical exegesis but i am convinced you do not even practice the very thing you claim others ought to do.
 
S

StanJ

Guest
Your post 248 only proves that 2 Thessalonians does indeed speak of election as linked to salvation. All you did is quote the scripture i quote and then say its this rather than this. But you cannot support your claim that election is not linked to salvation?

You dont even answer what election is linked to then?

No you cannot help me indeed because your hopeless in explaining what you mean by election happening after salvation and cannot simply answer a simple question. You talk of hermeneutical exegesis but i am convinced you do not even practice the very thing you claim others ought to do.
Like I said, if you can't understand you can't understand. Me trying to explain it better to alleviate your confusion won't really help.
1 Cor 2:14
 

nowyouseem033

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2014
535
30
28
Like I said, if you can't understand you can't understand. Me trying to explain it better to alleviate your confusion won't really help.
1 Cor 2:14
Hahaha i can understand what your saying... but i cant understand why you cannot explain why you say what you say. Its almost like you know what your talking about, and then when somebody questions you why, you use 1 Corinthians 2:14 to tell them they dont have the spirit. lol Typical immaturity. You say you have tried to explain but you havent even done that.
 
S

StanJ

Guest
Hahaha i can understand what your saying... but i cant understand why you cannot explain why you say what you say. Its almost like you know what your talking about, and then when somebody questions you why, you use 1 Corinthians 2:14 to tell them they dont have the spirit. lol Typical immaturity. You say you have tried to explain but you havent even done that.
I did explain but you don't want to accept it or can't understand it so I'm not going to continue to repeat myself. I've got 4 Kids all older than you so I have experience with young adults who think they know everything but don't. the only immaturity I see here is a 23 year old trying to tell his Elders what's what. That's What I call immaturity
 

nowyouseem033

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2014
535
30
28
I did explain but you don't want to accept it or can't understand it so I'm not going to continue to repeat myself. I've got 4 Kids all older than you so I have experience with young adults who think they know everything but don't. the only immaturity I see here is a 23 year old trying to tell his Elders what's what. That's What I call immaturity
I never told you whats what? Just wanted you to explain thats all.:) Oh the old experience argument ae. Its true you have experience and i dont claim to know it all either. The fact that you have to bring your family in as a proof of what you know about the bible or life for the matter shows you cannot give any credible arguments except to say..... "Im right because i know more and your wrong because your young"? Though that may be true the fact you say it only reveals your ignorance towards bible exegesis. Since when is immaturity linked to being 23? Do you advocate all 23 year old are immature?

Not once did I say your view is heretical or blatently wrong (thats immature), not once have I forced you to accept what i believe (thats immature), not once have I claim to always be right (thats immature), not once have I lied to you when giving an answer or comment when questioned about scripture (thats immature), not once have I claimed that you do not understand because you do not have the Spirit like 1 corinth you posted (thats immature), not once have i used anything asides scripture and reason to engage in conversation like you have (thats immature), not once have i been unwilling to participate while not caring what other people think (thats immature).

Taken from a 60year old who has defended me being mature in another thread and a thirty year old as well being mature it seems you sir are incorrect in your analysis. :)
 
Dec 2, 2016
1,652
26
0
Age is an advantage, however one can be old and still wrong and one can be young and right. The subject of election is a strange one in the bible. As myself as an example, there is no doubt in my mind that I am saved because I said yes to God, and I believe I could have said no and remained lost. On the other hand, it seems strange to me that God would do all that He did for me so that I could clearly make a choice for or against God. I was raised with a sister, that as far as I know had no experiences with God, while I did. At around five years of age I was under this tree gazing at this beautiful sunset when I became aware of a figure of a man in the sunset and he was looking right at me. Somehow I knew it was God and I knew I could move toward or away from him, and I chose to move toward him, and when I did something locked on and I heard myself say, why am I here, and he said back to me, you do not know now but you will know later. I had a few other experiences with God before I was saved. So my thoughts are, why did God seem to go out of His way for me, and as far as I know, not for my sister(who today is very liberal)? Of course, there is the possibility that God did speak to my sister but she has never told about it.
 
S

StanJ

Guest
I never told you whats what? Just wanted you to explain thats all.:) Oh the old experience argument ae. Its true you have experience and i dont claim to know it all either. The fact that you have to bring your family in as a proof of what you know about the bible or life for the matter shows you cannot give any credible arguments except to say..... "Im right because i know more and your wrong because your young"? Though that may be true the fact you say it only reveals your ignorance towards bible exegesis. Since when is immaturity linked to being 23? Do you advocate all 23 year old are immature?

Not once did I say your view is heretical or blatently wrong (thats immature), not once have I forced you to accept what i believe (thats immature), not once have I claim to always be right (thats immature), not once have I lied to you when giving an answer or comment when questioned about scripture (thats immature), not once have I claimed that you do not understand because you do not have the Spirit like 1 corinth you posted (thats immature), not once have i used anything asides scripture and reason to engage in conversation like you have (thats immature), not once have i been unwilling to participate while not caring what other people think (thats immature).

Taken from a 60year old who has defended me being mature in another thread and a thirty year old as well being mature it seems you sir are incorrect in your analysis.
I have explained a few times and you continue to ask for explanations so obviously you either don't understand or don't accept the explanations. The fact is I've been saved and studying the Bible twice as long as you've been alive so when you get to be my age and they're still studying the Bible and following the Lord then you can look back on this and see who is right and who is wrong. At this point you are incapable of receiving the truth.
According to your logic all the writers in the New Testament are immature and illogical because you don't understand. I've got a fairly new saying for you, if the shoe fits.
I don't take anything from you obviously it's being credible because of what you said in this insistence on continuing to defend yourself when you are blatantly wrong just shows unreceptive you are too true teaching. I don't really have anything more to say to you. Read the Bible, learn something.
 
Dec 28, 2016
9,171
2,718
113
I never told you whats what? Just wanted you to explain thats all.:) Oh the old experience argument ae. Its true you have experience and i dont claim to know it all either. The fact that you have to bring your family in as a proof of what you know about the bible or life for the matter shows you cannot give any credible arguments except to say..... "Im right because i know more and your wrong because your young"? Though that may be true the fact you say it only reveals your ignorance towards bible exegesis. Since when is immaturity linked to being 23? Do you advocate all 23 year old are immature?

Not once did I say your view is heretical or blatently wrong (thats immature), not once have I forced you to accept what i believe (thats immature), not once have I claim to always be right (thats immature), not once have I lied to you when giving an answer or comment when questioned about scripture (thats immature), not once have I claimed that you do not understand because you do not have the Spirit like 1 corinth you posted (thats immature), not once have i used anything asides scripture and reason to engage in conversation like you have (thats immature), not once have i been unwilling to participate while not caring what other people think (thats immature).

Taken from a 60year old who has defended me being mature in another thread and a thirty year old as well being mature it seems you sir are incorrect in your analysis. :)
And not once have I witnessed you stoop to the mouthy behavior practiced by the one calling you immature. Stay on that path. Hopefully he gets off of his, but I highly doubt it.
 
S

StanJ

Guest
Age is an advantage, however one can be old and still wrong and one can be young and right. The subject of election is a strange one in the bible. As myself as an example, there is no doubt in my mind that I am saved because I said yes to God, and I believe I could have said no and remained lost. On the other hand, it seems strange to me that God would do all that He did for me so that I could clearly make a choice for or against God. I was raised with a sister, that as far as I know had no experiences with God, while I did. At around five years of age I was under this tree gazing at this beautiful sunset when I became aware of a figure of a man in the sunset and he was looking right at me. Somehow I knew it was God and I knew I could move toward or away from him, and I chose to move toward him, and when I did something locked on and I heard myself say, why am I here, and he said back to me, you do not know now but you will know later. I had a few other experiences with God before I was saved. So my thoughts are, why did God seem to go out of His way for me, and as far as I know, not for my sister(who today is very liberal)? Of course, there is the possibility that God did speak to my sister but she has never told about it.
You're absolutely right but we're not talking about exceptions we talking about total concept of what God is in the Bible and all that that entails. If one starts up accepting false teaching and everything that's a deposit is false. Remember what Jesus said about building on the true foundation. In the end everything will be destroyed that is not built upon the same principles that the true foundation was. We all have the choice of whether to respond positively or negatively to God's drawing. Some will respond positively sooner than later and some will respond positively later. Someone never respond positively because they're too full of themselves and the physical rather than the spiritual. The bottom line is we all respond based on our free will. That has nothing to do with being elected by God.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
16,616
3,529
113
Question I've pondered about those who believe in election for salvation...

All the babies that die, either in the womb or at an early age, do they all go to heaven or just the ones God elected from the foundation of the world?
 

Calmador

Senior Member
Jun 23, 2011
945
40
28
Ephesians 4:1 "just as he chose US in him before the foundations of the world". This scripture does show us that God indeed does elects a people and whats fascinating is that he doesnt choose all to be in Christ. Notice God chose us to be in him rather all to be in him.

Romans 8:29-30 "For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified." Again here we find an exclusivity to Gods calling and election. The scripture says those whom he foreknew and predestined etc not all. So God elects a people to salvation and this people respond by faith to him.

You will notice that not once do you see free-will inserted or mentioned. It is simply assumed we have free-will because God invites us to come, and yet the bible makes very clear we are dead in sin.
Of course not all of us will be chosen, because not all of us will accept G-d's gift of salvation.

He can choose is us in his foreknowledge. Just as I in my foreknowledge of how good of a mechanic someone is... I can choose a certain mechanic in that I foreknow that he's a good mechanic.

I never said that G-d doesn't elect. I actually said G-d does elect... he elected to save us. He elected a salvation plan. He elects who gets saved. However, he just doesn't force us to become Christian. He gives us the ability to accept him and invites us without forcing us to be one.

Romans 8:29-30 "For those whom He FOREKNEW.... to become conformed to the image of His Son (not to be saved)

Saying it's not all... doesn't automatically mean that G-d forces some. Saying it's not all.... fits well with the idea that not all will choose to accept Jesus Christ's gift of salvation. You go from a vague idea like "not all" and imply the Calvinist interpretation. Arminianism has an explanation for these ideas.... and a more fitting explanation for verses that say G-d saves the whole world such as John 3:16 and places where G-d mourns for the Jews. Calvinism has trouble there and has to claim mystery or as I've heard one Calvinist say... G-d has a complex emotional system where he'll cry over the decisions he ordained. That doesn't make sense.

The bible does talk about free-will. In the old testament, G-d asks for free-willed offerings. It's not just that it's reasonably implied we have freewill from G-d inviting us to convert, but the bible outright says to offer free willed offerings (Leviticus 23:38). More compelling is when scripture says "choose for yourself" (Joshua 24:15).

Your still not addressing anything I've said above my post. I'll copy and paste it so I can get an answer from you.

This was my last post:

"Even deciding whether election happens is conditional. Election happens on the condition of whether or not G-d decided to practice election. You might not have found any verses that show G-d's plan of salvation (which he most probably elected), but all other Christians in the world have found G-d's plan of salvation. And it's summed up in John 3:16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." G-d doesn't believe in himself. G-d doesn't choose himself. G-d doesn't have faith in himself. The bible teaches that men believe, choose, seek, and have faith in G-d with G-d's grace and providence of course.

Acts 13:22 After removing Saul, he made David their king. God testified concerning him: 'I have found David son of Jesse, a man after my own heart; he will do everything I want him to do.'

First, election depends on whether G-d even wants to save anyone. (Independent variable)

Second, because of G-d's framework, man must accept G-d's gift of salvation. Note that this second condition can't happen without the first. (Dependent variable)

No of course, you choosing salvation isn't the root as to why your saved. The root of your salvation is what Christ did on the cross. Without Christ there is no possibility of salvation (further evidence of election being conditional... based on the condition that Christ as a sacrifice was offered). However, after that root cause has been planted. You have to accept your salvation. Because... "John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them."

Ability is a word that's far too vague.The bible teaches that salvation is not based on any good works you did, but on the finished work of Christ. You simply have to accept the finished work of Christ to be saved. There is no additional work that you are doing by accepting His finished work. Faith is not a work. Otherwise, the book of James wouldn't teach faith and works as different things. Faith without works is dead faith. If faith was a work then James would never call faith "dead faith" without works because faith would be a work by default.

Even if we allow the word ability. Well, the Calvinist agrees by default that G-d gives man the ability to practice faith. So, even then, it does depend on your G-d given ability (which I also believe, but in a non-Calvinistic perspective) to put your faith in Christ. G-d himself says this too often... you must have faith.

I think the thing that gives G-d all the glory is that he offers it all. He gives you life. He gives you the ability to practice faith. He give you the sacrifice of Christ. Without all that and maybe some other thing I missed... it's impossible be saved. G-d provided it all. He doesn't have to force you to believe in him to have all the glory."
 

Calmador

Senior Member
Jun 23, 2011
945
40
28
Technically men are saved by grace. Grace is received through faith. Faith that is produced by hearing the word of God and the Holy Spirit revealing the truth of the word of God by convicting of sin, righteousness, and judgment.

If that is what you asked then yes.

For the cause of Christ
Roger
Grace isn't enough. Grace is just a concept. A concept that means charity in a sense. Do you honestly believe that G-d just feeling gracious that we would save... or would G-d do a few more steps in regards to saving us? G-d provides a salvation process. In the old testament it seems to have been via animal sacrifice. In the new testament it's by believing in Jesus Christ.

Next, not everyone is going to be saved? Why? Because they have chosen not to believe in Christ.

Salvation is fundamentally started with G-d. After that, salvation by G-d's design, is an interdependent process between G-d and men. The part of men is as the bible teaches which means that men do need to have faith in Christ.
 

Calmador

Senior Member
Jun 23, 2011
945
40
28
G-d can have all the glory

G-d could do all the work which is on the cross... waiting for us to accept.

G-d can foreknow and choose because he foreknows what our choices will be.

This is also reasonable from a molinistical point. G-d choosing certain people to exist, by default, means G-d also chose them into salvation because G-d knows those people's free-willed choices in the future through G-d's middle knowledge.

All while, mankind can choose G-d as his savior.

Arminianism and Molinism as far as I know can explain the verses that Calvinists commonly use just fine. However, Calvinism can't explain how G-d is in so much UNNECESSARY control and accommodate for Lucifer's rebeliion and Adam and Eve's rebeliion. Calvinists call it mystery while Arminism has an answer.

And Calvinism has to read into verses that show G-d wanting to save the world... and Jesus weeping for Jews. Calvinism has re-interpret verses in order to make sense and say that G-d has "two wills." In order for Calvinism to make sense, you have to jump through various loops.

Not to mention... that G-d viewed from Calvinism means G-d doesn't want to save certian people EVEN THOUGH G-d could.

In Arminianism, G-d wants to save everyone and does everything he can without forcing you. He invites. He reasons and proclaims. He does miracles. He does works and dies on the cross. He doesn't just snap his fingers.
 
Last edited:
Mar 28, 2016
15,954
1,528
113
Grace isn't enough. Grace is just a concept. A concept that means charity in a sense. Do you honestly believe that G-d just feeling gracious that we would save... or would G-d do a few more steps in regards to saving us? G-d provides a salvation process. In the old testament it seems to have been via animal sacrifice. In the new testament it's by believing in Jesus Christ.

Next, not everyone is going to be saved? Why? Because they have chosen not to believe in Christ.

Salvation is fundamentally started with G-d. After that, salvation by G-d's design, is an interdependent process between G-d and men. The part of men is as the bible teaches which means that men do need to have faith in Christ.
Grace is just whose concept and not a law that is not subject to change?

His gift according to His work of faith falls short of His grace? How do you figure that?

Who is G-d?

We cannot have the faith of (coming from) Christ, the faith of God unless He first chooses us as the lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world..

Galatians 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are “known of God”, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

We can love Him because He first loved us by giving us the hearing of faith (His) It is the first work of God that works in us to both will and do His good pleasure .It turns us ,then after we can repent (repentance is a work of God). .

I think that context is shown in Revelation. Because they left their first love(the rearing of faith) as the Spirit gives us ears to hear Him not seen... He that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says unto the churches, denominations. Not what the Nicolaitanes teach.


Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy “first love” (the hearing of Christ’s faith) Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; (believe the scriptures)or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God Rev 2:4

We cannot have in (towards) Christ if the Spirit of Christ(generated by towards us ) is not living eternal in us . So it is the faith of Christ that works in us not of us. If Christ has begun the good work of salvation in us He will finish it to the last day.

In or of?


Philippians 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
 

Calmador

Senior Member
Jun 23, 2011
945
40
28
Grace is just whose concept and not a law that is not subject to change?

His gift according to His work of faith falls short of His grace? How do you figure that?

Who is G-d?

We cannot have the faith of (coming from) Christ, the faith of God unless He first chooses us as the lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world..

Galatians 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are “known of God”, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

We can love Him because He first loved us by giving us the hearing of faith (His) It is the first work of God that works in us to both will and do His good pleasure .It turns us ,then after we can repent (repentance is a work of God). .

I think that context is shown in Revelation. Because they left their first love(the rearing of faith) as the Spirit gives us ears to hear Him not seen... He that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says unto the churches, denominations. Not what the Nicolaitanes teach.


Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy “first love” (the hearing of Christ’s faith) Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; (believe the scriptures)or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God Rev 2:4

We cannot have in (towards) Christ if the Spirit of Christ(generated by towards us ) is not living eternal in us . So it is the faith of Christ that works in us not of us. If Christ has begun the good work of salvation in us He will finish it to the last day.

In or of?


Philippians 3:9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
Right, and G-d can choose us in His foreknowledge or middle knowledge. Like I said above, it's not far fetched to understand that because G-d created us into existence... by default, He also knows what our choices will be. Him choosing for us to exist... He also chose he/she who will be saved without forcing us into salvation.

About Galatians 4:9, if you're implying that Arminianism doesn't uphold to total depravity then your wrong to at least one kind of Arminianism. Classical Arminianism holds to the belief that mankind is totally depraved. As for known by G-d part, I think the above paragraph is good to explain that.

As for him loving us first, of course, my goodness how clear is that when we think of who G-d is. G-d is eternal! How can man ever love G-d first? From a practical perspective, G-d can ONLY beat us to the punch when it comes to who loves who first.

Next, Arminianism advocates the belief of previniant grace. This means that G-d liberates us from our bondage, from our total depravity. As scripture says, the truth will set you free. In this state of liberation, then we can choose if we want to accept G-d or not... all this by G-d's sovereign will.

We lean on G-d and he does the work. We follow G-d's teachings and of course he's teachings will lead us rightly. We accept his gift of salvation and of course the finished work of Christ will save us... not our choice to accept Christ... but Christ's work.

The spirit giving us ears fits well with previniant grace, resistible grace.

It's so so senseless. If Calvinism was true... why ever mention what men can or cannot do? Why even mention faith.

Because Calvinism doesn't explain the bible well. Men do need to have faith in Jesus Christ.

Joshua 24:15 But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."

In or of doesn't matter. It's clear in the scriptures that men need to have faith to be saved.

Romans 10:9-10

[SUP]9 [/SUP]If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. [SUP]10 [/SUP]For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

There is a part that man has to play. This part is ordained by G-d. Men need to put their faith in G-d.

For G-d so loved the world... don't re-interpert or add to that. All verses containing chosen and foreknow have been and can be explained. However, Calvinism has to add into the word (some of the... world) into John 3:16 and other verses. Arminianism has answers for the verses that have chosen and foreknow. Calvinism calls mystery or adds into the bible.

Also, read James. It's clear that works and faith are different. Otherwise James would never call faith without works dead faith.... by default, faith would be a work... so the accusation from Calvinists saying that faith is a work is not biblical.
 
Last edited:

nowyouseem033

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2014
535
30
28
G-d can have all the glory

G-d could do all the work which is on the cross... waiting for us to accept.

G-d can foreknow and choose because he foreknows what our choices will be.

This is also reasonable from a molinistical point. G-d choosing certain people to exist, by default, means G-d also chose them into salvation because G-d knows those people's free-willed choices in the future through G-d's middle knowledge.

All while, mankind can choose G-d as his savior.

Arminianism and Molinism as far as I know can explain the verses that Calvinists commonly use just fine. However, Calvinism can't explain how G-d is in so much UNNECESSARY control and accommodate for Lucifer's rebeliion and Adam and Eve's rebeliion. Calvinists call it mystery while Arminism has an answer.

And Calvinism has to read into verses that show G-d wanting to save the world... and Jesus weeping for Jews. Calvinism has re-interpret verses in order to make sense and say that G-d has "two wills." In order for Calvinism to make sense, you have to jump through various loops.

Not to mention... that G-d viewed from Calvinism means G-d doesn't want to save certian people EVEN THOUGH G-d could.

In Arminianism, G-d wants to save everyone and does everything he can without forcing you. He invites. He reasons and proclaims. He does miracles. He does works and dies on the cross. He doesn't just snap his fingers.
Though i obviously disagree i think you misrepresent Calvinism as a whole.
God the Father chooses who will be saved and passes over others who will not be saved. Why? Well first, God the Father is not obligated to give everybody a chance contrary to popular belief and therefore is truly free to be able to do whatever he pleases to do.
Secondly, God the Son invites all people to come to him knowing only those whom his Father has given him actually WILL come. Consequently therefore Jesus dies for all those the Father gave him and therefore should lose none of them and purchasing salvation on there behalf.
Thirdly, God the Spirit then quickens and awakens there hearts from being dead to now alive so that one can now freely choose Christ to which he couldnt before due to his/her enslavement to sin and gladly runs to him now because of a new nature borne inside. A nature that the Spirit birthed in you not your choice. Your choice is the result of a new nature not a prescription to get a new nature.

The trinity are in unity together and they are not rejected or nor have they failed due to my will overthrowing Gods plans for they receive all that they intended to receive from the very beginning. God is Glorified because he demonstrates his amazing grace to a undeserving people whilst glorified also for demonstrating his justice towards those who do deserve it.
 

Calmador

Senior Member
Jun 23, 2011
945
40
28
It seems that Calvinists butcher the bible. In their minds, John 3:16 means G-d so loved some of the world....

While Arminians use concepts in the bible and apply them for a more coherent interpretation. Concepts such as foreknowledge or taking a page from Molinism... G-d's middle knowledge. No butchering the bible is necessary.