Calvinism and Context?

[jackrosie]

No you've got all that wrong. I said ELECTION aka choosing precedes believing.
In fact it is indisputably unequivocally scriptural that election precedes one's own BIRTH, furthermore it precedes the creation of the universe.

Eternal life for the elect has already been granted from eternity past. Faith and believing are merely the present-day assent (by the work of the Holy Spirit) to the foregoing.

Romans 8:28

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him,who have been called according to his purpose,....( note purpose)
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son,that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.
And those He predestined,he also CALLED,those he CALLED,he also justified,those he justified,he also glorified.

Some were chosen,no question about that.God Chose them,before they were born.

 

[cv5]

This post earned you a ribbon...ha

Can you be honest then?

You only want to deal with the elect, and side step the implications of your dogma.

The non-elect are never regenerated so they can believe correct?

So why are they created and how does God hold them accountable for their unbelief when they were never regenerated so they can believe?

Is this not the logical outcome of your dogma.. few Calvinists want to be honest about this why is that?

He shall never be clearly persuaded, as we ought to be, that our salvation flows from eternal election, which illumines God’s grace by this contrast: that he does not indiscriminately adopt all into the hope of salvation but gives to some what he denies to others.”
John Calvin

Such philosophy is irrelevant....as far as we're concerned. As Spurgeon said, the elect don't have a tattoo on their back. We preach to all creatures.

Just to let you know, I also believe that any man who truly repents, accepts their death sentence AND THEN their acquittal provided by the Cross, and subsequently ABIDES in Christ is indeed saved.

 

[cv5]

So why don't you say what you're trying to use that example for instead of playing games being evasive and then making accusations?

There you go again. Do you think you have ESP? Just wondering.

 

[Bbrdrd]

There you go again. Do you think you have ESP? Just wondering.

So...asking you to make explicit what you mean by the example so we can discuss it is somehow acting like I am reading your mind? Or are you now pretending you had no point in bringing the example forth?

 

[EleventhHour]

So why don't you say what you're trying to use that example for instead of playing games being evasive and then making accusations?

Being evasive....

Such sophistry is irrelevant....as far as we're concerned. As Spurgeon said, the elect don't have a tattoo on their back. We preach to all creatures.

Just to let you know, I also believe that any man who truly repents, accepts their death sentence AND THEN their acquittal provided by the Cross, and subsequently ABIDES in Christ is indeed saved.

Sophistry...... you are being evasive.

I did not ask if we preach to all creatures... I am asking about those that are "non- elect" not chosen before time began.

In your view that man cannot repent unless He was chosen... correct?

You cannot have it both ways.

 

[EleventhHour]

So...asking you to make explicit what you mean by the example so we can discuss it is somehow acting like I am reading your mind? Or are you now pretending you had no point in bringing the example forth?

When confronted with truth Calvinists are dismissive ... what other choice do they have when their dogma falters at every turn under biblical scrutiny!!

 

[jackrosie]

[QUOTE="EleventhHour, post: 4372631, member: In your view that man cannot repent unless He was chosen... correct?


These are just my thoughts...God brings the chosen to repent,we don’t bring ourselves to repent,he choose,he draws,after all he knows all about those he has chosen..it’s quite amazing when you think about it....how he does it........nothing is hidden.

Just my thoughts,not biblical.

 

[cv5]

Being evasive....


Sophistry...... you are being evasive.

I did not ask if we preach to all creatures... I am asking about those that are "non- elect" not chosen before time began.

In your view that man cannot repent unless He was chosen... correct?

You cannot have it both ways.

There you go again. Feels like I'm your sock puppet with your arm up my behind.

Anyway, in my view we cannot know the unknowable nor can we utilize this ignorance to conjure up flippant conclusions. You may persist, I shall desist.

We have zero feedback regarding who is elect. That is Gods sphere. We have our task. That is our sphere.

I have no conclusions to offer therefore your accusations do not apply.

 

[awelight]

I have to tell you there is a strong case to be made that insofar as calling and election are concerned, the ation of Israel is in a sense a microcosm of the elect Christians as it pertains to the entire world Jew and gentile.


"Yet every time that phrase occurs its an expanding of mercy, with God expressing His desire to show mercy"

Expanding of mercy? Not hardly. In fact it is the compression/limitation/narrowing of mercy that Paul is speaking to in Romans 9. What Paul is saying is that for whatever reasons God is withdrawing mercy upon some (and not others!) according to His ineffable will. And then Paul has to go on to defend God's sovereign decision in doing so!

How anyone can ignore this notion that these decisions occurred (In the case of Isaac and Jacob here noted) before their birth simply beggars the imagination.

The case of pharaoh is equally compelling. Gods will for pharaoh was destruction, if for no other reason than His Namesake.

10And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man,even by our father Isaac 11(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12it was said to her,“The older shall serve the younger.” 13As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.”16So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” 18Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

Good points. Let's include this example also, shall we:

Luke 4:23 And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.
Luke 4:24 And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country.
Luke 4:25 But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land;
Luke 4:26 But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow.
Luke 4:27 And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.
Luke 4:28 And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath,
Luke 4:29 And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.

Why were they filled with wrath? Because Jesus single handedly denounced, that everyone who was the physical seed of Abraham, were not chosen for blessings. He defended God's Sovereignty. He defended God's elective choice. Only two received the blessing. Those in the Synagogue knew exactly what Jesus was getting at. So they desired to kill him.

 

[Duskey]

No you've got all that wrong. I said ELECTION aka choosing precedes believing.
In fact it is indisputably unequivocally scriptural that election precedes one's own BIRTH, furthermore it precedes the creation of the universe.

Eternal life for the elect has already been granted from eternity past. Faith and believing are merely the present-day assent (by the work of the Holy Spirit) to the foregoing.

So the other peeps were created but never given the opportunity to receive God’s grace, hence they were created for wrath and destruction?

 

[EleventhHour]

There you go again. Feels like I'm your sock puppet with your arm up my behind.

Anyway, in my view we cannot know the unknowable nor can we utilize this ignorance to conjure up flippant conclusions. You may persist, I shall desist.

We have zero feedback regarding who is elect. That is Gods sphere. We have our task. That is our sphere.

I have no conclusions to offer therefore your accusations do not apply.

It seems to me you are being evasive, I am speaking about the non-elect and how are they held accountable for a choice they did not have?

 

[awelight]

It seems to me you are being evasive, I am speaking about the non-elect and how are they held accountable for a choice they did not have?

They were held accountable for their association, as part of the human race, in Adam. That is what is meant by saying "we all fell in him".
Even if a person never committed a sin, they were still guilty of Adam's original transgression.

1Co 15:21 For since by [a] man came death, by [a] man came also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

The contrast is between Adam, who brought death upon all of mankind and Christ who defeated death for mankind. If all of mankind was not guilty of Adam's transgression, then all men would not die a physical death. He would be perhaps sinless and live forever. However Adam proved, in the Garden, that mankind could not live a sinless life. Unless a person would be so foolish as to think they could do a better job than Adam. Even though such a conversation would be pointless, since God set up Adam as mankind's Federal Head. When he fell, he proved, that all of us would Fall, if given the same circumstances. And for the women, they would do no better than Eve.

 

[EleventhHour]

They were held accountable for their association, as part of the human race, in Adam. That is what is meant by saying "we all fell in him".
Even if a person never committed a sin, they were still guilty of Adam's original transgression.

1Co 15:21 For since by [a] man came death, by [a] man came also the resurrection of the dead.
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

The contrast is between Adam, who brought death upon all of mankind and Christ who defeated death for mankind. If all of mankind was not guilty of Adam's transgression, then all men would not die a physical death. He would be perhaps sinless and live forever. However Adam proved, in the Garden, that mankind could not live a sinless life. Unless a person would be so foolish as to think they could do a better job than Adam. Even though such a conversation would be pointless, since God set up Adam as mankind's Federal Head. When he fell, he proved, that all of us would Fall, if given the same circumstances. And for the women, they would do no better than Eve.

This is not answering either really.

They did not reject Christ because they had no choice in the matter according Calvinism

The one who rejects Me and does not receive My word has a judge; on the last day the Word that I have spoken will serve as judge (John 12:48).

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

This is not answering either really.
They did not reject Christ because they had no choice in the matter according Calvinism
The one who rejects Me and does not receive My word has a judge; on the last day the Word that I have spoken will serve as judge (John 12:48).

Your post reminds me of a post I made quite awhile ago (where there's another verse using this "REJECT [G114]" word):

[quoting old post]


Luke 7:29-30 - "29 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. 30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected [G114] the counsel [G1012 - boulēn] of God against [as to / unto] themselves, being not baptized [having not been baptized] of him."

--G1012 - boulēn - used also in Ephesians 1:11, the verse Calvinists use to say "no one can reject/resist" THIS, God's decreed [determined-plan] will [G1012]... yet Luke 7:30 clearly says the Pharisees and lawyers "rejected the boulēn G1012 of God..." (which, for that time then in existence, the decreed-will of God was: "the baptism of John").

The point being, they did indeed "reject the boulēn G1012 of God". Something that Calvinists say is impossible.


From Bible Hub:

Definition: counsel, deliberate wisdom, decree.

HELPS Word-studies

1012 boulḗ – properly, a resolved plan, used particularly of the immutable aspect of God's plan – purposefully arranging all physical circumstances, which guarantees every scene of life works to His eternal purpose.

This level of God's plan (1012 /boulḗ) demonstrates He is the Lord of history, i.e. always in charge!

[1012 (boulḗ) is more than God's immutable plan of physical circumstances. It always also includes the Lord's purpose in them – and hence arranging all the physical scenes of history before creation (Ps 139:16; Jn 1:3).]


[and... quoting]

HELPS Word-studies

Cognate: 1014 boúlomai – to plan with full resolve (determination). See 1012 (boulē).

1014 /boúlomai ("resolutely plan") is a strong term that underlines the predetermined (and determined) intention driving the planning (wishing, resolving). In contrast, 2309 (thélō) focuses on the desire ("wishfulness") behind making an offer (cf. TDNT, 1, 629).

[While God's "thelō-offers" can be rejected (see 2309 /thélō), His 1014 /boúlomai ("planning") always works out His purpose, especially in conjunction with presetting the physical scenes of history.]

[end quoting from BibleHub]


They clearly "rejected the boulēn G1012 of God," according to that text.

One might think to answer, well they are just doing what comes naturally (to natural man), but that is to miss the point. The point is, Calvinists say that "no one can reject/resist His 'boule / boulen [G1012]' will (that is to say, His 'decreed' will)." But Luke 7:30 says these clearly did so.

And I agree with those saying that "Calvinism" and "Arminianism" are NOT the only options.

[end quoting old post]

 

[awelight]

Your post reminds me of a post I made quite awhile ago (where there's another verse using this "REJECT [G114]" word):

[quoting old post]


Luke 7:29-30 - "29 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. 30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected [G114] the counsel [G1012 - boulēn] of God against [as to / unto] themselves, being not baptized [having not been baptized] of him."

--G1012 - boulēn - used also in Ephesians 1:11, the verse Calvinists use to say "no one can reject/resist" THIS, God's decreed [determined-plan] will [G1012]... yet Luke 7:30 clearly says the Pharisees and lawyers "rejected the boulēn G1012 of God..." (which, for that time then in existence, the decreed-will of God was: "the baptism of John").

The point being, they did indeed "reject the boulēn G1012 of God". Something that Calvinists say is impossible.


From Bible Hub:

Definition: counsel, deliberate wisdom, decree.

HELPS Word-studies

1012 boulḗ – properly, a resolved plan, used particularly of the immutable aspect of God's plan – purposefully arranging all physical circumstances, which guarantees every scene of life works to His eternal purpose.

This level of God's plan (1012 /boulḗ) demonstrates He is the Lord of history, i.e. always in charge!

[1012 (boulḗ) is more than God's immutable plan of physical circumstances. It always also includes the Lord's purpose in them – and hence arranging all the physical scenes of history before creation (Ps 139:16; Jn 1:3).]


[and... quoting]

HELPS Word-studies

Cognate: 1014 boúlomai – to plan with full resolve (determination). See 1012 (boulē).

1014 /boúlomai ("resolutely plan") is a strong term that underlines the predetermined (and determined) intention driving the planning (wishing, resolving). In contrast, 2309 (thélō) focuses on the desire ("wishfulness") behind making an offer (cf. TDNT, 1, 629).

[While God's "thelō-offers" can be rejected (see 2309 /thélō), His 1014 /boúlomai ("planning") always works out His purpose, especially in conjunction with presetting the physical scenes of history.]

[end quoting from BibleHub]


They clearly "rejected the boulēn G1012 of God," according to that text.

One might think to answer, well they are just doing what comes naturally (to natural man), but that is to miss the point. The point is, Calvinists say that "no one can reject/resist His 'boule / boulen [G1012]' will (that is to say, His 'decreed' will)." But Luke 7:30 says these clearly did so.

And I agree with those saying that "Calvinism" and "Arminianism" are NOT the only options.

[end quoting old post]

This "rejection", is not to say, that any of these rejected a Decree of God. They rejected what John was saying. To repent and be Baptized. John's proclamation had it's truthfulness in the good counsel of God. God's counsel is always for good but those who rejected it, could see no point in John's demands. It found no place in their heart and so they were not motivated to carry it out. Man continually rejects God's council in the same way he rejects many of God's laws. However, no man can reject a Decree brought forward by God, from eternity. If he could, then God is not God and man now controls creation.

The greek word translated "counsel" (βουλην), is used 12 times in the New Testament and generally carries the meaning of: "To advise, purpose or will". How it is to be understood is a matter of context.

Here in Luke 7:30, it means the oral commandment of God, as given by another. For it was good in God's sight for men to repent and be baptized. This commandment was discarded by the Pharisees and lawyers, because they could see no need for repentance.

In verses like Acts 2:23, the word "counsel" is given it's meaning by the word "determinate", which means the word "counsel" should be seen as a Decree or Divine Purpose. Act 2:23 him, being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay:

In 1 Cor. 4:5, it is the counsel of man's heart that will be revealed: 1Cor 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God. Obviously, this has nothing to do with a Decree from God. It is motivation brought to light of each persons life.

So "counsel", like any other word must be determined by immediate context. I also believe you know what is being said here is true but for the purpose of your argument, you remain willfully ignorant. With all do respect.

 

[EleventhHour]

This "rejection", is not to say, that any of these rejected a Decree of God. They rejected what John was saying. To repent and be Baptized. John's proclamation had it's truthfulness in the good counsel of God. God's counsel is always for good but those who rejected it, could see no point in John's demands. It found no place in their heart and so they were not motivated to carry it out. Man continually rejects God's council in the same way he rejects many of God's laws. However, no man can reject a Decree brought forward by God, from eternity. If he could, then God is not God and man now controls creation.

The greek word translated "counsel" (βουλην), is used 12 times in the New Testament and generally carries the meaning of: "To advise, purpose or will". How it is to be understood is a matter of context.

Here in Luke 7:30, it means the oral commandment of God, as given by another. For it was good in God's sight for men to repent and be baptized. This commandment was discarded by the Pharisees and lawyers, because they could see no need for repentance.

In verses like Acts 2:23, the word "counsel" is given it's meaning by the word "determinate", which means the word "counsel" should be seen as a Decree or Divine Purpose. Act 2:23 him, being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay:

In 1 Cor. 4:5, it is the counsel of man's heart that will be revealed: 1Cor 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God. Obviously, this has nothing to do with a Decree from God. It is motivation brought to light of each persons life.

So "counsel", like any other word must be determined by immediate context. I also believe you know what is being said here is true but for the purpose of your argument, you remain willfully ignorant. With all do respect.

Still does not answer the question?

 

[jackrosie]

Jesus explains that no man can come unless the Father draws him,John 6:65.
The natural man has no,ability to come to God,nor does he even have the desire to come,Because his heart is hard and his mind is darkened,the unregenerate person doesn’t desire God and is actually an enemy of God,Romans 5:10

 

[Bbrdrd]

Good points. Let's include this example also, shall we:

Luke 4:23 And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.
Luke 4:24 And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country.
Luke 4:25 But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land;
Luke 4:26 But unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow.
Luke 4:27 And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.
Luke 4:28 And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath,
Luke 4:29 And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.

Why were they filled with wrath? Because Jesus single handedly denounced, that everyone who was the physical seed of Abraham, were not chosen for blessings. He defended God's Sovereignty. He defended God's elective choice. Only two received the blessing. Those in the Synagogue knew exactly what Jesus was getting at. So they desired to kill him.

The clue is in the connection between the Sidonese woman and the Syrian, and what they are not. It is not God's election per se that Jesus is speaking to but their special place as the elect. They were enraged because Jesus was highlighting that God is the God of all people not just the Jews.

It seems to me your read would require they be among the nation of Israel, rather than being gentiles. The fact that mercy was showed to gentiles above those who are known as "God's elect" speaks directly against such favortism.

 

[awelight]

Still does not answer the question?

Sure it does, the Eternal Decrees laid down before the foundation of the world, were not rejected nor can they be. The word "counsel" of Luke 7:30, is not an Eternal Decree.

 

[awelight]

The clue is in the connection between the Sidonese woman and the Syrian, and what they are not. It is not God's election per se that Jesus is speaking to but their special place as the elect. They were enraged because Jesus was highlighting that God is the God of all people not just the Jews.

It seems to me your read would require they be among the nation of Israel, rather than being gentiles. The fact that mercy was showed to gentiles above those who are known as "God's elect" speaks directly against such favortism.

I was not speaking about whether they were Jew are Gentile, both are under the same program, but in different times. Otherwise, I don't disagree with your point. The inclusion of the Gentiles, would have infuriated the pious Jews. But why? Because it would seem that Jesus was including them (gentiles) into the seed of Abraham. Would it not? Were not the Jews to be the blessed ones and not Gentiles?