-
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.
E
it depends on how God chose to elect someone.
If he chose just on some random scale or whatever he used to determine, Then I would say yes, your right, it would not be fare of God.
If he chose based on foreknowledge, of what a free willed people will do through the ages. (ie he offeres everyone the same gift) then yes he has every right, Because the people who go to hell have no one to blame but themselves. they rejected God, God did not reject them, Gods love just could not overrule his perfect justice, because he will never overrule ones free will.
If he chose just on some random scale or whatever he used to determine, Then I would say yes, your right, it would not be fare of God.
If he chose based on foreknowledge, of what a free willed people will do through the ages. (ie he offeres everyone the same gift) then yes he has every right, Because the people who go to hell have no one to blame but themselves. they rejected God, God did not reject them, Gods love just could not overrule his perfect justice, because he will never overrule ones free will.
S
@skinski7...
By the way you keep accusing other believers of being sinful beasts...what do you think distinguishes yourself with them in regards to obedience?
Are you more obedient than them, or obedient in different areas?
What does a Christian need to be obedient to, that you think other Christians here don't agree with?
I see a lot of accusations concerning "heart purity" from you, but why do you think they don't share similar convictions in terms of Christian morality? What distinguishes them from you? Are you able to see into their hearts or their lives to determine that they are morally inferior to yourself?
I'm just wondering what the basis for your accusations are.
By the way, if someone was truly sinless I don't think they'd be parading around claiming it.
By the way you keep accusing other believers of being sinful beasts...what do you think distinguishes yourself with them in regards to obedience?
Are you more obedient than them, or obedient in different areas?
What does a Christian need to be obedient to, that you think other Christians here don't agree with?
I see a lot of accusations concerning "heart purity" from you, but why do you think they don't share similar convictions in terms of Christian morality? What distinguishes them from you? Are you able to see into their hearts or their lives to determine that they are morally inferior to yourself?
I'm just wondering what the basis for your accusations are.
By the way, if someone was truly sinless I don't think they'd be parading around claiming it.
I agree with your proposition that the nature of Adam did not change at the fall.
But let us go back to what God said was the problem. "If you eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you will die."
So Adam with knowledge would loose eternal life, communion with God and would die.
His descendants who are born into this state and knowledge would die.
We there fore inherit death from Adam, and we inherit knowledge, or self awareness.
The idea the knowledge made them self aware is mentioned by Adam and eve did not know they were naked.
Nakedness was not a problem to them until they gain knowledge.
Now the question you are not asking is what is the sin? Gaining knowledge or disobeying God? Which brought death? The knowledge or the disobedience or both?
I would suggest to you the solution to the problem of knowledge brings death because knowledge corrupts you, because without love to balance it in your heart it entices you with emotional reward apparently at no cost.
So what is Gods answer to the problem? The cross, the infinite demonstration of love, sacrifice, order, appropriateness in the face of sin and corruption. The power to overcome is to know you are loved, to a degree you cannot truly imagine. It is this you are giving up when you sin, when you take short cuts, when simple pleasures appear better than holding your own.
Now to the unsaved there is no answer to sin and destruction, for they have no acknowledgement of the creator or His heart and only can see selfish gain at the price of others loss. They will always be driven to this behaviour, and so by doing destroy themselves.
But let us go back to what God said was the problem. "If you eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you will die."
So Adam with knowledge would loose eternal life, communion with God and would die.
His descendants who are born into this state and knowledge would die.
We there fore inherit death from Adam, and we inherit knowledge, or self awareness.
The idea the knowledge made them self aware is mentioned by Adam and eve did not know they were naked.
Nakedness was not a problem to them until they gain knowledge.
Now the question you are not asking is what is the sin? Gaining knowledge or disobeying God? Which brought death? The knowledge or the disobedience or both?
I would suggest to you the solution to the problem of knowledge brings death because knowledge corrupts you, because without love to balance it in your heart it entices you with emotional reward apparently at no cost.
So what is Gods answer to the problem? The cross, the infinite demonstration of love, sacrifice, order, appropriateness in the face of sin and corruption. The power to overcome is to know you are loved, to a degree you cannot truly imagine. It is this you are giving up when you sin, when you take short cuts, when simple pleasures appear better than holding your own.
Now to the unsaved there is no answer to sin and destruction, for they have no acknowledgement of the creator or His heart and only can see selfish gain at the price of others loss. They will always be driven to this behaviour, and so by doing destroy themselves.
Well that depends on your definition of 'nature'. If a man turning from total innocence/righteousness, to inward selfishness and sinning has not had a change of nature I don't know what has.
it was the tree of knowing by experience good and evil. The knowledge it gave him was what evil was. that was why he had to die, otherwise evil could not be finally eradicated.
.
what we inherit is an awareness of sin. Adam was self aware when he was wholly righteous. He was fully aware of his place in things and his responsibilities. . What he was not aware of was what sin was. It was outside his comprehension.
The idea is surely that having sinned they became aware of what weak frail creatures they were. They knew that they could not face God as they were. Their sin had underlined their creatureliness.
Because while they were righteous they had no sense of inferiority? Once they had sinned it was brought home to them.
The disobedience. They had rebelled against their Lord.
It is surely not knowledge that corrupts, but knowledge of what is sinful? When it says they 'knew' good and evil it was more than knowledge, it was knowledge through experience. They now knew evil because they had themselves experienced it (just as Adam 'knew' Eve by experiencing her).
Sin had become a part of them. They were wholly different in their view of God, their outlook on life. and in what thy would seek for. Their nature, body and soul, had 'fallen' from what it had been.
That was why they needed a 'new birth'.
it was the tree of knowing by experience good and evil. The knowledge it gave him was what evil was. that was why he had to die, otherwise evil could not be finally eradicated.
.
what we inherit is an awareness of sin. Adam was self aware when he was wholly righteous. He was fully aware of his place in things and his responsibilities. . What he was not aware of was what sin was. It was outside his comprehension.
The idea is surely that having sinned they became aware of what weak frail creatures they were. They knew that they could not face God as they were. Their sin had underlined their creatureliness.
Because while they were righteous they had no sense of inferiority? Once they had sinned it was brought home to them.
The disobedience. They had rebelled against their Lord.
It is surely not knowledge that corrupts, but knowledge of what is sinful? When it says they 'knew' good and evil it was more than knowledge, it was knowledge through experience. They now knew evil because they had themselves experienced it (just as Adam 'knew' Eve by experiencing her).
Sin had become a part of them. They were wholly different in their view of God, their outlook on life. and in what thy would seek for. Their nature, body and soul, had 'fallen' from what it had been.
That was why they needed a 'new birth'.
Last edited:
Simple answer - He is God, not us, and He does what He pleases - and it's not according to our morality that we can judge Him
Also - we should be amazed that some get chosen at all - we all deserve hell, condemnation and punishment. If we make up a god, then attack that false god - we cannot put that on the Real God who Has Declared Himself
Also - we should be amazed that some get chosen at all - we all deserve hell, condemnation and punishment. If we make up a god, then attack that false god - we cannot put that on the Real God who Has Declared Himself
God doesn't have to be 'fair'. God is sovereign. God does choose His elect but He chooses not to give us the basis for His choice. As Paul said, 'who are you to argue against God'.
But proginosko does not mean foreknowledge in that sense. It includes the strong sense of 'know'. ('Jer 22.16; 1 Cor 8.33; Gal 4.9; 'you only have I known' (Amos 3.2). The idea that God simply 'elects' those whom He knows are going to believe makes nonsense of election. He doesn't elect them at all. He just falls in line with what people choose. That is NOT what Scripture teaches, even though we might use it as an excuse to fit God into our categories.
skinski
I have not gained much from the link you gave unfortunately as it is mainly in Latin.
Pelagius rightly says that Paul is not speaking in his present postion of being set free but he could be easily speaking of a past experience of his. But the person indeed had two natures which struggled within. An unsaved person does not have two natures struggling within. They have one nature that says that they are sinful yes but are as good as everybody else and do not struggle. Paul himself speaks in other places when he was unsaved, but a Pharisee and kept the law he said and did not suffer from a struggle within.
The only way to resolve the discrepencies is to say that Paul was speaking here, in Romans 7 of a time when he, as a believer but not walking in the Spirit, so that he had the Spirit inside him but the flesh fought against it as it was not yet subdued.
But you say you will not accept this interpretation as it goes against you theology which is incidently close to mine but not on this point. I believe that Pelagius understood Romans 7 in the same way as I did and could therefore dispute with Augustine that it was not an unbeliever in Romans 7 which caused Augustine to change his position when Pelagius disproved it to the position that is commonly held in the church today and is wriong: That Paul is speaking of his present state.
How else can you explain this dispute and the results of it?
I have not gained much from the link you gave unfortunately as it is mainly in Latin.
Pelagius rightly says that Paul is not speaking in his present postion of being set free but he could be easily speaking of a past experience of his. But the person indeed had two natures which struggled within. An unsaved person does not have two natures struggling within. They have one nature that says that they are sinful yes but are as good as everybody else and do not struggle. Paul himself speaks in other places when he was unsaved, but a Pharisee and kept the law he said and did not suffer from a struggle within.
The only way to resolve the discrepencies is to say that Paul was speaking here, in Romans 7 of a time when he, as a believer but not walking in the Spirit, so that he had the Spirit inside him but the flesh fought against it as it was not yet subdued.
But you say you will not accept this interpretation as it goes against you theology which is incidently close to mine but not on this point. I believe that Pelagius understood Romans 7 in the same way as I did and could therefore dispute with Augustine that it was not an unbeliever in Romans 7 which caused Augustine to change his position when Pelagius disproved it to the position that is commonly held in the church today and is wriong: That Paul is speaking of his present state.
How else can you explain this dispute and the results of it?
G
I agree. we often look to divine attributes of God to come to our conclusions on this matter. Most often "Sovereignty" or "Justice" and we leave out a very important attribute often. And It is His Righteousness.
He cannot act in His sovereignty and compromise His righteousness.(Arbitrary choice)
He cannot act in His love and compromise His righteousness.(Everyone would get saved then)
He cannot act in Justice without righteousness(All men can be saved because his Justice was satisfied on the cross. Righteousness can't leave even one man out of His salvation plan.......faith in His Son.)
He cannot act in His sovereignty and compromise His righteousness.(Arbitrary choice)
He cannot act in His love and compromise His righteousness.(Everyone would get saved then)
He cannot act in Justice without righteousness(All men can be saved because his Justice was satisfied on the cross. Righteousness can't leave even one man out of His salvation plan.......faith in His Son.)
Indeed and many believers make the same mistake as the foolish Galatians who tried to serve with the flesh (law) instead of grace (faith in Christ's righteousness imparted).
Here is Paul's testimony as to how he saw himself as a Jew:
Phil 3:5
He says he was faultless but now you want him to say he could not keep the law??? It is inconsistent.
Here is Paul's testimony as to how he saw himself as a Jew:
Phil 3:5
He says he was faultless but now you want him to say he could not keep the law??? It is inconsistent.
V
I haven't read the rest of the thread, because I know what kind of hornets' nest this discussion stirs up. I will simply and peacefully state my interpretation, based on a very thorough study of the original Greek and some of the Hebrew regarding election, and the direction to which it points us.
Election is corporate in nature, not individual. There is not one single verse or passage that speaks of an individual being elected, or chosen in Christ, with the very, very rare exceptions of those man who were his prophets and messengers. Romans 8:28-30 speaks of God's foreknowledge leading to His predestination of those He foreknew to "become conformed to the image of Christ."
Foreknowledge, despite the efforts of some to redefine it to also mean predestination and/or election, only means foreknowledge. If, in fact, it could be made to mean predestination or election, then Paul would be redundant in then using another word meaning predestination in v. 28.
Romans 9-11 speaks of God's election of corporate Israel to become a "type" for Christians, but that Israel's faithful -- those who expressed the faith of Abram in Geneis 15:6 -- were the only ones among that nation that are truly saved. Israel's faith has been "set aside" for now while the Word takes root through the rest of the world.
Members of Israel today have access to the Gospel and many believe, and the entire nation will be again exposed to the GOspel, as will the remaining unbelieving world, during the Tribulation. Then comes judgment in Christ's return, and there will be no more opportunity.
The hyper-beliefs of many who would have limited atonement and irresistible grace be biblical teachings are simply stretching the Bible to say something it most assuredly does not.
Election is corporate in nature, not individual. There is not one single verse or passage that speaks of an individual being elected, or chosen in Christ, with the very, very rare exceptions of those man who were his prophets and messengers. Romans 8:28-30 speaks of God's foreknowledge leading to His predestination of those He foreknew to "become conformed to the image of Christ."
Foreknowledge, despite the efforts of some to redefine it to also mean predestination and/or election, only means foreknowledge. If, in fact, it could be made to mean predestination or election, then Paul would be redundant in then using another word meaning predestination in v. 28.
Romans 9-11 speaks of God's election of corporate Israel to become a "type" for Christians, but that Israel's faithful -- those who expressed the faith of Abram in Geneis 15:6 -- were the only ones among that nation that are truly saved. Israel's faith has been "set aside" for now while the Word takes root through the rest of the world.
Members of Israel today have access to the Gospel and many believe, and the entire nation will be again exposed to the GOspel, as will the remaining unbelieving world, during the Tribulation. Then comes judgment in Christ's return, and there will be no more opportunity.
The hyper-beliefs of many who would have limited atonement and irresistible grace be biblical teachings are simply stretching the Bible to say something it most assuredly does not.
The man with one talent (Matt 25) chose of his own free will to bury his one talent, yet he then blamed his own free will action upon God, calling God a 'hard man'..."Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine." ....if God were not such a 'hard man' then I would not have buried my one talent. What happens to those that try and blame their own free will choices upon God? "...cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Yet if Calvinism were right where man has no free will but can only do what God has predetermined him to do, then the man with one talent was correct and right for putting the blame upon God for burying his one talent for God did force him against his will to bury that one talent. Calvinism has the one talent man being the "good guy" who was correct, right and just in his assessment of what happened and God being the unloving, unjust ogre who forces men, against their will, to do wrong just so God can punish men. What would/should happen to parents who force their children to do wrong just so the parents could then punish those children? Fortunately Calvinism does not get to define for the rest of us what being just and loving means for it has a warped, perverted view of justice and love.
Originally Posted by valiant
LOL we disagree again. Men are saved because God has chosen them from the foundation of the world. At that time He already has their names written in the Lamb's Book of Life. Thus it is an election of individuals. But because those individuals then make up the true church, it is also the election of the church, God's true Israel..
Last edited:
V
No, that's foreknowledge of individuals. It isn't election, it isn't predestination. It is simply "knowledge beforehand."
No, Israel is Israel, the church is the church, and God has different dynamics for working with both.
None of those verses speak of individual election. All use the terms "we", "us," "those," etc. Plurals, i.e., corporately, not individually.
No, Israel is Israel, the church is the church, and God has different dynamics for working with both.
None of those verses speak of individual election. All use the terms "we", "us," "those," etc. Plurals, i.e., corporately, not individually.