-
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.
As with all your post you misrepresent your opponents.
I am not a Calvinist, but moderate Calvinists nowhere teach that men are directly predestined to sin. They teach that they sin because they are sinners. The whole world is sinful because the whole world have sinful natures. God did not make man with a sinful nature. It was a consequence of man's choice.
However, it must be agreed that God knew beforehand that men would sin, and still continued to create man. So from that point of view God has predestined their sin. But that is equally true for Arminians, indeed for anyone who does not deny God's omniscience..
What God has done is determine who will be saved. He has chosen them from the foundation of the world and written their names in the Lamb's book of life (not the book of the living of Rev 3.5)..
I am not a Calvinist, but moderate Calvinists nowhere teach that men are directly predestined to sin. They teach that they sin because they are sinners. The whole world is sinful because the whole world have sinful natures. God did not make man with a sinful nature. It was a consequence of man's choice.
However, it must be agreed that God knew beforehand that men would sin, and still continued to create man. So from that point of view God has predestined their sin. But that is equally true for Arminians, indeed for anyone who does not deny God's omniscience..
What God has done is determine who will be saved. He has chosen them from the foundation of the world and written their names in the Lamb's book of life (not the book of the living of Rev 3.5)..
V
He knew he was faultless as to the Law the way the Pharisees interpreted it, because they believed the Law governed only the external behavior. But as Jesus said ...
Matthew 23, NASB
25 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence."
25 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence."
V
That was Paul's daily struggle, even as Christ's apostle, even as his scribe was putting his words down on paper. He most assuredly then had the Spirit in him. It's a war we all fight. The old man is "dead," but he was dead when he was the only one alive in us, too. Our problem is, we don't understand death is not lifeless; it is a state of being. The "dead" walk among us every day -- the lost.
So were we, once. But we now have life in Christ. We also still have access to our dead man. We choose which governs us on a day-to-day, minute-to-minute basis. Dead ain't dead -- just incapable of knowing life.
So were we, once. But we now have life in Christ. We also still have access to our dead man. We choose which governs us on a day-to-day, minute-to-minute basis. Dead ain't dead -- just incapable of knowing life.
Last edited:
In which case the words are inept. God is seen as the slave of mankind's choices and totally helpless to do anything about it. But Scripture reveals the opposite. Scripture reveals God as active in dealing with individuals. He chooses whom He will save. He chooses whom He will act through. He set Paul aside before he was born (Gal 1.15). If God did to all men what He did to Paul, and men were truly free to respond to Him, all would be saved. But He does not. Thus even on your basis God is not 'fair'.
But it does not all depend on how we see 'foreknew'. For Scripture all the way through makes clear that God chooses whom He will. The TRUE meaning of foreknew simply enforces it.
As Paul says, men are saved because they are 'known of God' (Gal 4.9). 'But now that you have come to KNOW God (doesn't that mean more than know about God?), or rather to be KNOWN by God'. It clearly means more than just know about beforehand. It indicates man's personal relationship with God and God's personal activity of 'knowing' as taking place BEFORE that personal relationship.
I do not know what you personally believe but I have dealt with those that claim man has no free will at all. They think God has predetermined for men where they will be in eternity and man has no free will choice in that matter.
In the case with the man with one talent, if Calvinism were correct then God predetermined him to be lost, the man had no other choice but to bury his talent for God did not allow him any other choice. Likewise the other men did right with their talents for God predetermined them to do what was right and be saved and likewise they had no choice in their actions but could only do what God forced them to do.
If the man with one talent did the wrong he did of his own free will choice and was therefore lost due to his own free will choice then the other men did what was right with their talents of their own free will choice and was saved by their own free will choice and not one of these men's eternal destiny was predetermined by God but by their own free will choice.
Much like the passage of Lk 13:48 that gets twisted by Calvinists. If the Jews of their own free will determined to put God's word away from themselves and therefore be lost, then likewise the Gentiles of their own free will determined to hear the word of God preach and believe. None here, as in Matt 25, were predetermined by God to be saved or lost.
One is not a sinner until he first chooses and commits a sin. All are born neutral, innocent (Rom 9:11) having done no good or evil.
Men are not born with a sinful nature where he can only choose to sin. God " formeth the spirit of man within him" (Zech 12:1) and the spirit God forms in each man would be as pure as it Maker. God made mankind upright (Eccl 7:29), it is man that has sought out many inventions. God does not form corrupt, totally depraved spirit within each man, for that idea would put moral culpability upon God.
Free will is simply being able to choose between at least two or more choices. Do all men that sin have the free will choice to believe and come to Christ to have their sins washed away by the blood of Christ or has God removed free will from some men not allowing them to have the choice to come to Christ about their sins. Did God remove man from having the free will choice in coming to Christ by creating a corrupt, totally depraved spirit within men preventing him from being able to choose to come to Christ?
You post "However, it must be agreed that God knew beforehand that men would sin, and still continued to create man. So from that point of view God has predestined their sin."
Does God prevent some men the free will choice in coming to Christ about their sins? Did God create men with a corrupt, totally depraved spirit that would prevent them from coming to Christ about their sins?
In the case with the man with one talent, if Calvinism were correct then God predetermined him to be lost, the man had no other choice but to bury his talent for God did not allow him any other choice. Likewise the other men did right with their talents for God predetermined them to do what was right and be saved and likewise they had no choice in their actions but could only do what God forced them to do.
If the man with one talent did the wrong he did of his own free will choice and was therefore lost due to his own free will choice then the other men did what was right with their talents of their own free will choice and was saved by their own free will choice and not one of these men's eternal destiny was predetermined by God but by their own free will choice.
Much like the passage of Lk 13:48 that gets twisted by Calvinists. If the Jews of their own free will determined to put God's word away from themselves and therefore be lost, then likewise the Gentiles of their own free will determined to hear the word of God preach and believe. None here, as in Matt 25, were predetermined by God to be saved or lost.
One is not a sinner until he first chooses and commits a sin. All are born neutral, innocent (Rom 9:11) having done no good or evil.
Men are not born with a sinful nature where he can only choose to sin. God " formeth the spirit of man within him" (Zech 12:1) and the spirit God forms in each man would be as pure as it Maker. God made mankind upright (Eccl 7:29), it is man that has sought out many inventions. God does not form corrupt, totally depraved spirit within each man, for that idea would put moral culpability upon God.
Free will is simply being able to choose between at least two or more choices. Do all men that sin have the free will choice to believe and come to Christ to have their sins washed away by the blood of Christ or has God removed free will from some men not allowing them to have the choice to come to Christ about their sins. Did God remove man from having the free will choice in coming to Christ by creating a corrupt, totally depraved spirit within men preventing him from being able to choose to come to Christ?
You post "However, it must be agreed that God knew beforehand that men would sin, and still continued to create man. So from that point of view God has predestined their sin."
Does God prevent some men the free will choice in coming to Christ about their sins? Did God create men with a corrupt, totally depraved spirit that would prevent them from coming to Christ about their sins?
Last edited:
Not quite, my friend.
That depends on what the election is to.
In the OT, election was corporate of a nation as the people from whom the Messiah would come.
However, it was individual of Pharoah, not inclusive of the Egyptians, to raise him up that God might display his power in him and that God's name might be proclaimed in all the earth (Ro 9:17).
And in the NT, it is to personal salvation from the wrath of God (Ro 5:9) through faith in the blood of Jesus Christ (Ro 3:25).
But don't the exceptions necessarily disprove your point?
Eph 1:3-14; Ro 8:28-30 do not speak of a corporate election to salvation.
That is not the meaning of divine foreknowledge.
God knows what is going to happen in advance because from before the foundations of the world, he has decreed that it shall happen.
That would be an inadequate understanding of the sovereignty of God.
What other word? . . ."called" does not mean predestination anymore than "justified" does.
Is that what Scripture says? Do we need to mitigate the plain word of God?
Scripture says part of Israel has been blinded/hardened, not "faith set aside," so that
only a remnant come in.
Scripture says that God will graft them in again if they do not continue in unbelief (Ro 11:23).
The entire nation of Israel is exposed to the gospel now.
So would the equivalent response be a declarative statement that the unbelief of many who believe in universal atonement and God's powerlessness to save are shrinking the Bible to prevent it from saying something it most assuredly does?
That depends on what the election is to.
In the OT, election was corporate of a nation as the people from whom the Messiah would come.
However, it was individual of Pharoah, not inclusive of the Egyptians, to raise him up that God might display his power in him and that God's name might be proclaimed in all the earth (Ro 9:17).
And in the NT, it is to personal salvation from the wrath of God (Ro 5:9) through faith in the blood of Jesus Christ (Ro 3:25).
But don't the exceptions necessarily disprove your point?
Eph 1:3-14; Ro 8:28-30 do not speak of a corporate election to salvation.
That is not the meaning of divine foreknowledge.
God knows what is going to happen in advance because from before the foundations of the world, he has decreed that it shall happen.
That would be an inadequate understanding of the sovereignty of God.
What other word? . . ."called" does not mean predestination anymore than "justified" does.
Is that what Scripture says? Do we need to mitigate the plain word of God?
Scripture says part of Israel has been blinded/hardened, not "faith set aside," so that
only a remnant come in.
Scripture says that God will graft them in again if they do not continue in unbelief (Ro 11:23).
The entire nation of Israel is exposed to the gospel now.
So would the equivalent response be a declarative statement that the unbelief of many who believe in universal atonement and God's powerlessness to save are shrinking the Bible to prevent it from saying something it most assuredly does?
Last edited:
G
Exactly. So we can't look at Gods justice as arbitrary.
ar·bi·trar·y
ˈärbəˌtrerē/
adjective
[COLOR=#878787 !important][/COLOR]
ar·bi·trar·y
ˈärbəˌtrerē/
adjective
[COLOR=#878787 !important][/COLOR]
- based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
[COLOR=#878787 !important]"his mealtimes were entirely arbitrary"[/COLOR]
[TABLE="class: vk_tbl vk_gy"]
[TR]
[TD="class: lr_dct_nyms_ttl"]synonyms:[/TD]
[TD]capricious, whimsical, random, chance, unpredictable; More
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: vk_tbl vk_gy"]
[TR]
[TD="class: lr_dct_nyms_ttl"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
- (of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.
[COLOR=#878787 !important]"arbitrary rule by King and bishops has been made impossible"[/COLOR]
[TABLE="class: vk_tbl vk_gy"]
[TR]
[TD="class: lr_dct_nyms_ttl"]synonyms:[/TD]
[TD]autocratic, dictatorial, autarchic, undemocratic, despotic, tyrannical,authoritarian, high-handed; More
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: vk_tbl vk_gy"]
[TR]
[TD="class: lr_dct_nyms_ttl"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
- MATHEMATICS
(of a constant or other quantity) of unspecified value.
- (of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.
According to the standards of the law, he was.
According to the NT gospel, he was not.
He did not have the NT gospel during his tenure as a Pharisee, of which time he was speaking.
Setting Php 3:5 against Ro 3:10 demonstrates misunderstanding of Php 3:5,
for the word of God does not contradict itself.
It is only our flawed understanding of it that is contradictory.
According to the NT gospel, he was not.
He did not have the NT gospel during his tenure as a Pharisee, of which time he was speaking.
Setting Php 3:5 against Ro 3:10 demonstrates misunderstanding of Php 3:5,
for the word of God does not contradict itself.
It is only our flawed understanding of it that is contradictory.
Last edited:
Elin l can't understand you. He wrote that during his tenure as a Pharisee he thought he was blameless. Whether he was or not is besides the point. He is giving his view of himself twice and they contradict. One says he is blameless, the other says he thinks he is a miserable wretch. You say the second is still as a pharisee. Explain.