Calvinism and Context?

[Bbrdrd]

it does not violate the gospel. you will say, the gospel is "whosoever willeth, let him come drink of the water" - and that is not wrong - but you are confessing here, that God knows who the whosoever is that will come to Him. God is omniscient. there is neither such thing as a thing God does not know, nor is there any such thing as a time in which God does not know every thing. before you exist, He knows you, and everything you will do - and He is the One who skillfully and wonderfully designs you and gives you existence and sustains that existence. He tells people that they will not come because they aren't His sheep. people He gives existence to and sustains - sons of Adam, who were in Adam when he sinned just as you were; Adam whom God formed and gave breath to.
you only say it violates the gospel because you have an 'intellectual problem' with God exercising His prerogative as God to do as is His pleasure with His own creation - to have His own free will, as God, as Creator of all of us, all of us who are in Adam. we were all in Adam, and in Adam was light and in Adam was found darkness. you consider it unfair -- and it is not unlike as to say, Esau should have had equal, if not more claim to the birthright than Jacob -- but the reality is that God chose Jacob before they were even born and had done or thought or placed faith in anything. Jacob & Esau who were both in Isaac, who was in Adam. that is a sign to us, that God is God and there is no other, and no one can say to Him "what have you done?"

hear what Nebuchadnezzar, whom God chose, who is God's servant, said of Him:

all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and He doeth according to His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto Him, 'What doest Thou?'​

(Daniel 4:35)​

​

the gospel is not, 'every man and woman gets a fair chance to determine their own destiny'
the gospel is Yah-Shua, that God, in His grace, is Salvation; that it is not by works, by effort or human will, but by Him who has mercy, and He has mercy on whom He will. His dominion is eternal. you may dare to judge Him, but i dare not

There's always this accusation of denying God's free will, yet it is the distortion of God's will that we object to.

A great example of this is the way you use "has mercy on whom He will" as a means of denying mercy to some. Yet every time that phrase occurs its an expanding of mercy, with God expressing His desire to show mercy. After all, He did turn all to disobedience so He could have mercy on all.

To deny that the gospel is available too all is to deny the gospel. It is only by setting yourself as a judge of Scripture prioritizing the exclusive-sounding verses over the inclusive ones that such a view can stand. It is only by ignoring the "whosoevers" and the "all" that the doctrine of particular election stands, and to what end except to shut the door of heaven to some?

 

[posthuman]

And how does God hold him accountable for his actions?

i'm not so hyper-calvinist as CV5, i think -- i believe human free will and God's sovereignty coexist in a way that is far above what we can comprehend -- that Judas both acted of his own will and acted according to God's own predetermined, inescapable predetermination, simultaneously. i would point at throwing the 30 pieces of silver back, as evidence, and ask, did Judas know he was fulfilling prophecy, was it his intention to do so, and if it was to Judas a conscience & aware decision, was it possible that Judas could have made any other decision but to do precisely what had been prophesied? prophecy isn't God peeking into the future: prophecy is God doing His will.

i'm saying that because i'm about to sound all hyper-calvinist when reply to your question with this paraphrase of Romans 9, tho ((because that's exactly where you are - and i love you and don't want you to take me wrong when i say it ♥ - i'm saying it becaue this is the answer scripture gives, in two witnesses, Paul replies exactly as the book of Job))

even if God holds him accountable for what God had foreordained, who am, a man, to answer back to God? i clap my hand over my mouth!

 

[posthuman]

A great example of this is the way you use "has mercy on whom He will" as a means of denying mercy to some. Yet every time that phrase occurs its an expanding of mercy, with God expressing His desire to show mercy. After all, He did turn all to disobedience so He could have mercy on all.

the inescapable conclusion of your logic here is either universal salvation or the accusation against God that He is evil because He doesn't extend His mercy to all & save all -- not one of us wasn't His enemy when He saved us.

To deny that the gospel is available too all is to deny the gospel. It is only by setting yourself as a judge of Scripture prioritizing the exclusive-sounding verses over the inclusive ones that such a view can stand. It is only by ignoring the "whosoevers" and the "all" that the doctrine of particular election stands, and to what end except to shut the door of heaven to some?

please re-read my post you replied to and chew on it for a day or so.
Salvation is 'available' to all; salvation is only by His mercy; not all are saved; God is sovereign over all; no one can resist His will; no one has right to judge Him. what do these things mean?

 

[Bbrdrd]

the inescapable conclusion of your logic here is either universal salvation or the accusation against God that He is evil because He doesn't extend His mercy to all & save all -- not one of us wasn't His enemy when He saved us.



please re-read my post you replied to and chew on it for a day or so.
Salvation is 'available' to all; salvation is only by His mercy; not all are saved; God is sovereign over all; no one can resist His will; no one has right to judge Him. what do these things mean?

Those are only the conclusions if the only thing separating the saved from the damned is God's choice.

Which if your position is it is by God's sovereign choice then it is not available to all, only those God chooses. At least not in any sense that "available" retains our usual meaning.

Certainly none has the right to judge Him, but we can judge what people claim about Him against what He has revealed of His nature. The subtle difference is the difference between Elihu's speech and God's, one vindicating God based on a might-makes-right paradigm and the other pointing to God's perfect stewardship for the unassailable nature of His character. Which are you pointing at to make Him beyond criticism, that we can trust Him to exhibit perfect justice or because His whim is right by fiat?

 

[posthuman]

Which if your position is it is by God's sovereign choice then it is not available to all, only those God chooses. At least not in any sense that "available" retains our usual meaning.

it is no different.
He knows who will have faith and who will not, and He declares salvation shall be through faith.
was God ignorant of who would have faith and who would not, when He determined salvation should be by faith?

we live in a timelike existence accumulating knowledge as we move through time. it is not so with God. we can't comprehend these theological topics if we think of Him as being like us in our ignorance and our weakness and our lack of authority.

IMO we will be in the same place whether we believe the lot cast in the lap is determined by Him or whether we believe the the one who casts the dice skillfully &/or with luck wins the pot - we either have to accept and humble ourselves before His sovereignty or deny His divinity. does God win the lottery if He plays? always! is it because He knew which numbers would win or because He controls which numbers turn up as winners? both! He's God!

God can make a free willed creature that does His own will. He can make a creature who did not do His will into a new creation that does. the Christian walk is about submitting our will to His, laying our own will down and doing His will instead. brother because of that i find it ironic that so many Christians get so upset about the idea that this life has more to do with God's will than ours, don't you?

 

[cv5]

You misunderstand the point being made here.

Israel (many) were called of God, to be His people nationally speaking. But only a (few) were chosen to be His people, by Election.

Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Rom 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded

In this same way, nation after nation, of the Gentiles, have been called by the Gospel and it's preaching but only a few are chosen.

There is no failure of God's purpose nor will there be. God's purpose stands firm and forever, whether man likes it or not.

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.

Many are called......Few are chosen

If we follow the logical path you are surmising then God fails....because ONLY a few are chosen of the MANY HE CALLS...

Why is that?

Few < Many

There's always this accusation of denying God's free will, yet it is the distortion of God's will that we object to.

A great example of this is the way you use "has mercy on whom He will" as a means of denying mercy to some. Yet every time that phrase occurs its an expanding of mercy, with God expressing His desire to show mercy. After all, He did turn all to disobedience so He could have mercy on all.

To deny that the gospel is available too all is to deny the gospel. It is only by setting yourself as a judge of Scripture prioritizing the exclusive-sounding verses over the inclusive ones that such a view can stand. It is only by ignoring the "whosoevers" and the "all" that the doctrine of particular election stands, and to what end except to shut the door of heaven to some?

"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.

 

[Bbrdrd]

it is no different.
He knows who will have faith and who will not, and He declares salvation shall be through faith.
was God ignorant of who would have faith and who would not, when He determined salvation should be by faith?

we live in a timelike existence accumulating knowledge as we move through time. it is not so with God. we can't comprehend these theological topics if we think of Him as being like us in our ignorance and our weakness and our lack of authority.

IMO we will be in the same place whether we believe the lot cast in the lap is determined by Him or whether we believe the the one who casts the dice skillfully &/or with luck wins the pot - we either have to accept and humble ourselves before His sovereignty or deny His divinity. does God win the lottery if He plays? always! is it because He knew which numbers would win or because He controls which numbers turn up as winners? both! He's God!

God can make a free willed creature that does His own will. He can make a creature who did not do His will into a new creation that does. the Christian walk is about submitting our will to His, laying our own will down and doing His will instead. brother because of that i find it ironic that so many Christians get so upset about the idea that this life has more to do with God's will than ours, don't you?

There is indeed a difference, because having faith is a character decision. God's justice will be revealed when we see the common thread between those who have such faith.

While we certainly cannot grasp the fullness of the plan we can't so divorce God from our common definitions that the words themselves no longer mean anything when we apply them to God. The justice of God cannot be so alien to human justice that they are entirely separate species, merely differing in kind. Same with other attributes like kindness and love.

Ultimately it is not the idea that this life has more to do with God's will, but that such teachings make God an unknowable entity entirely divorced from the person of Jesus Christ. Rather than recognizing that God loves us as we are, as subjects with our own personalities and quirks such teaching reduces God's love to an objective sort of love. To lift up God's sovereignty to such a degree that it distorts what is revealed in Christ isn't honoring God it is elevating our philosophical musings about God above what He has chosen to reveal of Himself.

 

[Bbrdrd]

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.

This is entirely because you fail to account for the central context of Romans 9, which is the extending of mercy to the gentiles. It is the objection that God is supposed to be exclusive to the jews that Paul is defending God's sovereignty over and the statement "I will have mercy upon whomever I will have mercy" ties directly into that.

Instead you distort it as if God was limited in who He could and couldn't show mercy to and had to punish the jews in order to allow the gentiles in. That's not the idea at all, but that God is still faithful to the Jewish revelation even in allowing gentiles in.

 

[EleventhHour]

even if God holds him accountable for what God had foreordained, who am, a man, to answer back to God?

I just do not think that is point... the point is if God is just, which He IS.

He would act in accordance with that "Justness" therefore ..... to hold man accountable for something he was automated to do is not just.

 

[cv5]

This is entirely because you fail to account for the central context of Romans 9, which is the extending of mercy to the gentiles. It is the objection that God is supposed to be exclusive to the jews that Paul is defending God's sovereignty over and the statement "I will have mercy upon whomever I will have mercy" ties directly into that.

Instead you distort it as if God was limited in who He could and couldn't show mercy to and had to punish the jews in order to allow the gentiles in. That's not the idea at all, but that God is still faithful to the Jewish revelation even in allowing gentiles in.

First you say things that you say I said but I didn't say and then, you actually say things that you think I'm thinking!!!! As if you're reading my mind!!!! And then, after this you come to a conclusion based on things I didn't say and I didn't think, but what you said and what you were thinking!

That my friend is living in a fantasy world of your own making.

By the way the central context of Romans 9, Romans 11 and so on and so forth is Gods sovereign election to salvation by grace. Everything else is a tangential consequence.

 

[Bbrdrd]

First you say things that you say I said but I didn't say and then, you actually say things that you think I'm thinking!!!! As if you're reading my mind!!!! And then, after this you come to a conclusion based on things I didn't say and I didn't think, but what you said and what you were thinking!

That my friend is living in a fantasy world of your own making.

You make such accusations...yet all I am doing is taking the natural consequences of the words you present.

And your tactic here is obvious. Rather than standing by what you say and defend it you smear me and pretend you're not saying exactly what you've put into words.

So how about rather than trying to make this about me, rather than saying something and then abandoning what you've just said you have some integrity.

Your games are quite tiresome.

 

[dcontroversal]

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.

Pharaoh hardened his own heart the first three rounds.....his OWN choices set the course for what happened next.....

God is longsuffering not WILLING THAT ANY SHOULD PERISH, but that ALL should come to te repentance.

Nice try and you just contradicted the bible twice by the above post!

 

[dcontroversal]

You misunderstand the point being made here.

Israel (many) were called of God, to be His people nationally speaking. But only a (few) were chosen to be His people, by Election.

Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Rom 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded

In this same way, nation after nation, of the Gentiles, have been called by the Gospel and it's preaching but only a few are chosen.

There is no failure of God's purpose nor will there be. God's purpose stands firm and forever, whether man likes it or not.

Funny how you think you know and I misunderstand......no friend...it is you that misunderstands!

 

[EleventhHour]

You see, belief is the OUTCOME of election, not the cause of it.

No where in scripture is belief shown to precede regeneration.

This is and "irresistible grace" has yet to be proven and there is no TULIP without it.


However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.
Romans 4:5

If a person is saved/regenerated before they had faith/belief WHAT would be counted as righteousness>>> NOTHING!!

Again you contradict the clear teachings of scripture.

 

[cv5]

You make such accusations...yet all I am doing is taking the natural consequences of the words you present.

And your tactic here is obvious. Rather than standing by what you say and defend it you smear me and pretend you're not saying exactly what you've put into words.

So how about rather than trying to make this about me, rather than saying something and then abandoning what you've just said you have some integrity.

Your games are quite tiresome.

OK. Back to the nitty-gritty.
Can you please render an opinion on this post that I made earlier?

#187

 

[EleventhHour]

Because foreknowledge, election aka choosing PRECEDES believing in every single case of salvation in all of Scripture.

incorrect.. scripture proves this wrong again.

So that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 5:21

What is counted for righteousness >> faith and faith precedes eternal life.

Again regeneration preceding faith is false according to scripture.

 

[cv5]

Pharaoh hardened his own heart the first three rounds.....his OWN choices set the course for what happened next.....

God is longsuffering not WILLING THAT ANY SHOULD PERISH, but that ALL should come to te repentance.

Nice try and you just contradicted the bible twice by the above post!

I'll call your pharaoh and raise you Judas and the antichrist. Let me add Pilate as a side bet.

 

[cv5]

incorrect.. scripture proves this wrong again.

So that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 5:21

What is counted for righteousness >> faith and faith precedes eternal life.

Again regeneration preceding faith is false according to scripture.

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.

 

[EleventhHour]

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 you maintain God choose some and denied salvation to others.

 

[cv5]

incorrect.. scripture proves this wrong again.

So that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 5:21

What is counted for righteousness >> faith and faith precedes eternal life.

Again regeneration preceding faith is false according to scripture.

2Tim 1:9
He has (FIRSTLY) saved us (due to election from eternity past) and (SECONDLY) called us (presently during the lifetime of the believer) to a holy calling, not because of our works, but by His own purpose and by the grace He granted us in Christ Jesus before time began.