Doctrine of Unconditional 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.
May 22, 2020
2,382
358
83
....................God has and will keep His promises perfectly......

that God's eternal blessing was intended to Abraham's spiritual (not physical) seed -- was evident when He gave it to Abraham...........
No doubt God will keep His promises. That's a given

Please explain...with scripture...the spiritual vs physical thing...?
 
L

Live4Him2

Guest
If I did, it would. But believing Christ the Saviour is not against the words of Christ but are the words of Christ and of the Bible
You don't believe that He is the Saviour?
You know what I'm talking about.

In a previous post, I gave you the very words of Christ in which he described salvation as a marriage or wedding that people are bidden or called to while having the free will choices of either accepting or rejecting such a bidding or calling.

This is NOT what you believe, based upon your own testimony here.

Instead, you fully reject Christ's words in place of the heretical teachings of the arch-heretic Jean Calvin.

Again, that should not only make you fear and tremble, but also cause you to repent while embracing the actual truth.

There's simply no way around it:

Calvin's "god" is an ABDUCTING RAPIST WHO IMPRISONS HIS VICTIMS...and they are victims in that they gave no consent to any of this.

Any man who behaved in such a manner would be sentenced to jail or even to death, and you would have us to believe that this type of behavior reflects the "God" who "is love" (I John 4:8)?

That's NOT love.

Instead, IT'S SICK, DEMENTED SATANICALLY-INSPIRED BEHAVIOR, and you should literally be ashamed of yourself for aligning yourself with the same.

Sorry to have to be so blunt, but somebody needs to tell you.
 

rogerg

Well-known member
Jul 13, 2021
3,626
560
113
Please explain...with scripture...the spiritual vs physical thing...?
I'm not exactly sure what context you're asking the question in - the subject in general could bring the whole Bible into the discussion. So, if you could provide more detail regarding the post in question, or narrow down your question somewhat, that would help In any event, I think the spiritual pertains to things heavenly and eternal; the physical to the things of this world which things are temporal (natural/earthy). The Bible I believe is also divided into two: the earthy and the spiritual. It is often difficult to find
and identify the spiritual in it because the Bible was written by God using parables, symbols and allegory. Nevertheless we are admonished to find and discern the spiritual in it. Therefore, the Bible's message while written in the earthy realm, pertains primarily to the spiritual realm.
Hope this helps. So, when you can, please narrow down or focus your question a little more and we can reengage on it.

[1Co 2:14 KJV]
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

[1Co 15:44-49 KJV]
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47 The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven.
48 As [is] the earthy, such [are] they also that are earthy: and as [is] the heavenly, such [are] they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

[2Ti 2:15 KJV]
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

[1Co 2:13 KJV]
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
 
May 22, 2020
2,382
358
83
I'm not exactly sure what context you're asking the question in - the subject in general could bring the whole Bible into the discussion. So, if you could provide more detail regarding the post in question, or narrow down your question somewhat, that would help In any event, I think the spiritual pertains to things heavenly and eternal; the physical to the things of this world which things are temporal (natural/earthy). The Bible I believe is also divided into two: the earthy and the spiritual. It is often difficult to find
and identify the spiritual in it because the Bible was written by God using parables, symbols and allegory. Nevertheless we are admonished to find and discern the spiritual in it. Therefore, the Bible's message while written in the earthy realm, pertains primarily to the spiritual realm.
Hope this helps. So, when you can, please narrow down or focus your question a little more and we can reengage on it.

[1Co 2:14 KJV]
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

[1Co 15:44-49 KJV]
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that [was] not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47 The first man [is] of the earth, earthy: the second man [is] the Lord from heaven.
48 As [is] the earthy, such [are] they also that are earthy: and as [is] the heavenly, such [are] they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

[2Ti 2:15 KJV]
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

[1Co 2:13 KJV]
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
I withdraw the question.

There are no allegories in the 1611 edition of the KJV Bible. Others, I will not opine.
 

rogerg

Well-known member
Jul 13, 2021
3,626
560
113
You know what I'm talking about.

In a previous post, I gave you the very words of Christ in which he described salvation as a marriage or wedding that people are bidden or called to while having the free will choices of either accepting or rejecting such a bidding or calling.

This is NOT what you believe, based upon your own testimony here.

Instead, you fully reject Christ's words in place of the heretical teachings of the arch-heretic Jean Calvin.

Again, that should not only make you fear and tremble, but also cause you to repent while embracing the actual truth.

There's simply no way around it:

Calvin's "god" is an ABDUCTING RAPIST WHO IMPRISONS HIS VICTIMS...and they are victims in that they gave no consent to any of this.

Any man who behaved in such a manner would be sentenced to jail or even to death, and you would have us to believe that this type of behavior reflects the "God" who "is love" (I John 4:8)?

That's NOT love.

Instead, IT'S SICK, DEMENTED SATANICALLY-INSPIRED BEHAVIOR, and you should literally be ashamed of yourself for aligning yourself with the same.

Sorry to have to be so blunt, but somebody needs to tell you.
Could it possibly be your lack of understanding?
 
K

kaylagrl

Guest
By faith, not by physical linage otherwise all Jews HAVE TO BE saved, past present and future. if your theory is correct that the promise was to the physical linage of Abraham, then it must pertain to all Jews, not just to some of them - you can't have it both ways: it has to be consistent throughout - what is true for one must then be true for all. If it is not true for all, then it can't be by physical linage and must be by something else that makes it consistent. That something else is that some Jews, some gentiles are saved by their election to it: those whom God had chosen through election by Christ to salvation
.

So here's the viewpoints based on Romans 9-11

1. Paul is saying every Jew who ever lived will be saved/

2. The church replaced the Jews, this is false, clearly if you read Romans 11

3. The chosen remnant – all Jewish believers within ethnic Israel that have been saved throughout history.

4. Ethnic Israel – the people of Israel will receive salvation at the end of days.

I believe somewhere between the last two.
 

Beckie

Well-known member
Feb 15, 2022
2,516
939
113
Its crystal clear that the scriptures teach election, even unconditional election in salvation. Most people will agree that election is taught in scripture, but very few agree that its unconditional, and totally by grace and Gods sovereign good pleasure, not outside of Himself. Even the OT scripture indicates Gods sovereign prerogative in election and having mercy on whomever He will Ex 33:19

And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy. In this discriminatory fashion God exhibits His Glory

Now Paul alludes to this scripture in his treatise on unconditional election in Rom 9:11-16

11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)

12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

We learn that there is what Paul terms "the purpose of God according to election" This is a salvaic purpose,. its answering the seeming dilema as to why so many jews in national israel are being lost Rom 9:1-6

I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,​
2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.​
3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:​
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;​
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.​
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:​
Click to expand...​
Its from this background that Paul develops his treatise on the doctirne of unconditional election, or "the purpose of God according to election"

Now let us look at what Rom 9 tells us: By writer of godsonlygospel.com "election is just not fair.

Speaking of Jacob and Esau, the sons of Isaac and Rebecca, Paul the apostle states: "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, THAT THE PURPOSE OF GOD ACCORDING TO ELECTION MIGHT STAND, not of works but of Him that calleth; It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" (Rom. 9:11-13). What a passage to confound the free willer! No wonder the Arminian minister prefers to conveniently shy away from this chapter in Romans and hide these things from his listeners. These verses show clearly that God made choice between Jacob and Esau before they were even born! God made choice between them as to which He would love and which He would hate. This was done, the Scriptures say, so that the purpose of God according to election might stand, an election which obviously could not have been based on any deeds, actual or foreseen, good or bad, that man had done or would do. The saved are those who are elected by grace through faith, not by anything they have done, that none should boast. The good works they do were appointed, or prepared, for them to do and they were not elected because of any good works they were foreseen would do:​
I do differ with the author regarding his statement "The saved are those who are elected by grace through faith, "

I believe the saved are those who are elected by Grace, minus the faith, but Faith being the consequent of election by grace.

However the main point is, the elect are not elected based upon any foreseen actions or deeds , good or bad, that man has done or will do, because the election of grace was made before they were born to do any actions whatsoever, thats the Apostles point.

This treatise by Paul should forever eliminate the false idea that election is based upon anything foreseen in or of the sinner. Its totally unconditional ! Its totally of Sovereign prerogative !
What can man do to invoke the election of God? Can man be good enough; spiritual enough, righteous enough, loving enough, etc? What attributes does mankind have to show his election to be worthy?
 

awelight

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2020
1,629
490
83
69
It seems like your comment here is more in relation to my original question than my second question, but that's fine.

I mentioned in a previous response how Calvin's "god" (definitely not the God of the Bible) basically ABDUCTS HIS BRIDE (she has no say in the matter), RAPES HIS BRIDE (by placing his "seed" inside her without her consent), AND IMPRISONS HIS BRIDE (she can never leave of her own free will choice). Like it or not, this is Calvin's "god", and Calvin's "god" was Satan.

In stark contrast to this, the God of the Bible consistently likens his covenants with his people to true marriage covenants in which there is basically given a proposal of marriage which can either be willfully accepted or willfully rejected by the parties to whom he is proposing.

An example of this would be the following:

Matthew chapter 22

[1] And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,
[2] The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
[3] And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
[4] Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.
[5] But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
[6] And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.
[7] But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
[8] Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
[9] Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
[10] So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
[11] And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
[12] And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
[13] Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
[14] For many are called, but few are chosen.

Here, we clearly see "a certain king" (vs. 2), or God the Father, "making a marriage for his son" (vs. 2), or for Jesus Christ.

God clearly "calls" (vs. 3) or "bids" (vs. 3) people "to the wedding" (vs. 3), and many of them "would not come" (vs. 3). In other words, those whom God "calls" and "bids" have the option of refusing his invitation to marry his son, Jesus Christ, or to enter into a covenant with him.

Again, "God sent forth other servants" (vs. 4), his prophets, in context, to "tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage" (Vs. 4). Once more, God is clearly "bidding" people to "come unto the marriage" of his son, Jesus Christ.

Their response?

"But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise" (vs. 5).

Again, like the previous group of individuals who "would not come" (vs. 3), this group of individuals refuses God's invitation as well.

God gets angry at these unbelieving Jews, in context, and he "burns up their city" (vs. 7), even as he did to Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

God then sends "his servants" (vs. 8) "into the highways" (vs. 9), and tells them "as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage" (vs. 9).

In other words, more "bidding", or inviting, or proposing, and NO ABDUCTION AGAINST ANYONE'S FREE WILL.

Jesus then concludes by saying "many are called, but few are chosen" (vs. 14).

Again, many are "called" or "bidden" by God, but it is only those who WILLFULLY ACCEPT his invitation who are ultimately "chosen".

Surely, you can see this, can't you?

For crying out loud, this is the very basis for weddings in our own society.

Are you a father?

I am.

I have two daughters and one son (although I'm divorced).

I don't own a shotgun (nor will I ever), but if a guy ABDUCTED either one of my daughters, then FORCIBLY RAPED HER while placing his "seed" in her, and then HELD HER CAPTIVE...well, I'd be tempted to blow his friggin' head off...and this "guy" perfectly represents Calvin's "god".

Unlike Satan whom Calvin served, the God of the Bible "bids" and "calls" people to "the marriage of his son".

Some will refuse such a gracious invitation of their own free will choice, and others will accept such a gracious invitation of their own free will choice.

Those who willfully refuse God's invitation will be lost, even though they were initially "bidden" or "called".

Those who willfully accept God's invitation will be "chosen" because they responded positively to God's "bidding" or "calling".

It's that simple.

Calvin was an arch-heretic, and his "god" is NOT the God of the Bible.

You obviously do not understand the difference between "The General call of the Gospel" and "The Effectual call of the Gospel". As such you skipped over verses 11 thru 13 in your final discussion. The individual at the wedding, without a garment, is a person who had experienced the "General Call". As such he was not clothed in the righteousness of Christ and was a mere religionist. The other guests had been "Effectually Called".

The man who had not experienced the "Effectual Call" was then cast out. The companion verses, which carry this same thought, are:

Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


The Elect hear the "Effectual Call" because the Holy Spirit is at work within them. John_10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

Apart from the work of the Holy Spirit, one can hear the Gospel but cannot understand it's true meaning.

Some of your examples, the ones involving "rape", are disgusting and should never appear in a Christian conversation. This alone gives me great doubt about your standing before God, along with your erroneous views on Soteriology.

I hope you will repent of the graphic use of language.... ex. @&$%)# head off.
 

awelight

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2020
1,629
490
83
69
I disagree.

Grace is required.

We could not respond to God if he did not come and die for us. He offers us his gift freely. But he will not force it on us

Election is not required. Election is the result
You are defending man's free will - (Which is not free, by the way, because man is not the ultimate determining factor, God is) - to the point that you would usurp God's Sovereignty.

You can elevate man's will all you want and I will continue to elevate God's Sovereignty. We shall see in the end which Glorifies God the most. However, I don't think one has to wait till the end to see the results, it is obvious which is Glorifying God in all things.
 

awelight

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2020
1,629
490
83
69
while true

It is based on Gods promises which is based on Gen 12, 15 and 17.

It does not matter what view you hold. what God promised to abraham is in fact a literal promise..
It does indeed rest upon the promises of God. On this we both agree. I personally take the promises of God literally and seriously.

Amillennialism - must remove the literal promises, to Israel, in order to keep their Eschatology on track. The Premillennial has no need to do this. Since the Amill. believes the Kingdom is now; the one thousand year millennium has been going on for over two thousand years; Christ is sitting on the Davidic Thrown; the Church is the New Israel and Israel as an assembly has been cut-off -- they have no choice but to spiritualize the OT promises concerning Israel.

But here is a single question, that if it is dealt with honestly, will derail the Amillennial Train:

Acts 1:6 They therefore, when they were come together, asked him, saying, Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?
Acts 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know times or seasons, which the Father hath set within His own authority.
 

awelight

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2020
1,629
490
83
69
Wrong. I've never "wrestled" with the question. Because it is a bogus question and I ignore bogus questions.

God in His total sovereignty PERMITS sin. It's that simple. God created mankind with freedom to choose, just as we see in the garden. Adan and Eve could eat from any tree except one. But they were free to do so. That is free will.


No it's not. It's a worthless question. Just accept the reality of what free will is; freedom to choose. There is no power in freedom to choose.
Well... I gave it a shot. Foolishly as I said before - you have not changed. This, I am sure, you are proud of. Like many who attack Biblical Doctrine without understanding.

You can't even see the simple truth - that man has a will but it is not free. Take your own comment:

"God in His total sovereignty PERMITS sin. It's that simple. God created mankind with freedom to choose, just as we see in the garden. Adan and Eve could eat from any tree except one. But they were free to do so. That is free will."

This statement, clearly demonstrates, man's will acting within the constraints of God's will. God "PERMITS" and man may then do or do not. This is a choice but that choice maybe at anytime overridden by God or altered. Example the King's heart. (Ezra 7:27; Pro. 21:1). Look at the Fall of Adam. 1) God permits both the fall and the Devil's role in it. 2) The serpent beguiles Eve. She did not do, what she did because she just decided to do it - she was influenced. 3) Eve influences her husband, who he trusted.

Just in this short, three point example, we see that many things are at work on the will of Adam. Adam did not just wake up that day and say: "I think I will sin today." Ultimately, the sin is his because he committed it, however, God could, if he so chose, could have stopped this from happening in several ways because He and only He is truly free to do as He pleases.

1) He could have not permitted it.
2) He could have denied the Devil access.
3) He could have worked upon the heart of Adam to change his decision or upon Eve.

You really should deeply consider what these two verses are truly teaching:

Col 1:16 for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him;
Col 1:17 and he is before all things, and in him all things consist.
 
L

Live4Him2

Guest
You obviously do not understand the difference between "The General call of the Gospel" and "The Effectual call of the Gospel". As such you skipped over verses 11 thru 13 in your final discussion. The individual at the wedding, without a garment, is a person who had experienced the "General Call". As such he was not clothed in the righteousness of Christ and was a mere religionist. The other guests had been "Effectually Called".

The man who had not experienced the "Effectual Call" was then cast out. The companion verses, which carry this same thought, are:

Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


The Elect hear the "Effectual Call" because the Holy Spirit is at work within them. John_10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Of course, the Bible makes no such distinction between an alleged “general call” and “effectual call” as you’ve sought to describe here.

Instead, God "bids" (Matt. 22:3-4, 8-9) or "calls" (Matt. 22:14) everyone to "a marriage for his son" (Matt. 22:2) or "to the wedding" (Matt. 22:3), and even as JESUS CHRIST said, and even as I previously rightly documented, many “WOULD NOT come” (Matt. 22:3) of their own free will choices.

You, in your heretical, Satanically-inspired belief system, need to change those words to “COULD NOT come”, but those of us who revere the words of Christ, and who have been born of the Spirit of truth, will not be fooled by your deceptive means.

Yes, in relation to some of those who "WOULD NOT come", Jesus said that they not only "made light of it" (Matt. 22:5), with the "it" being God's call to repentance, but also that "the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them" (Matt. 22:6).

Of course, CONTEXTUALLY, "his servants" were the Old Testament prophets who repeatedly called the children of Israel to repentance.

In relation to the same, we read such things as the following:

Ezekiel chapter 18

[31] Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
[32] For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

Here, we clearly see that it was God's will that these people would cast away all of their transgressions, and receive a new heart and a new spirit. However, their will was clearly to die by not repenting, even though God told them that he has no pleasure in the same while pleading with them to turn or repent and live.

You, in your sick demented belief system, would have us to believe that these people never even had the option to actually repent, but, of course the Bible paints a completely different picture.

We see this same sort of clash between the true God of the Bible who is "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (II Peter 3:9), and NOT the false "god" whom you're peddling here who creates people with no possible way to ever repent, and the God-given free will choices of individuals here:

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” (Matthew 23:37)

“How often would I have gathered thy children together”.

There is Christ’s will which was oftentimes openly manifested.

“And ye would not!”

There is the God-given free will choices of those who refused to be gathered over the course of many years of time.

Those who will ultimately be lost will not be lost because they didn’t hear an alleged “effectual call”.

Instead, here is the reason that JESUS CHRIST gave why certain people will ultimately be condemned:

John chapter 3

[16] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
[17] For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
[18] He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
[19] And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
[20] For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
[21] But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

According to JESUS CHRIST, those who are ultimately condemned will be those who “loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil”, and NOT those who allegedly didn’t hear an “effectual call”.

Yes, “every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved”. You, in your Calvinistic heresy, would have us to believe that such individuals never even had the opportunity to “come to the light”.

Apart from the work of the Holy Spirit, one can hear the Gospel but cannot understand it's true meaning.
This I actually agree with, BUT, according to Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit "will reprove THE WORLD of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged" (John 16:8-11), and NOT just some alleged distinct group of people as you would have us to believe.

Some of your examples, the ones involving "rape", are disgusting and should never appear in a Christian conversation. This alone gives me great doubt about your standing before God, along with your erroneous views on Soteriology.
Yeah, "rape...should never appear in a Christian conversation", WHICH IS WHY THE BIBLE ITSELF SPEAKS OF THE SAME, RIGHT?!?

Deuteronomy chapter 22

[25] But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
[26] But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
[27] For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

Etc., etc., etc.

You don't want the topic of "rape" to "appear in a Christian conversation"?

Good.

Then take your ABDUCTING, RAPING IMPRISONING "god" somewhere else other than this Christian forum.

Better still, renounce him for the false "god" that he is.

YOU stand in "great doubt about MY standing before God"?

That might be one of the most fearful things that I've ever read in that you are a peddler and apparent worshipper of an ABDUCTING, RAPING IMPRISONING "god" who basically kidnaps his bride without her consent, and then places his "seed" within her without her consent, while holding her from ever leaving him without her consent.

Again, the "god" that you're peddling here is SATAN.

I hope you will repent of the graphic use of language.... ex. @&$%)# head off.
I'll grant you that I could have/should have left off the word "friggin'", but you're straining at the proverbial gnat while simultaneously swallowing the proverbial camel.

Renounce your false "god".

No?

Then I'll continue to expose him for the false "god" that he is.
 
Jan 31, 2021
8,658
1,064
113
You obviously do not understand the difference between "The General call of the Gospel" and "The Effectual call of the Gospel".
Can you explain WHY there would be a "general call of the gospel" IF IF IF God never intended for what you all the "non-elect" to be saved in the first place?
 
L

Live4Him2

Guest
Hey, everyone.

Don't let anyone here (or elsewhere) deceive you into believing that Biblical "predestination" has anything at all to do with God allegedly "predestinating" certain individuals to eternal life and others to eternal damnation apart from their free will choices.

In reality, the Bible's use of the word "predestinate" has absolutely nothing to do with the same.

I wrote a post on this a while back when I originally appeared on this forum under my original username of "Live4Him" (which is why I'm presently "Live4Him2").

If anybody is interested in reading it and discovering what Biblical "predestination" is really all about, then here is a link to that post:

https://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/scriptural-authority.197908/#post-4510024
 
Jan 31, 2021
8,658
1,064
113
You are defending man's free will - (Which is not free, by the way, because man is not the ultimate determining factor, God is) - to the point that you would usurp God's Sovereignty.
This is just another fallacy of the calvinists. Free will is simply the freedom to choose between available options. But calvinists like to describe it like some sort of monster with the power to "usurp" God and His sovereignty.

Poppycock. Freedom to choose is what free will is. Nothing more. Man cannot choose what isn't available.

You can elevate man's will all you want and I will continue to elevate God's Sovereignty.[/QOUTE]
Too bad you just don't understand free will. It's not scary at all, nor does it threaten God in any way.

In fact, presenting the gospel to someone provides choice; to believe it or not. Real simple. Read Rom 10-
9 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.
10 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.
11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.”
12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,
13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?
15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”
16 But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?”
17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.
18 But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did: “Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.”

v.9 begins with believing from the heart. That's a choice.
v.12 plainly refers to people who "call on Him". That's a choice.
v.14,15 explains how one comes to salvation: Preachers are sent. People hear the preacher. People then have a choice about believing.
v.18 Paul notes that Israel DID hear, but of course, many did not believe.

We shall see in the end which Glorifies God the most.
One thing is assured. A theology of puppetry or robotics where God simply pulls strings or programs a pile of metal doesn't bring Him any glory at all.

otoh, humans who hear the gospel and believe it and then faithfully obey Him bring Him great glory.

Just as the freedom to love is far better than a forced relationship, which is really what calvinism teaches. God chooses everything.
 

rogerg

Well-known member
Jul 13, 2021
3,626
560
113
But here is a single question, that if it is dealt with honestly, will derail the Amillennial Train:

Acts 1:6 They therefore, when they were come together, asked him, saying, Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?
Acts 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know times or seasons, which the Father hath set within His own authority.
I guess where we disagree on this particular subject, awelight, is that the verses above do not identify which Israel is to be the kingdom since the Bible describes two Israels: one being of the flesh (earthy); one being of the spirit(heavenly). So, by looking only at those verses, I don't think we can make that determination. However, here are some other verses which may help to provide clarification

[1Co 10:18 KJV]
18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

[Jhn 3:3 KJV]
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

[Jhn 18:36 KJV]
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

[1Co 15:50 KJV] 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

[2Ti 4:18 KJV]
18 And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve [me] unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom [be] glory for ever and ever. Amen.

[Gal 6:15-16 KJV]
15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace [be] on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

[Rev 3:12 KJV]
12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, [which is] new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and [I will write upon him] my new name.

[Rev 21:2 KJV]
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
 
Jan 31, 2021
8,658
1,064
113
Well... I gave it a shot. Foolishly as I said before - you have not changed.
You haven't given me ANY evidence from the Bible to change what I believe. In fact, I have found clearly stated principles in the Bible that say what I claim. I believe from evidence.

This, I am sure, you are proud of. Like many who attack Biblical Doctrine without understanding.
And you can't discern the difference between Biblical Doctrine and Calvinist doctrine. I know you think they are the same but you CANNOT quote any verse that supports ANY of your TULIP, except the P, IF you take that as preservation.

You can't even see the simple truth - that man has a will but it is not free. Take your own comment:

"God in His total sovereignty PERMITS sin. It's that simple. God created mankind with freedom to choose, just as we see in the garden. Adan and Eve could eat from any tree except one. But they were free to do so. That is free will."

This statement, clearly demonstrates, man's will acting within the constraints of God's will.
The simple truth is that calvinism totally fails to understand the simplicity of free will. You keep thinking that God decides what people do. Yes, He does permit man and angel to do many things. But the choice to do them comes from the man or angel. And you don't seem to understand that.

It is clear from Scripture that God created man with freedom to choose. The first example is found in the garden of Eden. A& E chose to eat the forbidden fruit. They were FREE to do it. That is free will.

God "PERMITS" and man may then do or do not.
This doesn't deny freedom to choose. Remember, free will is simply the freedom to choose between available options. If God removes any option, then man can't choose, so free will isn't an issue.

It's only an issue WHEN there are options from which to choose.

This is a choice but that choice maybe at anytime overridden by God or altered.
So what? See above. Free will is the freedom to choose between AVAILABLE OPTIONS.
 
L

Live4Him2

Guest
Can you explain WHY there would be a "general call of the gospel" IF IF IF God never intended for what you all the "non-elect" to be saved in the first place?
Oooh, oooh, oooh!

I know the answer to this question:

Because Calvin's "god" is a sadistic monster who waves the proverbial carrot on a stick in front of people while muzzling the mouths of many of the same who are therefore never able to take a bite out of the same.
 
Jan 31, 2021
8,658
1,064
113
FreeGrace2 said:
Can you explain WHY there would be a "general call of the gospel" IF IF IF God never intended for what you all the "non-elect" to be saved in the first place?
Oooh, oooh, oooh!

I know the answer to this question:

Because Calvin's "god" is a sadistic monster who waves the proverbial carrot on a stick in front of people while muzzling the mouths of many of the same who are therefore never able to take a bite out of the same.
Too bad that calvinists generally avoid answering this question. They can't.

And they don't understand 1 John 2:2-6.