The Highway
Posted By: MikeL Election & the Love of God - Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:56 PM
Pilgrim,

If I wanted to simply find information, I'd browse, google, and read all day. I'd rather test ideas in a group of people who apparently know something about the subject. In other words, I'd rather participate in a forum.

That the administrator of this forum finds these questions and methods ineffective is troubling - for surely a forum is designed for debate and discussion!

I think it may be a matter of letting other people debate these things. You've started this forum, you help manage it, maybe it's time to step back and give others the reins. I feel bad, because you've probably seen almost all of these discussions at one time, but can you possibly allow that for some of us they're brand new!

Thank you very much for opening this space. I hope you keep it open.

I had a question about the present active participle of pisteuo, and wanted to know if it was used elsewhere instead of elektos to denote "elect." Your answer is below:

"The present active participle of pisteuo is translated as "the ones believing (continually)", "believing ones". The interpretation of pisteuwn in John 3:16 demands that it be understood as "the elect" for it was God's eternal purpose to send Christ for them so that they would not perish."

And I think this is a "no."

I believe election is not unto salvation. I can back up my belief with scripture, too. But at the end of the day, I think it's imporant to realize that the word "elektos" could in your mind be used here - but it is not.


Mike
Posted By: MikeL Re: Election & the Love of God - Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:06 PM
Pilgrim,

One last thing: God is love. He that loves not, doesn't know God. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

I wish I could disabuse you of the belief that God hates certain people. God hates sin. God hates evil. Most of the verses you mentioned have to do with God hating certain actions - but to say God has an abiding hate for certain people through all eternity - decreeing they be damned in hell forever - that is certainly a dangerous claim to make, on only a few verses.

I'll only mention that your inclusion of Malachi is helpful in perhaps perceiving how the word "Esau" and "Edom" are interchangeable. I don't believe God hated Esau personally enough to damn him. I don't believe God hates anyone to that point. But in these verse from Malachi, and then from Romans 9, it appears to me that God is using Esau to represent Edom, and Jacob, Israel.

Mike
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Election & the Love of God - Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:51 PM
Originally Posted by MikeL
If I wanted to simply find information, I'd browse, google, and read all day. I'd rather test ideas in a group of people who apparently know something about the subject. In other words, I'd rather participate in a forum.

That the administrator of this forum finds these questions and methods ineffective is troubling - for surely a forum is designed for debate and discussion!
Getting rather obnoxious aren't you? You have already been forewarned about your attitude here. We don't cater to [Linked Image].

I had a question about the present active participle of pisteuo, and wanted to know if it was used elsewhere instead of elektos to denote "elect." Your answer is below:

Originally Posted by MikeL
"The present active participle of pisteuo is translated as "the ones believing (continually)", "believing ones". The interpretation of pisteuwn in John 3:16 demands that it be understood as "the elect" for it was God's eternal purpose to send Christ for them so that they would not perish."

And I think this is a "no."

I believe election is not unto salvation. I can back up my belief with scripture, too. But at the end of the day, I think it's imporant to realize that the word "elektos" could in your mind be used here - but it is not.
Well, that is profitable... "No!" Wow, that's one succinct rebuttal. But unfortunately, I'm not convinced you are right after reading your response. Try again? My reference to "the elect" was my interpretation NOT a translation. Surely, you can do better than this, eh? Perhaps you can find a quote from C.S. Lewis that would be more convincing? scratchchin
Posted By: CovenantInBlood Re: Election & the Love of God - Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:39 AM
Originally Posted by MikeL
I had a question about the present active participle of pisteuo, and wanted to know if it was used elsewhere instead of elektos to denote "elect." Your answer is below:

"The present active participle of pisteuo is translated as "the ones believing (continually)", "believing ones". The interpretation of pisteuwn in John 3:16 demands that it be understood as "the elect" for it was God's eternal purpose to send Christ for them so that they would not perish."

And I think this is a "no."

Outside of John's Gospel, Acts 13:39 is another place where the word pisteuwn is used in the same manner as John 3:16; likewise Rom. 9:33, Rom. 10:11, I Pet. 2:6 (these quoting Isa. 28:16); and I John 5:1,5,10. Attempting to understand precisely who is meant by "believing ones," we must ask, "Who will believe?" And the answer to that is, partly, contained in Acts 13:48: "and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." The ordination to eternal life precedes belief. True belief is the mark of the elect.

Quote
I believe election is not unto salvation. I can back up my belief with scripture, too.

Not all election is unto salvation, even in Scripture; that much is true. But I'm not sure that it is particularly relevant to the question at hand.
Posted By: CovenantInBlood Re: Election & the Love of God - Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:49 AM
Originally Posted by MikeL
I wish I could disabuse you of the belief that God hates certain people. God hates sin. God hates evil. Most of the verses you mentioned have to do with God hating certain actions - but to say God has an abiding hate for certain people through all eternity - decreeing they be damned in hell forever - that is certainly a dangerous claim to make, on only a few verses.

Sin has no existence apart from the sinner. God's hatred is directed toward sin & the sinners who sin. Thus Scripture does not sharply distinguish between sin & sinner, e.g., Prov. 6:16-19, Ps. 5:5, Ps. 11:5. God punishes sinners in hell, not their sinful deeds. See "Does God Love the Sinner and Hate Only His Sin?"

Quote
I'll only mention that your inclusion of Malachi is helpful in perhaps perceiving how the word "Esau" and "Edom" are interchangeable. I don't believe God hated Esau personally enough to damn him. I don't believe God hates anyone to that point. But in these verse from Malachi, and then from Romans 9, it appears to me that God is using Esau to represent Edom, and Jacob, Israel.

Does God ultimately damn anyone, on your view? You do not characterize the eternal hellfire awaiting those who die in their unbelief as "God's love," do you?
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Election & the Love of God - Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:20 AM
Originally Posted by MikeL
I wish I could disabuse you of the belief that God hates certain people. God hates sin. God hates evil. Most of the verses you mentioned have to do with God hating certain actions - but to say God has an abiding hate for certain people through all eternity - decreeing they be damned in hell forever - that is certainly a dangerous claim to make, on only a few verses.
You can not disabuse me of believing what Scripture clearly teaches. Why won't you submit to God's inspired infallible Word?

Psalms 5:5-6 (ASV) "The arrogant shall not stand in thy sight: Thou hatest all workers of iniquity. Thou wilt destroy them that speak lies: Jehovah abhorreth the blood-thirsty and deceitful man.

Please tell me how "workers" and "man" equates to actions done by someone and not what it plainly says. God hates workers and abhors blood-thirsty and deceitful man. (notice not "men")

Psalms 11:5-6 (ASV) "Jehovah trieth the righteous; But the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth. Upon the wicked he will rain snares; Fire and brimstone and burning wind shall be the portion of their cup."

Again, individuals are specifically mentioned as being hated by God. And, their end has been set; damnation.

Romans 9:11,13 (ASV) "for [the children] being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, 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. Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

Paul makes specific mention of two individuals; identical twins. One is loved of God, the other hated of God. And, fyi the Greek word translated "hate" is emisnsa (misew). There is no other meaning of misew other than hate.

Matthew 7:21-23 (ASV) "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. 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? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

This phrase, which Christ issues against those who "work iniquity", is equivalent to, "I never loved you", i.e., I hated you. Does this sound far-fetched? It shouldn't because the Bible uses the word "know" in this way in many places, e.g., cf. Gen 4:1 (Adam 'knew' Eve and consequently she gave birth to a child. It can hardly be suggested that because knew things about her that she became pregnant); Ps 1:6 (God knows [loves] the way of the righteous but [hates] the wicked who shall perish. This is a Hebraism where the phrase can be rightly reversed.) cf. Ps 37:18-24; Job 23:10; Nah 1:7; Jh 10:14; 2Tim 2:19 and Rom 8:29 where "foreknew" is rightly understood to mean, "fore-loved".

Originally Posted by MikeL
I'll only mention that your inclusion of Malachi is helpful in perhaps perceiving how the word "Esau" and "Edom" are interchangeable. I don't believe God hated Esau personally enough to damn him. I don't believe God hates anyone to that point. But in these verse from Malachi, and then from Romans 9, it appears to me that God is using Esau to represent Edom, and Jacob, Israel.
This is one of the favorite attempts of semi-Pelagians to rebut the doctrine of sovereign free unconditional election. But even a cursory reading of this passage IN CONTEXT immediately shows this argument to be nothing less than hermeneutical and grammatical gymnastics. Everywhere Paul uses specific names and personal pronouns to indicate individuals and not nations. Secondly, Paul is laboring to show that salvation is of God's sovereign choice, for He shows mercy to WHOM He wills to show mercy, and conversely, He hardens those WHOM He wills to harden. He then brings in the matter of the creation of individuals and how He, the sovereign God purposes their existence for His glory. Some are created to honor (salvation) and the rest are created to dishonor (damnation). Lastly, he shows that individual Gentiles are also part of God's electing grace along with certain individuals of the Jews, aka: a remnant.

Quote
2 Thessalonians 2:13 (ASV) "But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:"
Posted By: Tom Re: Election & the Love of God - Tue Oct 20, 2009 5:33 AM
Mike said:
Quote
I believe election is not unto salvation. I can back up my belief with scripture, too. But at the end of the day, I think it's imporant to realize that the word "elektos" could in your mind be used here - but it is not.

Your view is remarkably similar to a discussion I recently had with another Arminian.
He quoted Eph. 1:4 as proving that God chose the character of the saved, not people themselves. He believes that if God did choose people rather than the character of the saved, it would mean that there is darkness in God.
Eph.1:4 says "Accordingly he hath chosen us, in him before the foundations of the world, that we should be holy and with out blame before him in love."

Do you support the view that this verse and its context talk about the character of the chosen, rather than the chosen themselves?

Could you please exegete this verse?

Tom
Posted By: Tom Re: Election & the Love of God - Tue Oct 20, 2009 5:46 AM
Mike said:
Quote
I'll only mention that your inclusion of Malachi is helpful in perhaps perceiving how the word "Esau" and "Edom" are interchangeable. I don't believe God hated Esau personally enough to damn him. I don't believe God hates anyone to that point. But in these verse from Malachi, and then from Romans 9, it appears to me that God is using Esau to represent Edom, and Jacob, Israel.

Suppose you are correct about Esau representing Edom and Jacob Israel.
I might be missing something, but are not both Edom and Israel made up of individuals?

Tom
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Election & the Love of God - Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:20 PM
Originally Posted by MikeL
Most of the verses you mentioned have to do with God hating certain actions - but to say God has an abiding hate for certain people through all eternity - decreeing they be damned in hell forever - that is certainly a dangerous claim to make, on only a few verses.
1. How many verses are required before a doctrine can be established? The irony here is that you have taken one verse, James 2:24 and interpreted it in such a way that it contradicts myriad other verses, particularly those penned by Paul which teach that salvation is ALL of Grace and not of works [of any kind whatsoever]. Thus you have stated that you believe that works [good] somehow contribute to one's salvation, aka: synergism. I find this inconsistent.

2. FYI, I think you would be hard-pressed to find anyone on this board who is a "follower" of John Calvin. Most of us here appreciate many things about John Calvin; what he wrote, what he implemented, the resulting benefits derived from what he wrote, etc. Yet, we also find things in Calvin which we must disagree. We are "followers" of Christ and of His Word only. There are myriad men who have written wonderful and true things, according to God's Word, to which we can agree. But all men are fallible and thus we read discerningly. The open hostility you have shown here with your disparaging words in regard to John Calvin has to make one wonder if you have, in fact, read much of anything of his writings. Have you read through his Institutes of the Christian Religion? Have you referenced his Commentaries? Have you read any of his tracts or treatises? Have you read any of the Confessions of Catechisms he was instrumental in their forming? Have you read many of his sermons? Contrariwise, I can say I and probably many here have read a number of C.S. Lewis' books.

3. One of your first statements you made on this board was that you were interested in finding out what Calvinism teaches. Yet, when we have referred you to articles, books and sermons written by those who are faithful adherents to historic Calvinism, you have openly refused to consult them. I find this rather hypocritical. If nothing else, these references show that we stand in the line of historic Calvinism and that we are not some rogue group of people who have our own unique ideas and deceptively call ourselves Calvinists, which btw, is quite prevalent today, i.e., there are those who refer to themselves as Calvinists but who are either opposed to it in doctrine, fail to practice that which Calvinism teaches, or redefine what Calvinism teaches.

4. Lastly, I would once again ask you to stay on topic in these threads. You seem to have a penchant to run off on several unrelated directions in your replies. In the Board Guidelines, which you had to agree to it states that one is to adhere to posting messages which are appropriate to the respect forums, and by implication the subjects within the threads within those forums. It also states that inflammatory messages are not allowed. I would recommend that you re-read those Guidelines and make the necessary changes to your participation here. grin
Posted By: MikeL Re: Election & the Love of God - Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:32 PM
Pilgrim wrote:

[Again, individuals are specifically mentioned as being hated by God. And, their end has been set; damnation.


Romans 9:11,13 (ASV) "for [the children] being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, 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. Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."]

Did Esau serve Jacob? Their descendants served the descendants of Israel. But I don't think any mention of Esau serving Jacob is found in scripture.

Furthermore, the election mentioned in these verses clearly refer to wordly tasks. Do you equate "serving" with damnation?

[This phrase, which Christ issues against those who "work iniquity", is equivalent to, "I never loved you", i.e., I hated you.]

You go from "never knew" to "never loved" to "hated." Never have I seen a theology based so much on turning words into something they are not. First off, not loving someone is clearly not the same as hating them! Second, I'm not so convinced that "yada" as used in reference to the relation Adam had with Eve can somehow tell us how a word written thousands of years later in another language means, simply because they have the same English translation.

[Does this sound far-fetched?]

Yes.

[It shouldn't because the Bible uses the word "know" in this way in many places.]

And I'm sure the Bible uses the actual word for love in many places, too. It must be very hard to read the Bible and have to constantly change simple words like "world" or "know" into things they are not!

To build a theology around God's hate of individuals would require some very strong evidence, since God is love. You do provide some verses from the OT that I'll have to look at, to be sure. As you keep repeating, we should look at CONTEXT. Psalm 5, for example, is - a psalm. It's not a clearly delineated treatise or argument on the nature of God. I think we should be careful about how David characterizes God, and not be too hasty to draw theological conclusions from a song. The way you have twisted Matthew 7 tells me all I need to know about this doctrine of "hate".

Tom writes:

[Do you support the view that this verse and its context talk about the character of the chosen, rather than the chosen themselves?

Could you please exegete this verse?]

Eph 1:4 is not talking about salvation, but being holy and blameless. The way I tell this, is that the verse says "holy and blameless" and it doesn't use the word "salvation." To make it say "salvation", you have to add something to the verse, I'm sure it's called CONTEXT. But as I look around at other verses, I don't see the word their, either. In which case, if you want to see salvation there, you have to impose a meaning on the text that isn't there. And the other side of the coin - damnation - isn't anywhere to be found at all. That's another meaning you have to put into the text to make it work there.

Kyle writes:

[Outside of John's Gospel, Acts 13:39 is another place where the word pisteuwn is used in the same manner as John 3:16; likewise Rom. 9:33, Rom. 10:11, I Pet. 2:6 (these quoting Isa. 28:16); and I John 5:1,5,10.]

I don't follow you here. All of these are translated "whosoever believes" or something like that. You can turn that into "believing ones" via the participle if you want, but none of them are translated "elect", as far as I can tell. So what is your issue here? I think I was asking if pisteuo is translated as elect in the Bible. I only looked at a few of them, so maybe I missed one, please let me know.

Tom asks:

[Suppose you are correct about Esau representing Edom and Jacob Israel.
I might be missing something, but are not both Edom and Israel made up of individuals?]

Yes, but you'd be hard-pressed to defend the position that every single descendant of Jacob is saved, and every single descendant of Esau is damned. I *really* don't think that's what Paul is getting at there. And again, it says the elder shall serve the younger - it doesn't say anything about damnation or salvation.

Pilgrim admonishes:

[ It also states that inflammatory messages are not allowed. I would recommend that you re-read those Guidelines and make the necessary changes to your participation here.]

Can you please point to a few of my posts that have been inflammatory? I have to be honest with you: your rhetoric is very demeaning. Here are a few of the ways you have characterized me: hypocritical, willingly ignorant, obnoxious, etc. Where have I characterized you, or anyone else in like manner?

You, sir, have been maligning my character for quite a while. Please follow your own guidelines, and I will do the same.

If you are willing to distance yourself from Calvin, then when I call into question his credentials neither you nor anyone else should feel personally insulted.

Mike

Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Election & the Love of God - Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:04 AM
Originally Posted by MikeL
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
[Again, individuals are specifically mentioned as being hated by God. And, their end has been set; damnation.


Romans 9:11,13 (ASV) "for [the children] being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, 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. Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."]
Did Esau serve Jacob? Their descendants served the descendants of Israel. But I don't think any mention of Esau serving Jacob is found in scripture.

Furthermore, the election mentioned in these verses clearly refer to wordly tasks. Do you equate "serving" with damnation?
Again, you have totally ignored the CONTEXT which I clearly pointed out to you speaks incontrovertibly of salvation demonstrated in God showing mercy to WHOM He will show mercy, etc. in the following verses. The antagonists to whom Paul dialogs with in those texts surely were not livid over Esau serving Jacob or the plight of a couple of then non-existent nations. igiveup

As to the rest of your weak response in regard to your consternation of the "changing of words", as I have previously pointed out at least a couple of times, we do not hold to a "psycho-statistical-mean" hermeneutic. Words have various meanings determined by CONTEXT (remember? A text out of context is nothing less than pretext!) Even C.S. Lewis was more than aware of this self-evident truth and even he used words in various ways that had differing meanings. This usage of words exists in all languages. Better get up to speed with such fundamentals if you are going to understand anything you read. wink

Originally Posted by MikeL
Can you please point to a few of my posts that have been inflammatory? I have to be honest with you: your rhetoric is very demeaning. Here are a few of the ways you have characterized me: hypocritical, willingly ignorant, obnoxious, etc. Where have I characterized you, or anyone else in like manner?

You, sir, have been maligning my character for quite a while. Please follow your own guidelines, and I will do the same.
Very unwise...!! [Linked Image]

Originally Posted by MikeL
If you are willing to distance yourself from Calvin, then when I call into question his credentials neither you nor anyone else should feel personally insulted.
I have never felt "personally insulted" by your pejoratives thrown at John Calvin. If anything, I was embarrassed for you. And, I do not intend to "distance" myself from the man Calvin as he was an extraordinary servant of God who has benefited mankind more than most. And once again, I am asking you directly, What have you read of John Calvin? ... be specific, please.
Posted By: CovenantInBlood Re: Election & the Love of God - Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:01 AM
Originally Posted by MikeL
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
Romans 9:11,13 (ASV) "for [the children] being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, 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. Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

Did Esau serve Jacob? Their descendants served the descendants of Israel. But I don't think any mention of Esau serving Jacob is found in scripture.

Apart from Esau selling his birthright to Jacob, Esau did not personally serve Jacob that I can recall. But don't miss the fundamental point: In this passage Paul is arguing that God chooses some individuals & not others on no basis other than His own good pleasure (v. 18). Salvation is not on the basis of fleshly descent (vv. 6-7), but on the basis of God's choice (v. 11 - "so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls"). It is not obtained by the man who wills or runs, but by God's act of mercy (v. 16).

Quote
Furthermore, the election mentioned in these verses clearly refer to wordly tasks. Do you equate "serving" with damnation?

No, it does not clearly refer to "worldly tasks." The passage is part of a larger section spanning chapters 9-11, answering the question why the Jews, on the whole, have not accepted the gospel.

Quote
To build a theology around God's hate of individuals would require some very strong evidence, since God is love.

No one is building a theology around God's hate of individuals - what an invidious way to characterize what we have argued! So, besides the fact that Calvinism is predisposed toward force, passes the buck for our sins to God, and makes us incapable of rational thought, it is now built around God's hate of certain individuals! If you have come here to LEARN, Mike, you will cease to IMPUGN.

Quote
You do provide some verses from the OT that I'll have to look at, to be sure. As you keep repeating, we should look at CONTEXT. Psalm 5, for example, is - a psalm. It's not a clearly delineated treatise or argument on the nature of God. I think we should be careful about how David characterizes God, and not be too hasty to draw theological conclusions from a song.

Indeed, Mike, let us not be too hasty to conclude from Psalm 5 that:

-God takes no pleasure in wickedness;
-no evil dwells with God;
-the boastful shall not stand before God;
-God destroys liars;
-God will grant David entrance to God's house by God's abundant lovingkindness;
-God blesses & protects the righteous.

Let us be careful lest we attribute to God what the INSPIRED PSALMIST may have uttered too hastily concerning His nature!

Quote
Eph 1:4 is not talking about salvation, but being holy and blameless. The way I tell this, is that the verse says "holy and blameless" and it doesn't use the word "salvation." To make it say "salvation", you have to add something to the verse, I'm sure it's called CONTEXT. But as I look around at other verses, I don't see the word their, either. In which case, if you want to see salvation there, you have to impose a meaning on the text that isn't there.

So, if being made "holy & blameless" does not count for salvation, of what does salvation consist if not at least:

-adoption as sons through Jesus Christ (v. 5);
-redemption through His blood & the forgiveness of our trespasses (v. 7);
-obtaining an inheritance (v. 11);
-being sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise (v. 13)?

Quote
And the other side of the coin - damnation - isn't anywhere to be found at all. That's another meaning you have to put into the text to make it work there.

Of course that wouldn't be necessary, given the nature & purpose of what Paul is writing here. But it is the logical corollary: if some are chosen for salvation out of the midst of the children of wrath (2:3), others are left. And elsewhere Paul affirms that there are vessels of wrath prepared for destruction (Rom. 9:22).

"The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil" (Prov. 16:4).

Originally Posted by MikeL
Originally Posted by CovenantInBlood
Outside of John's Gospel, Acts 13:39 is another place where the word pisteuwn is used in the same manner as John 3:16; likewise Rom. 9:33, Rom. 10:11, I Pet. 2:6 (these quoting Isa. 28:16); and I John 5:1,5,10.

I don't follow you here. All of these are translated "whosoever believes" or something like that. You can turn that into "believing ones" via the participle if you want, but none of them are translated "elect", as far as I can tell. So what is your issue here? I think I was asking if pisteuo is translated as elect in the Bible. I only looked at a few of them, so maybe I missed one, please let me know.

I did not say that pisteuwn is translated "elect" in any of those passages. I was simply providing some passages where the "believing ones" must be understood, in context, as the "elect," as Pilgrim had previously argued. This is not to say that "believing ones" should be translated as the "elect," since that is not the actual meaning of pisteuwn; the word rather indicates something - belief - that is characteristic of the elect. Which is why I had, after providing those verses, gone on to say as follows:

Originally Posted by CovenantInBlood
Attempting to understand precisely who is meant by "believing ones," we must ask, "Who will believe?" And the answer to that is, partly, contained in Acts 13:48: "and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." The ordination to eternal life precedes belief. True belief is the mark of the elect.

Is there some reason you failed to notice these further comments?
Posted By: jmp Re: Election & the Love of God - Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:39 AM
Just a note: in general, I think Mike has behaved himself in a respectable manner. He has been honest about his dislike for Calvinism, but the questions he is asking are for the most part reasonable ones.

In addition to that, while he is asking hard questions and giving his honest opinions about what he thinks of our answers, he isn't clearly unwilling to revise his position if his position has been incorrect. I sometimes argue the same way. Simply because I defend something vociferously doesn't mean that I am unwilling to relinquish it if compelled by the arguments. I suspect MikeL is in the same boat right now. He isn't some hard-core Arminian who digs up Calvinist discussion boards for fun. His sisters became Calvinists and, although he doesn't like Calvinism, he wants to learn more about it. It appears to me that the way he wants to learn more about it is by putting it to the test to see whether it stands up to scrutiny. Calvinism does, after all, endorse some positions that aren't immediately obvious to a lot of people. We may have different explanations of why they are aren't immediately obvious, including sin. But that doesn't mean that we should scold anybody who has the audacity to not be compelled by our first few attempts to offer compelling answers to his questions.

So, chill out everybody. We're all adults here, and MikeL is not going out of his way to annoy us. Let's be careful that we don't go out of our way to get annoyed. BigThumbUp

Your friend,
John
Posted By: Tom Re: Election & the Love of God - Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:08 AM
Mike

You said:
Quote
Eph 1:4 is not talking about salvation, but being holy and blameless. The way I tell this, is that the verse says "holy and blameless" and it doesn't use the word "salvation." To make it say "salvation", you have to add something to the verse, I'm sure it's called CONTEXT. But as I look around at other verses, I don't see the word their, either. In which case, if you want to see salvation there, you have to impose a meaning on the text that isn't there. And the other side of the coin - damnation - isn't anywhere to be found at all. That's another meaning you have to put into the text to make it work there.

I must say that I am a little taken back that you don’t see salvation in the context of Ephesians chapter one. However, I shouldn’t be at all surprised, since your understanding of the passage is consistent with another person I recently talked to.


Eph. 1:4 says "Accordingly as he hath chosen us in him before the foundations of the world, that we should be holy and with out blame before him in love." KJV


The words "Accordingly as he hath chosen us in him before the foundations of the world," indicate people God has chosen in Christ, before the foundation of the world."

The words "that we should be holy and with out blame before him in love." Indicate that the people whom God has chosen should be holy and with out blame before him in love.

It should be fairly clear from this verse and many others, that it is people whom God chooses, not their actions.
The second part of the verse starts with the word "that".
The word "that" indicates something following salvation; which is their sanctification. This is a life long process.

As for your claim that there is nothing in the context of the passage to indicate salvation. Verse 5 should put that claim to rest. “Having predestined us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to his good pleasure and will.”

What do the words “adoption of children…” mean?

By the way, just in case you are interested in knowing a little bit more about the conversation I had with another Arminian about Eph. 1:4, you can do so in the following thread .

Tom

Posted By: CovenantInBlood Re: Election & the Love of God - Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:14 AM
John,

MikeL has not, to my mind, demonstrated a tone indicative of one who has come here with the intention of actually learning about Calvinism. He has instead several times stated his unwarranted and unduly negative assessments without even adequately addressing much that has already been said in response to him. No one here demands that he be convinced by the explanations we offer - he may even disagree with what we say & give his reasons why. But his efforts thus far, with several responses that have been dismissive or flippant, leave much to be desired. Perhaps you have not read all of his posts, in which case you may very well see of what I speak by reviewing the posts made by him.

At any rate, this Board does not exist for the purpose of providing space for mockery of the Reformed faith. Mike has already stated that Calvinism leads to insanity & the end of thought, has said that it provides a good reason to use force rather than persuasion, has intimated at length his low opinion of John Calvin & his theology, has stated that John Calvin wanted to blame his life on his sinful nature (with obvious implications for Calvinism!), and has now accused Pilgrim of building a theology around God's hate of individuals. This behavior is unacceptable, as I & Pilgrim have already made clear.
Posted By: jmp Re: Election & the Love of God - Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:00 AM
You're right that I haven't read of all of MikeL's posts. I have paid closer attention to his responses to me, and only a little attention to his other interactions. My impression was that he came with honest (and probing) questions, became offended by someone's overly rough approach with him, and began to cause more trouble after that. In other words, my impression was that MikeL was only partly to blame for the less than charitable tone of the discussions, and that we might be able to improve the overall tone if we were more careful not to be disrespectful towards him. That said, my overall impression is not as informed as it would have been had I read all of the conversations that he has been involved in, and I will defer to whatever decision you guys make as administrators. You've been paying closer attention than I have.

Take care,
John
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Election & the Love of God - Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:21 PM
John,

Also, as I have reminded MikeL several times and thus now to you also, his initial statement of intent here was to learn about Calvinism, most likely because he alleges that two of his sisters have "converted" and are now somewhat enamored by John Piper; something which most of us here openly lamented. However, it has been demonstrated by MikeL that this initial intent of learning was perhaps less than ingenuous as he has repeatedly refused to read anything referenced to him, mainly articles resident on The Highway website which would have given him much clarification and additional information about all the topics (arguments and personal beliefs he holds) presented by him. Further, he stated he is not interested in reading these articles but rather his interest is more in hearing what we on the board would say (answer/respond) to his criticisms and rejection of all things Calvin. Given that I have been doing this for nearly 14 years and have seen thousands of individuals come and go here, perhaps I and others like Kyle have learned some measure of discernment as to what motives and intents people have. No, we are not infallible, but to be perfectly honest, my accuracy rate is somewhere in the high 90% range. wink

And, perhaps you have received more cordial responses from MikeL because your presentations are more in line with his own beliefs, at least that is how he has understood you and said so explicitly. This may be something you should think seriously about, eh?

Lastly, it is not unusual nor unexpected that someone who holds to semi-Pelagianism as does MikeL should be antagonistic toward Calvinists. We believe in a totally different God, embrace another Christ and preach/teach a totally different Gospel than what he does. In his eyes, we are rank heretics and understandably so. Thus, his antagonism and opposition is natural both intellectually and spiritually, Rom 8:7,8; 1Cor 2:14; Eph 4:17-19, et al. However, despite the natural opposition, there needs to be some structure and etiquette administered on the board. Some doubtless won't care for the way it is done. But we have found the vast majority are more than appreciative for the way we have and will continue to conduct things here. We often get PMs and e-mails relating how one is astonished over the display of patience the Staff exhibits toward many individuals who venture here. They are most appreciative of the order that is maintained and that obnoxious and combative individuals are removed after being warned to cease and desist.

All that takes place here is done prayerfully and with due consideration after consulting with one another as a Staff of administrators and moderators. Again, we make no claim to be infallible in our judgments, but we do believe that the Spirit of God is guiding us to do that which is right, glorifying to God and edifying to the saints.

In His grace,
Posted By: MikeL Re: Election & the Love of God - Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:50 PM
Kyle writes:

[Apart from Esau selling his birthright to Jacob, Esau did not personally serve Jacob that I can recall.]

Then I think the issue of individual salvation or damnation is closed: the text is not talking about individuals named Jacob and Esau. I suggest, in line with Malachi, from which this text in Romans is drawn, that Paul is actually talking about their descendants.

[In this passage Paul is arguing that God chooses some individuals & not others on no basis other than His own good pleasure (v. 18). Salvation is not on the basis of fleshly descent...]

But chooses them for salvation? Perhaps we're putting that into the text - but it isn't there. Neither the word "salvation" or any of its close concepts is there.

Choosing is there, that we agree. But nothing related to the eternal states of Jacob, Esau, or their respective descendants.

[Indeed, Mike, let us not be too hasty to conclude from Psalm 5 that:

-God takes no pleasure in wickedness;
-no evil dwells with God;
-the boastful shall not stand before God;
-God destroys liars;
-God will grant David entrance to God's house by God's abundant lovingkindness;
-God blesses & protects the righteous.]

Yes, Kyle, I think we need to be careful about these claims you divined. The boastful will surely stand before God - in the judgment. God doesn't destroy all liars - what did Jacob do to secure his brother's birthright? Was Jacob destroyed? And by destroy, do you mean damned? Was Jacob damned? We know that isn't the case. We know David is expressing God's hatred of the sin.

Look, I am not a Unitarian. I don't believe everyone goes to heaven. I know hell is a real place, a terrible place. And I am very sceptical about a theology that damns souls before they're born.

"There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him..."

Besides the verse from Proverbs, at least, seems to indicate God hates things. And what does detestable mean? Is this really a verse that strongly supports that God hates people eternally?

A little later on (Prov 21), we are told that false witnesses "perish" and that those who listen to them are "destroyed forever." This again seems less about making claims about eternal state, and more about the seriousness of sin.

Tom writes:

[The words "Accordingly as he hath chosen us in him before the foundations of the world," indicate people God has chosen in Christ, before the foundation of the world."]

Well, I have to respect the form of this point, since I used it myself. Yet compared to Romans 8:29,

"For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers."

Can't I say that God's chose us because he foreknew we'd freely choose him?

Mike
Posted By: muchforgiven Re: Election & the Love of God - Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:22 PM
Mike,

The question should really be, Why does God chose anyone to be saved? There is no one righteous, no not one. BUT GOD, who is rich in mercy has chosen a people for Himself. Can't He do that and not be unjust?
I am more and more amazed by God's grace every day.
Posted By: CovenantInBlood Re: Election & the Love of God - Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:42 PM
Originally Posted by MikeL
Kyle writes:

Quote
Apart from Esau selling his birthright to Jacob, Esau did not personally serve Jacob that I can recall.

Then I think the issue of individual salvation or damnation is closed: the text is not talking about individuals named Jacob and Esau. I suggest, in line with Malachi, from which this text in Romans is drawn, that Paul is actually talking about their descendants.

Yes, the text IS speaking of individuals named Jacob & Esau. The few verses before incontrovertibly speak of an individual named Isaac; and the following verses incontrovertibly speak of an individual Pharaoh. Rebekah did not conceive two nations by her husband Isaac, but two sons. These sons were not yet born, & they had not done either good or bad, when God made His choice between them & told Rebekah that the older would serve the younger, i.e., that God had chosen Jacob & not Esau. Yes, these men were the fathers of two nations, and the prophecy pointed forward to the Edomites serving the Israelites; but God chose to establish His people through the one individual, Jacob, while rejecting the other individual, Esau. The blessings of the God's promise to Abraham & Isaac fell to Jacob, not to Esau, and God's choice had nothing to do with anything which Jacob had or had not done. The blessings of God's promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob fall to all who believe, and it is believers who are regarded as the true descendants of Abraham (Rom. 4:16).

Originally Posted by MikeL
Quote
In this passage Paul is arguing that God chooses some individuals & not others on no basis other than His own good pleasure (v. 18). Salvation is not on the basis of fleshly descent...

But chooses them for salvation? Perhaps we're putting that into the text - but it isn't there. Neither the word "salvation" or any of its close concepts is there.

Choosing is there, that we agree. But nothing related to the eternal states of Jacob, Esau, or their respective descendants.

Oh no, not at all. Of course "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" (v. 22) has no referrence to an eternal state; much less would "vessels of mercy ... prepared beforehand for glory" (v. 23) have referrence to an eternal state. Indeed, there can be no doubt that when Paul speaks of the Gentiles attaining righteousness by faith (v. 30), he is by no means speaking of anything to do with salvation! And let us not forget, although Paul's discourse spans chapters 9-11, Paul most certainly is not referring to eternal salvation when he says, "if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved" (10:9).

Originally Posted by MikeL
Quote
Indeed, Mike, let us not be too hasty to conclude from Psalm 5 that:

-God takes no pleasure in wickedness;
-no evil dwells with God;
-the boastful shall not stand before God;
-God destroys liars;
-God will grant David entrance to God's house by God's abundant lovingkindness;
-God blesses & protects the righteous.

Yes, Kyle, I think we need to be careful about these claims you divined. The boastful will surely stand before God - in the judgment. God doesn't destroy all liars - what did Jacob do to secure his brother's birthright? Was Jacob destroyed? And by destroy, do you mean damned? Was Jacob damned? We know that isn't the case. We know David is expressing God's hatred of the sin.

"Standing before God" has the meaning of standing upright in the presence of the Judge. And no, the boastful, who do not repent, will not "stand before God" - they will be forced to their knees before Him. As for liars, yes, God destroys liars - those liars who do not repent. David was a sinner too, but he repented, & God spared him. But nothing in Ps. 5 is untrue of God. God hates all who do iniquity (v. 5) - but as we know from many other places, He spares the repentant. Does this diminish the truth that God hates sinners? Not in the least. This psalm displays explicitly God's hatred of sinners.

Quote
Look, I am not a Unitarian. I don't believe everyone goes to heaven. I know hell is a real place, a terrible place.

I believe you mean you are not a universalist, although I have no doubt that you also are not a unitarian. But speaking of hell, I asked you before whether hell was God's love for those who were doomed to it - you haven't answered yet.

Quote
And I am very sceptical about a theology that damns souls before they're born.

Well, since God hated Esau before Esau was born - regardless of whether we understand Esau as an individual or only as a nation - then you ought to be skeptical of what the Bible teaches very clearly.

Quote
"There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him..."

Besides the verse from Proverbs, at least, seems to indicate God hates things. And what does detestable mean? Is this really a verse that strongly supports that God hates people eternally?

A little later on (Prov 21), we are told that false witnesses "perish" and that those who listen to them are "destroyed forever." This again seems less about making claims about eternal state, and more about the seriousness of sin.

Somehow perishing & being destroyed forever do not communicate the eternal end of false witnesses & those who heed them? You're stretching things, Mike. Of course sin is serious - so serious, in fact, that God hates all those who sin, i.e., sinners.

By the way, why haven't you addressed what I wrote in response to you on Ephesians?
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Election & the Love of God - Thu Oct 22, 2009 1:02 AM
Originally Posted by MikeL
Can't I say that God's chose us because he foreknew we'd freely choose him?
yep You can say that but you would be in error in doing so.

1. Can you offer any biblical passages which specifically show that God chose certain individuals to salvation based upon His for-seeing them as believing upon Christ?

2. Rom 8:29 is a corollary to verse 28 since it begins with "For whom He foreknew..." Thus we must look at what precedes vs 29:

Romans 8:28 (KJV) "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose."

Thus, the election/foreordination to salvation precedes foreknowledge and predestination follows there after.

3. Let's follow your view through for the sake of argument to see if it works.

Quote
Romans 8:29-30 (KJV) "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."
I believe the argument goes much like this:

a. Those whom God foreknew as believing, having looked down the corridors of time, or peering into the future, or some such thing, those He predestinated. And those whom He predestinated He also called... etc.
b. Now, what did God call them to? The answer is always, "He called them to faith; to believe upon Christ."
c. So, God saw some as having already believed, yet He calls them to believe?
d. Conclusion... illogical! It simply doesn't work. Why would God call men to believe if He had already seen them as having believed? Secondly, if God did see some as believing and predestined them to salvation, then doesn't this mitigate and totally eliminate any possibility that these people could choose otherwise? I mean, where does the "free-will" come in that would allow Joe Smith to not believe if he didn't want to if he was predestined to believe? scratchchin

4. Now, the problem with this view of foreknowledge determining God's foreordination of things is that it denies the very definition of the biblical God; particularly the three major incommunicable attributes: Omnipotence, Omniscience and Omnipresence. Let me demonstrate how this is so:

1. Omnipotence: by the simple definition, it means all power and authority over all things. The problem with this view is that God responds to what He allegedly foresees. That which he allegedly perceives as taking place is not something He has determined nor authority over as they are allegedly the free-will actions of men.

2. Omniscience: by simple definition, it means prescience; knowledge of facts. The problem here is that God had to learn something which He was not always privy to. Since the "believing" which it is alleged that God "saw" was done freely and outside of an eternal decree and of necessity not according to His authority. The actual believing could not have been known until the believing actually took place. It matters not whether the element of "time" is considered or not. The fact remains, God did not know who was going to believe since He had to perceive it as taking place and upon that basis, predestine/decree it to happen. Consistent Arminians/semi-Pelagians admit to this being true and assert a view known as "Middle Knowledge" or "Open Theism". They admit that logically, if man is in possession of a "free-will" it is impossible for God to have all knowledge.

3. Omnipresence: by simple definition, it means God is everywhere He being pure spirit and infinite in His being. The problem here is that God had to gain additional knowledge of facts from a source which He did not create. Or, put another way, what God allegedly perceived existed outside of Himself. Thus what He allegedly saw had to exist where He was not. This "place" where this pre-created populated earth existed could not have existed within the mind of God such as what we call a dream, for this would also violate #1 Omnipotence and #2 Omniscience.

Bottom line... This view that purports that foreordination follows foreknowledge denies the very definition of the biblical God.

Quickly now... as I suspect you are going to ask how it is possible that God's foreknowledge follows foreordination, it is easily explained aside from the myriad biblical passages supporting it, by an earthly illustration; arguing from the lesser to the greater:

It is more than reasonable and logical to assert that a human being can relay future events with absolute certainty. And this proves the case that "foreknowledge" follows "foreordination". How? What if the man is an architect? He can drive to a vacant lot and explain in full detail that on this site will be a 100 story building, built out of granite and brick with walnut paneled walls, 383 offices, 5 elevators, etc., etc. How can he do that? He can simply because he is the designer. He had it all planned out long before the construction would begin. He didn't look into the future to see how some construction company was going to erect a building and then decide to copy it. dizzy No! He, himself pre-determined what he wanted to build and all its details. And because he specified all things according to his own desires, he "foreknew" what that building was going to be.

Thus, if a measly created being can claim to "foreknow" things because he "foreordained" them as their designer, then how much more is it possible that God foreknows all things because He has foreordained them?
Posted By: MikeL Re: Election & the Love of God - Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:38 PM
[The question should really be, Why does God chose anyone to be saved?]

You are begging the question: Does God choose people to be saved? Others follow: Does God choose people to be damned? What does it mean when God "chooses"? Is it independent of human action or intent? Does it involve some cooperation on the part of invididuals to repent and believe?

I would have to say that all these questions have been discussed and debated in one form or another, and to attempt to answer your question would neglect them.

Mike
Posted By: MikeL Re: Election & the Love of God - Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:43 PM
Kyle wrote:

[As for liars, yes, God destroys liars - those liars who do not repent. David was a sinner too, but he repented, & God spared him.]

So what you're saying is that when Psalm 5 declares that God destroys liars, we should not base an entire theology on the claim.

I totally agree.

When God says he hates false witnesses, I'd say this is no evidence that God damns them.

Mike
Posted By: MikeL Re: Election & the Love of God - Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:57 PM
[d. Conclusion... illogical! It simply doesn't work. Why would God call men to believe if He had already seen them as having believed?]

Illogical? I thought we were going to leave human logic out of it, and rely solely on scripture?

Scripture says foreknowledge comes before predestination.

If it doesn't make sense you to, imagine how I feel when I read how men are responsible for their predetermined lives.

Mike

Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Election & the Love of God - Sat Oct 24, 2009 12:04 AM
Originally Posted by MikeL
Scripture says foreknowledge comes before predestination.
In Rom 8:29, predestination follows foreknowledge which follows foreordination (vs. 28) as already explained more than once. CONTEXT, context, context. Secondly, and much to your consternation, the same word can have different meanings. One cannot read Scripture nor any written material with a "psycho-statistical-mean' hermeneutic... that's just plain silliness. How you can actually understand anything you read, if you use the same mindset as you espouse for reading the Bible, is beyond comprehension. igiveup

Now, which verse are you going to choose to prove your contention that foreknowledge determines foreordination? scratchchin

1. Romans 8:29: "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son," (with the allowance of this text ripped out of its immediate context)

OR

2. Acts 2:23: "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken,..."

OR

You can opt for the view that denies the divine inspiration of Scripture which then allows contradictions, errors and myth to exist which would explain the above apparent contradiction. scratch1
Posted By: CovenantInBlood Re: Election & the Love of God - Sat Oct 24, 2009 12:08 AM
Originally Posted by MikeL
Kyle wrote:

Quote
As for liars, yes, God destroys liars - those liars who do not repent. David was a sinner too, but he repented, & God spared him.

So what you're saying is that when Psalm 5 declares that God destroys liars, we should not base an entire theology on the claim.

I totally agree.

When God says he hates false witnesses, I'd say this is no evidence that God damns them.


As I recall, the issue of God's hatred was raised because you insisted that "God is love" & he could never hate someone enough to damn them, but instead God hates sin rather than sinners. Well, we've established scripturally that God does hate sinners. And you & I both agree that sinners who remain unrepentant go to hell. We've also established scripturally that God hated Esau before Esau had been born or had done anything good or bad - although I have argued that the individual named Esau is clearly indicated, we can allow even here that God hated the nation of Edom before it had come into existence or done anything good or bad (God as a racist?) - in any case the matter is the same: God hated someone before they had ever come into existence, and He rejected them from being His children before they had ever done anything at all. Biblically, the dilemma is not for the Calvinist to resolve, who affirms that out of the mass of sinful humanity God chose some & rejected the rest; the dilemma is rather for the proponent of libertarianism (i.e., unfettered free-willism), who affirms that God loves some people enough to send them to hell because of their free choice to sin even though He'd prefer to save them!
Posted By: Robin Re: Election & the Love of God - Sat Oct 24, 2009 11:38 AM
Originally Posted by CovenantInBlood
Biblically, the dilemma is not for the Calvinist to resolve, who affirms that out of the mass of sinful humanity God chose some & rejected the rest; the dilemma is rather for the proponent of libertarianism (i.e., unfettered free-willism), who affirms that God loves some people enough to send them to hell because of their free choice to sin even though He'd prefer to save them!

And that view - that God is helpless and impotent, and forced to bow to the will of the almighty sinner's "choice" - would rob God of His omnipotence as well as His omniscience and sovereignty.

The image of a frustrated Father God pacing heaven's floors and wringing His hands, hoping that someone on Earth will "let Him have His way," is frankly insulting to Him. The Scriptures infallibly give glory to God and to no one else. The popular semi-Pelagian mythology turns the Almighty into a mere genie-servant, subject to the will of his own created beings.

Can anyone who truly loves God really view Him that way? I would be more likely to pity such a "god" than to worship him!

-R
© The Highway