Predestination Theology

[William]

I don't think the false predestination god should be the one to define that seeing how he is willing to torture people eternally for conditions that he placed on them. The false predestination god is a sicko.

Q:1 Is there a "True Predestination God?"

Q2: Even if hellish experiences exist for individuals, does this mean that the god is "a sicko"?

Or

Q:2.1 Is the god only a "Sicko" if those hellish experiences last forever for said individuals?

[The Tanager]

That's not exactly what I'm saying, Tanager. I'm saying that the thought that God's decision to have mercy and compassion depends on our decision to respond positively is the problem. That thinking, however inadvertently, makes our faith to be a work of our own (which is antithetical to what Paul says in Ephesians 2:8) and therefore makes us meritorious -- deserving -- of His grace, and again, however inadvertently, that makes his grace out to be not really grace (unmerited favor) at all.

His grace comes before our acceptance, thus it comes undeserved. If we accept it, then we have the grace at that point. Thus, there is nothing future or additional that we could deserve by that act. Let's say my wife buys me something I've been wanting for awhile, simply because she loves me. I don't deserve it. In fact, I've been acting like a selfish fool but she did it anyway. I accept the gift and say thank you. I even stop acting like a fool towards her, at least temporarily. How does my mere acceptance of the gift make me deserving of it from her? She remains compassionate and merciful even if I throw the gift in the trash, break it, etc.

Hmmm... I'm still not sure where you really are. Okay, yes, I agree that accepting the gift is not a work that earns the gift. In the case of saving faith and salvation, accepting the gift is the inevitable outcome of the work of God in regenerating the new believer's heart. Having said that, we must discern between two things:

1. The outward call -- This is extended to every human being; it is the external call of the Gospel. Jesus and the Gospel and salvation are certainly available to everyone. Some, of course, fail to respond.
2. The inward call -- This is the effectual salvific, heart-regenerating, faith-initiating, internal call issued by God via His Holy Spirit to those whom He so chooses (His elect). God's purposes never fail.

Using those terms, I would say the inward call follows our acceptance of God's outward call. God's inward call is on those who are in Christ. God's desired outcome from the outward call does fail in individuals because of their rejection. God's desired outcome from the inward call never fails.

Strength to you, PinSeeker

[PinSeeker]

...the thought that God's decision to have mercy and compassion depends on our decision to respond positively is the problem. That thinking, however inadvertently, makes our faith to be a work of our own (which is antithetical to what Paul says in Ephesians 2:8) and therefore makes us meritorious -- deserving -- of His grace, and again, however inadvertently, that makes his grace out to be not really grace (unmerited favor) at all.

His grace comes before our acceptance, thus it comes undeserved. If we accept it, then we have the grace at that point. Thus, there is nothing future or additional that we could deserve by that act.

It's true that His saving grace comes before our acceptance; that's what I've been saying. His saving grace is unconditional... not depending on any good we might have done. This is what Paul is saying in Romans 9 when he uses Jacob and Esau as examples: "...they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad -- in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls...". This it is for all of Israel (Jacob). This is the concept we refer to as unconditional election.

And I agree on the "if we accept it" thing, too; experientially, that's what happens, but I'm not quite sure what you mean by that... that's a big "if" that may lead to misunderstanding. One might think you are turning right around and making God's saving grace contingent on our acceptance, conditional on our acceptance, which is antithetical to the point immediately above. Again, Scripture is very clear that God's purposes never fail. So actually, once God's saving grace has been given -- once the heart-regenerate person has received that grace of God -- it is inevitable that he/she will freely accept it, repent of his/her sin, and believe. We were just talking about Romans 8, and about verse 29 in particular (those He foreknew, He predestined); that matter seems settled between us and we agree that God's grace comes by His sovereign choice and distinguishing love. But now we have to keep going... In the very next verse (30), Paul says, "...those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified." Do you see the inevitability of the acceptance on the part of the new believer in that? Yes, those who receive the saving grace of God, His mercy and compassion, do in fact make a free-will decision to accept/repent/believe, but that choice is inevitable once God has initiated, by His Spirit, that saving work in us. This is the concept of irresistible grace.

Hmmm... I'm still not sure where you really are. Okay, yes, I agree that accepting the gift is not a work that earns the gift. In the case of saving faith and salvation, accepting the gift is the inevitable outcome of the work of God in regenerating the new believer's heart. Having said that, we must discern between two things:

1. The outward call -- This is extended to every human being; it is the external call of the Gospel. Jesus and the Gospel and salvation are certainly available to everyone. Some, of course, fail to respond.
2. The inward call -- This is the effectual salvific, heart-regenerating, faith-initiating, internal call issued by God via His Holy Spirit to those whom He so chooses (His elect). God's purposes never fail.

Using those terms, I would say the inward call follows our acceptance of God's outward call. God's inward call is on those who are in Christ. God's desired outcome from the outward call does fail in individuals because of their rejection. God's desired outcome from the inward call never fails.

Hm. Well, okay, yeah, I mean, the outward call is not by the Holy Spirit; it's out there for everybody. And that's evangelism; our job is to take it to everyone. That's Christ's Great Commission, right? And that's how God is building His kingdom to completion, saving all of Israel. So yeah, I agree. Maybe we're in total agreement. If so, maybe you stop short of actually calling yourself a Calvinist, but if not, you seem really close...

Strength to you, PinSeeker

To you also, Tanager. Grace and peace to you.

[William]

[Replying to PinSeeker in post #33]

In simple terms, it is like running an algorithm. How does The Creator trick Itself into not recognizing Itself so that eventually It will experience recognizing Itself?

The Creator creates a series of Universes in which to accomplish this great thing, and then eventually loses knowledge of Itself through those creations - placing itself within said creations in order to accomplish this.

The journey into discovery of Self after successfully hiding oneself within ones creation, creates myriad of stories, within the mainframe of the One Story.

More than ingenious. The Creator is without equal while The Creation is still seeking...and eventually of course, The Creation will find out all along that The Creator was hidden within The Creation itself...and finally The Creation will be Equal with The Creator.

Then, on to the next exciting venture!

[It is just what eternal beings do...]

The whole script was written first and then acted out [predestination] - and - like the Cat In The Hat who visited the kids while mummy was away out, and made such a mess inside the house - it all worked out good in the end...

[The Tanager]

It's true that His saving grace comes before our acceptance; that's what I've been saying. His saving grace is unconditional... not depending on any good we might have done. This is what Paul is saying in Romans 9 when he uses Jacob and Esau as examples: "...they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad -- in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls...". This it is for all of Israel (Jacob). This is the concept we refer to as unconditional election.

But what is being elected? Jacob was elected as the one the Messiah would come through. In Romans 9:30-33 we see Paul talking about Israel pursuing righteousness through trying to follow the law, rather than by faith. In 10:2 Paul says the Israelites who do that have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. In 10:3 their ignorance was in seeking to establish the righteousness of God on their own (the law) rather than submitting to God's righteousness (faith in Christ). Paul is talking about God's election of those in Christ vs. those who try to follow the law. This passage is about God electing the way salvation will come about, not who will join in on that way.

And I agree on the "if we accept it" thing, too; experientially, that's what happens, but I'm not quite sure what you mean by that... that's a big "if" that may lead to misunderstanding. One might think you are turning right around and making God's saving grace contingent on our acceptance, conditional on our acceptance, which is antithetical to the point immediately above. Again, Scripture is very clear that God's purposes never fail. So actually, once God's saving grace has been given -- once the heart-regenerate person has received that grace of God -- it is inevitable that he/she will freely accept it, repent of his/her sin, and believe. We were just talking about Romans 8, and about verse 29 in particular (those He foreknew, He predestined); that matter seems settled between us and we agree that God's grace comes by His sovereign choice and distinguishing love. But now we have to keep going... In the very next verse (30), Paul says, "...those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified." Do you see the inevitability of the acceptance on the part of the new believer in that? Yes, those who receive the saving grace of God, His mercy and compassion, do in fact make a free-will decision to accept/repent/believe, but that choice is inevitable once God has initiated, by His Spirit, that saving work in us. This is the concept of irresistible grace.

This is probably the key thing that keeps me from being a Calvinist. If God wishes that all would be saved (1 Tim 2:4, 2 Pet 3:9) and His grace is irresistable, then how is universalism not true? Perhaps the 2 Peter verse could be read as being only about the elect, but I don't see how 1 Timothy can be.

I do think our being transformed by God's grace is contingent on our acceptance. I think it's the only belief that maintains God's unconditional love. God's offer of grace is unconditional, offered to all no matter how they have broken the Law. Nothing we have done can make God love us less. Our experience of that unconditional grace is conditional on our acceptance of it. Otherwise, it seems to me, God takes away free will (and love along with it) or actively hates people.

After our acceptance the inevitability comes in, I think. At that point it is inevitable that we will be transformed into beings that eventually only freely choose the good, the loving.

I don't think Romans 8 goes against all of this. Who does God foreknow/love here? I agree Paul is talking about a particular group. Chapter 8 starts off talking about those who are in Christ (which has been contrasted against those who bank on how well they have followed the law). That doesn't seem to me to change by the time we get to verse 29. Those in Christ are the ones who love God (v. 28). All who are in Christ are those whom He foreloved. Those who are in Christ are predestined to be conformed to Christ's image. It's inevitable for those in Christ. Those people are called, justified, and glorified.

Thank you for your patience with my thoughts, for challenging them in a spirit of love, and your prayers of grace and peace.

[PinSeeker]

Okay, this is longer than I intended it to be... And perhaps I am over-qualifying... But here goes:

It's true that His saving grace comes before our acceptance; that's what I've been saying. His saving grace is unconditional... not depending on any good we might have done. This is what Paul is saying in Romans 9 when he uses Jacob and Esau as examples: "...they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad -- in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls...". This it is for all of Israel (Jacob). This is the concept we refer to as unconditional election.

But what is being elected?

Well not 'what,' but who. Israel is a people. One people. Made up of individuals from every tongue, tribe, and nation. We can also refer to it -- as Scripture does -- as the remnant God is preserving.

Jacob was elected as the one the Messiah would come through.

Well Jacob was certainly of God's elect, just like Abraham and Isaac. Jacob was representative of Israel. He was renamed Israel by God in Genesis, as you probably well know.

In Romans 9:30-33 we see Paul talking about Israel pursuing righteousness through trying to follow the law, rather than by faith. In 10:2 Paul says the Israelites who do that have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. In 10:3 their ignorance was in seeking to establish the righteousness of God on their own (the law) rather than submitting to God's righteousness (faith in Christ).

Well, Paul is making the point (among other things) that not all who are directly descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- not all ethnic Jews -- are of Israel. They were not elect; they thought they could achieve righteousness by keeping the law.

But many Israelites were elect -- not all, but many (like any church you might go to today). They came to know Jesus, albeit indirectly, through all the promises of the coming Savior through Moses and the prophets; they were able to "see" Jesus in all the types and shadows of Him through the entire Old Testament. Hey, read Leviticus and see how many times it mentions sacrificing a lamb without blemish. Leviticus 16 is especially great -- the day of atonement. And read Luke 24, after Jesus's resurrection, when He explains, beginning with Moses and all the Prophets -- in all the Scriptures -- the things concerning Himself to the two men on the road to Emmaus. And we see in Hebrews 1 that God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son. So the elect Israelites were saved exactly the same way we are, by faith. They knew their righteousness was not in the law itself or their ability to keep it but in the Lord. And this is how it is today for us, too. This is what Paul says in Romans 11, and it's what the writer of Hebrews (who may also be Paul) in Hebrews 11. You see how Scripture is one story about one people? The story of the Israelites... it's the story of OUR people. They are us, and we are them. We identify intensely with them. The only difference is that they were looking forward to the coming Savior, where we are looking back on what He did and forward to His return. People want to erect this wall between the Old Testament and the New Testament. There is no wall. Maybe I'm preaching to the choir... So anyway, coming back around to Romans 9, it's not about ethnic Jews. The story of the Israelites is the story of all of us, of our forefathers, and directly relatable to us, and that's exactly what Paul is doing.

Paul is talking about God's election of those in Christ vs. those who try to follow the law.

Right, I agree.

This passage is about God electing the way salvation will come about, not who will join in on that way.

Disagree. Maybe I'm not understanding you here, but this seems a contradiction to what you said immediately above. This passage is about God's sovereign choice -- who does what in salvation, and about what God has done for us -- and about His purpose of election regarding the recipients of His mercy in achieving that salvation. Here's how the passage itself starts, the tone that is set at the outset:

• "For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring... This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said... though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad -- in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls... Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy... He has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills."

And then it finally ends in Romans 11 with the following:

• "Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, 'The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will banish ungodliness from Jacob; and this will be My covenant with them when I take away their sins.' ... For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable."

It's just... it's just a magnificent piece of Scripture. That's all I can say. Magnificent.

And I agree on the "if we accept it" thing, too; experientially, that's what happens, but I'm not quite sure what you mean by that... that's a big "if" that may lead to misunderstanding. One might think you are turning right around and making God's saving grace contingent on our acceptance, conditional on our acceptance, which is antithetical to the point immediately above. Again, Scripture is very clear that God's purposes never fail. So actually, once God's saving grace has been given -- once the heart-regenerate person has received that grace of God -- it is inevitable that he/she will freely accept it, repent of his/her sin, and believe. We were just talking about Romans 8, and about verse 29 in particular (those He foreknew, He predestined); that matter seems settled between us and we agree that God's grace comes by His sovereign choice and distinguishing love. But now we have to keep going... In the very next verse (30), Paul says, "...those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified." Do you see the inevitability of the acceptance on the part of the new believer in that? Yes, those who receive the saving grace of God, His mercy and compassion, do in fact make a free-will decision to accept/repent/believe, but that choice is inevitable once God has initiated, by His Spirit, that saving work in us. This is the concept of irresistible grace.

This is probably the key thing that keeps me from being a Calvinist. If God wishes that all would be saved (1 Tim 2:4, 2 Pet 3:9) and His grace is irresistable, then how is universalism not true? Perhaps the 2 Peter verse could be read as being only about the elect, but I don't see how 1 Timothy can be.

You're right; I agree with you that neither the 1 Timothy nor the 2 Peter verses you cite are referencing only the elect. The best way to answer your question is that God's wish, or desire, is not the same as His will; those are two very different things and must not be conflated. We have to understand the difference between what God desires -- what He would prefer -- versus what His will is. God, in His perfect love, would desire -- prefer -- that all His creation come to repentance and belief in Him/Christ. But the implication there is that will not be the case. And this is what those two verses say. God's justice cannot be compromised; God cannot compromise His glory in any way. He cannot overlook sin, right? The wages of sin is death, and somebody has to pay that price. The fact is that no one deserves salvation, and in fact everyone deserves the very opposite. This is the concept of total depravity; it is the natural human condition. But God, in His will, being rich in mercy, even when they were dead in their sin (like everybody else), made some -- some, a multitude, actually, people from every tongue, tribe, and nation -- alive together with Christ. By grace they have been saved. This is what Paul says in Ephesians 2. So God justified some, but not all. But someone -- Someone -- still had to pay the price. Well you and I both know Who that was, right? God Himself, Jesus, Who was fully God and fully man (born of a woman). That's Philippians 2:5-11. And the number of the elect, the justified, believers, is still being added to, of course. But the point is, again, we have to be able to differentiate between God's desire and His will. God can compromise His desire, but not His will, because His will involves His glory, His justice, His love, and a whole host of other things.

Hey, this is a simple example, but consider this: We may really want (desire)... something... but know we cannot have it, or just take it, because of who we are, what we stand for, our integrity, right? So we don't do it, or take it. We could, but we would be compromising ourselves. It's really the same with God (albeit on a much higher level, of course).

I do think our being transformed by God's grace is contingent on our acceptance. I think it's the only belief that maintains God's unconditional love.

In a sense, this could be a troublesome statement, but in a sense, it is true. How you really mean it I'm not quite sure. But if thought of in the correct light, what you're getting at here is the concept of perseverance of the saints. We are kept in belief and matured in the faith God has given us by His power via His Holy Spirit. I think maybe we can see this more clearly if we consider what Paul says in Philippians 2, namely verse 13. There, we read that "...it is God who works in us (believers, elect), so that we both will and work for His good pleasure." I'm being a little facetious here, but this is true... you've heard people say, "Well the devil made me do it...", right? Well, in the case of what we're talking about here, the Spirit makes us do it. Having said that, though, if we are in Christ, we are being transformed, and that transformation is not contingent on anything in and of ourselves. As Paul says in Philippians 1:6, "He Who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Christ." He will. This is a great promise. And as Jude say, He is able to keep us from stumbling and present us blameless before the presence of His glory with great joy" (Jude 1:24).

God's offer of grace is unconditional, offered to all no matter how they have broken the Law.

I totally agree. This is the outward call. God's grace, salvation -- all that -- is available to all without discrimination. Everyone is eligible.

Nothing we have done can make God love us less.

Exactly. Totally agree. And that's true for the elect and otherwise. In Romans 9, in Paul's example of Jacob and Esau (which again is relatable to all the elect and non-elect), he quotes Moses, who related what God said: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." Well this does not mean that God didn't love Esau and by extension that He doesn't love those who are not members of His elect. He just doesn't love them in the same sovereign, distinguishing way as His elect. We could just as easily say that God said, "Jacob have I saved/chosen/drawn to Myself, and Esau I have not saved/chosen/drawn to Myself."

Our experience of that unconditional grace is conditional on our acceptance of it. Otherwise, it seems to me, God takes away free will (and love along with it) or actively hates people. After our acceptance the inevitability comes in, I think. At that point it is inevitable that we will be transformed into beings that eventually only freely choose the good, the loving.

Again, respectfully, these statements seem to teeter on the edge between good and bad -- could go either way. To say "(o)ur experience of that unconditional grace is conditional on our acceptance of it" is very close to saying that God only extends this unconditional saving grace if we do something to deserve it, which is totally antithetical to Scripture. But if we are to also say that our (perhaps eventual) acceptance is inevitable -- because His saving grace via His Spirit is irresistible, because His purposes cannot be thwarted, and His call is irrevocable (not able to be changed, reversed, or recovered; final) -- then we can certainly go with that. Really, God is the one Who meets the condition. Yes, we do it, but only because it is God Who is at work in us, guaranteeing our (again, perhaps eventual) acceptance. If God has truly called the individual by His Spirit, it is irrevocable. Again, the gifts and the calling of God (the effectual, inner calling of God by His Spirit) are irrevocable. And because of that, our acceptance is inevitable.

I don't think Romans 8 goes against all of this. Who does God foreknow/love here? I agree Paul is talking about a particular group. Chapter 8 starts off talking about those who are in Christ (which has been contrasted against those who bank on how well they have followed the law). That doesn't seem to me to change by the time we get to verse 29. Those in Christ are the ones who love God (v. 28). All who are in Christ are those whom He foreloved. Those who are in Christ are predestined to be conformed to Christ's image. It's inevitable for those in Christ. Those people are called, justified, and glorified.

Exactly! And what you're hitting on here is the concept of limited atonement, the knowledge that while Christ's atonement was surely sufficient for all, it was only effectual for those God gave Christ, as Jesus Himself says in John 6:37, that all that the Father gives (Him) -- the Father's elect -- will come to (Him), and whoever comes to (Him He) will never cast out.

Hey, here's an excerpt from the great pastor and theologian J.I. Packer:
.

"The very act of setting out Calvinistic soteriology [the doctrine of salvation] in the form of five distinct points (a number due, as we saw, merely to the fact that there were five Arminian points for the Synod of Dort to answer) tends to obscure the organic character of Calvinistic thought on this subject. For the five points, though separately stated, are inseparable. They hang together; you cannot reject one without rejecting them all, at least in the sense in which the Synod meant them. For to Calvinism there is really only one point to be made in the field of soteriology: the point that God saves sinners.

"God - the Triune Jehovah, Father, Son and Spirit; three Persons working together in sovereign wisdom, power and love to achieve the salvation of a chosen people, the Father electing, the Son fulfilling the Father's will by redeeming, the Spirit executing the purpose of Father and Son by renewing.

"Saves - does everything, first to last, that is involved in bringing man from death in sin to life in glory: plans, achieves and communicates redemption, calls and keeps, justifies, sanctifies, glorifies.

"Sinners - men as God finds them, guilty, vile, helpless, powerless, unable to lift a finger to do God's will or better their spiritual lot. God saves sinners - and the force of this confession may not be weakened by disrupting the unity of the work of the Trinity, or by dividing the achievement of salvation between God and man and making the decisive part man's own, or by soft-pedalling the sinner's inability so as to allow him to share the praise of his salvation with his Saviour. This is the one point of Calvinistic soteriology which the "five points" are concerned to establish and Arminianism in all its forms to deny: namely, that sinners do not save themselves in any sense at all, but that salvation, first and last, whole and entire, past, present and future, is of the Lord, to whom be glory for ever; amen."

J.I. Packer, "Introductory Essay," in The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, by John Owen (London: Banner of Truth, 1959) 4-5.

.

Thank you for your patience with my thoughts, for challenging them in a spirit of love, and your prayers of grace and peace.

Hey, man. Love talking about the majesty and glory of God. Love it. No better subject. Drawing from Paul yet again, this time from Philippians 4... "whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, we are to think about these things." Grace and peace to you, my friend!

[William]

It can be understood that the concepts Paul was attempting to uncover were gate entry level. Having to educate folk who are stuck in the system's of their rinherited beliefs was as big a mission then as it is today.

It is after passing through the gate to life that one sees more and more clearly how dead those former beliefs were.

It should be surprising in this day and age that folk are still tied up in words and their meanings. Communication via Spiritual Revelation can only take place between those who understand The Creator through that Spiritual connect. Words then become something largely unnecessary, and when they are written or spoken are understood without any need to put them throughbelief filtering processes.

That type of communication is a step up from the exciting religious based interactions.

Understanding how the end game happens in relation to the game being played, is knowing that The Creator planned it that way from the go get...that everyone would eventually be saved - specifically from the ignorance of God.

Toward the fullness of knowledge we are each heading and without fail, all will - in their own good time - arrive.

When one realises that the idea of always having free will is actually an idea which creates an illusionary image between the individual and The Creator then one understands that Love has been understood. One accepts that The Creator allows for the illusion of free will for as long as the individual thinks it is required, and also accepts that it is the free will of The Creator which is that which is best trusted in.

The difficulty therein for many, is the so called "problem of evil" whereby the individual has to come to a clear understanding as to why The Creator created creation if The Creator knew evil would occur.
The furture complication related to the PoE are the biblical stories which infer The Creator was sorry for creating human beings, and sort to remove them from the creation.

How are those two concepts able to be rectified? Predestination verse with verse implying The Creator was repentant?

The answer to that is found through the act of stepping through the gateway.

[myth-one.com]

The wages of sin is death, and somebody has to pay that price.

Wrong!

The wages of sin is still death, but being now under the New Testament Covenant, sin no longer controls our salvation.

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. (Romans 6:14)

The fact is that no one deserves salvation, and in fact everyone deserves the very opposite.

Wrong!

There was one man who deserved salvation under the original Covenant between God and mankind.

But someone -- Someone -- still had to pay the price.

Still wrong!

Once again, sin no longer controls our salvation.

Well you and I both know Who that was, right? God Himself, Jesus, Who was fully God and fully man (born of a woman).

Wrong again!

There is no such being as a man/God hybrid! Jesus Christ was a man.

In fact, He was the only man to qualify for everlasting life under the Old Testament!

He will not accept His reward of everlasting life, but offer it as a free gift to whosoever believeth in Him as their Savior -- under the New Testament Covenant:

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. (John 3:16)

So salvation has become a gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord:

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23)

==================================

Believe it or not, that's how it works.

Simple, huh?

[The Tanager]

Okay, this is longer than I intended it to be... And perhaps I am over-qualifying... But here goes:

No need to apologize. I love it, especially done as lovingly as you have. So many either go to the extremes of getting angry at those they disagree with or refusing to challenge them where they deeply disagree. You have not. Thank you.

Well not 'what,' but who. Israel is a people. One people. Made up of individuals from every tongue, tribe, and nation. We can also refer to it -- as Scripture does -- as the remnant God is preserving.

Are you saying the election in Romans 9:11 is about individuals being in (i.e., Israel) or out? If so, then why do you think that? I'm sorry if I've missed your reason but, if I have, perhaps you could put it a bit differently for me.

Well, Paul is making the point (among other things) that not all who are directly descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- not all ethnic Jews -- are of Israel. They were not elect; they thought they could achieve righteousness by keeping the law.

But many Israelites were elect -- not all, but many (like any church you might go to today). They came to know Jesus, albeit indirectly, through all the promises of the coming Savior through Moses and the prophets; they were able to "see" Jesus in all the types and shadows of Him through the entire Old Testament. Hey, read Leviticus and see how many times it mentions sacrificing a lamb without blemish. Leviticus 16 is especially great -- the day of atonement. And read Luke 24, after Jesus's resurrection, when He explains, beginning with Moses and all the Prophets -- in all the Scriptures -- the things concerning Himself to the two men on the road to Emmaus. And we see in Hebrews 1 that God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son. So the elect Israelites were saved exactly the same way we are, by faith. They knew their righteousness was not in the law itself or their ability to keep it but in the Lord. And this is how it is today for us, too. This is what Paul says in Romans 11, and it's what the writer of Hebrews (who may also be Paul) in Hebrews 11. You see how Scripture is one story about one people? The story of the Israelites... it's the story of OUR people. They are us, and we are them. We identify intensely with them. The only difference is that they were looking forward to the coming Savior, where we are looking back on what He did and forward to His return. People want to erect this wall between the Old Testament and the New Testament. There is no wall. Maybe I'm preaching to the choir... So anyway, coming back around to Romans 9, it's not about ethnic Jews. The story of the Israelites is the story of all of us, of our forefathers, and directly relatable to us, and that's exactly what Paul is doing.

I completely agree.

Paul is talking about God's election of those in Christ vs. those who try to follow the law.

Right, I agree.

This passage is about God electing the way salvation will come about, not who will join in on that way.

Disagree. Maybe I'm not understanding you here, but this seems a contradiction to what you said immediately above. This passage is God's sovereign choice -- who does what in salvation, and about what God has done for us -- and about His purpose of election regarding the recipients of His mercy in achieving that salvation.

I don't see how my statements contradict each other (I think they are saying the exact same thing). Why do you think the truly magnificent passages you quoted contradict my belief that election is about God electing the rules to get in 'Israel' rather than which individual person is in and out?

You're right; I agree with you that neither the 1 Timothy nor the 2 Peter verses you cite are referencing only the elect. The best way to answer your question is that God's wish, or desire, is not the same as His will; those are two very different things and must not be conflated. We have to understand the difference between what God desires -- what He would prefer -- versus what His will is. God, in His perfect love, would desire -- prefer -- that all His creation come to repentance and belief in Him/Christ. But the implication there is that will not be the case. And this is what those two verses say.

What verses show God's desire and will to be two different things? Or are you saying that they must be or this passage wouldn't make sense with other passages that you believe show Calvinism to be true?

But the point is, again, we have to be able to differentiate between God's desire and His will. God can compromise His desire, but not His will, because His will involves His glory, His justice, His love, and a whole host of other things.

Assuming those are two different things, I don't understand how God compromising His desire saves His glory, justice, love, etc. God would seem to have greater glory if He chose to save everyone. God's justice would not be lessened because Jesus still paid the price. And concerning His love...

I do think our being transformed by God's grace is contingent on our acceptance. I think it's the only belief that maintains God's unconditional love.

In a sense, this could be a troublesome statement, but in a sense, it is true. How you really mean it I'm not quite sure. But if thought of in the correct light, what you're getting at here is the concept of perseverance of the saints.

While I believe in the perseverance of the saints, that is not how I mean it here. God's love would be shown to be greater if He saved everyone (assuming the choice is only up to Him, of course). If God choose some and not others, then God is loving (willing the good of) some and hating (not willing the good of) others. That seems to be compromising God's love. God's love is not unconditional, it's conditioned by randomness.

I totally agree. This is the outward call. God's grace, salvation -- all that -- is available to all without discrimination. Everyone is eligible.

To me it sounds like you are saying that God's grace is not available to all, but that it's available to all that God randomly chooses.

Again, respectfully, these statements seem to teeter on the edge between good and bad -- could go either way. To say "(o)ur experience of that unconditional grace is conditional on our acceptance of it" is very close to saying that God only extends this unconditional saving grace if we do something to deserve it, which is totally antithetical to Scripture.

God extends this unconditional saving grace to every single person, no matter what we've done and no matter how we will react to this gift. We experience the saving grace only if we choose it. We don't experience the saving grace if we reject it.

Exactly! And what you're hitting on here is the concept of limited atonement, the knowledge that while Christ's atonement was surely sufficient for all, it was only effectual for those God gave Christ, as Jesus Himself says in John 6:37, that all that the Father gives (Him) -- the Father's elect -- will come to (Him), and whoever comes to (Him He) will never cast out.

I think John 6:37 is talking about the Jews of Jesus' day who truly knew God in faith being given their long awaited Messiah.

In the larger context, I would agree that atonement is limited...to one rule/way (faith in Christ vs. moral perfection vs. birth vs. whatever). I don't think God limits the offer of atonement like you do, though. Even in Romans 10:21, after talking about faith coming from hearing (10:17), we see God holding out His hands to people who are rejecting Him. Calvinism, it seems to me, says that God does not hold out His hand to people who don't choose Him, only holding out His hand to those who He determines to choose Him.

"This is the one point of Calvinistic soteriology which the "five points" are concerned to establish and Arminianism in all its forms to deny: namely, that sinners do not save themselves in any sense at all, but that salvation, first and last, whole and entire, past, present and future, is of the Lord, to whom be glory for ever; amen."

Arminianism does not deny any of that. Sinners do not save themselves, in any sense at all. Sinners can choose to let God save them entirely or choose to reject God's salvation.

Continued strength, friend.

[2timothy316]

I do think our being transformed by God's grace is contingent on our acceptance. I think it's the only belief that maintains God's unconditional love.

In a sense, this could be a troublesome statement, but in a sense, it is true. How you really mean it I'm not quite sure. But if thought of in the correct light, what you're getting at here is the concept of perseverance of the saints.

While I believe in the perseverance of the saints, that is not how I mean it here. God's love would be shown to be greater if He saved everyone (assuming the choice is only up to Him, of course). If God choose some and not others, then God is loving (willing the good of) some and hating (not willing the good of) others. That seems to be compromising God's love. God's love is not unconditional, it's conditioned by randomness.

This is the heart of the whole debate. I'm seeing two gods presented here. One withholds their love, by denying a person faith based on either choice or randomness and the other that withholds their love and access to faith from no one. Only one is a characteristic of the True God. I've seen some that say that both can be true, two roads same mountain, but one doctrine leads people away from the True God. I've met many people that give up on seeking anything spiritual because they feel that they have been denied faith and based on the predestined doctrine. They say if they have no faith, then that is the way the predestine god wants it and they just await eternal damnation. One god gives a way out the other makes the choice for us. Which is it?

[myth-one.com]

One god gives a way out the other makes the choice for us. Which is it?

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;