Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,
4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love
5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,
6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.
7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,
8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight
9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ
10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,
12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.
13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,
14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it,to the praise of his glory.
You see no history of Him choosing other than the verse which have been provided that say so. Again, you use the terminology of God forcing His will on us. Scripture uses similar in that it says He does all according to His own will. It also teaches that man's will is not a factor in salvation as I have shown several times(John 1:13). However scripture teaches that God changes man's heart. In light of that, it's not correct for you to call it Him forces us as if we come to Him grudgingly. People should be glad they received a new heart, because there is no hope without it. I've already explained to you the gospel call that goes out to all people. God tells all people to repent and belief. This doesn't mean the bible makes no sense to believe the reformed view of salvation. It doesn't even come close to refuting it. God is not showing partiality because this is not based on anything in man. I've actually read a great article which makes the case successfully that those who believe in free will in salvation are actually those who make God into a respecter of person. This is not all of the article, but I recommend you read all of it.
"Let's take this a step further: it is actually those who defend CONDITIONAL election who make God a respecter of persons. This is because, if it were true that meeting some condition prompted God's decision to elect his people then His choice of them would be based on their wisdom, prudence, sound judgment, or good sense to believe. He would therefore be looking at the character or merit of that person and choosing them because of it. The Bible, on the contrary, declares that we are all ill-deserving and, as such, God reserves the right to have mercy on whom he will, which is not based in any way on the will of the flesh (John 1:13; Rom 9:15, 16). If God is basing his election on who will have faith then this would, in fact, make God a respecter of persons because these persons are meeting God's criteria in order to be chosen.
It is most ironic that those bringing this charge are the very ones who make God a respect or of persons by making God's love and election "conditional". It is the synergist who believes God shows favoritism or partiality because it is based on whether or not that person meritoriously meets the condition God gives him. In synergism God's love for his people is not unconditional but is given only when someone meets the right condition... i.e. whether someone has faith or not. He chooses them only if they believe in him. Isn't that favoritism? This conditional love is quite different than the love we expect from parents in everyday life. Consider, do you love your children because they do something for you? No, of course not. Don't you still love them even when they do something wrong? Of course. As an example, if your child rebelled against you and made you angry then soon after ran out into oncoming traffic would you run out to save him? or would you wait until he used his own will to prove his love to you first? No as a parent who loved their child you would run out to MAKE CERTAIN your child was not hit by a car regardless of the ebbs and flows of your relationship with him. Your love for him and your choice to save him are based on unconditional love. In fact we would consider the parent who first determined the love of their child as a condition to save them most unloving and cursed.
It is important that we further draw out these every day analogies to show how unreasonable this charge against unconditional election is. Consider the very world we live in. In God's perfect wisdom and because of the fall, for His own sovereign good purposes, some people are born into better families, richer countries, healthier bodies, better times, better conditions, more intelligence, etc. Others are born into AIDS, starvation and poverty. We see these "unfair" situations all around us. Does God have nothing to do with where people are born? Did people born into starvation have any say in the matter? Frankly I do not see the Arminian shaking his fist at God for being unfair here. Yet these conditions we see in the world are there because it is part of God's judgement due to the fall. Further, everyone is born equally guilty in Adam and so it is perfectly just that not all get the same benefits in this life when they are born. If this is true of everyday life why is it such a stretch to carry the same idea into eternity? it is hypocrisy not to recognize this inconsistency.
Next, let us consider the example of Jesus himself in Scripture. Jesus chose a specific time and place to come to earth and reveal himself and not other times. He healed some and not others. He raised Lazarus, his friend, but not everyone. There were other families in the world that were just as sad as Lazarus' family...many of them just faithful, just as godly. According to human unaided reason, Jesus singling Lazarus out for resurrection this might appear to show partiality or favoritism. Jesus actually had to power to raise people from the dead and you would think that if this was the case he would help EVERY family which experienced the death of a loved one. This would not be too hard for him. But Jesus did not do so.
By defining favoritism the way Arminians do you would think that Jesus would go around healing everyone, raising everyone, and making no distinctions and divisions whatsoever. Or, you would think he would at least give everyone the choice to have their loved ones raised. But the Jesus presented in the Bible is obviously not the Jesus of Arminianism or Universalism. He's a Jesus who chooses to bring certain people to life and leave others in their own rebellion. Matt 11:27 says, "...no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."
Again Jesus himself plainly teaches that he makes distinctions again in Matt 20:1-16 in the parable of Laborers in the Vineyard when He gives full wages to the laborers who worked an hour. He concludes, "Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?' So the last will be first, and the first last." Does this sound like the picture of God painted by Arminians.
In the end the Bible teaches that God chooses to have mercy on some ill-deserving people out of the entire mass of ill-deserving people. God is not obligated, in any sense, to save anyone because none are his children by nature, but by grace when He mercifully adopts them into his family. The others are rebelling against him and reject him, so he leaves them to their own desire. God is all wise and always conspires with his own wisdom in choosing to do what he does. By definition God's choices are always good, even if you cannot see it. If God doesn't satisfactorily explain to you the good reasons He has for what he does, do you thereby condemn Him for it? Well, most of us don't explain all the good reasons we have for what we do to our own child. Am I therefore immoral? There's several answers I could give that my child would not understand. On what basis do you think you could understand any God-justifying reason there is?
God loves his people because he loves them. Is there some better reason OUTSIDE or ABOVE God that should make him do so? The Arminian would have us think so. But to say so is to profoundly misapprehend the nature of who God is. We know God is always good, so if he wills something to be so, it is right irrespective of whether you understand.
Next, consider your own life and how you think you should treat others. Is it is okay to treat your children any differently than you neighbors or do you treat them exactly the same?
The question really is not whether God shows favorites but IN WHAT SENSE does God not show favorites because God chose Abraham out of all the people's of the earth, not because he saw something good in him, or because he earned God's favor, but because God chooses to. He saves the poor, the wretched and the sinners of the earth according to his sovereign good pleasure in Christ."
The glory attributed to God is that He can take dead men who are capable of no good thing and sanctify them. The glory is that He chose to give His live for people who would never ever choose them on His own. To say that there is no glory to be had from a God who chooses is to misunderstand God.
For a study on God's glory as it relates to election, read this.
It's ironic that you think the predestination belief should a universalist belief when I have shown just that about your interpretations of scripture. Furthermore, you saying this only shows that you still do not understand the view you are arguing against. My view teaches that God indeed does not fail. Your side is that God could save everyone and does not which is at odds with His will that every man be saved. My side says that God could save everyone if He chose, but in His sovereignty, chose to save some for His own purpose and that this is completely in line with 2 Peter 3:9 which speaks about His longsuffering for the sheep, in context...not every man. God accomplishes this goal. In your view, as I've shown previously, God fails. The only way for you to show God has failed in my view is to do what you have done and twist what I believe. You added your own beliefs into mine so that you could defeat them.
None of those verses defeats the reformed view. You can very easily find the common ones refuted all over the internet should you should. I've already touched on many of them myself. Ironically, no one ever answers the verses I give or responds when I show that their verses are taken out of context. It gets very frustrating.
Gud asked ~ Jude...and I asked what the contribution was.
*** To share the information of peoples Charcter and Spirit between those that Believe in Free Will and those that Dont concerning the Topic of discussion...Thats all...xo
"Anyway, I could go on like this and point out the issues with the rest of the article, but that would be a waste because neither of you actually care about truth. The fact that I even had to do this is sad. Please stop insulting my intelligence by posting mess like this and calling it scientific fact."
I kind of know what they're talking about though, although I wouldn't just attribute it to "predestination" theology. Everybody is different. I have discussed the bible with many people, and many that believe God "choose" them over other people, and it does seem to "set them apart" in their own minds, much like the Pharisees thought, and it does seem to inspire a sense of moral superiority(Israel VS Gentile/Christian VS Heretic). Myself and two other christian men were talking about free will/predestination, and it was very civil. I believe in free will, my friend believes in predestination, and the other friend was bouncing around in the middle, but it finally got to the point where the predestination friend insisted on interrupting the "false teachings" we were talking about because he "couldn't let the heresies stand", and he grabbed the marker we were using on a board to take over. The other friend and I were a little shocked at the sudden shift. So I think there is something to it. Again, I don't think that is tied to any particular theology though, there are people like that in any theology "school", but I've never encountered as much of it anywhere else except in Calvinism. When you believe God picked you, elected you, and has given you knowledge, it seems like it would inspire you to feel like you're kind of infallible and superior instead of always seeking a deeper understanding of the truth. The only times I've ever been called a heretic when discussing the bible is by someone who believes in predestination. Then you have on the other side, people that believe their knowledge that THEY gained, and the holy choices THEY make, grant them the same kind of moral superiority, but I think it's rarer to have that attitude and be a christian, because the bible is unarguably clear that works amount to nothing. Anything we can do is foolishness and filthy rags.
"but it finally got to the point where the predestination friend insisted on interrupting the "false teachings" we were talking about because he "couldn't let the heresies stand", and he grabbed the marker we were using on a board to take over. The other friend and I were a little shocked at the sudden shift. So I think there is something to it."
As he should do...This is in no way relevant to the study though.
If people ignore truth over and over again and confuse people by promoting heresies then someone should stand up and say enough. It's one thing to be confused and believe in free will because that's what you were always taught. It's another thing to ignore the scriptures that clearly teach against it because you don't want them to teach against free will. What I most often see here are arguments from emotions. The good arguments made against the emotional arguments are rarely addressed. Those who give the bad arguments just go on to the next verse which they claim proves their case and ignore the context again until that verse is refuted again. The person then just ignores that and proceeds to make the same argument they have been making previously even though it's already been refuted. Often times they will post several verses that they've already been shown to have been taken out of context. This does not bother them though because sticking to their guns means they don't have to question why the scriptures don't actually teach free will. They even often resort to misstating my view. It's not my goal to just be harsh to those here. However, this is the cycle over and over. What about actually addressing the scriptures in context. Why do we not do this? Look at your arguments and you tell me honestly if you are arguing for what the scriptures say or if you are arguing for a belief system.
"Your side is that God could save everyone and does not which is at odds with His will that every man be saved."
Not if he's working with the fact that he created our will. I believe he respects our will above all else except his own righteousness. That's really the only explanation of the problem of sin. Unless you believe God created sin, which again, doesn't make sense to me. Sin came into the universe through a perfect being. Sin came into this world through a free choice. We have degenerated ourselves to the point where we would not seek God if He did not intervene, but I see no where in the bible where we lost our free will. What we differ in mainly, is the way that God intervenes. I believe He manifests himself in his son, reveals our sinfulness with his law, draws us with his love, brings us to a knowledge of the truth through his word. At that point, I believe we are brought back to the place that Adam and Eve were in the garden, and all we have to do is acknowledge the truth through faith, and grace takes over from there. You believe God simply, literally, and forcefully, changes our heart like flicking a switch. In my opinion, that makes almost the entire bible pointless. What does truth or faith or repentance have to do with anything? I know you said that everyone should be glad they got new heart, but I can tell you from observing sinners that find God repulsive, that is probably not the case. And we were all sinners. The natural man rejects God, so to say they "should" be glad, really doesn't cut it. The natural man does not want God, so God giving them a new heart would be like a father giving his son a snake instead of bread.
Okay you believe He respects our free will above almost all things. Why do you believe that when there are numerous scriptures of God acting in the life of man according to His own will and not theirs?
God respects the will of the ones that believe in the same way that he respects the ones that don't. That means he respects all persons the same. Gives them all a chance, offers all salvation, the gospel will go to all the ends of the earth, etc. I understand he works in peoples lives, but it's very rare that there are any examples(if at all) of him working in a life that doesn't want him there. As with Israel, when they rejected him for other gods, he left them to their own desires. When they wanted quail instead of mana, he let them have it. Sometimes they were punished or suffered the consequences for their choice in order that they could see the results of their actions and repent, but I can't think of a single case off hand where God circumvented their will, at least not completely. You could say that even presenting us with the law is "against our will", because we really would probably not like to see it in our sinful state, but that's still not removing our will. That's just like...annoying it...
Jeremiah 18
The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,
2Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause you to hear my words.3Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he worked a work on the wheels.4And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.5Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,6O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? says the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel7At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;8If that nation, against whom I have spoken, turn from their evil, I will change from the evil that I thought to do unto them.9And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;10If it does evil in my sight, that it obeys not my voice, then I will change from the good, with which I said I would benefit them.11Now therefore go, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus says the LORD; Behold, I am shaping evil against you, and devise a plan against you: return you now everyone from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.
Jonah 3
5So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them. 6For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. 7And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water: 8But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands. 9Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?10And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.
