Did Jesus Die on The Cross for The Just/Elect/Saved Whose Names Are Written in The Book of Life OR

[Rufus]

In my last post (5518) I stated my understanding of God's logical order of his decrees in 2Ki 20:1-11 in a manner that would likely be counterintuitive to many if not most here. Once again for the sake of clarity, here is how I listed them:

1. God decreed [the End] that He would deliver Jerusalem and the king from the Assyrians
2. God decreed that he would give the king a miraculous sign for his assurance
3. God decreed that he would add 15 years to Hezekiah's life.
4. God immediately upon hearing the king's petition decreed to him that He would heal him.
5. God decreed the king, upon hearing the news, would humble himself and weep bitterly
5. God decreed through the prophet, that the king would not survive his illness.
7.God decreed a serious illness would befall the king.

Before appealing to Natural Revelation to support the above order, I would remind everyone once again of what Paul said:

Eph 1:11-12
11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.
NIV

I can find no compelling reason either in Special (divine) or Natural Revelation to not take "who works out everything" to mean what it literally says! Therefore, this would necessarily mean that God not only ordains Ends but all the Means to realize those Ends as well. And in my last post, I cited Joseph in the OT and Christ in the New as stellar examples of this truth.

Quick true story: Several years ago, I was having this discussion with a hardcore atheist on a secular forum, who ironically was machinery parts designer, and we were discussing causes and effects. Naturally, in his worldly view of life he boldly claimed that Causes (means) always precede Effects (ends). I challenged such a brash and bold claim. I retorted that his claim is only true in this physical world, but it was certainly not true in the spiritual, unseen, immaterial world --- such as the human mind. In this latter world, it's a whole different ball game. Effects very often precede Causes in the human mind (intellect). Of course, I went on to give several examples,etc. Effects in inventors' minds always precede Causes (means).

Take the famous Wright Brothers, for example. They invented the first airplane. When the idea of a flying machine or device entered their mind, they already has a pretty good idea of what it would look like and what it would do and generally how it would be done. I would think from their study of nature (birds), they would understand that their machine would need wings like a bird for purposes of air uplift. And they would understand that they would need other assisting "feathers" that would operate tail feathers to steer the machine, etc. And they would need power to get enough airlift up under the wings, etc, etc. In other words, they had this image of a flying machine in their mind, which then was transferred to paper for easier modification and study, and then from there proceeded to the actual building stage. In other words, the concept (as rough as it may have been) of this winged machine was in their minds long before all the many means were that would be necessary to actually transform their intellectual concept into a physical reality.

We've all heard the old adage: "Necessity is the Mother of all Inventions"? Well, necessity begets an idea or concept in the human mind, and that idea/concept is the End. The Means will then inevitably follow any End that is rationally and reasonably attainable. Because man is created in God's image, I have to think we share this in common with God. Of course, we can't create or invent ex nihilo, as God has, but still God's original plan for a Garden of Eden world whereby he would dwell with his creation forever and he would partner with us for his glory to accomplish things that hasn't even entered our minds is being fulfilled. It's no accident that God's story of Garden and Redemption begins in Genesis -- a book of "beginnings" that reveals what God's intentions were for Adam and Eve, and that God's story ends in Revelation that just as clearly reveals that this earth will one day be transformed to its prior Edenic glory, if not better! How ironic is this!? Remember what the prophet said: That God declared the End from the Beginning!? The End was declared in the opening chapters of Genesis and all that follows in the Sacred Text reveals the Means to get to that End in Rev 21- 22. These latter chapters circle back to the early chapters of Genesis. The End truly was declared in the Beginning as Isaiah said.
And the only way any of us can have supreme confidence that we'll see that End is if we believe that the Playwright, Producer and Director of this Divine Play on His World Stage is taking us there for the Glory of our Praise!

 

[Rufus]

Dispositional will and Decretive will are not biblical terms. they are terms calvinists invented to plug holes an their system and explain why the bible dies not mean what it says. Your use of these terms is a glaring example of what you are denying doing. Gaslights anyone?

No one can thwart God's purpose. But God can change His purpose according to how people respond to his purpose. you are denying God's sovereignty, when you, a mere creature, forbid Him to change His planned ends to different ends. God says in scripture that He does that, but you contradict Him. Who are you, O man, to contradict God?

We have in the past discussed this matter. There are many biblical concepts that are not explicitly stated in scripture. I guess you don't believe in the Trinity? Incarnation?

And no, God's will is not contingent on his creatures. Read Eph 1:11-12 some day. God doesn't work some thing or many things according to the counsel of his own will -- but ALL things.

 

[studier]

P.S. One more thought. I do agree with you that some unregenerate men seek God because there are four kinds of hearts these kinds of men have, according to the Parable of the Four Soils in Luke. Of course, only one kind of soil (heart) will bear fruit.

Sorry, I think I missed this one.

Could you please clarify how Calvin uses or how you understand the 4 Soils to be interpreted in Calvinism? How does a universal men don't seek (maybe I'm misunderstanding you) compare to "some unregenerate men seek God" pursuant to the 4 Soils?

I'd like to stick with Romans 1 and get to this afterward if you're agreeable. If you have a quick answer here this is good also.

 

[Rufus]

What dpoes the word "come" mean? you seem to think "come" means "believe in". "Come" and "believe in" are different,. They look different. They sound different. They're spelt different. They have different meanings.

I would think that in the biblical sense, it would mean the opposite of reject. In a positive sense, it would mean what Jesus said to his disciples, "come, follow me".

John 6:37
37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
NIV

If you had my argument about Unconditional Election taking place in the post-fall Garden, you would appreciate better what Jesus means by the bolded phrase. Adam, as you might recall, was cast out or driven out of the Garden because God considered him an enemy. Jesus also cast out on two different occasions the thieves and money changers in the temple because, he too considered them his Father's enemies. But in this verse above, Jesus promises that all that the Father gives to him, he will never turn away, reject, cast out, or drive away.

 

[Rufus]

Sorry, I think I missed this one.

Could you please clarify how Calvin uses or how you understand the 4 Soils to be interpreted in Calvinism? How does a universal men don't seek (maybe I'm misunderstanding you) compare to "some unregenerate men seek God" pursuant to the 4 Soils?

I'd like to stick with Romans 1 and get to this afterward if you're agreeable. If you have a quick answer here this is good also.

I have no idea how Calvin viewed the Four Soils in Jesus' parable. But this parable came to mind, because at least two of those soils (kinds of hearts) had their brief encounter with God but of course didn't persevere in the faith because their faith was spurious due to the kind of hearts they had. So, yes, men can "seek" after God...and then depart from him. I'm also mindful of those "seekers of Christ" in John 6 who followed Christ for ulterior reasons. Verse 66 of this chapter is very revealing as is v. 43. Since many stopped following him according to the former verse, then I can only infer from the latter text that the Father never truly drew them to the Son.

I will address your earlier post tomorrow, Lord willin' and the crik doesn't rise.

 

[Genez]

for the Unjust/Nonelect/Unsaved whose names are not written in The Book of Life?

Revelation 21:27
There shall not enter into it any thing defiled, or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie, but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb

Did Adam who caused all mankind to become sinners?
Only cause the elect to become sinners?


The debate should end right here....

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only ​

for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." 1 John 2:2​

Faith does not mean we must understand why something is so...

But, we must accept by faith what God says is so.

In Christ....

 

[studier]

I have no idea how Calvin viewed the Four Soils in Jesus' parable. But this parable came to mind, because at least two of those soils (kinds of hearts) had their brief encounter with God but of course didn't persevere in the faith because their faith was spurious due to the kind of hearts they had. So, yes, men can "seek" after God...and then depart from him. I'm also mindful of those "seekers of Christ" in John 6 who followed Christ for ulterior reasons. Verse 66 of this chapter is very revealing as is v. 43. Since many stopped following him according to the former verse, then I can only infer from the latter text that the Father never truly drew them to the Son.

I will address your earlier post tomorrow, Lord willin' and the crik doesn't rise.

Lord or crik, I'm sure you'll respond properly to either. Your timing either way.

I wasn't going to get into discussions of different Scriptures simultaneously. From what I've seen you can handle it. We'll see if I can or want to. I may just pull back to Romains 1.

Without looking into it, I am aware of, within Reformed, some speaking of God being the Farmer who prepares the soil. But I've got problems with this and I won't get into it at the moment. I can't attribute that concept to Calvin so I'm happy to set it aside and not have to look for his view, assuming it's available to read.

Re: Rom3:11 cf. Luke 8: My first question is the same I previously asked. If Romans 3:11 is saying universally and of all time that no man - assuming unbeliever - seeks after God, then how are there unbelievers who seek after God in Luke 8?

I at the moment don't see Ps14 or 53 establishing universal and in all time that unbelievers don't seek God, and I don't see seeking being discussed in Luke 8. A quick search for "seek*" in Luke only in English shows him using the word 16 times but not in ch.3-10 so I see no close context for men seeking or not in Luke 8 without reading all of Luke.

Obviously, as is typical, there are different views about the 4 Soils Parable in Luke 8. There have to be different views because there are different systems of theological interpretation. So, to review all the views to see who's inserting into vs. taking from the Text is beyond what I desire to do at the moment. Simply put, and casually paraphrasing, here's how I see each soil simply by using Jesus' clear instruction and my initially having no care what any theological system does with His instruction. Since the soils are explained as being men, I'm simply going to use masculine terminology:

• Soil 1:
  • The men alongside the road/way are the men who hear the [sown] Word and have it in their hearts - then the diabolos comes and takes the [sown] Word from their hearts - the purpose of the actions of the diabolos or the result of his actions: the men not believing [are] not saved.
    • So these men have the Word in their hearts - the its stolen so they can't believe
      • It seems having the Word in the heart requires that it remain there in order for the man to believe it.
        • The amount of time is not specified.
• Soil 2:
  • The men upon the rock, whenever they hear, with joy they receive the sown Word - and they do not have/take hold of/grip [a] root - [men] who believe for a time - and in a time of temptation they depart
    • It's interesting how Jesus says they do not have, or hold, or grip a root. IOW, unless the soil has a root, the seed seems to grow, or be able to grow a root but these men do not hold onto it. Seems very descriptive.
      • Also, the seed seems to have rooted, so this could compare to the time needed to believe it as stated in Soil 1.
    • Note that this clearly says these men believe for a time and they depart
      • Obviously there a few ways to interpret this belief and departure as it pertains to salvation, and different interpretive systems waste no time inserting their views.
      • It seems a good area of discussion re: faith and salvation, but a known highly debated one that is part of a lot of division.
    • "depart" is in the middle voice, which, when I see this, I normally look more closely. It's emphasizing the subject and Jesus is likely telling us these men depart in the interest of themselves rather than just telling us they depart and focusing on their action.
• Soil 3:
  • The seed which fell into the thorns - these are the men who hear - and by (causal) anxieties/worries and wealth and pleasures/enjoyments of the life - they are proceeding/moving [from that point (of hearing)] to be choked - and they are not producing mature fruit
    • Interesting shift back to the seed
    • Again, Jesus uses the middle voice when He speaks of these men moving. So He likely emphasizes the self interest of these men as they are caused by worries, wealth, pleasure to move from the point of hearing the Word, and this movement from the Word is in fact a movement to be choked by these things.
    • For the first time in this lesson, Jesus brings up this goal of producing mature fruit. So the Word is meant to produce mature fruit, which is experientially obvious in the analogy of a sown seed.
    • Interesting that belief even for a time is not mentioned here
• Soil 4:
  • The seed in the good/useful earth/ground - these men are whoever when hearing the Word in a good/useful and good/high quality heart, they hold it firmly and they produce fruit to maturity by endurance.
    • Note how Jesus says the earth is useful and parallels this to the useful and high quality heart of men.
      • It seems the soils = the earth = the heart of men
      • It seems the heart of men can be useful (verses of no use) and of a high quality (vs. a low quality, which presupposes there is a standard).
        • Personally I enjoy understanding the truth of how God views men (the heart of men is related to the mind of men elsewhere in Scripture) - useful vs. of no use - high quality vs. low quality
          • This reminds of of Romans 1 since we were discussing it - When men see no value in having God in their experiential knowledge, God sees their mind as having no value (Rom1:28) - compares well to useless and low quality.
          • Also reminds me that Gehenna was a constantly burning trash dump.
          • Harsh but clear and direct truth from Scripture concerning some of humanity.
    • Men with a useful and high quality heart hold the Word firmly and by endurance produce fruit to maturity.
      • Endurance is an important - eve vital word for Christians. Hebrews focuses on it to some degree. As do some other writings.
      • It also draws us back to Soil 2 and is the opposite of believing for a time.

It strikes me, since we're discussing seeking and you have been discussing election, that there are more than a few considerations here:

• I don't really see any statement or focus re: men seeking.
  • Maybe a sower is seeking some good soil, but this concept would need to be inserted and I'll say more about it below.
• To support their system, some seem to need to say God is the farmer and prepared the soil. This may be a something to consider, but it is not a clear necessity here.
• Most simply, this just seems to say:
  • There are different conditions of heart in men.
    • Why there are is not detailed to any great degree other than:
      • Some are not useful and low in quality:
        • The diabolos can remove the Word from them
        • Some from self-interest cannot or do not reject temptation and depart from belief.
        • Some from self-interest are caused by things to move to being choked out, so no production.
        • Whatever belief there is - as in Soil 2 - it does not or cannot endure.
        • Although no production of mature fruit is stated until Soil 3, it seems clear that none of the Soils 1-3 produce fruit to maturity - none reach the goal.
      • Some are useful and of high quality:
        • How they got that way is not stated.
        • The diabolos cannot remove the Word from them.
        • They seem to not be self-interested and can reject temptation and remain in belief.
        • They seem to not be self-interested so worries and wealth and enjoyments cannot move them and choke them out to non production.
        • They produce fruit to maturity which seems clearly to be the goal of the sower
  • Sowing the Word seems to be done everywhere, which doesn't seem too prudent, but does seem to be stated.
    • Whereas a sower could readily distinguish useful, high quality soil from weedy soil, rocks, and roads that men trample, men as sowers of the Word cannot readily see useful and high quality hearts. Maybe some can to a degree and in some cases, but not as a general rule, and I don't see Jesus telling us here to sow the [abundant] seed sparingly and conservatively and only in some men.

There's probably more to note here, but maybe this is a base.

 

[PaulThomson]

Yes, and the Almighty God who has in eternity decreed the end also decreed all the MEANS to achieve that END! We have numerous examples. Again, Joseph is perhaps the quintessential example in the OT, whereby Joseph revealed that while all that his brothers did him they meant for evil, God however meant it for good! And then we have the Cross of Christ with Christ himself is the supreme example in all the bible (Act 4:27-28).

Where does the Bible say God decreed anything "from eternity". Or the decreed all the means to the end from eternity?

The Hebrew word translated by some as "meant" in the case of Joseph's betrayal has the primary meaning of "to weave".
The brothers wove their actions for evil, but God wove them for good. The picture is of the brothers weaving an evil design and God commandeering their work and adding His own weaving to produce a good result. It does not credit the brothers work to God.

Gen. 50:20 But as for you, ye thought (HaShaBiTeM: Qal completed action, wove) evil against me; but God meant (HaSHBaH Qal completed action: wove) [their evil] unto good, to bring to pass, as it is today, to save much people alive.

So, what he have with Hezekiah are these decrees:

1. God decreed [the End] that He would deliver Jerusalem and the king from the Assyrians
2. God decreed that he would give the king a miraculous sign for his assurance
3. God decreed that he would add 15 years to Hezekiah's life.
4. God immediately upon hearing the king's petition decreed to him that He would heal him.
5. God decreed the king, upon hearing the news, would humble himself and weep bitterly
6. God decreed through the prophet, that the king would not survive his illness.
7.God decreed a serious illness would befall the king.

What a confused timeline you have produced in your attempt to keep your calvinistic system viable. Here is the order the Bible gives.

Hezekiah became sick.
6. God decreed through the prophet, that the king would not survive his illness.
Hezekiah prayed.
4. God immediately upon hearing the king's petition decreed to him that He would heal him.
God decreed that he would heal Hezekiah.
3. God decreed that He would add 15 years to Hezekiah's life.
1. God decreed that He would deliver Jerusalem and the king from the Assyrians
God prescribed a fig poultice.
Hezekiah asked for a sign that the poultice would work.
2. God decreed that he would give the king a miraculous sign for his assurance., reither advancing or reversing the sun's course 10 degrees
Hezekiah chose reversing the sun.
Hezekiah submitted to the treatment.

Neither of these folowing decrees were mentioned as given. You made them up.
5. God decreed the king, upon hearing the news, would humble himself and weep bitterly
7.God decreed a serious illness would befall the king.

At first blush, this order of things might seem a little strange, but it is perfectly logical. Points 2 thru 7 are all subsevient to the End (#1) since they serve as means to accomplish the Primary End.

The End was actually the FIRST decree and all the others were means employed by God to achieve this END, starting with #7, this End being the deliverance of His holy city and this godly king. So, while all the means preceded the End in temporal reality, nonetheless in God's mind (eternal, unseen, invisible reality) all the means served his number 1 purpose -- a purpose that existed in his mind prior to the means. Paradoxical? Absolutely! With respect to this profound paradox, I will appeal to Natural Revelation in a subsequent post to prove this premise.

It's not perfectly logical. It's your post hoc rationalisation to attempt to make the Bible seem to say what agrees with your calvinistic presuppositions. The reason God added deliverance from Assyria, delaying the destruction He ha decreed, was to avoid the added 15 years being a curse of subjugation to Assyria.

Your argument fails on three fatal flaws. Your argument rests on the premise that God changed his mind after discovering how Hezekiah responded to prophet's bad news. This premise clearly implies that God's change of mind (his will) was contingent on the king's prayer and tearful response. Yet, the very passage itself contradicts this inference!

2 Kings 20:-6
6 I will add fifteen years to your life. And I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria. I will defend this city for my sake and for the sake of my servant David.'"
NIV

But you omitted v, 5 Turn again, and tell Hezekiah, the captain of my people, "Thus says the LORD the God of your Father David, 'I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; behold I will heal you: on the third day you shall go up unto the house of the LORD.' "

Your presuppositions has so blinded you that you have missed entirely what this passage above is saying! Since God did not act for the sake of Hezekiah per se, then God's "change of mind" (so called) could not have been contingent on the king's response to the bad news. God "changed his mind" for the sake of his Holy City (City of David) that he was determined to defend FIRST for His own sake (read Glory) and secondly for the sake of King David (read Davidic Covenant)! Hezekiah, therefore, was but one of the "cogs in the wheel" -- he was a means to God's stated end (goal) stated in v.6. It was never God's plan to deliver the City apart from its king. God determined that the City would live in peace for the next 15 years along with its godly king.

And yet the text clerly says God herd Hezekiah's prayers and saw his tears so that He changed His decree. Calvinists don't seem to accept what scripture says, but always replace it with what their system demands God should have said..

This narrative serves as a great practical example of the doctrine of God's Sovereignty that Paul taught to the Ephesisans:

Eph 1:11-12
11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.
NIV

Ephesians very clearly presents what the purpose of God's will is. vv 54-5 and 9-12.
If I will/desire a goal and I finally get there, but by many originally unexpected obstacles that I needed to mitigate, I still worked out all things according to my will.

God's will is never contingent on the will of any of his creatures. NEVER!

That's not what the Bible says.

And lastly, God greatly covets his own Glory, for there is no one greater than He. Ultimately, he does all things for his own glory which he will never give to another.

Isa 48:9-11
9 For my own name's sake I delay my wrath;
for the sake of my praise I hold it back from you,
so as not to cut you off.
10 See, I have refined you, though not as silver;
I have tested you in the furnace of affliction.
11 For my own sake, for my own sake, I do this.
How can I let myself be defamed?
I will not yield my glory to another.
NIV

God doing something at some time for His own name's sake, does not mean that is the only reason He does things all the time. That is

It's interesting that "testing" is mentioned in this passage because this is exactly what happened with Hezekiah and his personal "furnance of affliction", i.e. his serious illness. And who was ultimately glorified by the king's affliction by which he was tested?

Finally, if you're right about God not knowing Hezekiah's response beforehand, then I suppose God didn't know what Abraham's response would be to his command to offer up Issac either? And this, too, accounted for why God "changed his mind" just before Abraham plunged his knife into his son's heart?

Personally, I could never take any comfort in such a god, or find any assurance in such a god, or find such a god to be trustworthy.

Correct, God did not know for sure what Abraham would do. But I think God always intended to stop Abraham from killing his son.

 

[PaulThomson]

I would think that in the biblical sense, it would mean the opposite of reject. In a positive sense, it would mean what Jesus said to his disciples, "come, follow me".

John 6:37
37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
NIV

If you had my argument about Unconditional Election taking place in the post-fall Garden, you would appreciate better what Jesus means by the bolded phrase. Adam, as you might recall, was cast out or driven out of the Garden because God considered him an enemy. Jesus also cast out on two different occasions the thieves and money changers in the temple because, he too considered them his Father's enemies. But in this verse above, Jesus promises that all that the Father gives to him, he will never turn away, reject, cast out, or drive away.

Which other words besides "come" do you believe have a special biblical sense that is unrelated to lexical meaning?

The opposite of reject is accept.

"Come" and "Follow me" mean two different things. They are two different actions. Come means to move to where I am. Follow me means move with me to the place to which I am going.



So when the crowd came across and around the lake to Jesus in Capernaum in John 6, were they accepting Jesus?

 

[PaulThomson]

In my last post (5518) I stated my understanding of God's logical order of his decrees in 2Ki 20:1-11 in a manner that would likely be counterintuitive to many if not most here. Once again for the sake of clarity, here is how I listed them:

1. God decreed [the End] that He would deliver Jerusalem and the king from the Assyrians
2. God decreed that he would give the king a miraculous sign for his assurance
3. God decreed that he would add 15 years to Hezekiah's life.
4. God immediately upon hearing the king's petition decreed to him that He would heal him.
5. God decreed the king, upon hearing the news, would humble himself and weep bitterly
5. God decreed through the prophet, that the king would not survive his illness.
7.God decreed a serious illness would befall the king.

Before appealing to Natural Revelation to support the above order, I would remind everyone once again of what Paul said:

Eph 1:11-12
11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.
NIV

I can find no compelling reason either in Special (divine) or Natural Revelation to not take "who works out everything" to mean what it literally says! Therefore, this would necessarily mean that God not only ordains Ends but all the Means to realize those Ends as well. And in my last post, I cited Joseph in the OT and Christ in the New as stellar examples of this truth.

Quick true story: Several years ago, I was having this discussion with a hardcore atheist on a secular forum, who ironically was machinery parts designer, and we were discussing causes and effects. Naturally, in his worldly view of life he boldly claimed that Causes (means) always precede Effects (ends). I challenged such a brash and bold claim. I retorted that his claim is only true in this physical world, but it was certainly not true in the spiritual, unseen, immaterial world --- such as the human mind. In this latter world, it's a whole different ball game. Effects very often precede Causes in the human mind (intellect). Of course, I went on to give several examples,etc. Effects in inventors' minds always precede Causes (means).

Take the famous Wright Brothers, for example. They invented the first airplane. When the idea of a flying machine or device entered their mind, they already has a pretty good idea of what it would look like and what it would do and generally how it would be done. I would think from their study of nature (birds), they would understand that their machine would need wings like a bird for purposes of air uplift. And they would understand that they would need other assisting "feathers" that would operate tail feathers to steer the machine, etc. And they would need power to get enough airlift up under the wings, etc, etc. In other words, they had this image of a flying machine in their mind, which then was transferred to paper for easier modification and study, and then from there proceeded to the actual building stage. In other words, the concept (as rough as it may have been) of this winged machine was in their minds long before all the many means were that would be necessary to actually transform their intellectual concept into a physical reality.

We've all heard the old adage: "Necessity is the Mother of all Inventions"? Well, necessity begets an idea or concept in the human mind, and that idea/concept is the End. The Means will then inevitably follow any End that is rationally and reasonably attainable. Because man is created in God's image, I have to think we share this in common with God. Of course, we can't create or invent ex nihilo, as God has, but still God's original plan for a Garden of Eden world whereby he would dwell with his creation forever and he would partner with us for his glory to accomplish things that hasn't even entered our minds is being fulfilled. It's no accident that God's story of Garden and Redemption begins in Genesis -- a book of "beginnings" that reveals what God's intentions were for Adam and Eve, and that God's story ends in Revelation that just as clearly reveals that this earth will one day be transformed to its prior Edenic glory, if not better! How ironic is this!? Remember what the prophet said: That God declared the End from the Beginning!? The End was declared in the opening chapters of Genesis and all that follows in the Sacred Text reveals the Means to get to that End in Rev 21- 22. These latter chapters circle back to the early chapters of Genesis. The End truly was declared in the Beginning as Isaiah said.
And the only way any of us can have supreme confidence that we'll see that End is if we believe that the Playwright, Producer and Director of this Divine Play on His World Stage is taking us there for the Glory of our Praise!

You seem to be making my case for me. The wright brothers had a goal in mind, a flying machine that could carry at least one human being. That end was set before they began working on it. No, even as finite human beings they were able to navigate through all the unexpected problems and obstacles and human sabotage that they encountered, to achieve the end they had postulated at the beginning. Theu just needed enough intelligence to solve problems that arose along the way. They did not need to meticulously control everything between the setting of the goal and the achievement of the goal.

Surely, God is MORE intelligent than men, and is well able to problem-solve around unforeseen obstacles to his goals, without having to meticulously control every aspect of His projects. A God who needs to meticulously control every detail from go to whoa to avoid the sabbotage of His projects is less powerful and less intelligent than one who can beat sabbotage attempts in real time so as to still achieve His goals.

 

[Rufus]

Sorry, I think I missed this one.

Could you please clarify how Calvin uses or how you understand the 4 Soils to be interpreted in Calvinism? How does a universal men don't seek (maybe I'm misunderstanding you) compare to "some unregenerate men seek God" pursuant to the 4 Soils?

I'd like to stick with Romans 1 and get to this afterward if you're agreeable. If you have a quick answer here this is good also.

I have no idea how Calvin viewed the Four Soils in Jesus' parable. But this parable came to mind, because at least two of those soils (kinds of hearts) had their brief encounter with God but of course didn't persevere in the faith because their faith was spurious due to the kind of hearts they had. So, yes, men can "seek" after God...and then depart from him. I'm also mindful of those "seekers of Christ" in John 6 who followed Christ for ulterior reasons. Verse 66 of this chapter is very revealing as is v. 43. Since many stopped following him according to the former verse, then I can only infer from the latter text that the Father never truly drew them to the Son.

I will address your earlier post tomorrow, Lord willin' and the crik doesn't rise.

 

[Rufus]

Which other words besides "come" do you believe have a special biblical sense that is unrelated to lexical meaning?

The opposite of reject is accept.

"Come" and "Follow me" mean two different things. They are two different actions. Come means to move to where I am. Follow me means move with me to the place to which I am going.



So when the crowd came across and around the lake to Jesus in Capernaum in John 6, were they accepting Jesus?

Those who come to Christ no longer reject them. Those who come accept his invitation (Mat 11:28). Furthermore, He welcomes them accepts them; for unlike his enemies, he will never cast them away.

Yes...of course they "accepted" Jesus...with their own selfish, ulterior motives, which is why their fascination with Him in John 6 was very short lived (v. 66).

 

[Rufus]

You seem to be making my case for me. The wright brothers had a goal in mind, a flying machine that could carry at least one human being. That end was set before they began working on it. No, even as finite human beings they were able to navigate through all the unexpected problems and obstacles and human sabotage that they encountered, to achieve the end they had postulated at the beginning. Theu just needed enough intelligence to solve problems that arose along the way. They did not need to meticulously control everything between the setting of the goal and the achievement of the goal.

Surely, God is MORE intelligent than men, and is well able to problem-solve around unforeseen obstacles to his goals, without having to meticulously control every aspect of His projects. A God who needs to meticulously control every detail from go to whoa to avoid the sabbotage of His projects is less powerful and less intelligent than one who can beat sabbotage attempts in real time so as to still achieve His goals.

No intelligent, rational being can realize an objective (end, goal, effect) apart from controlling and ordering all the means (causes) necessary to finally realize the end. God works ALL things together...including all the Means to achieve his desired End.

 

[Rufus]

I'm going to start here rather than with Rom3:11, which I already said a few things about based upon its quoting Ps14 and/or Ps53. We may well progress back to this.

I'd like to go back to Rom1 before progressing and respond to a few things you said above.

• You use "Natural Revelation" and I've spoken of the same as "General Revelation". So we're both speaking together, I'll use NR as you are.
• I don't see Rom1:21 saying no one can understand spiritual truth.
  • It seems clear that Rom1 is telling us that men do know God - certain things about God - from the NR He has revealed.
  • God's existence is spiritual truth - spiritual reality - and He has made certain that all men know what NR tells us about Him.
    • As an aside, this is why I cut short discussions with atheists and agnostics. I believe it's clear that they know certain things about God and have decided to reject Him. This seems to be clear from this part of Rom1.
    • And this is part of the issue re: Rom1 as I'm understanding you:
      • I used the word "decided" and I think you disagree with this or might say that God did not make it clear to them (please correct me if I misunderstand you).
      • But I think Rom1 is saying precisely this; God did make His existence clear, to every man through NR:'
        • His existence - what may be known of God from NR - is clearly/plainly seen in/by/among them (depending how we interpret the preposition "en") - God made it clear to them Rom1:19
        • His invisibles (eternal power and divinity) are clearly understood Rom1:20
  • Through NR men have some level of clear understanding of God - spiritual truth.
  • Only some men reject this, which seems to be clear as Paul continues.
    • Should we say at this point that God elected some to reject Him and that they have no excuse for doing so?
• You mention the flesh not wanting to retain knowledge of God [gained via NR].
  • We could probably wring this out and find some agreement, but the Text just says they did not glorify Him as God nor were they thankful to Him Rom1:21
    • Again, is this because they were not elected by God to glorify Him or thank Him based upon NR that God gives all men?
  • Then the Text say they saw no value in having God in experiential knowledge Rom1:28
    • Again, is this because they were not elected by God to see any value in having God as an experiential part of their life?
• Now there also seems to be a progressive degeneration going on here that began with their not glorifying God as God and not being thankful to Him.
  • It seems some do glorify Him and thank Him based upon NR.
    • Why should we insert election back into this and say men have no innate abilities or capacities given to them by God to respond to His NR?
    • One of my concerns about certain views of election is that some verses end up being used globally and being inserted where they don't belong. Whether they are being used out of immediate context or out of the context of the entire counsel of God is a matter of potentially many levels of interpretation.

Re: Rom2 or 3 or anything beyond Rom1, I hope you'd agree that just as correct interpretation can be used for a basis for continuing context, so can incorrect interpretation become the basis for additional incorrect interpretation.

Again, in and out a bit and other things to ay attention to, so I may come and go here. I will try to watch for your responses. I may also have to take some time and ponder what you say.

 

[PaulThomson]

No intelligent, rational being can realize an objective (end, goal, effect) apart from controlling and ordering all the means (causes) necessary to finally realize the end. God works ALL things together...including all the Means to achieve his desired End.

Yes, God works all things together. WE agree on that.

If I ask a classroom of students each to bring something from home to school and I will create a piece of artwork from all the items, after that artwork is completed, I had worked all things involved together for good. But I did not make the contributed items nor did I know what they would be. God does not need to know in advance what men will do, nor does God need to engineer all stages of the process of men doing things, to nevertheless work all things together for good. If the end goal is good, and the end goal is achieved, then all things were worked together for good.

Honestly, that's not hard to understand, is it?

 

[Rufus]

I'm going to start here rather than with Rom3:11, which I already said a few things about based upon its quoting Ps14 and/or Ps53. We may well progress back to this.

I'd like to go back to Rom1 before progressing and respond to a few things you said above.

• You use "Natural Revelation" and I've spoken of the same as "General Revelation". So we're both speaking together, I'll use NR as you are.
• I don't see Rom1:21 saying no one can understand spiritual truth.
  • It seems clear that Rom1 is telling us that men do know God - certain things about God - from the NR He has revealed.
  • God's existence is spiritual truth - spiritual reality - and He has made certain that all men know what NR tells us about Him.
    • As an aside, this is why I cut short discussions with atheists and agnostics. I believe it's clear that they know certain things about God and have decided to reject Him. This seems to be clear from this part of Rom1.
    • And this is part of the issue re: Rom1 as I'm understanding you:
      • I used the word "decided" and I think you disagree with this or might say that God did not make it clear to them (please correct me if I misunderstand you).
      • But I think Rom1 is saying precisely this; God did make His existence clear, to every man through NR:'
        • His existence - what may be known of God from NR - is clearly/plainly seen in/by/among them (depending how we interpret the preposition "en") - God made it clear to them Rom1:19
        • His invisibles (eternal power and divinity) are clearly understood Rom1:20
  • Through NR men have some level of clear understanding of God - spiritual truth.
  • Only some men reject this, which seems to be clear as Paul continues.
    • Should we say at this point that God elected some to reject Him and that they have no excuse for doing so?
• You mention the flesh not wanting to retain knowledge of God [gained via NR].
  • We could probably wring this out and find some agreement, but the Text just says they did not glorify Him as God nor were they thankful to Him Rom1:21
    • Again, is this because they were not elected by God to glorify Him or thank Him based upon NR that God gives all men?
  • Then the Text say they saw no value in having God in experiential knowledge Rom1:28
    • Again, is this because they were not elected by God to see any value in having God as an experiential part of their life?
• Now there also seems to be a progressive degeneration going on here that began with their not glorifying God as God and not being thankful to Him.
  • It seems some do glorify Him and thank Him based upon NR.
    • Why should we insert election back into this and say men have no innate abilities or capacities given to them by God to respond to His NR?
    • One of my concerns about certain views of election is that some verses end up being used globally and being inserted where they don't belong. Whether they are being used out of immediate context or out of the context of the entire counsel of God is a matter of potentially many levels of interpretation.

Re: Rom2 or 3 or anything beyond Rom1, I hope you'd agree that just as correct interpretation can be used for a basis for continuing context, so can incorrect interpretation become the basis for additional incorrect interpretation.

Again, in and out a bit and other things to ay attention to, so I may come and go here. I will try to watch for your responses. I may also have to take some time and ponder what you say.

I see Romans 1 and 2 as first two steps to the lead up to Romans 3, which I view as God's Universal Indictment against all mankind. The first two chapters of Romans is Paul's justification for the indictment.

You asked the question, "Why should we insert election back into this...?". I'm not! If I'm "inserting" anything, it's the doctrine of Total Depravity since chapter 1 itself justifies this understanding. Even though God made certain things about himself plain to men, and even though they understood these rudimentary truths about God the sons of men suppressed that truth by their unrighteousness because they did not wish to retain that knowledge in their consciousness. It appears to me, at least in the case of NR, the core problem with mankind is that we don't want to understand because of our wicked hearts. Men won't respond positively to the Light God has given them because they love the darkness (Jn 3:19).

My second big takeaway from Romans 1 is that since men don't even want to know things about God, then how much less do they want to actually know him through Special Revelation? To answer this question, we have to look no further than to Christ's ministry during his first advent. Christ, being fully Divine is also the very embodiment of the Word of God (Jn 1:1). He is the Living Word. God spoke to the sons of men in these last days through his Son (Heb 1:2). Yet, what does scripture tell us about the kind of personal reception he received from his own people, generally? It says that "he came to his own, but his own received him not" (Jn 1:11). "His own" suppressed the truth he revealed to them and desired so much to get this Righteous Man out of their consciousness that they murdered him! (How many Christians have told stories about their conversion experience that included losing a large number of their former friends because they couldn't bear the transformed Christian's company?) I have to think that after the Jews had witnessed so many of his miracles and signs and wonders, they did "understand" that he was their long awaited, prophesied Messiah! But that understanding was insufficient for their salvation, as I'll now elaborate.

So if what I have just said is also true, then how are we to understand Rom 3:11 that says in part that "no one understands"? This particular text doesn't say that no one can understand -- only that no one does -- period! What is it that "no one understands"? I think this means that no one [fully] understands the Gospel Truth. After all, it is the Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes (Rom 1:16). And while this Gospel is the Good News of God's great salvation through Christ, paradoxically this same Gospel contains very bad news about the dismal, dire and desperate spiritual condition of mankind -- a condition that at its very core says that the hearts of men are deceitful above all else and desperately wicked -- so much so -- who can understand it (Jer 17:9)? And I submit to you, brother, that this is what the sons of men don't understand, nor can they (1Cor 2:14).

Many a wise and righteous evangelist and many learned theologians have rightly said that no one will ever receive the Good News of the Gospel until they first come to grips with the very bad news about themselves. How can anyone see (understand) their desperate need for the good news until they first see the horrible news about themselves? To posit otherwise, would truly be putting the cart before the horse. The natural man never wants to see himself as God sees him! It's as natural, as breathing air, for men to protect, defend and justify their dignity, integrity and character. The natural man never sees himself as part of mankind's problem, only as the solution. And to reinforce this horrible self-misconception that exacerbates the problem, the sons of men are prone to wax like the self-righteous Pharisee who thanked God that he was so much different from the lowly, degenerate tax gatherer who was praying next to him (Lk 18:10-14)! It's so much easier to believe in Relative Truth than in the Absolute kind, especially when the deck is stacked in our favor.

Therefore, at the end of the day, understanding a half-truth is still believing a lie. And believing lies is in the DNA for the natural man. "Let God be true, and every man a liar" (Rom 3:4) would be a much better comparison for mankind to make.

In closing, if you want to see a passage into which I actually "injected" Unconditional Election you might want to consider my argument of what really happened in the post-fall Garden (posts 3044 and 3567).

 

[Rufus]

Yes, God works all things together. WE agree on that.

If I ask a classroom of students each to bring something from home to school and I will create a piece of artwork from all the items, after that artwork is completed, I had worked all things involved together for good. But I did not make the contributed items nor did I know what they would be. God does not need to know in advance what men will do, nor does God need to engineer all stages of the process of men doing things, to nevertheless work all things together for good. If the end goal is good, and the end goal is achieved, then all things were worked together for good.

Honestly, that's not hard to understand, is it?

Poor analogy because you never told the students precisely what you would make from the items they would randomly bring to class. You just said basically, "Ill create something...". Conversely, God does very specific things to accomplish very explicit ends.

Meanwhile, you still don't get what Isa 46:11 is teaching. The passage clearly teaches that God uses secondary means to accomplish his ends. God can use anything or anyone at his disposal to accomplish his purposes. And I have provided biblical examples of this truth. But you still don't want to believe.

 

[Rufus]

[QUOTE="PaulThomson, post: 5303685, member: 327121"]Dispositional will and Decretive will are not biblical terms. they are terms calvinists invented to plug holes an their system and explain why the bible dies not mean what it says. Your use of these terms is a glaring example of what you are denying doing. Gaslights anyone?

No one can thwart God's purpose. But God can change His purpose according to how people respond to his purpose. you are denying God's sovereignty, when you, a mere creature, forbid Him to change His planned ends to different ends. God says in scripture that He does that, but you contradict Him. Who are you, O man, to contradict God?[/QUOTE]

But like the Incarnation and the Trinity, they are biblical concepts. So, what is your point? We have discussed this kind of issue previously. To be consistent with yourself, will you deny both of the above mentioned doctrines?

 

[PaulThomson]

Poor analogy because you never told the students precisely what you would make from the items they would randomly bring to class. You just said basically, "Ill create something...". Conversely, God does very specific things to accomplish very explicit ends.

Meanwhile, you still don't get what Isa 46:11 is teaching. The passage clearly teaches that God uses secondary means to accomplish his ends. God can use anything or anyone at his disposal to accomplish his purposes. And I have provided biblical examples of this truth. But you still don't want to believe.

God does not any more precisely say what He will produce in His decrees than I tld my students. You simply refuse to consider any rational alternative reading to texts that would render calvinism obsolete. You are a prisoner to your ideology.

 

[PaulThomson]

[QUOTE="PaulThomson, post: 5303685, member: 327121"]Dispositional will and Decretive will are not biblical terms. they are terms calvinists invented to plug holes an their system and explain why the bible dies not mean what it says. Your use of these terms is a glaring example of what you are denying doing. Gaslights anyone?

No one can thwart God's purpose. But God can change His purpose according to how people respond to his purpose. you are denying God's sovereignty, when you, a mere creature, forbid Him to change His planned ends to different ends. God says in scripture that He does that, but you contradict Him. Who are you, O man, to contradict God?

But like the Incarnation and the Trinity, they are biblical concepts. So, what is your point? We have discussed this kind of issue previously. To be consistent with yourself, will you deny both of the above mentioned doctrines?[/QUOTE]
The difference is that I can logically reason from what scripture actually says to justify the deduction that God is a community of three ever-existing persons ruling unanimously as One, and that one of those persons became a human being. But scripture doesn't say anything that leads logically to the idea that God exhaustively predetermines everything that comes to pass without being the author of evil and without being blameworthy for sin.