Understanding God’s election

[Kroogz]

I'm not a Calvinist as you suggest.

Yes, you are. And it is not an indictment on my lack of intellect......It's an indictment on your plethora of posts.

 

[studier]

Your assumptions concerning Cornelius are wrong. They don't reconcile with Romans 8. If you believe God is responding to something in Cornelius, you must first explain how what is said to be true of Cornelius came to be true of him in light of Roman 8. How did a man who was born with a carnal nature, who is at enmity with God, who is not subject to the law, who cannot please God and, thus, is unable to exercise faith, come to be described as fearing God, working righteousness, and accepted of God? We are not told this in Acts 10. It is merely stated as being true. Given Romans 8, do you believe he entered this estate apart from God?

So, no response to the Dan4 part of the discussion? Are you conceding that it was not a good Scripture to substantiate your point?

Re: Cornelius, I think your assumptions are wrong. What's said about him is very clear and he was yet to be evangelized re: Jesus Christ.

After you wrote this, I answered another of your posts that has some answers to this one, so some of this will be repetitive:

• When you look at Scriptures like the ones I provided re: obedience and faith in Israel and faith from Abel onward, do you not get the sense that Rom8 is not as absolute as you're seeing it? Did you not consider the internal struggle Paul speaks of in Rom7?
• Do you think God circumcised Abel's heart so he could exercise faith? Or was Abel not born carnal?
• The same goes for John the Baptist's parents Luke1?

I don't have to reconcile Rom8 with Acts10 and I've already explained in part why.

I read the Text to say that although there is an internal struggle in men, there is plenty of Scripture that says that even with this struggle in conscience and human will, there has been faith from Abel on, and there has been obedience to Torah and to conscience, and not all reject the knowledge of God's power and divinity that God has endowed in men and provided proof of in His creation.

When we read Scripture like Romans, we're getting some deep analysis of the human condition under sin and death and law and in Rom8 an epiphany from Paul as to what has taken place in Christ to free Christians from that condition. Though he says someone thinking and walking in flesh can't keep law, he also says he struggled in his will to keep it and in Phil3 he says he was doing the righteousness of the law pre-Christ. So was Zechariah and Elizabeth.

So, why don't you just state your theory of all this? Have you concluded that these people were not born carnal, or were born carnal then circumcised in heart throughout history pre-Christ? If not, then what?

We're obviously working in different directions.

 

[studier]

It actually says one in such an estate can neither be obedient because they are not subject to the law nor able to act in faith as they cannot please God.
I don't deny that there were Jews who were saved. I'm simply saying that just like everyone else, something or Someone was responsible for the change in their estate.

Leaving this one aside. I think we're discussing this on another or other posts.

 

[studier]

You don't get it. It is descriptive of the condition of fallen man. And it clearly indicates that someone in that estate cannot please God or exercise faith.
Now take the leap...if someone is unable to obey God or exercise faith, how can they obey the command to believe or be saved by faith? They cannot. Something must be altered before those things can happen. Since man, himself, is unable to alter his estate, the necessity of God to bring grace.

I do get it. I think you're making wrong conclusions about fallen man's ability to exercise faith and to be obedient to God to varying degrees.

Rather than trying to force me into your conclusion, why don't you just state what you think God does for people so they can believe? Are you resting on Acts2 being circumcision of hearts so man can believe?

 

[Cameron143]

Yes, you are. And it is not an indictment on my lack of intellect......It's an indictment on your plethora of posts.

To be a Calvinist one would have to associate themselves with Calvin, study the teachings of Calvin, and knowingly espouse his views. I have done none of these things. You like to lump people into predetermined mindsets so you don't actually have to wrestle through the scripture.

 

[studier]

You make my point...they are not willing. Such is the estate of the natural man.

But some were willing, so you're saying they were not natural men before they believed Jesus is YHWH's Christ? Also asked on other posts by now.

Are you saying that there were only 3000 people who heard Peter's message?

I'm saying what Acts2:41 says and saying it's not clear to me that any who heard did not believe. But I'm just glancing through the chapter so if you have additional Scripture, please feel free to provide it.

 

[Kroogz]

To be a Calvinist one would have to associate themselves with Calvin, study the teachings of Calvin, and knowingly espouse his views. I have done none of these things. You like to lump people into predetermined mindsets so you don't actually have to wrestle through the scripture.

Yeah. You have a point. You are reformed theology...... A calvie to anyone who has some sense.

 

[Cameron143]

So, no response to the Dan4 part of the discussion? Are you conceding that it was not a good Scripture to substantiate your point?

Re: Cornelius, I think your assumptions are wrong. What's said about him is very clear and he was yet to be evangelized re: Jesus Christ.

After you wrote this, I answered another of your posts that has some answers to this one, so some of this will be repetitive:

• When you look at Scriptures like the ones I provided re: obedience and faith in Israel and faith from Abel onward, do you not get the sense that Rom8 is not as absolute as you're seeing it? Did you not consider the internal struggle Paul speaks of in Rom7?
• Do you think God circumcised Abel's heart so he could exercise faith? Or was Abel not born carnal?
• The same goes for John the Baptist's parents Luke1?

I don't have to reconcile Rom8 with Acts10 and I've already explained in part why.

I read the Text to say that although there is an internal struggle in men, there is plenty of Scripture that says that even with this struggle in conscience and human will, there has been faith from Abel on, and there has been obedience to Torah and to conscience, and not all reject the knowledge of God's power and divinity that God has endowed in men and provided proof of in His creation.

When we read Scripture like Romans, we're getting some deep analysis of the human condition under sin and death and law and in Rom8 an epiphany from Paul as to what has taken place in Christ to free Christians from that condition. Though he says someone thinking and walking in flesh can't keep law, he also says he struggled in his will to keep it and in Phil3 he says he was doing the righteousness of the law pre-Christ. So was Zechariah and Elizabeth.

So, why don't you just state your theory of all this? Have you concluded that these people were not born carnal, or were born carnal then circumcised in heart throughout history pre-Christ? If not, then what?

We're obviously working in different directions.

The point of Daniel 4 was to show God acts sovereignly in the affairs of men. Whether this is witnessed to by a heathen king or not, it remains the witness of scripture. I used that verse because it was the first to my memory. There are others, even in Acts 2 that demonstrate that the will of God is not hindered by the actions of men.
As far as Cornelius is concerned, you still have yet to show how he went from what was true of him in Romans 8 to the estate he is in in Acts 10. Do you now have an explanation?
The internal struggle in Romans 7 is indicative of what happens to a man when God begins to deal with him. It is basically the same internal struggle all go through when coming to salvation. I would even suggest to you it was part of Cornelius' experience.
The obedience and faith exemplified in the OT is no different than today. God has been at work in the world reconciling people to Himself since sin was introduced. Simply because God chose to reveal salvation more intimately in the NT doesn't mean that the condition of man has changed from the onset of sin or that salvation has ever been different. Salvation has always been by grace through faith and I have demonstrated on numerous occasions you can find blood sacrifice, imputed righteousness, grace, faith, men calling upon the name of the Lord, etc. all within the first 12 chapters of Genesis. While we have a more succinct description and application recorded in the NT, it is all to be found in the OT.

 

[Magenta]

the will of God is not hindered by the actions of men.

Isaiah 46 verse 10 I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, 'My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.'

 

[studier]

The point of Daniel 4 was to show God acts sovereignly in the affairs of men. Whether this is witnessed to by a heathen king or not, it remains the witness of scripture. I used that verse because it was the first to my memory. There are others, even in Acts 2 that demonstrate that the will of God is not hindered by the actions of men.

OK. So, sovereignty means God doesn't choose based upon anything in man. Not even if

As far as Cornelius is concerned, you still have yet to show how he went from what was true of him in Romans 8 to the estate he is in in Acts 10. Do you now have an explanation?

Asked and answered more than once.

The internal struggle in Romans 7 is indicative of what happens to a man when God begins to deal with him. It is basically the same internal struggle all go through when coming to salvation. I would even suggest to you it was part of Cornelius' experience.

I don't see it as being so personal and related to coming to salvation except for how Paul was working through it coming to understand the Torah's function. He's already dealt with man's conscience in Rom2. Whether Jew or Gentile the struggle is there as it's designed to be until in some the struggle has lessened to varying degrees and even overridden. In this regard I think it also ties into Rom1 and a person's response to having God in their knowledge, which they can reject.

Bottom line, for Rom8 to be in an absolute sense does not make sense.

The obedience and faith exemplified in the OT is no different than today. God has been at work in the world reconciling people to Himself since sin was introduced. Simply because God chose to reveal salvation more intimately in the NT doesn't mean that the condition of man has changed from the onset of sin or that salvation has ever been different. Salvation has always been by grace through faith and I have demonstrated on numerous occasions you can find blood sacrifice, imputed righteousness, grace, faith, men calling upon the name of the Lord, etc. all within the first 12 chapters of Genesis. While we have a more succinct description and application recorded in the NT, it is all to be found in the OT.

So, this is your answer - men were saved pre-Christ?

I don't read most of your posts if not discussing with you.

 

[Cameron143]

I do get it. I think you're making wrong conclusions about fallen man's ability to exercise faith and to be obedient to God to varying degrees.

Rather than trying to force me into your conclusion, why don't you just state what you think God does for people so they can believe? Are you resting on Acts2 being circumcision of hearts so man can believe?

I believe God is categorically stating that an individual who is carnal is not subject to the law, nor can be. This means that such a one cannot be obedient. This doesn't mean that some form of outward obedience cannot be manifested, but the motivation for obedience is selfish and not motivated towards pleasing God, as this too God categorically says is not possible. And since the only way to please God is by faith, such a one cannot exercise faith. And if one cannot exercise faith, they cannot be saved by faith in their current estate.
Since all mankind begins in a carnal estate, and man cannot alter this estate in such a condition, I posited that left to himself, no man would ever get saved.

This also explains Romans 3:10 and following as to why there are none who are righteous, none who understand, and why none are seeking after God.

 

[Cameron143]

But some were willing, so you're saying they were not natural men before they believed Jesus is YHWH's Christ? Also asked on other posts by now.



I'm saying what Acts2:41 says and saying it's not clear to me that any who heard did not believe. But I'm just glancing through the chapter so if you have additional Scripture, please feel free to provide it.

So there were only 3000 people in Jerusalem the day of Pentecost? Is that your position? My research suggests that upwards of 200,000 would have been present in the city that day. And quite a stir it was when all the commotion began. I find it difficult to believe only 3000 heard Peter speak.

 

[Cameron143]

OK. So, sovereignty means God doesn't choose based upon anything in man. Not even if



Asked and answered more than once.



I don't see it as being so personal and related to coming to salvation except for how Paul was working through it coming to understand the Torah's function. He's already dealt with man's conscience in Rom2. Whether Jew or Gentile the struggle is there as it's designed to be until in some the struggle has lessened to varying degrees and even overridden. In this regard I think it also ties into Rom1 and a person's response to having God in their knowledge, which they can reject.

Bottom line, for Rom8 to be in an absolute sense does not make sense.



So, this is your answer - men were saved pre-Christ?

I don't read most of your posts if not discussing with you.

Yes, men were saved before the cross. Their faith was in anticipation of a future Messiah...John 8:56.

 

[studier]

I believe God is categorically stating that an individual who is carnal is not subject to the law, nor can be. This means that such a one cannot be obedient. This doesn't mean that some form of outward obedience cannot be manifested, but the motivation for obedience is selfish and not motivated towards pleasing God, as this too God categorically says is not possible. And since the only way to please God is by faith, such a one cannot exercise faith. And if one cannot exercise faith, they cannot be saved by faith in their current estate.

OK, this has all been pretty clear for some time.

Since all mankind begins in a carnal estate, and man cannot alter this estate in such a condition, I posited that left to himself, no man would ever get saved.

I don't think you're the only one who concludes this.

This also explains Romans 3:10 and following as to why there are none who are righteous, none who understand, and why none are seeking after God.

I think this is another misinterpretation of what's being stated there.

So, what is the solution to all this? What does God do to save men?

 

[Cameron143]

Yeah. You have a point. You are reformed theology...... A calvie to anyone who has some sense.

My theology could well be called reformed. But if you discuss scripture and not people, you might find you learn a thing or 2.

 

[Cameron143]

OK. So, sovereignty means God doesn't choose based upon anything in man. Not even if



Asked and answered more than once.



I don't see it as being so personal and related to coming to salvation except for how Paul was working through it coming to understand the Torah's function. He's already dealt with man's conscience in Rom2. Whether Jew or Gentile the struggle is there as it's designed to be until in some the struggle has lessened to varying degrees and even overridden. In this regard I think it also ties into Rom1 and a person's response to having God in their knowledge, which they can reject.

Bottom line, for Rom8 to be in an absolute sense does not make sense.



So, this is your answer - men were saved pre-Christ?

I don't read most of your posts if not discussing with you.

What was your answer? Did Cornelius through an act of his own will cause himself to no longer be carnal?

 

[Cameron143]

OK, this has all been pretty clear for some time.



I don't think you're the only one who concludes this.



I think this is another misinterpretation of what's being stated there.

So, what is the solution to all this? What does God do to save men?

He births them from above per John 3.

 

[studier]

So there were only 3000 people in Jerusalem the day of Pentecost?

Not what I said so why are you asking?

Are you going to propose an argument from silence or are you going to point to Scripture to show how many people heard Peter?

My research suggests that upwards of 200,000 would have been present in the city that day. And quite a stir it was when all the commotion began. I find it difficult to believe only 3000 heard Peter speak.

Understood. Do you agree we're not told how many heard Peter? Is it worth spending a bunch of time on?

It really doesn't matter to me. People can choose to accept or reject, and I see the issues as being in men.

 

[Cameron143]

OK, this has all been pretty clear for some time.



I don't think you're the only one who concludes this.



I think this is another misinterpretation of what's being stated there.

So, what is the solution to all this? What does God do to save men?

If you find an inconsistency in my logic, please point it out. You simply saying you don't believe what Romans 8:7-8 is saying doesn't refute what I shared.

 

[studier]

He births them from above per John 3.

Before they believe?