Understanding God’s election

[studier]

AGAIN: I'll be very happy to defend my interpretation of 1Cor 15:9-10 as soon as you give me a straight "yes" or "no" answer to the rhetorical question in Jer 13:23. (Comprende?)

Since you know I've answered you already and pointed you to follow the links back to find the answer, this fallacious tactic of Argument of Repetition leaves you asserting that you don't have to answer your interpretation of 1Cor since you posit falsely that I haven't answered you. You've got tools, I'll grant you that, albeit they're all fallacious argumentation methods that go along with your eisegetical methods. You clearly revel in the negative and are not to be trusted to get to Truth.

 

[Magenta]

"Free will" in the Bible? ~ Freedom is something believers are called to (Galatians 5 verse 13). We need Jesus to “set us free” (Galatians 5 verse 1). If Jesus has not freed us from the bondage of sin, then we are still slaves to sin (Romans 6 verses 6-7). Freedom is found in the presence of the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3 verse 17). Only Jesus can give us true freedom (John 8 verse 36). Only through His lovingkindness can we truly make choices unfettered by a nature that is inherently hostile toward God.

 

[Cameron143]

"Free will" in the Bible? ~ Freedom is something believers are called to (Galatians 5 verse 13). We need Jesus to “set us free” (Galatians 5 verse 1). If Jesus has not freed us from the bondage of sin, then we are still slaves to sin (Romans 6 verses 6-7). Freedom is found in the presence of the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3 verse 17). Only Jesus can give us true freedom (John 8 verse 36). Only through His lovingkindness can we truly make choices unfettered by a nature that is inherently hostile toward God.

This is a really good point. If we are already free, why does Jesus need to set us free? And just exactly what is He freeing us from and for?

 

[Magenta]

This is a really good point. If we are already free, why does Jesus need to set us free? And just exactly what is He freeing us from and for?

Thankfully the Bible does answer these questions, but the person who upholds the false doctrine of free will disagrees with the Bible on these matters, and thinks they are justified by inserting their imagined free will of the natural man when the freed will of the spiritual man is spoken of, because by and large they have no discernment when it comes to defining who is the natural man and who is the spiritual man, as we can see by how often they ascribe to the former man characteristics, qualities, and abilities that only the latter man is in possession of, and they compound their error by insisting that the natural man is not such a bad guy after all, despite all that is said of him in the negative, repeatedly, from the beginning of the Bible in Genesis to the very last book of Revelation, and he -the natural man, according to the free willer- has everything he needs in order to grow the good fruit of faith from the stony ground of his incurably wicked heart which is inherently opposed to the things of God, though he cannot change himself, being a lover of darkness who suppresses the truth in unrighteousness as a slave to sin and being hostile in his mind to God, blinded to the truth.

 

[GWH]

This is a really good point. If we are already free, why does Jesus need to set us free? And just exactly what is He freeing us from and for?

Just to clarify what the ping-pong is about...

What is in dispute is not the need to be set free but whether God is omniloving and just or shows favoritism
by setting only a few free and causing most of humanity to suffer in hell for eternity.

Back to the game...

 

[Cameron143]

Just to clarify what the ping-pong is about...

What is in dispute is not the need to be set free but whether God is omniloving and just or shows favoritism
by setting only a few free and causing most of humanity to suffer in hell for eternity.

Back to the game...

What one needs to be free of is of the utmost importance. The fact that Jesus must do it tells us we are incapable of setting ourselves free. That not everyone is set free is a certainty. Your concepts of omnilove and favoritism aren't biblical as I understand them. And most of humanity suffering in hell is ill-conceived as well. The promise to Abraham was that his offspring would be as numerous as the stars and grains of sand on the shoreline. Surely that is a great multitude. As the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our God and of His Christ, the numbers of Christians will begin to exceed the numbers who aren't Christians.

 

[GWH]

What one needs to be free of is of the utmost importance. The fact that Jesus must do it tells us we are incapable of setting ourselves free. That not everyone is set free is a certainty. Your concepts of omnilove and favoritism aren't biblical as I understand them. And most of humanity suffering in hell is ill-conceived as well. The promise to Abraham was that his offspring would be as numerous as the stars and grains of sand on the shoreline. Surely that is a great multitude. As the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our God and of His Christ, the numbers of Christians will begin to exceed the numbers who aren't Christians.

Well you are free to amend your understanding to believe God loves everyone and so does not show favoritism per Paul’s concept.

 

[Cameron143]

Well you are free to amend your understanding to believe God loves everyone and so does not show favoritism.

Why would I? It's easy to show from scripture that God doesn't set His affection upon all and that He has dealt differently with different groups at various times.

 

[Rufus]

Since you know I've answered you already and pointed you to follow the links back to find the answer, this fallacious tactic of Argument of Repetition leaves you asserting that you don't have to answer your interpretation of 1Cor since you posit falsely that I haven't answered you. You've got tools, I'll grant you that, albeit they're all fallacious argumentation methods that go along with your eisegetical methods. You clearly revel in the negative and are not to be trusted to get to Truth.

Give me the specific post number. (And besides, did you write another tome to answer a simple "yes" or "no" rhetorical question that is being asked in Jer 13:23? ) Why are you being such a drama queen, hiding behind links and ambiguous posts? Why do I have to follow any links to get a simple answer? Give me the specific post number or a simple straight up "yes" or "no".

 

[Rufus]

Just to clarify what the ping-pong is about...

What is in dispute is not the need to be set free but whether God is omniloving and just or shows favoritism
by setting only a few free and causing most of humanity to suffer in hell for eternity.

Back to the game...

Two things: God doesn't cause anyone to suffer in hell! Everyone in hell deserves to be their for their own sins, which they willingly committed. Conversely, everyone in heaven does not deserve to be there on their own merits.

Secondly, you have yet to tell us what the basis for such "favoritism" would be if God chooses many to save and passes over most in the world?

 

[studier]

More on the Efficacious Nature of God's Saving Grace

In addition to the oft-overlooked passage in 1Cor 15:9-10 wherein Paul describes the effects of the sanctifying grace that dominated his Christian life on an ongoing basis, we have these two Pauline passages as well:

2 Cor 8:1-5
1 We want you to know, brothers, about the grace of God that has been given among the churches of Macedonia, 2 for in a severe test of affliction, their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part. 3 For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own free will, 4 begging us earnestly for the favor of taking part in the relief of the saints— 5 and this, not as we expected, but they gave themselves first to the Lord and then by the will of God to us.
ESV

Three huge takeaways to this passage:
1. God's grace (v.1) is equated with His perfect will (v.5)
2. God's grace resulted in the Macedonians freely giving even out of their "extreme poverty"
3. The Macedonians, by the power of God's grace (His will!) turned to the apostles.

God's perfect will is truly compatible with man's will. The Macedonians freely chose TO give generously as a result of God's grace (will). Likewise, they freely gave themselves TO the apostles because it was God's will for them to do that, as well. Therefore, they gave themselves by the efficacy of God's grace! What God willed for them, they willingly performed, which nicely gives affirmation to this text:

Phil 2:13
13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
ESV

Paul gave all the credit and glory to God for their generosity and eagerness to help due to the surpassing [power] and indescribable gift of His grace that was poured out so abundantly upon the Corinthians (2Cor 9:14-15).

In anticipation of a FW objection to 2Cor 8:1-5 on the grounds that the Macedonians first gave themselves to the Lord, and then [subsequently] by God's will to the apostles, this objection begs the question. For implicit within such an objection is that God played either no role in their lives when they turned to Him; or even worse, that it wasn't God's will for them to turn to Him! Both of these implications are absurd since they cannot survive scriptural scrutiny.

Before I deal with this new teaching that supposedly demolishes my tying Acts9:1-9 to your initial teaching of 1Cor15:9-10, showing that Paul's unusually miraculous salvation event was not normative and not proving anything about Irresistible Grace in normative salvation of unbelievers, a few questions:

1. Following a post that clearly deals with supposed Irresistible Grace in the salvation of an unbeliever, you entitle this next post "More on the Efficacious Nature of God's Saving Grace" as if dealing more with the salvation of unbelievers, yet you then immediately switch to the topic of "the effects of the sanctifying grace that dominated his [Paul's] Christian life on an ongoing basis" and then you switch again to Scripture that deals not with Paul's sanctification but with God's Grace in the testing of the Macedonian churches.
   1. Where is the consistency and coherence in this work of demolishing you're positing?
   2. Why the switch from Irresistible Grace in the salvation of an unbeliever to Irresistible Grace in experiential sanctification of a believer and then switch again and use Scripture that deals with other believers under Grace financially supporting Paul's ministry?
   3. Sure, Grace is being discussed, but how does this answer and demolish my counterpoint to your initial teaching that by Irresistible Grace God saved the unbeliever Paul and that somehow Paul's salvation was supposedly normative for all unbelievers and exemplifies normative Irresistible Grace?

 

[studier]

Why do I have to follow any links to get a simple answer?

Pong.

You don't have to do anything you don't want to do unless God decreed that you would. So, you'll need to decide what He's decreed for you.

I've firmly decided and chosen to tell you to do your own work and follow the links back in the discussion to find that I did answer your question in the way I chose to answer it. By your point of view, you should accept that God decreed for me to answer you as I have and that I am choosing compatibly with His will that you do some work and stop being such a pest.

Lest you think I am not choosing as decreed, and you are, we are simply at unresolvable decreed and chosen odds which I guess means God is confused in His decrees. Maybe we should set Him straight.

 

[lrs68]

Freedom is perspective.

For the sinner, freedom is not having rules even though everyone is following rules from government, education, societal, psychological, down to the family and individual.

As a Follower of Christ we still have these rules + the rules of being separated and conformed to being like Christ. Jesus said if you obey Me then you are of Me.

So what are we, the Christian, really free from?
Condemnation!

We know should and when we sin we can confess and our Advocate will intercede on our behalf.

We know that we are not bound to this world but we look forward to the Home promised to us.

This gives us peace of mind which is freedom.

But it has nothing to do with free will because our will has been surrendered to do God's Will. We surrendered our will to do God's Will. That was the only free will we ever possessed, to surrender to do God's Will.

 

[GWH]

Two things: God doesn't cause anyone to suffer in hell! Everyone in hell deserves to be their for their own sins, which they willingly committed. Conversely, everyone in heaven does not deserve to be there on their own merits.

Secondly, you have yet to tell us what the basis for such "favoritism" would be if God chooses many to save and passes over most in the world?

Everyone deserves to suffer in hell for their own sins,
so again, the disputed point is whether God is just and all-loving,
or does He show favoritism and force only some not to suffer.

 

[Rufus]

Pong.

You don't have to do anything you don't want to do unless God decreed that you would. So, you'll need to decide what He's decreed for you.

I've firmly decided and chosen to tell you to do your own work and follow the links back in the discussion to find that I did answer your question in the way I chose to answer it. By your point of view, you should accept that God decreed for me to answer you as I have and that I am choosing compatibly with His will that you do some work and stop being such a pest.

Lest you think I am not choosing as decreed, and you are, we are simply at unresolvable decreed and chosen odds which I guess means God is confused in His decrees. Maybe we should set Him straight.

IOW, God has not given you the heart to give a "yes" or "no" to a simple rhetorical question. I refuse to do your stupid rabbit trails ("links"). Either post the specific post number or give the simple answer. I need no tomes pre-loaded with equivocations from you.

 

[Rufus]

Everyone deserves to suffer in hell for their own sins,
so again, the disputed point is whether God is just and all-loving,
or does He show favoritism and force only some not to suffer.

You still can't explain what the basis of such "favoritism" would be, can you? Are some unregenerate sinners more righteous than others? Would this reason be the basis for God's "favoritism"?

As for me and my household, we're tickled pink and full of joy and thanksgiving to the Lord for "forcing" us to avoid the pains of hell which could have easily been our destiny if not for the Lord.

By the way...God most definitely played "favorites" when he rescued his chosen, covenant people (Abrhaham's descendants) from Eqypt but left the Egyptians to their own evil devices. Explain to me how that was unfair to the Egyptians who were steeped in idolatry.

 

[Rufus]

Freedom is perspective.

For the sinner, freedom is not having rules even though everyone is following rules from government, education, societal, psychological, down to the family and individual.

As a Follower of Christ we still have these rules + the rules of being separated and conformed to being like Christ. Jesus said if you obey Me then you are of Me.

So what are we, the Christian, really free from?
Condemnation!

We know should and when we sin we can confess and our Advocate will intercede on our behalf.

We know that we are not bound to this world but we look forward to the Home promised to us.

This gives us peace of mind which is freedom.

But it has nothing to do with free will because our will has been surrendered to do God's Will. We surrendered our will to do God's Will. That was the only free will we ever possessed, to surrender to do God's Will.

That's the extent of the freedom? What about Death and Sin and the World and the Devil? The Church is still under the power of all these?

 

[Jimbone]

The Reformed or “Calvinists,” as they are all too frequently identified, have been viewed as pairing almost dualistically “the nothingness of man” with “the overmastering power of God,” and, accordingly, as teaching a fundamentally predestinarian or deterministic theology—whether in utter accord with Calvin's thought or in a further, negative development of it. (p. 21)

______________________________________
​

Just another repugnant try. Whenever you care to get into analyzing Scripture in context and truly comparing Scripture with Scripture from that basis, if you even know what this means, let me know. Until then you're just some guy using lube terminology to make it sound like you know something while throwing everything into a bizarre nothingness of man theory of Scripture and explaining away God's commands. You put forth some lube terminology and then can't even see context of a piece of Scripture let alone the full counsel of God's Word. One joke after another...

Bull, this is what the opponents of Calvin SAY that they believe, but you guys lie. You suffer from Calvin Derangement Syndrome and are blind to it. What you say "they" believe, they don't. Second you put this Calvinist label on people who aren't Calvinist right before you just pin this straw man to them and then burn it down like you're doing God's work. It's so disconnected from reality that there is no way to even have a productive conversation with you. Until you division seekers start being honest and dealing with what others ACTUALLY say, then you're nothing more than trolls doing the work of dividing the body, for selfish reasons.

Please shut me up and down and show me where anyone on here has promoted, taught, or argued what you just claimed the "Calvinist" believes. Show me.

 

[Rufus]

Bull, this is what the opponents of Calvin SAY that they believe, but you guys lie. You suffer from Calvin Derangement Syndrome and are blind to it. What you say "they" believe, they don't. Second you put this Calvinist label on people who aren't Calvinist right before you just pin this straw man to them and then burn it down like you're doing God's work. It's so disconnected from reality that there is no way to even have a productive conversation with you. Until you division seekers start being honest and dealing with what others ACTUALLY say, then you're nothing more than trolls doing the work of dividing the body, for selfish reasons.

Please shut me up and down and show me where anyone on here has promoted, taught, or argued what you just claimed the "Calvinist" believes. Show me.

Studier is helplessly lost! He clearly confuses natural man's spiritual powerlessness with nothingness. If man doesn't have the will power to make choices contrary to his his evil nature, then in his mind this reduces man to "nothingness".

Maybe Studier or some other volition worshiper can tell us why there is no record in scripture of any of the fallen angels repenting of their sins.

 

[studier]

Bull, this is what the opponents of Calvin SAY that they believe, but you guys lie. You suffer from Calvin Derangement Syndrome and are blind to it. What you say "they" believe, they don't. Second you put this Calvinist label on people who aren't Calvinist right before you just pin this straw man to them and then burn it down like you're doing God's work. It's so disconnected from reality that there is no way to even have a productive conversation with you. Until you division seekers start being honest and dealing with what others ACTUALLY say, then you're nothing more than trolls doing the work of dividing the body, for selfish reasons.

Please shut me up and down and show me where anyone on here has promoted, taught, or argued what you just claimed the "Calvinist" believes. Show me.

Bull what? I'm not going back a week ago in threads to try to figure out what you're reacting to, but I can assure you the post you've quoted exists in a context that you may or may not be up to speed on.

What are you reacting to, the heading of the post I excerpted from an article I linked some time ago? So, you're saying the article is stating something not true?

Honestly, I've dealt with your nonsense in the past, then later we had a decent discussion on something, and now we're back to your "Bull". Get a grip, take a breath, drop the attack mode, explain your issue. If you'd like a link to the article so you can argue with the writer, let me know and I'll look for it again, or better yet, follow the links back to where I first posted it.

If not, please consider yourself shut up and down and realize I'm interacting with a guy who dogmatically and aggressively supports TULIP in a way that IMO is perfectly described by the excerpt I posted as I recall from a Reformed writer explaining the problems he sees within the camp. CDS, what a dumb argument. Go back and watch some more worldly chatter and find another quip to adopt.