[hananiel]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Luke
[B](hananiel)
Interpretation of Romans 9
First of all Romans 9 was talking about israelites.
God's election stands. The older will serve the younger. Here he was not talking about salvation.

(Luke)
The question being addressed in Romans 9 is how Israel could be elect and yet fall away. Paul's answer to this question is by contrasting Israel's corporate election to individual election, the latter of which is to salvation. Romans 8:29-30, for example, clearly refers to individuals.

(hananiel) Yes thats what was my point. You sometimes deduce what I am saying as a counter point. Withing Romans 8:29-30 I have already proved that those who were predestined were those that love God.

(hananiel)
And also, God Chose Jacob because he knew His heart. Not by his works, but by his heart. we are also saved not by works but by our heart.Esau was not prevented from knowing God, but God knew his heart. Jacob and Esau are nations ofcourse here.

(Luke)
Jacob and Esau cannot be referring to nations for two reasons: one, the terms "Israel" and "Edom" would have been used in the same way as "Israel" was used throughout the rest of the book. Your statement, therefore, is quite arbitrary.

(hananiel) it doesnt in anyway subtract from what I am saying, that God is not predestining people to act one way or other. According to predestination, I suppose, esau was acting the way he was because of TD. And Jacob was elected to salvation. I am saying that is NOT how you should read it.

And Jacob's heart, just like everyone else's heart, was dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1), not seeking God (Romans 3:10-11), beyond cure (Jeremiah 17:9), and just in crappy condition. And his works show it ("out of the heart of men proceed..."), because he cheated his brother, he cheated his uncle, he ran from the justice of his father in fleeing--there was nothing good about Jacob's heart to cause God to choose him.

(hananiel) No one is righteous -- that is by works. But the bible talks from the psalms of david, isiah that there is a justification by faith apart from the law. But if you claim that no one trusted in God because of their heart you will be in error because the bible is about people who trusted in God. Starting from Noah, Abraham ... they were not righteous but they trusted in god. But see what
Genesis 28 says : Your name will no longer be Jacob but Israel. because you have wrestled with God ...

Anyway Jacob was a believer, and trusted in the God of Abraham. That was his righteousness. Whereas Esau was Godless. (hebrew 12:16) All the time when the Bible tells us about predestination, its to clarify that its not by grace but by works that one is saved. Jacob did all those nasty things but believed in God. And he was considered righteous.

(Luke)
It should also be noted that our works are a result of the condition of our heart (Mark 7:21-23). Your odd attempt to separate the condition of Jacob's heart and his works is not only absurd but the antithesis of frequent Biblical teaching.

(hananiel) you make the assumption that such a condition of the heart wont allow you to turn to God. David was also an adulterer, but he trusted in God. That was credited to him as righteousness.

And it should be noted that your scheme also has God choosing according to something within the intrinsic condition of the man (in this case, Jacob), which is exactly what Paul is so vehemently arguing against in 9:16 and 9:18.

(hananiel) Not exactly what paul was arguing against. Paul was arguing grace/works. That faith was not of any merit since God gave it to us. But some just not excercised it. What paul was arguing against in 9:16-18 is the acts of men (their works) which will be subject to Gods sovereignty. It talks about Gods sovereign choice in choosing to have gentiles, and a people who are not his people as his children. Again this was not salvation in itself. When you are saved, it is the beginning of a predestined journey towards eternal life.

(luke)
And finally it should be noted that you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Jacob cannot be both a nation and a person (whom God chose according to His heart). I've effectively refuted both--but seriously--use your brain and don't post arguments that contradict themselves as well as the Bible.

(hananiel) On the contrary. God says he will love those who love him for a thousand generations. How can he love a man to a 1000 generations? Here it clearly talks about a man being also his offspring. The nations i was talking about were their respective descendants.

(hananiel)
I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. It was even if gentiles had the (according to calvinists extremely onerous) job of believing in Him, it is because of His mercy, in coming down as flesh to do the work of grace.

(Luke)
What in the world did the above completely scatter-brained sentence mean?
(hananiel) It means that while some calvaninsts (or all?) think that its an act of great merit on part of the man, to excercise his faith, to respond to the call of love, it is not so. Its by grace really and by a complete ransom we are saved. It doesnt cost us anything except a belief in our hearts and confessing with our mouths.

(hananiel)
I will harden those I harden, the israelites have been allowed to be hardened by their circumstance.

(Luke)
No no no--this verse says nothing about "allowed to be hardened". It says "harden".

(hananiel) Harden is not literal. harden is by allowing something to happen to make it hard. Its events, circumstances that harden people. In the context of the statement I made, there is no difference. I was trying to better explain what was being said.

(hananiel)
When God raised pharaoh, he foreknew the deeds of his heart

(Luke)
I thought heart condition and works were unrelated according to yout interpretation of the verses on Jacob. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

(hananiel) I did not say deeds, I said deeds of the heart in allusion to hannah's prayer. Deeds are works. Deeds of the heart the decisions the heart makes.

(hananiel)
and allowed him to remain in darkness, even glorified himself through him. When God glorifies himself before men, its an act of grace and mercy. Yet he is not unjust in those "he hardens". Even if he had not, they would have taken a similar course to perish.

(Luke)
None of this is relevant. God still did the hardening, and He did it of His own volition, not on the basis of factual foreknowledge (a concept absent from this chapter).

(hananiel) Foreknowledge of those who love him has been preached consistently, and its because you dont want to see that, that you go to such lengths to contort scripture to fit your needs. Anyway, the pharoah's story gives a clear picture of what I am saying. see Ex 9: 29. The thunder will stop and there will be no more rain so you may know the earth is the Lords, But I know that you and your officials still do not fear the Lord God.

So there you go that was the reason why God was justified in hardening their heart. Because no matter what He does they will not fear him. So he hardened pharoahs heart to glorify himself.

It does not say he hardened the pharoahs heart so he will not believe, but so that he will not relent to God's people and so glorify God.

(hananiel)
God calls everyone

(Luke)
Not according to John 6:44 which states that all who are called are saved.
(hananiel) What I meant by call was giving everyone a chance.
But in John 6:44 there is no reference to any call at all. It says, no one can come to me unless the father enabled them. The enabling is the work of the holyspirit in drawing people to Christ. When people resist Him (holy spirit), He will not draw him, thus they will not come to christ.

And Romans 8:30 puts calling as part of the Golden Chain of Salvation--again, all who are called are saved (and also note: not all are called--only those foreknown and predestined).

(hananiel) Here I have already shown the subject of those verses is those who love Him. those he foreknew. those he foreknew, he predestined, to be transformed into his likeness. Those he predestined, he also called. etc etc. All this for those who love him.

(hananiel)
He was differentiating works and faith (of heart).

(Luke)
A and not A cannot simultaneously be true.
(hananiel)
That scatter brained sentence you did not understand addresses this. You think beleiving with you heart is a "work" (not as used by John 6:29 but in galatians.) I donot think so.

(luke)

Also note that Scripture speaks of repentance as something that is granted to some and, by extension, not to others (2 Timothy 2:25).

(hananiel)

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

It is clear when you put these two verses together, that God wants everyone to come to repentance, but there is something in us that prevents Him from from giving repentance. That is not predestination or election as you would like to argue

(hananiel)
Romans 11: 7 talks about a spirit of stupor.
Again see the previous verses. Its a grace / works differentiation again.
There is the man who loves God but fails to keep his holy requirements. There is pardon for them in Jesus. The blessedness that david speaks about in righteousness that comes by faith. There is the man who tries to keep the requirements to save himself, to them there is condemnation and a blindness that they cannot be saved by grace. What is the guarantee that it is so?
The guarantee is that God is a just God. And remember he was talking about israelites here again.

So you CANNOT twist it to mean, God predetermined who will be saved and who wont.

(Luke)
Read the whole chapter. It is talking about salvation, and those who were trying to be saved via. the Law are lost. 11:7 does refer to salvation.

11:6 is differentiating attempting to be saved by grace through faith plus works from salvation by grace through faith alone. Then it says that Israel, who attempted salvation by works, did not attain it. The elect did, the rest were hardened (11:8 says that they were hardened by God).
(hananiel) This is for the israelites. it is true that the chapter was by illustrating about israelites, talking about grace/ works for the gentile believers. But as far as israel is concerned, and 11 :7 is talking about them, that they were hardened. If he was talking about salvation in the sense that you are talking about it would have to be in contradiction with 11:26 So all israel will be saved.

(hananiel)
See the prayer of hannah in 1 samuel 2: 3

for the LORD is a God who knows,
and by him deeds are weighed.

He know the inner most deeds of our hearts.

(Luke)
The above is irrelevant.

(hananiel)
It was a reference to the allusion "deeds of heart" I made elsewhere.

(hananiel)
Another point some one made in another topic was :

(Luke)
Matthew 8:10
When Jesus heard this, he was astonished ...
Why was he astonished if he was the one who softened/did not fasten. I see some smart alec saying the Father knew, the Son did not. But its interesting to consider this point - I havent seen anyone in all israel with this. Faith is credited as righteousness. It is an action of volition (freewill) of your heart.

(Luke)
How does "faith is credited as righteousness" presuppose "it is an action of free will"? The former does not require the latter in any sense. For that matter, Ephesians 2:9 decries the idea that faith is a product of works.
(hananiel) that statement doesnt presuppose, but supports the deduction that if you can put faith in something, and when God credits it as righteousness that you put your faith in him rather than in other Gods, it implies free will. That Abraham did not have to, but he did. A credit is something that is earned. not given. Yet, with God, even that faith is from God, but not like how you say. More like how you use your brain.

Yes I never claimed faith was a product of works. But I am saying in accordance to John 6:29 that the "work" under the new covenant is this. To put his trust in His son. I have tried to show that it was so even in the old testament, but that was only in anticipation of the crucifiction of jesus for the sins of all men. Even those before him. Whoever calls on the name of the lord will be saved.

(luke)
It should also be noted, although it really isn't relevant since we aren't discussing open theism, that "astonished" isn't a very good translation--"marveled" (NASB, ESV) or "admired" is far better. In other words, He was complementary, impressed, etc. This does not rule out God's foreordination of the event, since after all, "the steps of a man are established by the Lord" (Psalm 37:23).
(hananiel)
Did God also foreordain His marvel?

(hananiel)
Finally, another verse I see available,

John 15:16
You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit–fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.

Jesus was speaking to those who loved him. Who decided to believe in their hearts that Jesus was the Son of God. These people who believed and were saved, God chose them to be friends (of the son), co heirs with Him, in this context to go and bear fruit.

They did not chose him before he did the work of redemption on the cross. Not until Jesus made the choice to die for the sins of men. When God chose men It need not have been. he was justified in letting us perish.

(Luke)
But Christ had not yet died. Pick an argument that at least attempts to make sense.

(hananiel) They did not chose him before God ^ordained^ the work of redemption on the cross (through his Son). If that threw you off, the next statement clarifies what am trying to say. Jesus made the first choice. He chose men, not the other way around.
(hananiel)
And a very very relevant verse is this (I know I am repeating):

28Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
29Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

That is what you ( anyone of all the people in the world) need to do to be saved. Those who do not understand stand condemned (not for lack of understanding) but for the lack of love of their hearts.

(Luke)
Nobdoy is debating that. So what?
(hananiel) If the work of God is to believe in the one he has sent, then how can man have no freewill? If all the men who do this work of God is by the fact that God selected only those who will do this work, why did he ask them to do it? This is unlike the old law (mosaic law) , which he knew all men would fail in doing and hence provided the work of the cross. Now if men fail to do this work again (by design) because according to you God predestinated only few and only those few would be able to do it. Why did he ask them to do it? Why couldnt he just give gate passes to heaven, without the cross? Surely, he is God he is sovereign? By your arguments the cross looses its meaning because. 1. The cross has the power to justify only few.
2. God wilfully denied heaven to others. - unjust
Anyway this is what romans 3:26....he left sins unpunished before hand ... he did it to demonstrate His justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

He justified the sins of people before Jesus christ, who had faith in the Living God by the cross of Jesus christ.

[Luke]

Post split in half because of 20,000 character limit



(hananiel)
Interpretation of Romans 9
First of all Romans 9 was talking about israelites.
God's election stands. The older will serve the younger. Here he was not talking about salvation.

(Luke)
The question being addressed in Romans 9 is how Israel could be elect and yet fall away. Paul's answer to this question is by contrasting Israel's corporate election to individual election, the latter of which is to salvation. Romans 8:29-30, for example, clearly refers to individuals.

(hananiel)
Yes thats what was my point. You sometimes deduce what I am saying as a counter point. Withing Romans 8:29-30 I have already proved that those who were predestined were those that love God.

(Luke)
"Withing"? What on earth does "withing" mean?

Paul uses Jacob and Esau as examples of individual election, while you are trying to use them as examples of corporate election. This is unwarranted by the text. Individual pronouns are used, and individual election to salvation is in view. This is the case from 9:8 to at least 9:24.


(hananiel)
And also, God Chose Jacob because he knew His heart. Not by his works, but by his heart. we are also saved not by works but by our heart.Esau was not prevented from knowing God, but God knew his heart. Jacob and Esau are nations ofcourse here.

(Luke)
Jacob and Esau cannot be referring to nations for two reasons: one, the terms "Israel" and "Edom" would have been used in the same way as "Israel" was used throughout the rest of the book. Your statement, therefore, is quite arbitrary.

(hananiel)
it doesnt in anyway subtract from what I am saying, that God is not predestining people to act one way or other. According to predestination, I suppose, esau was acting the way he was because of TD. And Jacob was elected to salvation. I am saying that is NOT how you should read it.

(Luke)
But that's what the text says! Jacob and Esau were saved and lost (respectively) not because of anything intrinsic to them, but because of God's election. So yes, Esau acted the way he did ultimately because he was depraved, and Jacob was elected to salvation. You can say that's not how I should read it all you want, but you offer no compelling reason for anyone to believe otherwise, since you have not actually addressed the counterpoints I gave in my last post.



(Luke)
And Jacob's heart, just like everyone else's heart, was dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1), not seeking God (Romans 3:10-11), beyond cure (Jeremiah 17:9), and just in crappy condition. And his works show it ("out of the heart of men proceed..."), because he cheated his brother, he cheated his uncle, he ran from the justice of his father in fleeing--there was nothing good about Jacob's heart to cause God to choose him.

(hananiel)
No one is righteous -- that is by works. But the bible talks from the psalms of david, isiah that there is a justification by faith apart from the law. But if you claim that no one trusted in God because of their heart you will be in error because the bible is about people who trusted in God. Starting from Noah, Abraham ... they were not righteous but they trusted in god. But see what
Genesis 28 says : Your name will no longer be Jacob but Israel. because you have wrestled with God ...

(Luke)
People don't trust in God autonomously, though. People will not come to the light on their own (John 3:20) because their deeds are evil. Some do come to the light, but it is because their deeds are wrought in God (John 3:21). This is why, as mentioned in my previous post, Scripture speaks of God "making us alive" (Ephesians 2:2) and speaks of repentance as something that is "granted" (2 Timothy 2:25).

And I would like you to address the passages I cited instead of blissfully ignoring them.



(hananiel)
Anyway Jacob was a believer, and trusted in the God of Abraham. That was his righteousness. Whereas Esau was Godless. (hebrew 12:16) All the time when the Bible tells us about predestination, its to clarify that its not by grace but by works that one is saved. Jacob did all those nasty things but believed in God. And he was considered righteous.

(Luke)
The question behind predestination is not who trusted in God and who didn't, but why one person trusted and one didn't. Romans 9 addresses this with the example of Jacob and Esau. You are refusing to properly deal with this passage.

And Scripture's speaking on predestination is not just to clarify Sola Gratia. If that were true, then Scripture would not speak of predestination, it would just speak about grace alone (e.g. Ephesians 2:8-9). But the Bible also speaks about this concept called predestination, which is a distinct concept. We must ask how predestination works because Scripture teaches (actually rather heavily) on the concept. Saying predestination just means Sola Gratia is rideculous.



(Luke)
It should also be noted that our works are a result of the condition of our heart (Mark 7:21-23). Your odd attempt to separate the condition of Jacob's heart and his works is not only absurd but the antithesis of frequent Biblical teaching.

(hananiel)
you make the assumption that such a condition of the heart wont allow you to turn to God. David was also an adulterer, but he trusted in God. That was credited to him as righteousness.

(Luke)
You make the assumption that man chooses against his nature. I make the assumption that man chooses in consistency with his nature. Scripture supports my view (Romans 8:6-8, Mark 7:21-23).

What about "a bad tree cannot bear good fruit" don't you understand?



(Luke)
And it should be noted that your scheme also has God choosing according to something within the intrinsic condition of the man (in this case, Jacob), which is exactly what Paul is so vehemently arguing against in 9:16 and 9:18.

(hananiel)
Not exactly what paul was arguing against. Paul was arguing grace/works. That faith was not of any merit since God gave it to us. But some just not excercised it. What paul was arguing against in 9:16-18 is the acts of men (their works) which will be subject to Gods sovereignty. It talks about Gods sovereign choice in choosing to have gentiles, and a people who are not his people as his children. Again this was not salvation in itself. When you are saved, it is the beginning of a predestined journey towards eternal life.

(Luke)
Romans 8:30 says that one of the things that was predestined was justification itself--you say that predestination begins after justification. This is not a Scriptural statement.

It should also be noted that if choosing to exercise or not exercise faith is something that you do autonomously, then it is a work in of itself. It is only if this is a response to regeneration that we can truly say that salvation is by grace alone. And Romans 9 is not about God's sovereign choice to include Gentiles (this inclusion is essentially absent from the passage--it's glossed over in 9:23 but it is not the subject of the passage).



(Luke)
And finally it should be noted that you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Jacob cannot be both a nation and a person (whom God chose according to His heart). I've effectively refuted both--but seriously--use your brain and don't post arguments that contradict themselves as well as the Bible.

(hananiel)
On the contrary. God says he will love those who love him for a thousand generations. How can he love a man to a 1000 generations? Here it clearly talks about a man being also his offspring. The nations i was talking about were their respective descendants.



(Luke)
But that is not what is being discussed in Romans 9. And I maintain that you cannot interpret Romans 9 as Jacob being a person and a nation in the same verse. It means one or the other, not both.



(hananiel)
I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. It was even if gentiles had the (according to calvinists extremely onerous) job of believing in Him, it is because of His mercy, in coming down as flesh to do the work of grace.

(Luke)
What in the world did the above completely scatter-brained sentence mean?

(hananiel)
It means that while some calvaninsts (or all?) think that its an act of great merit on part of the man, to excercise his faith, to respond to the call of love, it is not so. Its by grace really and by a complete ransom we are saved. It doesnt cost us anything except a belief in our hearts and confessing with our mouths.

(Luke)
If "belief in our hearts and confessing with our mouths" are things we must bring ourselves out of ourselves, then salvation is by works. Scripture teaches that this is not the case. The reason is because these things are responses to regeneration. (And by the way, I distinguish between faith and belief)



(hananiel)
I will harden those I harden, the israelites have been allowed to be hardened by their circumstance.

(Luke)
No no no--this verse says nothing about "allowed to be hardened". It says "harden".

(hananiel)
Harden is not literal. harden is by allowing something to happen to make it hard. Its events, circumstances that harden people. In the context of the statement I made, there is no difference. I was trying to better explain what was being said.

(Luke)
The text says harden. As in--active. God hardens people. There is a difference. You just don't like it.



(hananiel)
When God raised pharaoh, he foreknew the deeds of his heart

(Luke)
I thought heart condition and works were unrelated according to yout interpretation of the verses on Jacob. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

(hananiel)
I did not say deeds, I said deeds of the heart in allusion to hannah's prayer. Deeds are works. Deeds of the heart the decisions the heart makes.

(Luke)
So they are really (essentially) the same, thus salvation by works is true per. your Romans 9. Congrats.



(hananiel)
and allowed him to remain in darkness, even glorified himself through him. When God glorifies himself before men, its an act of grace and mercy. Yet he is not unjust in those "he hardens". Even if he had not, they would have taken a similar course to perish.

(Luke)
None of this is relevant. God still did the hardening, and He did it of His own volition, not on the basis of factual foreknowledge (a concept absent from this chapter).

(hananiel)
Foreknowledge of those who love him has been preached consistently, and its because you dont want to see that, that you go to such lengths to contort scripture to fit your needs.

(Luke)
But He foreknows (foreloves would be a better translation) some, and that causes them to love Him, not just foreknowing a list of people that will love Him intrinsically.

[Luke]

(hananiel)
Anyway, the pharoah's story gives a clear picture of what I am saying. see Ex 9: 29. The thunder will stop and there will be no more rain so you may know the earth is the Lords, But I know that you and your officials still do not fear the Lord God.

So there you go that was the reason why God was justified in hardening their heart. Because no matter what He does they will not fear him. So he hardened pharoahs heart to glorify himself.

It does not say he hardened the pharoahs heart so he will not believe, but so that he will not relent to God's people and so glorify God.

(Luke)
Which is the same thing.



(hananiel)
God calls everyone

(Luke)
Not according to John 6:44 which states that all who are called are saved.

(hananiel)
What I meant by call was giving everyone a chance.
But in John 6:44 there is no reference to any call at all. It says, no one can come to me unless the father enabled them. The enabling is the work of the holyspirit in drawing people to Christ. When people resist Him (holy spirit), He will not draw him, thus they will not come to christ.

(Luke)
I actually meant to cite Romans 8:30 and got verses mixed up. Either way, not everyone is called.

But let me address John 6:44 for a moment. You say that the reason God draws some and not others is because of man's foreknown response. That makes what Jesus said here really, really stupid. Jesus said that explaining why some are not saved, and it is because God doesn't draw everyone. Your logic makes Christ's answer a circular argument.


(Luke)
And Romans 8:30 puts calling as part of the Golden Chain of Salvation--again, all who are called are saved (and also note: not all are called--only those foreknown and predestined).

(hananiel)
Here I have already shown the subject of those verses is those who love Him. those he foreknew. those he foreknew, he predestined, to be transformed into his likeness. Those he predestined, he also called. etc etc. All this for those who love him.

(Luke)
1. Your interpretation is still under debate and really not holding water since you ignored the actual meaning of proginosko given to you (instead choosing to write it off)
2. Still not everyone is called, which was the point I was trying to make.



(hananiel)
He was differentiating works and faith (of heart).

(Luke)
A and not A cannot simultaneously be true.

(hananiel)
That scatter brained sentence you did not understand addresses this. You think beleiving with you heart is a "work" (not as used by John 6:29 but in galatians.) I donot think so.

(Luke)
If it is something God does within us (John 3:21), then it's not a work. But to accept that would be to accept Irresistible Grace, which you reject. If it is something we do ourselves, then it's a work.



(Luke)
Also note that Scripture speaks of repentance as something that is granted to some and, by extension, not to others (2 Timothy 2:25).

(hananiel)
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

It is clear when you put these two verses together, that God wants everyone to come to repentance, but there is something in us that prevents Him from from giving repentance. That is not predestination or election as you would like to argue

(Luke)
2 Peter 3:9 refers to the elect. Note the "with you" (patient with you)--it applies to the whole thing. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone [among you] to perish, but everyone [among you] to come to repentance.

Parenthetically, your interpretation would prevent Christ from ever returning, since that can't occur until everyone (of whatever group) repents according to 2 Peter 3:9. Entire threads have been devoted to this.

And regardless, this really doesn't address 2 Timothy 2:25 at all. You ignored the point I made completely. And in actuality, 2 Timothy 2:25 doesn't really make sense under your scheme--it should have said "in hopes that you may convince them to repent"--but it doesn't.



(hananiel)
Romans 11: 7 talks about a spirit of stupor.
Again see the previous verses. Its a grace / works differentiation again.
There is the man who loves God but fails to keep his holy requirements. There is pardon for them in Jesus. The blessedness that david speaks about in righteousness that comes by faith. There is the man who tries to keep the requirements to save himself, to them there is condemnation and a blindness that they cannot be saved by grace. What is the guarantee that it is so?
The guarantee is that God is a just God. And remember he was talking about israelites here again.

So you CANNOT twist it to mean, God predetermined who will be saved and who wont.

(Luke)
Read the whole chapter. It is talking about salvation, and those who were trying to be saved via. the Law are lost. 11:7 does refer to salvation.

11:6 is differentiating attempting to be saved by grace through faith plus works from salvation by grace through faith alone. Then it says that Israel, who attempted salvation by works, did not attain it. The elect did, the rest were hardened (11:8 says that they were hardened by God).

(hananiel)
This is for the israelites. it is true that the chapter was by illustrating about israelites, talking about grace/ works for the gentile believers. But as far as israel is concerned, and 11 :7 is talking about them, that they were hardened. If he was talking about salvation in the sense that you are talking about it would have to be in contradiction with 11:26 So all israel will be saved.

(Luke)
11:26 refers to spiritual Israel (the elect)---no contradiction. And 11:7 says "the rest"--which isn't limited to Israel either in that verse or the context.



(hananiel)
Another point some one made in another topic was :

(Luke)
Matthew 8:10
When Jesus heard this, he was astonished ...
Why was he astonished if he was the one who softened/did not fasten. I see some smart alec saying the Father knew, the Son did not. But its interesting to consider this point - I havent seen anyone in all israel with this. Faith is credited as righteousness. It is an action of volition (freewill) of your heart.

(Luke)
How does "faith is credited as righteousness" presuppose "it is an action of free will"? The former does not require the latter in any sense. For that matter, Ephesians 2:9 decries the idea that faith is a product of works.

(hananiel)
that statement doesnt presuppose, but supports the deduction that if you can put faith in something, and when God credits it as righteousness that you put your faith in him rather than in other Gods, it implies free will.

(Luke)
Why?



(hananiel)
That Abraham did not have to, but he did. A credit is something that is earned. not given. Yet, with God, even that faith is from God, but not like how you say. More like how you use your brain.

(Luke)
Then salvation is no longer a free gift (Ephesians 2:8-9); it truly is by works.

"Credit" is actually a legal term and does not require "earned".



(hananiel)
Yes I never claimed faith was a product of works.

(Luke)
You did immediately above.



(hananiel)
But I am saying in accordance to John 6:29 that the "work" under the new covenant is this. To put his trust in His son. I have tried to show that it was so even in the old testament, but that was only in anticipation of the crucifiction of jesus for the sins of all men. Even those before him. Whoever calls on the name of the lord will be saved.

(Luke)
Now you just said it! Salvation is by a work!
I rest my case.



(Luke)
It should also be noted, although it really isn't relevant since we aren't discussing open theism, that "astonished" isn't a very good translation--"marveled" (NASB, ESV) or "admired" is far better. In other words, He was complementary, impressed, etc. This does not rule out God's foreordination of the event, since after all, "the steps of a man are established by the Lord" (Psalm 37:23).

(hananiel)
Did God also foreordain His marvel?

(Luke)
Yes.



(hananiel)
Finally, another verse I see available,

John 15:16
You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit–fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.

Jesus was speaking to those who loved him. Who decided to believe in their hearts that Jesus was the Son of God. These people who believed and were saved, God chose them to be friends (of the son), co heirs with Him, in this context to go and bear fruit.

They did not chose him before he did the work of redemption on the cross. Not until Jesus made the choice to die for the sins of men. When God chose men It need not have been. he was justified in letting us perish.

(Luke)
But Christ had not yet died. Pick an argument that at least attempts to make sense.

(hananiel)
They did not chose him before God ^ordained^ the work of redemption on the cross (through his Son). If that threw you off, the next statement clarifies what am trying to say. Jesus made the first choice. He chose men, not the other way around.

(Luke)
Except that corporate selection is not supported by either the context of this passage or other passages that teach individual selection (e.g. Romans 9 )

(hananiel)
And a very very relevant verse is this (I know I am repeating):

28Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
29Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

That is what you ( anyone of all the people in the world) need to do to be saved. Those who do not understand stand condemned (not for lack of understanding) but for the lack of love of their hearts.

(Luke)
Nobdoy is debating that. So what?

(hananiel)
If the work of God is to believe in the one he has sent, then how can man have no freewill? If all the men who do this work of God is by the fact that God selected only those who will do this work, why did he ask them to do it?

(Luke)
They can only do it by His regeneration--they will not desire to do so otherwise. Your "why" question is irrelevant.

(hananiel)
Now if men fail to do this work again (by design) because according to you God predestinated only few and only those few would be able to do it. Why did he ask them to do it? Why couldnt he just give gate passes to heaven, without the cross? Surely, he is God he is sovereign?

(Luke)
God is also just and the cross is required to make actual atonement for sin. The cross is not just a "moral example".

(hananiel)
By your arguments the cross looses its meaning because.
1. The cross has the power to justify only few.

(Luke)
Why does this make the cross lose its meaning?

(hananiel)
2. God wilfully denied heaven to others. - unjust

(Luke)
Why exactly is this unjust when all deserve hell?

(hananiel)
Anyway this is what romans 3:26....he left sins unpunished before hand ... he did it to demonstrate His justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

He justified the sins of people before Jesus christ, who had faith in the Living God by the cross of Jesus christ.

(Luke)
And this was enabled by the Cross. So what?

[smitty2622]

Ok guys just a quick little observation we are the body of Christ a body has many parts none of them work on their own. It’s ok if the Calvinist is the thinking side and Arminians are the creative side. Two parts work well together. I wont mention where the rest of the parts go…:klol:






Peace

[followerofJESUS]

parts work well together. I wont mention where the rest of the parts go…

Why is it that people like to make their posts so LOOOOOOOOONG!

I don't have time to read through all that stuff!

[Blindman]

Why are there four gospels instead of one? Why were there twelve tribes of Israel instead of one single tribe? Isn't it possible that _diversity_ in denominations is a good thing? John presets a very different picture of Jesus than Mark, but I don't hear too many people suggesting that one Gospel is somehow more true than another... in fact, we need all four Gospels to get a complete picture of Christ.

Now, considering that it is impossible to know everything about God, is it necessarily a bad thing that different denominations concentrate on different aspects of God? It can become a problem if one denomination focuses _only_ on God's justice and not on His love or vice versa, but it seems to me that the vast majority of denominations vary mostly in how much _emphasis_ they place on different things.

The only danger, really, is when someone assumes that the picture they have of God is the _complete_ picture.

[Luke]

I'm merely doing a point-by-point rebuttal to a long post. I had/have little say in the length.

[Ridley's Own]

The question also assumes that we are actually divided from one another...

[Luke]

Good point. I hadn't thought of that!

[RECUSA]

(Blindman)
Why are there four gospels instead of one?

(RECUSA)
Equivocating the arrangement of the Gospels to the division of the Church is false logic. Nowhere in scripture are we told that this is the way.

(Blindman)
Why were there twelve tribes of Israel instead of one single tribe?

(RECUSA)
To fulfill Gods purpose?

(Blindman)
Isn't it possible that _diversity_ in denominations is a good thing?

(RECUSA)
I was under the idea that Jesus formed one church, not shismatic union.

(Blindman)
John presets a very different picture of Jesus than Mark, but I don't hear too many people suggesting that one Gospel is somehow more true than another... in fact, we need all four Gospels to get a complete picture of Christ.
(smitty2622)
Ok guys just a quick little observation we are the body of Christ a body has many parts none of them work on their own. It’s ok if the Calvinist is the thinking side and Arminians are the creative side. Two parts work well together. I wont mention where the rest of the parts go…

(RECUSA)
Yes. So, how's you mormon theology? You need that, right? How about your philosophy? How about your Mennonite Brethren? You'll need that. Nowhere in scripture do we find the Lovey-Squishey God the new sects are coming out with. We are to try the spirits, test the fruits, hear the words, reprove those in error, raise Godly families, all definite positive things. The problem is, that the two parts do not work together, nor has it ever been shown to be that way. Please stopp making false claims. Show us how, there are at least three threads where it has never been done. Choose one, or start a new one and show us how calvinism and PAW theology are compatible. Please? Thanks.

(Blindman)
Now, considering that it is impossible to know everything about God, is it necessarily a bad thing that different denominations concentrate on different aspects of God?

(RECUSA)
No. You must first show the opposing aspects true. Opposing ideas are not usually reconcilable. You would also have to show that every denomination has only SOME aspect of the truth, and that none have it all.

(Blindman)
It can become a problem if one denomination focuses _only_ on God's justice and not on His love or vice versa, but it seems to me that the vast majority of denominations vary mostly in how much _emphasis_ they place on different things.

(RECUSA)
You just said a mouthful. Or even worse, when certain denominations dwell mostly on one thing, or even exclude to much.

(Blindman)
The only danger, really, is when someone assumes that the picture they have of God is the _complete_ picture.

(RECUSA)
None of us have a complete absolute knowledge. However, some of us have really good understandings and sufficient knowledge. Others are reduced to logic absurdities and remain willfully in their false beliefs. God has revealed much to us in His word. We are to know it and understand it.

Another problem, how do we decide who ahs the truth? Who supplies the standard? How do we deal with heresy? What consitutes a cult? What's the lowest I can go, and still go to heaven?


God bless,

RECUSA

[Blindman]

Originally posted by RECUSA
Another problem, how do we decide who ahs the truth? Who supplies the standard?

Jesus supplied the standard, of course. He said "Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit" (Matt 12:33). Which says to me that if a particular denomination or set of beliefs seems to churn out a lot of people full of pride or arrogance, for example, there must be something wrong with their beliefs.

Having faith in Christ will necessarily result in someone being more Christlike, and if we were all perfect replicae of Christ, we would all be in complete agreement with each other because we would all think and act in the same way. But of course, none of us can ever become perfectly Christlike in this life, so in the meantime I would judge a denomination or an individual church based on how much it seems to be influencing its members to become more like Christ.

[RECUSA]

So, robotic action? Being like Jesus? Is it all actions? What do I base my actions on? Maybe.......a world view? Maybe.......by spirituality? What about the groups that are using false teaching to tickle your ears, but are gaining converts? Good fruits come from trees with solid roots.


God bless,

RECUSA

[hananiel]

So, robotic action?

> In the beginning God made men and saw that it was good.

Being like Jesus?

> We are predestined to be transformed into the likeness of Christ.

Is it all actions?

> Show me faith without works.

What do I base my actions on?
> We are the branches. He is the vine. No one can bear fruit except if he remains in me.

Maybe.......a world view?
> The message of the cross is foolishness to the world.

Maybe.......by spirituality?
> The just shall live by faith.

What about the groups that are using false teaching to tickle your ears, but are gaining converts?
>No one can say "Praise the Lord" except through the spirit. No one can say God hates you except by the Devil.

Good fruits come from trees with solid roots.
> Good trees bear good fruit.

[Luke]

(hananiel)
NKJV Romans 8
28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.

> those who are called are none but those who love God.

(Luke)
On what basis? Where does it say in the Bible that those who are called are called because they love God as opposed to vice versa?

(hananiel)
I didnt know it was that hard. '>' refers to interpretation of the scripture that comes after it.
And we know all things ... to those that love the Lord -> who are they?
Those who are called according to His purpose.

(Luke)
It's not hard--your argument just doesn't add up. You are assuming that we are called on the basis of our love for God or if our love for God is an ultimate result of our calling. Seeing as the end of Romans 8 doesn't answer this question, we must look to other passages which do address this chronology. Passages like Romans 3 and Ephesians 2 are particularly relevant here.



(hananiel)
29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren

> These who he fore knew (anyone of those who loved him) , they are the ones who have been predestined to be conformed to his likeness.

(Luke)
What did God foreknow? Events? No. God foreknows people, and the word "know" here does not refer to factual knowledge as you suppose, but rather to a kind of intimacy or love. IOW, those on whom God placed a special intimate love before the beginning of time...

(hananiel)
Thats right paste greek and confuse something very obvious.

(Luke)
When seeking Biblical truth, going back to the Biblical language is certainly appropriate. Something which in the English is unclear is made crystal clear in the Greek.

(hananiel)
And did I say foreknew facts?
like I said foreknew people who would love him

(Luke)
A list. Factual knowledge.

(hananiel)
Ok for those challenged:
verse 28 talks about the subject of verse 28. Those who love God. Yes it was special - the love only God has for all his people.

(Luke)
Begging an obvious question--if it's a love that only God has, how can we have it?

(hananiel)
There is no reason here to beleive that foreknowledge was special love before the begining of time.

(Luke)
It's what the word used in 8:29 means. That is the definition of the word.

(hananiel)
And you also have to prove this, that God doesnt have foreknowledge of events. So then God couldnt probably know those who would love Him.

(Luke)
I am not debating that God has foreknowledge of events---I am debating that this is not what his election is based on.



(hananiel)
>Who are the ones who love him?

John 14:15 (NIV from here on)
"If you love me, you will obey what I command.

>What was his command ?
John 6
28Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
29Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

(Luke)
Now this passage jumping isn't appropriate. For example, you say that people are called because they love God. However, Romans 8:28-30 does not teach this (as I have already shown). It should be noted that your entire premise falls apart because of the untrue axiom that was the beginning of your thesis.

(hananiel)
I hoped to have proved the untrue "axiom". Anyway I just did that again. I didnt jump scriptures either, that "axiom" was proven from the scripture you pointed out. It is very obvious to me.

(Luke)
Axiom still incorrect.

Nobody is debating that there is a 1:1 coorelation between those who love God and those who are called by Him--the question is which is a cause and which is an effect.



(Luke)
The question, then, ought to be asked--are we capable of being able to love God apart from being called by Him? The answer to this question is clear.

This is the Word of God:
As it is written, "There is none righteous, not even one; ¹¹There is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God (Romans 3:10-11, NASB)

(hananiel)
Yes, then did david seek God or not. I can paste a bunch of scriptural proof that david did, that it was acceptable.

(Luke)
1. You ignored Romans 3:10-11
2. David sought God on the basis of regeneration (his calling). You are trying to put the events in reverse order, which is what I used Romans 3:10-11 to disprove.

(hananiel)
Then how can he say there is none righteous?

(Luke)
Intrinsically.

(hananiel)
Its not apart from being called by him (where is the proof for that?) but to be able reach him. Sin has seperated man from God, God fixed that in the crucifiction and death of Jesus.

(Luke)
Say what?



(Luke)
One who loved God would seek Him (as your citation of John 6 would support...I'll get back to John 6 momentarily). But nobody seeks Him (nobody obeys His commandments...this is also seen in Romans 8:6-8), and therefore that means that nobody loves Him.

So now we're back to where we started. Nobody loves God and thus nobody will be saved.

(hananiel)
Not so fast. He was talking about those who are controlled by sinful mind.

(Luke)
Which is everyone prior to regeneration (Eph. 2:1, other Scriptures already cited)

(hananiel)
But not those in whom the spirit of God lives.

(Luke)
Which occurs AFTER salvation--we're talking about the unregenerate here.

(hananiel)
Who does the spirit of God live with? Those who are born again ( John 3) . When are you born again of the spirit of God? , when you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that He is Lord.

(Luke)
Which nobody can do autonomously because they're in the condition described above. Do you see the problem with your view?

(hananiel)
So that is the work that a man needs to do to be saved.

(Luke)
I rest my case.



(Luke)
Which, at the risk of belaboring the point, is nobody.

(hananiel)
not so, I have clarified.

(Luke)
So you must have God in you to do any good work, including believe, and you must believe to get God in you.

We're all screwed.

(hananiel)
These he foreknew and predestined them to be transformed into the likeness of Christ.

(Luke)
It has already been shown logically that you simply cannot base predestination on some kind of factual foreknowledge of events or of man's love for God as you are attempting to do.

(hananiel)
Its as logical as saying calvinism has been rejected by majority of people so I dont have to debate it.

(Luke)
Actually, Calvinism has traditionally been accepted throughout church history.

(hananiel)
Now that we are debating you have to prove that God was incapable to knowing those who would love him.

(Luke)
I believe God knew. I just don't believe that it's the basis of election.



(Luke)
However, since I'm quite sure the logical rebuttal will be insufficient (not to mention the fact that this method is preferable regardless), it should be noted that the Bible does not teach your logic either.

(hananiel)
Rather than make illogical statements like this, you should try proving something for a change. Most theologians on this forum pompously parade their logic, till they get beaten, then they take refuge in lame arguments like these. A logical rebuttal will be insufficient - interesting...

(Luke)
And you've been logical the entire time...wait, you've yet to be logical at all...
And what's this about me being beaten? Nobody is taking you seriously at the moment.

(hananiel)
Anyway, I never talked about factual knowledge. Your greek was quite unnecessary there. It was the knowledge of those who would love him.

(Luke)
Which is still factual.

(hananiel)
You have to find a logical error in my deductions before you can say that.

(Luke)
Your initial assumption is still under debate.



(hananiel)
Again on the pain of repetetion, the ones appointed were the ones who believed. All those who believe are appointed, predestined, elected for eternal life.

(Luke)
But they believe because they were appointed, not vice versa (Acts 13:48).



(Luke)
"But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep." (John 10:26, NASB)

Now, let's look at Acts 13:48, the verse should, under your logic, say that everyone who believed was ordained to eternal life. But it doesn't. It says the converse. People are ordained to eternal life and that is the reason they believe.

(hananiel)
No you are reading it that way. His sheep will listen to his voice not because he defeaned the other sheep. His sheep are the ones who listen to his voice. He knows them. Those who are not his sheep are the ones who do not listen to him. There is no contradiction. It clearly says, I told you but you did not believe. He did not say, I dont you , but I did not elect you. This is a lot more logical than what you are saying. This is what anyone will understand unless blinded.

(Luke)
Acts 13:48 teaches the converse. You didn't even address it.



(Luke)
John 10:26 is addressing the flip side. Some do not believe. Why, prey tell, is that. Jesus answers, because they are not sheep. The sheep will follow Him (10:27), but those who are not sheep do not believe. This is the answer Christ gives as to why some do not believe.

(hananiel)
It is not the reason why some believe, its the reason why some are not his sheep. because they dont believe. you got it backwards.

(Luke)
Then did Jesus get it backwards? Because He said "You do not believe because you are not my sheep" (10:26), which is exactly what I said.



(Luke)
It should also be noted that your beliefs reduce John 6 into a rubble of foolishness, since when Jesus addresses why some do not accept him (6:44, 6:65), the reason He gives is because they are not called. It does not make sense to say that they are not called because they do not believe because then this would become a circular statement on Christ's part. Therefore, your thesis must be rejected.

(hananiel)
The conversion of the sinner is in response to the drawing of the Holy spirit. God draws them because he knows their heart. But the Gospel will be preached to all to judge by human justice 1 peter 4: 6 ( so no one claims that they didnt hear it on judgement day). But jesus reiterated the truth of the matter. He who believes has everlasting life. God did not draw them because they were not responsive. It was the condition of their heart. It has nothing to do with original sin. It was beyond that.

(Luke)
This is not what Jesus is teaching. He is teaching that people don't come because they aren't drawn. Your answer does not address this.



(hananiel)
Clearly nothing here says he made them beleive. They had to do that act of making a choice a decision to believe in His son. It also indicates free will.

(Luke)
Nobody said anything about making people believe. And nowhere do these verses require any sort of autonomous will. Man is "free" to choose what he desires, which as we have seen from Scripture--is always sin (Gen. 6:5--others could be offered).

(hananiel)
Go down from Gen 6:5. But Noah found favor in God's eyes. Before you say God in his sovereign power choses who he wants to, let me point out that " Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God.

(Luke)
Not intrinsically though.

And it should be noted that you didn't even address 6:5 (or 8:21).

(hananiel)
If every inclination of every man was evil, what was the deal with Noah? So how you read gen 6:5 was wrong.

(Luke)
You offer no better explanation.

(hananiel)
There was justification for those who walked with/ sought repentance from God. Noah wasnt righteous in God's eyes, but his faith (walking with GOd) earned him what he couldnt. God finally justified his holiness by, earning for Noah and all those who repented and walked with Him, the salvation he bought for the sin of all man kind in the death of Jesus Christ.

(Luke)
Noah walked with God because he was regenerate--because God changed Him. By himself, every one of his thoughts was evil too.

[Luke]

(hananiel)
Maybe.......a world view?
> The message of the cross is foolishness to the world.

(Luke)
You don't have a clue what a worldview is, do you?