God makes some vessels unto honor, some unto dishonor-- are both God's elect?

[jonahmano]

No, it's meaningless to Christians, too, if God makes some people believers and some people unbelievers entirely because that's just what he wants to do and there is nothing they can do about that. What a meaningless gospel that makes.

Everyone is destined to die. What's your problem when God gives up His only begotten Son to die for the sins of mankind that whosoever may believe and obey His Word shall be saved to eternity. It's His creation and He has paid the price. Who are you to question God's wisdom. Anyways you will know all the truth when you either end up in heaven or hell one day.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Can God help to people like you who always question His wisdom?

What is wise about God purposely making MOST people, not just some people, unbelievers who will not, and can not believe, and then him turning around and saying with tears that he wants all men to be saved?

This verse alone (1 Timothy 2:1-6 NASB) makes it IMPOSSIBLE that 'predestination' means God purposely creates some people unbelievers and some people believers by his own choice completely separate from any consideration of what they want.

The wisdom you say God has, that you say we can't understand, actually makes him out to be a bold face liar. What I question is your doctrine that says God's wisdom is that he is a liar.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

What's your problem when God gives up His only begotten Son to die for the sins of mankind that whosoever may believe and obey His Word shall be saved to eternity.

My problem is your doctrine that says the 'whosoever' is really not 'whosoever', but only a very small elect that were purposely created by God's choice alone to be believers who would believe and obey.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Anyways you will know all the truth when you either end up in heaven or hell one day.

Because God has either made me an unbeliever or a believer ahead of time without any consideration possible for what I might want, right?

What a meaningless gospel that is.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Since I reserved the right to be wrong, I am OK on that statement.
You must know that since you posted that order of salvation, I did believe that you were pentecostal.

The only people I know that place regeneration prior to salvation are Calvinists. So I am really confused that you would believe she was referring to Pentecostals who believe in a second work of the Holy Spirit called Baptism of the Holy Spirit, but believe that regeneration happens at the same time as salvation, not prior or after.

OK, let's break down this complicated verse's grammar.

As someone who reads the Greek, it's not complicated. lol

5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2001). (Tt 3:5). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

The root sentences is "He saved us". That is followed by a series of subordinate adverbial clauses, all of which modify the verb "saved" the second word of verse 5. The first clause begins with "not" the second begins with "but" and has three parts.

It's really quite simple.

He is saying he didn't save you this way... he saved you this way. It wasn't works righteousness, it was the washing regeneration of the Holy Spirit that he saved you by.

First of all the words "he saved us" is not the root of the sentence, in fact it is the phrases, "not because of works done by us in righteous," and also, "but according to his own mercy," that Paul fronts in the Greek and thus adds emphasis to.

Secondly, v4 has the subordinate clause, v5 is a prepositional phrase and the words "he saved us" are the last words spoken in that phrase then followed by the sentence, "by the washing regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.

Part 1 begins with "according to" which can be understood as "God' s rule book" in which the plan of salvation is entirely God's

God's rule book? No, it simply was referring to the way with which God's actions accord to, he didn't save us through works righteousness but according to his mercy. He doesn't have some kind of rule book that tells him to be merciful, he IS merciful and that is why we are saved.

Part 2, which comes after that begins with the preposition "through", and it means like going on a particular road to get to a destination.

It also means "via" or "by" and doesn't denote a journey, but the way by which something is accomplished. It is as if I said, I did not pay with cash or check, but by the usage of my credit card. It is a grammatical construct that clarifies the way by which something is accomplished.

Part 3 begins with "and renewal"

Since it is a copulative conjunction, it doesn't really make sense to separate the two clauses as they are logically connected.

Since parts 2 and 3 come after salvation by grace

Uhhh.... what? lol

They come at the same time, it is basically saying, God saved us according to his mercy, and this is how he did it... regeneration by the Holy Spirit. It does not come after or before, but at the same time.

(which is the theme of the verse)

The theme of the verse is about God saving us by his mercy not our works righteousness.

it is not logical, or grammatically correct to postulate that these can ever come before salvation,

They come at the same time as salvation, as this is the means by which he saved us.

Could you be confusing the terms "justification" and "sanctification" with the "washing of regeneration", and "renewal of Holy Spirit"?

Justification isn't just talking about salvation for one, and it is forensic language that Paul uses to denote a favorable judgment and also being apart of the Covenant family of God. What she is doing is connecting "washing regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit," with salvation as that is what Paul does here.

Wholeheartedly I believe in the TULIP because I believe that is the most Biblical Systematic Theology, but I am not a "Calvi-Nazi" about that. However, I am unsure about what you mean by "obedience unto righteousness. Could you explain it more so I do not go off on a wrong tangent?

Yet this whole time you have been arguing against what has been a uniquely Calvinistic teaching. lol

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The 'wisdom' of God I might venture to challenge, but will not, is why he patiently allows people who he knows will choose to reject him to be created, and who will live out full lives, knowing all along they were destined for the fire because they will reject him. That is wisdom I will not sass God about. Paul tells us he does that because he can use them to bring glory to himself.

The salvation we believers have will be that much more glorious when we see those who chose to reject it turned away from the kingdom.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Therefore, it is my belief that your leaders, as sincere as they may be, could be teaching a form of Mormonism, and do not know it.

Mormons believe in a variant of the gift of tongues, which is basically the ability to learn a language really fast. They don't believe it is something everyone will evidence if they are saved.

So you're making up an objection to object to something that actually isn't true.

Sincerely,
A former Mormon

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I really did not want to get into this sort of discussion with a new Christian, for fear of confusing Clover Me. However this snip from Spurgeon.org may help in your understanding.

The distinction between infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism has to do with the logical order of God's eternal decrees, not the timing of election. Neither side suggests that the elect were chosen after Adam sinned. God made His choice before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4)—long before Adam sinned. Both infras and supras (and even many Arminians) agree on this.

SUPRALAPSARIANISM is the view that God, contemplating man as yet unfallen, chose some to receive eternal life and rejected all others. So a supralapsarian would say that the reprobate (non-elect)—vessels of wrath fitted for destruction (Romans 9:22)—were first ordained to that role, and then the means by which they fell into sin was ordained. In other words, supralapsarianism suggests that God's decree of election logically preceded His decree to permit Adam's fall—so that their damnation is first of all an act of divine sovereignty, and only secondarily an act of divine justice.

Supralapsarianism is sometimes mistakenly equated with "double predestination." The term "double predestination" itself is often used in a misleading and ambiguous fashion. <SNIP>

INFRALAPSARIANISM (also known sometimes as "sublapsarianism") suggests that God's decree to permit the fall logically preceded His decree of election. So when God chose the elect and passed over the non-elect, He was contemplating them all as fallen creatures.

Those are the two major Calvinistic views. Under the supralapsarian scheme, God first rejects the reprobate out of His sovereign good pleasure; then He ordains the means of their damnation through the fall. In the infralapsarian order, the non-elect are first seen as fallen individuals, and they are damned solely because of their own sin. Infralapsarians tend to emphasize God's "passing over" the non-elect (preterition) in His decree of election. (emphasis added)​

I'm sorry but the ordering of the Divine Decrees by Calvinists is ridiculous. What sense does it make to order the actions of someone who is outside of time?​

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I'm sorry but the ordering of the Divine Decrees by Calvinists is ridiculous. What sense does it make to order the actions of someone who is outside of time?​

I see it as another example of how man over thinks things in the church and creates these kinds of doctrines.

 

[Deborah13]

http://www.the-highway.com/sgrace_Boettner.html"]No I do not include 'speaking in tongues' as evidence of Holy Spirit regeneration.
Since I reserved the right to be wrong, I am OK on that statement.
You must know that since you posted that order of salvation, I did believe that you were pentecostal.

OK, let's break down this complicated verse's grammar.

5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2001). (Tt 3:5). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

The root sentences is "He saved us". That is followed by a series of subordinate adverbial clauses, all of which modify the verb "saved" the second word of verse 5. The first clause begins with "not" the second begins with "but" and has three parts.

Part 1 begins with "according to" which can be understood as "God' s rule book" in which the plan of salvation is entirely God's
Part 2, which comes after that begins with the preposition "through", and it means like going on a particular road to get to a destination.
Part 3 begins with "and renewal"

Since parts 2 and 3 come after salvation by grace (which is the theme of the verse) it is not logical, or grammatically correct to postulate that these can ever come before salvation, as I gather that you are attempting to state. Please tell me if that is a correct statement of what you are saying--I don't want to be wrong twice!

I am just going to point out two quick things to you. I don't want to be guilty of going off topic. So far, I don't think we have seeing this directly relates to when one is a good vessel or a bad vessel.

In verse 5, the word translated as 'by' which you translate as 'through' is the key to the verse. I actually think your translation is better and more descriptive of the truth.

G1223 = dia
"A primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through (in very wide applications, local, causal or occasional)."

We are saved 'through' the work of the Holy Spirit, in regeneration (restoration) and renewal (renovation). Spiritual Rebirth.

This is the way the Lord says He saves us.

These two parts (2 & 3) indicate that these are more like fruits of salvation rather than causes of salvation. Could you be confusing the terms "justification" and "sanctification" with the "washing of regeneration", and "renewal of Holy Spirit"? The two terms, "justification" and "sanctification" are instantaneous acts done at our salvation,

I think that is what I said, see post #77. I quote.
"I believe that when we receive the Gospel, he washes and renews. I believe this happens all at once."

Justification means that the Christian has no guilt of sin before God, because of what Jesus did on the Cross.
Sanctification is both instantaneous and progressive. It causes us to be more and more like Jesus, and the believer is also sanctified at conversion


Wholeheartedly I believe in the TULIP because I believe that is the most Biblical Systematic Theology, but I am not a "Calvi-Nazi" about that. However, I am unsure about what you mean by "obedience unto righteousness. Could you explain it more so I do not go off on a wrong tangent?

"obedience unto righteousness" = perseverance of the saints, the 'P' in TULIP

I am not a Calvinist. AND I do believe that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are for today.

 

[By Grace]

lol

lol

Yet this whole time you have been arguing against what has been a uniquely Calvinistic teaching. lol

I stated what I believe, and I based my belief on solid exegesis, but wrote it so that a person not familiar with Koine Greek could understand; hence the non-Greek terms.

I regret that both my exegesis, and my explanation are causes for your mirth and ridicule, but they are indelible indications of your wishing to take the simple explanations geared to a babe in Christ on a personal level. I won't go there.

.

 

[By Grace]

Justification means that the Christian has no guilt of sin before God, because of what Jesus did on the Cross.
Sanctification is both instantaneous and progressive. It causes us to be more and more like Jesus, and the believer is also sanctified at conversion


Wholeheartedly I believe in the TULIP because I believe that is the most Biblical Systematic Theology, but I am not a "Calvi-Nazi" about that. However, I am unsure about what you mean by "obedience unto righteousness. Could you explain it more so I do not go off on a wrong tangent?

"obedience unto righteousness" = perseverance of the saints, the 'P' in TULIP

I am not a Calvinist. AND I do believe that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are for today.

We have more similarities than we do differences

I also request that you use the quote function to make things clearer. To do that, simply highlight the text you want to quote, then click on the double quoted in the tool bar above
barring that, you can reverse the order of these HTML tags and manually create your own quote [/QUOTE] and [ Q U O T E] . The one with the slash mark means "stop quote" and the one without the slash mark means "begin quote". Make sure that you do not remove the brackets and close the spaces I made to "fool the parser" on this site.

your quote here

That is what it looks like.

.

 

[Deborah13]

We have more similarities than we do differences

I also request that you use the quote function to make things clearer. To do that, simply highlight the text you want to quote, then click on the double quoted in the tool bar above
barring that, you can reverse the order of these HTML tags and manually create your own quote

I have used the quote function. Problem was I had used one, then change where I wanted to end and forgot to remove the first one. I will look, but I think I have corrected that post.
Maybe this will be helpful to you.
I am not a new Christian.
I am not new to this forum. I have been a steady poster for over a year.
I have studied the teachings of John Calvin, in some detail.
I have studied Armenian-ism in some detail.

I see very little difference between the two when it comes down to the nitty gritty.
Calvinism says if one does not preserver "obedience to righteousness" they were never saved to begin with.
Armenian says if one does not preserver "obedience to righteousness" they lose their salvation.
Both teach a born again experience, both teach repentance (sanctification, perseverance).
Both teach justification through the work of Christ at the cross. His righteousness, justifies us, not our own.

 

[jonahmano]

Because God has either made me an unbeliever or a believer ahead of time without any consideration possible for what I might want, right?

What a meaningless gospel that is.

edited reba

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4:12)

 

[By Grace]

I am not a new Christian.
I am not new to this forum. I have been a steady poster for over a year.
I have studied the teachings of John Calvin, in some detail.
I have studied Armenian-ism in some detail.

The author of the OP claims to be a new Christian. That is whom I have in mind when I post on his thread.

 

[jonahmano]

My problem is your doctrine that says the 'whosoever' is really not 'whosoever', but only a very small elect that were purposely created by God's choice alone to be believers who would believe and obey.

Who are you to determine that whosoever is a small elect? The people who are destined to die in hell are not ignorant they deliberately forsook the commandments of God. edited Don't you know our knowledge is like filthy rags. edited Most of the people in this world have some knowledge of Jesus Christ but they still don't believe in Him.

 

[reba]

1) Give other members the respect you would have them give to yourself. (ToS 2.4)
Address issues/ideas, not persons or personalities. Do not insult, publicly post derogatory opinions of others, post insinuation to belittle or discredit, or otherwise create a hostile environment. Present evidence for support or rebuttal during debate. Bashing the author of another view or opinion is not evidence.

7) Do not post opinions of another member's claim of Christian faith. (ToS 2.4)
Publicly judging someone as not being a Christian and/or not following Christ unless they themselves claim not be a Christian is disallowed. That's between them and the Lord. This includes judgments against collective beliefs or groups in general.

ADMIN

 

[Deborah13]

The author of the OP claims to be a new Christian. That is whom I have in mind when I post on his thread.

That is a good way to look at it and is the way I look at it too, and I believe many other do as well.
So it is fine to state our beliefs from whatever doctrine we follow.
It is for the new believer to take those posts and as any good Berean, study the scriptures to see what they say.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

...close the spaces I made to "fool the parser" on this site.

<text>Instead of spaces, you can use the 'code' button in the toolbar to communicate written code without it being parsed as HTML</text>

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Who are you to determine that whosoever is a small elect?

I didn't. Popular doctrine about God purposely deciding who he will make a believer, and who he will make an unbeliever determined that.

According to this doctrine, the few that get saved are few because God only made a few of them that are programmed ahead of time to be saved with no thought or consideration of what they, or the unbelievers he made, might want.

The people who are destined to die in hell are not ignorant they deliberately forsook the commandments of God.

...because, according to popular predestination doctrine, God decided beforehand to make them people who will deliberately forsake the Commandments of God, with no choice or opportunity of their own to do otherwise.

Most of the people in this world have some knowledge of Jesus Christ but they still don't believe in Him.

And popular predestination doctrine in the church these days say God purposely made them so they would not believe in him and never had a chance to believe.