th1b.taylor
Member
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Tired of all the political strife and infighting?
Find out how Christians are supposed to act in the following study
https://christianforums.net/threads/charismatic-bible-studies-1-peter-2-11-17.109823/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Bible Study Predestination and Election in the Bible
- Thread starter Nathan
- Start date
Nathan
Member
I think we get trapped into thinking that everyone has an opinion, therefore no opinion can be correct. Is there not truth? Does God withhold truth to those who seek it? So if one opinion is different than another, can both be correct? I would say no, both may be incorrect, but there is a correct interpretation of everything that was written down in the pages of the Bible. There has to be truth or else you cannot believe anything that was written - everything becomes 'as each man see's fit in his own eyes'.
That is why it is important to seek out truth and not set it aside. If we don't plant true seeds, and there can only be one true seed, then how can a true plant grow from a false seed? That is why it is important to discuss such things. I would never want to plant seeds that I did not know were absolute truth.
The parable of the sower was not only given, but was one of the few Jesus explained clearly. That means God knew it was important enough for us to know the truth of it, and give us a plain interpretation of it.
Luke 8:11-15
Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. The ones along the path are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. And the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear the word, receive it with joy. But these have no root; they believe for a while, and in time of testing fall away. And as for what fell among the thorns, they are those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life, and their fruit does not mature. As for that in the good soil, they are those who, hearing the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart, and bear fruit with patience.
It is not hard to see and understand the complete truth of this parable. There should not be any opinion of it, but rather an understanding of it.
We know that no one, not one person, can come to God unless God calls them. So the one who did not believe did not receive the word at all. They care too much about this life, and being so blinded by sin they give themselves over to satan. But the point is, the seed did come to them - it did enter their heart - this is plain to see. This cannot happen unless God called to them and put the seed there. The seed is not 'naturally' in the heart of man, and man can do nothing to put it there himself.
Ones on the rock, actually receive the word of God. Again, God had to put it there, it was not naturally there to begin with. It says plainly that they believe for a while. No one can believe in God, receive the word of God, without God calling them to it. It does not say they believed in God(like the demons do), it says they believed in the Word of God. There is a big difference between belief in the Word of God and just belief in a God.
The third group, are ones that the seed actually grows for a while - not just dies out quickly.
And of course, the forth group we can plainly see the seed taking root and growing abundantly.
Truth is black and white. Light and dark. Wrong and right. There is no 'third' part or 'grey' area in truth. We may not fully understand the details of truth - but we can understand the difference between truth and that which isn't.
Nathan
Member
When understanding the call of mankind by God we have to understand that God has confined us, made us, to seek a 'higher' being than ourselves.
Here is where black and white once again are plainly seen. We either choose to obey God or satan. We have no other choice. We cannot 'abstain' from the choice. Some may think that they will 'choose themselves' but that is a choice to obey satan. Anything not of God is of the devil. There is no in-between.
That is why there can only be the "elected" and those not "elected". There cannot be some that are "partially elected". There cannot be different types of "elected". There cannot be a grey area in regards to election.
Same for predestination. The whole world, from beginning to end, is predestined. Some to eternal life, some to eternal punishment. We view different types of predestination, but the outcome is only between two things - heaven and hell.
This is the main reason why I wanted to study this. When I plant seeds, as a servant of God, I want to plant the good seed and not one that is corrupt with man's opinion. True predestination and election is apart of the Word of God. You cannot plant the seed of the Word of God without predestination and election being apart of it.
Therefore, I am seeking the truth of it. I know that I do not hold all the truths of the Word of God independently, so that's why I seek my fellow servants thoughts. Upon hearing the thoughts, I line them up with the truth of God, written in the Word of God, and when held up to the Light of God, the truths and lies are made manifest.
That's the purpose of Bible study. To hold up what is said to the Word of God and let His light shine on it. If there is any darkness or any spot in a theology and doctrine then it cannot be regarded as truth.
Here is where black and white once again are plainly seen. We either choose to obey God or satan. We have no other choice. We cannot 'abstain' from the choice. Some may think that they will 'choose themselves' but that is a choice to obey satan. Anything not of God is of the devil. There is no in-between.
That is why there can only be the "elected" and those not "elected". There cannot be some that are "partially elected". There cannot be different types of "elected". There cannot be a grey area in regards to election.
Same for predestination. The whole world, from beginning to end, is predestined. Some to eternal life, some to eternal punishment. We view different types of predestination, but the outcome is only between two things - heaven and hell.
This is the main reason why I wanted to study this. When I plant seeds, as a servant of God, I want to plant the good seed and not one that is corrupt with man's opinion. True predestination and election is apart of the Word of God. You cannot plant the seed of the Word of God without predestination and election being apart of it.
Therefore, I am seeking the truth of it. I know that I do not hold all the truths of the Word of God independently, so that's why I seek my fellow servants thoughts. Upon hearing the thoughts, I line them up with the truth of God, written in the Word of God, and when held up to the Light of God, the truths and lies are made manifest.
That's the purpose of Bible study. To hold up what is said to the Word of God and let His light shine on it. If there is any darkness or any spot in a theology and doctrine then it cannot be regarded as truth.
Nathan
Member
I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, effectually to call,[1] by His Word and Spirit,[2] out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ;[3] enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God,[4] taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh;[5] renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good,[6] and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ:[7] yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.[8]
II. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man,[9] who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit,[10] he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.[11]
III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who works when, and where, and how He pleases:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]
IV. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word,[15] and may have some common operations of the Spirit,[16] yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved:[17] much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess.[18] And to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.[19]
[15] MAT 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.
[16] MAT 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 13:20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; 21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended. HEB 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come.
---------------------------------
I have to be honest when I say I agree with the above - except the section IV - and even with that, if it were worded correctly, I could agree with.
I think this is where TULIP is born. If you leave out the section IV, then the TULIP dies.
Whats interesting is that the first sentence is wholly based on one 7 word verse, and then the second sentence is based on interpretation of passages.
Take Matthew 22:14 for starters. "many are called, but few are chosen". Does God call to some, to give them a chance of repentance and belief, but then only choose from them a few to be given faith? The WCF indicates that this is true. What it leaves out is why those people do not become the elect. It leaves the interpretation of it up to the reader. Is it God who denies them or is it their selves that deny God?
What I see wrong is they might let the reader interpret it the way they want, but they point them to the direction of looking at it as God calls some, but only chooses some of the ones He calls. So while the statements above are not false - in their entirety - they are false in their selection of interpretation.
I honestly think that the whole of the matter does not rest in predestination and election, but rather the WCF(and TULIP) desire to make it impossible to believe someone can fall away from the faith. That is where the foundation of the doctrine is based, and they have to build around it in the above example in order to make the case for it.
Without getting into that end of the realm of things, I think it is very clear what the Bible talks about in regards to the Spirit of God and His work in people.
The question then has to be asked ---- Can a person share in the Spirit of God without receiving God in their lives?
The answer should be quite obvious just from the question asked. How can one have the Spirit of God in them if God does not give it to them. Does God give the Spirit to unbelievers - to those who are not in Christ?
II. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man,[9] who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit,[10] he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.[11]
III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who works when, and where, and how He pleases:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]
IV. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word,[15] and may have some common operations of the Spirit,[16] yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved:[17] much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess.[18] And to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.[19]
[15] MAT 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.
[16] MAT 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 13:20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; 21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended. HEB 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come.
---------------------------------
I have to be honest when I say I agree with the above - except the section IV - and even with that, if it were worded correctly, I could agree with.
I think this is where TULIP is born. If you leave out the section IV, then the TULIP dies.
Whats interesting is that the first sentence is wholly based on one 7 word verse, and then the second sentence is based on interpretation of passages.
Take Matthew 22:14 for starters. "many are called, but few are chosen". Does God call to some, to give them a chance of repentance and belief, but then only choose from them a few to be given faith? The WCF indicates that this is true. What it leaves out is why those people do not become the elect. It leaves the interpretation of it up to the reader. Is it God who denies them or is it their selves that deny God?
What I see wrong is they might let the reader interpret it the way they want, but they point them to the direction of looking at it as God calls some, but only chooses some of the ones He calls. So while the statements above are not false - in their entirety - they are false in their selection of interpretation.
I honestly think that the whole of the matter does not rest in predestination and election, but rather the WCF(and TULIP) desire to make it impossible to believe someone can fall away from the faith. That is where the foundation of the doctrine is based, and they have to build around it in the above example in order to make the case for it.
Without getting into that end of the realm of things, I think it is very clear what the Bible talks about in regards to the Spirit of God and His work in people.
The question then has to be asked ---- Can a person share in the Spirit of God without receiving God in their lives?
The answer should be quite obvious just from the question asked. How can one have the Spirit of God in them if God does not give it to them. Does God give the Spirit to unbelievers - to those who are not in Christ?
Butch5
Member
That's the point. God chose people through which He would fulfill the promise to David. It doesn't say they were chosen to be saved.
atpollard
Member
Which 'Predestination and Election' (the topic) non-salvation promise to David is God choosing people to fulfill?
Butch5
Member
You're letting your theology drive the interpretation. Since this is the Bible study forum, let's do that. Let's set aside out presuppositions and theology and just look at what Paul wrote. He opens the letter to the Ephesians with,
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: (Eph. 1:1 KJV)
Right here in the very first sentence of the letter Paul acknowledges two different groups. He says to the saints which are Ephesus AND the Faithful in Jesus Christ. That's two different groups.
Then in verses three through twelve he gives a Hebrew praise to God for the things He's done for Israel. In these verses Paul uses first person plural pronouns, us, we, and our. He includes himself in this group. And, he said of this group, 'we who first trust in Christ'. Then in verse 13 he switches to second person plural pronouns, you and your. That he switched to the second person plural pronouns indicates that he is speaking of a different group. There is one group us/we and another group you/your. He hasn't completely identified who these groups are yet but he has given evidence of who they are. He continues to address this you/your group all the way through chapter 2. Then in verse 11 of chapter 2 he identifies exactly who this you/your group is.
11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
(Eph. 2:11-12 KJV)
The you/your group is the Gentiles. It's spelled out plainly. He says that they were without Christ, aliens from the Commonwealth, and strangers from the covenants of promise. What covenants of promise? The ones he spoke of in chapter 1 verses 3-12. He draws a distinction between the Gentiles, uncircumcision, who were without God and Christ and the Jews, circumcision, who had God and Christ.
He continues on to explain how the Gentiles, through Christ, have been brought into the covenants of promise. After explaining how the Gentiles have been included through Christ he draws a conclusion.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; (Eph. 2:19 KJV)
Ye, the you/your group, are no more strangers and foreigners. Notice the next line here, but are fellow citizens with the saints. The distinction has been between Jew and Gentiles. However, now the Gentiles are fellow citizens with the saints? Who are the saints? They're the Jews. That's the contrast he's drawn. Now, let's look back a chapter 1 verse 1. How did Paul open the letter?
Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: (Eph. 1:1 KJV)
The saints are the Jews, they are the, us, we, our, group. The Gentiles are the you, your group. Thus verses 3-12 are about the Jews.
Notice all of this is just straight out of the text. I haven't added any Scripture from anywhere else. This is just what is found in Ephesians 1-2. There is other evidence outside of Ephesians that supports this and there is additional evidence within the book that supports this. I'll address the evidence within the book that supports this in another post. It will show beyond doubt that verse 3-12 cannot be speaking about Gentiles.
Butch5
Member
The promises to Abraham. The promise that he would be the father of a great nation, that he would be the father of many nations, that he would inherit the land, and that through him all nations would be blessed. David was one of them. God also made a promise to David, that his Seed would sit on his throne forever.
Nathan
Member
First off, let me just say you will never convince me that Paul is saying something to the readers of the letter, but not about them. You may convince others on this forum, but there is no possible way to convince me. I just don't want you to think that I will change my mind.
Secondly, if this is a Hebrew praise then was Paul once again inserting part of it into the second letter to the Thessalonians? Halfway through the letter(end of chapter 2)? Or was he not saying this to the Gentile believers, just singling out the Jewish believers among them?
Thirdly, Paul, the messenger to the Gentiles, the one who is to bring both Jew and Gentile together in Christ - he, is driving a wedge between Jew and Gentile?
Paul does not make a distinction between two groups with the word "and" in verse 1. If you look at the Greek you will see that the sentence would actually read;
"To the saints who are at Ephesus and who are faithful in Christ Jesus".
One singular group.
He is only further saying that this letter is not for those calling themselves saints, but those who are saints which is understood by their faithfulness in Christ.
Last edited:
atpollard
Member
Since this is Bible Study, and not about Calvinism (which I have sworn off defending for Lent), I offer the following observation:
Ephesians 1:1
[NKJV] Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and faithful in Christ Jesus:
[NLT] This letter is from Paul, chosen by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus. I am writing to God’s holy people in Ephesus,[fn] who are faithful followers of Christ Jesus.
[NIV] Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To God’s holy people in Ephesus,[fn] the faithful in Christ Jesus:
[ESV] Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful[fn] in Christ Jesus:
[HCSB] Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by God’s will: To the faithful saints in Christ Jesus at Ephesus.[fn]
[NASB] Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus [fn]by the will of God, To the [fn]saints who are [fn]at Ephesus and who are faithful in Christ Jesus:
[NET] From Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, to the saints [in Ephesus], the faithful in Christ Jesus.
[RSV] Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are also faithful in Christ Jesus:
Right here in the very first sentence of the letter, all of these teams of translators claim Paul acknowledges only one group ... the FAITHFUL SAINTS at Ephesus. Thus reinforcing that Greek or Jew, there is only one name by which all men are saved and the ground at the foot of the cross is, indeed, level.
I respectfully disagree with your premise, not on any theological grounds (free will, determinism, Calvinism or Arminianism), but because it goes against so much of the basic teaching of what the Gospel is and why Jesus came. To reinterpret vast swaths of scripture as 'for Jews' and other swaths as 'for Gentiles' violates most of the basic message that Acts and the Apostolic letters teach.
Butch5
Member
My mistake! I saw this in the "Bible Study" forum. However, since you've determined that your mind is set I won't continue.
Butch5
Member
All you have to do is check the Greek text and you'll see that the word "kia" (and) is in the passage. However, I never said that Ephesians 1:3-12 was for Jews. I said it was speaking of Jews. There's a big difference. It seems that people don't really pay attention to what is being said. I'm not surprise that you guys are rejecting what I said, I doesn't seem to me that you're reading it. I showed from several different passages that Paul is making a distinction between two different groups. Yet neither of you have engaged my post to show how it is wrong. Proper exegesis requires that we follow the rules of language and grammar. We don't get to make it up.
For those who may be reading along. For a more in depth and verse by verse breakdown of Ephesians 1:3-12 here is a link to paper on the subject.
http://www.pfrs.org/commentary/Eph_1_3.pdf
Butch5
Member
Sure. However, to understand them properly we have to make sure we're reading them correctly.
Nathan
Member
No worries.
I just didn't want you to think I was on the fence about this. There is just zero doubt who Paul is writing to and what he is saying. I have no doubt it is a Hebrew praise - but I without doubt know that he was sharing it with the fellow believers.
Paul never considered himself above the Gentiles in the flesh. He always went to great strides to show that they were on equal standing and equal calling with the Jews.
The one time he had to "boast" about his fleshly heritage you can feel the anxiety that he spoke with. To say he just casually draws a distinction, speaking to a young church as they were, would be counter productive for their faith. Not to mention the text specifically indicates otherwise.
I think your wise in some of your interpretation, and I learned something new from one of your posts already. So please keep sharing if you feel like it. I'm sure you have more to offer.
Butch5
Member
Fom reading your posts I don't think you're getting my message. It may be that I'm not explaining it well but what I've been saying has nothing to do with Jews or Gentiles being better than one or the other. I has nothing to do with Paul think one is better than the other. It is simply a matter of who is being spoke to and who is being spoke about. If I have time tomorrow I plan on posting more internal evidence.No worries.
I just didn't want you to think I was on the fence about this. There is just zero doubt who Paul is writing to and what he is saying. I have no doubt it is a Hebrew praise - but I without doubt know that he was sharing it with the fellow believers.
Paul never considered himself above the Gentiles in the flesh. He always went to great strides to show that they were on equal standing and equal calling with the Jews.
The one time he had to "boast" about his fleshly heritage you can feel the anxiety that he spoke with. To say he just casually draws a distinction, speaking to a young church as they were, would be counter productive for their faith. Not to mention the text specifically indicates otherwise.
I think your wise in some of your interpretation, and I learned something new from one of your posts already. So please keep sharing if you feel like it. I'm sure you have more to offer.
Nathan
Member
Butch, I just want to say that if I was trying to view that passage to fit my theology I would gladly join you in your intupretation. I don't look at Calvinism as being correct and your view of Ephesians would fit my position just great. It would be nice to be able to write it off in order to prove Calvinism wrong.
But I cannot just abandon my view of the passage to line it up with my theology. I have to stay true even if it doesn't "help" my effort to clear the Calvinist waters.
But I cannot just abandon my view of the passage to line it up with my theology. I have to stay true even if it doesn't "help" my effort to clear the Calvinist waters.
Nathan
Member
I plan on going through the link you provided tomorrow and try to better understand what your saying. Thank you for sharing it.
