Biblical Election and Predestination

[Drew]

We can continue this conversation but it seems to be getting absurd. You say that free will is a basic part of the definition of the words "without excuse" but present no evidence.

Well, we do agree on one thing - that the conversation is getting absurd.

First of all, I have shown how the absence of explicit reference to "free will" in a dictionary definition is not a good argument. There are plenty of things implicit in the meanings of words that do not show up in a dictionary definition. Nobody is going to buy the argument that in order for a concept to be implicit in another concept, the dictionary has to explicitly indicate this.

Does the dictionary definition of "woman" tell us that women have breasts (sorry for all the sexual allusions)? No it does not. Does the dictionary definition of "cat" tell us about purring? No it does not. Does the dictionary definition of love tell us that its greatest manifestation is the laying down of one's life for the beloved? No it does not. You are pursuing an argument that can't work.

I could go on ad infinitum. What is absurd is the patently silly notion that in order for a concept to entail another concept, this has to be "written down in the dictionary or the lexicon". Language is too sophisticated and complex for that.

I could go on and on listing concepts that are implicitly bundled into other concepts which are not "listed in the lexicon"

When I assert that the concept of being "without excuse" entails free will, I am no more "making up axioms" as I would be if I were to claim that cats purr. Neither of these entailments is in the dictionary. But they are real social contracts we make with each other.

When any human being describes a person as "being without excuse" they implicitly believe that free will is involved. This is so obviously the case that I am surprised I have to argue the point. Our criminal system differentiates between people who are believed to "have an excuse" such as mental illness and those who do not.

If being "without excuse" has nothing to do with free will, why do we not apply the concept to entiites we all agree do not have free wills? Why not say "that hurricane is without excuse", or that "meteorite that crashed into the earth is without excuse"? The patent absurdity of such claims underscores that we believe that the concept of being "without excuse" necessitates free will.

And this does not need to be written down in a dictionary for us to know it to be the case.

 

[GraceBwithU]

Are you saying that you are not interested in being saved from hell? Are you saying you do not want to go to heaven?

I am saved from hell. I'm also VERY interested in being in communion with the person of God. I don't just want to go to heaven to have a safe haven from hell, I want to know God and be with God forever. Heaven would be nothing if God wasn't there. God is what makes heaven what it is, without God, heaven would be hell.

Wow...!!!! orion has spoken of many feelings but this was never stated. Shame on you!!

If he is yet unconverted, which he openly admits, then he hates God. He is at enmity with Him, and wants nothing to do with Him. He would love a safe haven from hell, but just like any other unbeliever, He doesn't want God to be in that safe haven, because he hates Him. God's word declares it.

[quote:109b7]
Predestining a soul to damnation…hum…this quite frankly takes away any justice…God has not done this…and will not.

How could a loving God that has offered His grace of salvation create some for damnation? Where is the justice in this...quite frankly this is not justice at all, this is prejudice not justice. This describes a lynch mob of the old west, NOT saving grace!

Do you realize that if you are wrong, which you are, you are blaspheming God in a horrendous way? God has created some for damnation, and He is perfectly just and righteous in doing so. He has elected them to hell, and He is just in sending them there, just like He would have been just in sending the elect there if He didn't, by His own will and unmerited undeserving favor, die for them under His own wrath and drink their hell for them. What you don't understand is that you deserve to burn in hell forever. Every single man on this earth deserves to burn in hell forever. His justice demands it. We have all sinned against God in horrible, horrendous ways, and if He so pleased He could throw every single one of us into hell forever and execute justice in perfect righteousness in the process. The fact that God chose to save a remnant which we call His elect, by His grace, is a demonstration of His love and mercy and unmerited favor, but the fact that He also chose not to save some but to justly send them where we all deserve to go is PERFECT JUSTICE, and you claiming otherwise is horrendous blasphemous trash.[/quote:109b7]

You continue to show a hyper-Calvinistic form of evangelism, which is mainly focused on evangelising John Calvin’s teaching, not winning people to Christ. I’m not entirely sure that Orion has not posted his remarks in the way that he has to prove this very thing. Regardless…you have failed miserably. You have only shown the vanity of Calvinism.

Calvinist use the word elect as if it were the only word in the Bible, yet it only appears 17 times in the entire 66 books of the KJV. Only 4 in the OT…all are speaking of Israel. It is not that the bible does not clearly talk about the elect being saved, it does…John Calvin simply has been able to distort what this means for His on personal gain in Geneva.

 

[mondar]

We can continue this conversation but it seems to be getting absurd. You say that free will is a basic part of the definition of the words "without excuse" but present no evidence.

First of all, I have shown how the absence of explicit reference to "free will" in a dictionary definition is not a good argument.

Yes, the reason I ignored the argument is that I dont think it carries any weight. I would agree that the question of lexical definitions is not what is missing, but what is in the definition. You did not quote some definition with a reference to free will being a part of the definition, but you make some absurd claim that your notion is commonly accepted by all. That is what an axiomatic truth is. Your definition is simply not axiomatic. It is simply not true that everyone agrees with your definition.

There are plenty of things implicit in the meanings of words that do not show up in a dictionary definition. Nobody is going to buy the argument that in order for a concept to be implicit in another concept, the dictionary has to explicitly indicate this.

Drew, you really think this argument carries any weight? You are asserting that because a lexical definition is silent about the term free will you must be right. You also falsely assert that it is an axiomatic truth. I dont see how you can think either argument carries any weight at all.

Does the dictionary definition of "woman" tell us that women have breasts (sorry for all the sexual allusions)? No it does not. Does the dictionary definition of "cat" tell us about purring? No it does not. Does the dictionary definition of love tell us that its greatest manifestation is the laying down of one's life for the beloved? No it does not. You are pursuing an argument that can't work.

All I asking for is to find some lexical support, any lexical support for the definition of your word. If I look in a medical dictionary, are you sure I cannot find some of the illustrations you ask for? Certainly some medical dictionary has some such definition or explaination. The bottom line is that you are not willing to subject your opinions to any sort of exegetical judgements. Your opinion is based solely upon eisegesis (importing concepts into a text).

I could go on ad infinitum. What is absurd is the patently silly notion that in order for a concept to entail another concept, this has to be "written down in the dictionary or the lexicon". Language is too sophisticated and complex for that.

I could go on and on listing concepts that are implicitly bundled into other concepts which are not "listed in the lexicon"

When I assert that the concept of being "without excuse" entails free will,

That is all you have done is assert. You have presented no positive evidence. You sit back making claims, you seem to be suggesting that it is not neccessary to present either contextual or lexical evidence. Then how can you call your thinking exegetical?

I am no more "making up axioms" as I would be if I were to claim that cats purr. Neither of these entailments is in the dictionary. But they are real social contracts we make with each other.

An axiomatic truth is one that everyone agrees with. You made the claim that everyone agrees that your definition is correct. That was the basis of one of your former arguments.

When any human being describes a person as "being without excuse" they implicitly believe that free will is involved.

Who says it is implicit? This is the axiomatic truth I was talking about.


This is so obviously the case that I am surprised I have to argue the point. Our criminal system differentiates between people who are believed to "have an excuse" such as mental illness and those who do not.

If being "without excuse" has nothing to do with free will, why do we not apply the concept to entiites we all agree do not have free wills? Why not say "that hurricane is without excuse", or that "meteorite that crashed into the earth is without excuse"? The patent absurdity of such claims underscores that we believe that the concept of being "without excuse" necessitates free will.

And this does not need to be written down in a dictionary for us to know it to be the case.[/quote]

I still feel like I must ask, do you know the difference between will and free will? Of course humans can make decisions. The question is why do they make the decisions they do. Do you even know what free will is?

 

[GraceBwithU]

JayR,
You speak of faith, repentance and such things as being God given…I agree. Let’s not stop there.

• Air that we breathe.
• Our very life
• Plants
• Animals
• The stars
• The moon
• The sun
• Our senses…touch, smell, taste, sight, hearing.

These are all things that are God given, (or created.) just as faith, repentance the freewill to accept God’s offer of salvation. This does not say in anyway that God does not seek us…it only is saying that we have a choice to believe or not. It is not our freewill that saves us…it is our freewill that damns us when you choice not to follow him. God does not damn us, He saves those that believe. We damn ourselves!

If I give you something, it is still your choice when you use it.

 

[Orion]

You continue to show a hyper-Calvinistic form of evangelism, which is mainly focused on evangelising John Calvin’s teaching, not winning people to Christ. I’m not entirely sure that Orion has not posted his remarks in the way that he has to prove this very thing. Regardless…you have failed miserably. You have only shown the vanity of Calvinism.

Calvinist use the word elect as if it were the only word in the Bible, yet it only appears 17 times in the entire 66 books of the KJV. Only 4 in the OT…all are speaking of Israel. It is not that the bible does not clearly talk about the elect being saved, it does…John Calvin simply has been able to distort what this means for His on personal gain in Geneva.

I'm certain that I'm not a Calvinist, and that I don't agree or like HIS interpretation of the Gospel. That's been my whole point in this thread. I don't reject God, but am looking for a real diety that accepts me as I am.

If heaven is filled with people like JayR, I'm not sure how good of a place it would be. :-?

 

[Drew]

You did not quote some definition with a reference to free will being a part of the definition, but you make some absurd claim that your notion is commonly accepted by all. That is what an axiomatic truth is. Your definition is simply not axiomatic. It is simply not true that everyone agrees with your definition.

I disagree - I believe that is universally accepted that being "without excuse" necessitates free will. Actually, since you do not accept it, and probably other Calvinists as wel, it is not universallyagreed. But I stand by my belief that an overwhelming majority of people believe this.

But this cannot go anywhere since I cannot take a huge survey. So we will just have to agree to disagree on this matter.

You are asserting that because a lexical definition is silent about the term free will you must be right.

What is the matter with you? I never ever said such a ridiculous thing. I would have to be an utter idiot to say such a thing.

I think we have taken this particular line of inquiry as far as it will go.

But I am interested in the following question

I still feel like I must ask, do you know the difference between will and free will? Of course humans can make decisions. The question is why do they make the decisions they do. Do you even know what free will is?

I hope to respond to this.

 

[mutzrein]

It wasn't me that made the assertion - so tell me pray, where does scripture say the 'non-elect' go to hell?

And yet you make the assertion that it doesn't say it through your question. Romans 9. Some were made as vessels for honor, which are the elect, and some were made as vessels for dishonor, which are the damned. Some were prepared as vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, which are the damned, and some were made as vessels of mercy prepared for glory, which are the elect.

"(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calls.) It was said to her, the elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

Without God's calling which is made by His election and mercy according to the counsel of His will, He hates you. God hates workers of iniquity, and those who aren't called are already prepared for hell, because God hated them before He even created them, and has prepared them as vessels for destruction.
[quote:13b7c]
So why would you tell someone who is not the elect that they need the blood of Christ?

I already answered your question. I don't know whether he is part of the elect or not and neither do you, so I'm going to treat him as I ought to, as a human being who doesn't know one way or the other. Regardless of whether he is or not, the statement that he needs the blood of Christ is true, and he does need it either way, only he won't get it if he's not part of the elect. I'm going to tell him what he needs in hope that he is part of the elect and that God will grant him repentance and faith according to His mercy and the counsel of His will.[/quote:13b7c]

Thankyou. Lets deal with the first part. I have no problem with ‘election’ and consequential ‘non-election’. Yes, some vessels are made for honor and some for dishonor. Some are made for glory and some made for destruction. God loves some and hates others. I’m with you on this.

What I am questioning though, is the leap that is made from what scripture calls ‘destruction’ to what you seem to conclude is judgment, resulting in hell. Even John 3:16 – perhaps the most quoted verse in the bible - speaks of these, ‘perishing’. Why is it then, that ‘perishing’ and ‘destruction’ is interpreted as everlasting punishment in hell?

 

[JayR]

These are all things that are God given, (or created.) just as faith, repentance the freewill to accept God’s offer of salvation. This does not say in anyway that God does not seek us…it only is saying that we have a choice to believe or not. It is not our freewill that saves us…it is our freewill that damns us when you choice not to follow him. God does not damn us, He saves those that believe. We damn ourselves!

"Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.â€Â
They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, ‘You will be made free’?â€Â
Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed."

"But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods. 9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage?"

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage."

Notice how the Pharisees are saying the exact same thing that you are. They say, " we.. have never been in bondage to anyone." In other words, we are free and always have been. We aren't slaves. They go on, "How can you say, 'You will be made free." Notice they continue arguing that they are free. Jesus then replies, "Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin." Not only is Jesus stating that human beings are literally slaves of sin, but He makes this statement in opposition to someone claiming to be free. In other words, He is saying, "You are not free, you are slaves of sin." Jesus Christ Himself argues against your position.

Human beings have a will, but it is not free. It is in bondage to sin and to the lusts of the devil. Human beings are not only incapable of freely choosing to follow God, but are repulsed at the idea, because they hate God, the true one atleast. If any unconverted man sits down with a preacher and is taken through the Bible and given a complete overview of the nature and person of God, he will absolutely be repulsed at what he sees. He is at enmity with God because his deeds are evil, and God is good, and He is his judge. The only way for a creature who is literally a slave of sin and incapable of following God to become converted is if God by His power makes him free. Notice how Orion only wants to follow a diety who accepts him as who he is. Sorry Orion, but the God of the Bible will not accept you as you are, the only way that the God of the Bible can accept you is it He takes you, puts His Spirit within you, crucifies you with Christ, and transforms you by His power into the image of Christ. Orion is going to die, one way or the other, either in hell for all eternity, or upon conversion when you die to self and become a slave of God who will become conformed to the image of Christ. You are a dead man, it's just a matter of how long and in what way.

"For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it"

God absolutely damns people to hell.

"Then said Jesus again to them, I go my way, and you shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: where I go, you cannot come."

What is this? Jesus is stating to the Pharisees absolutely that they are going to seek Him, and yet they are going to die in their sins. Where He goes, they cannot come. Not only does this clearly demonstrate that God has ordained some as vessels of destruction and that these cannot be saved, but Jesus is claiming that the Pharisees are going to seek him, and yet they cannot come to the place where He is going. How could that be? I mean, according to your view any man who freely chooses to follow Christ is saved, right? Jesus once again argues against your position. He says, no, some will seek me, and they cannot come to where I am going, and they will die in their sins, because God has ordained some as vessels of destruction, and no matter how hard they will, or run, or whatever effort they make, they cannot come to where He is going, because they are slaves to sin, and God chose not to set them free.

"What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.†So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy."

 

[JayR]

What I am questioning though, is the leap that is made from what scripture calls ‘destruction’ to what you seem to conclude is judgment, resulting in hell. Even John 3:16 – perhaps the most quoted verse in the bible - speaks of these, ‘perishing’. Why is it then, that ‘perishing’ and ‘destruction’ is interpreted as everlasting punishment in hell?

The context is talking about election to salvation and the election to damnation, so the word destruction clearly is talking about punishment in hell. The phrase "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" contrasts with the phrase "...the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory..." and clearly it is talking about punishment in hell, just as the other phrase is clearly talking about election to salvation.

 

[MarkT]

These are all things that are God given, (or created.) just as faith, repentance the freewill to accept God’s offer of salvation. This does not say in anyway that God does not seek us…it only is saying that we have a choice to believe or not. It is not our freewill that saves us…it is our freewill that damns us when you choice not to follow him. God does not damn us, He saves those that believe. We damn ourselves!


"Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.â€Â
They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, ‘You will be made free’?â€Â
Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed."

"But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods. 9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage?"

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage."

Notice how the Pharisees are saying the exact same thing that you are. They say, " we.. have never been in bondage to anyone." In other words, we are free and always have been. We aren't slaves. They go on, "How can you say, 'You will be made free." Notice they continue arguing that they are free. Jesus then replies, "Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin." Not only is Jesus stating that human beings are literally slaves of sin, but He makes this statement in opposition to someone claiming to be free. In other words, He is saying, "You are not free, you are slaves of sin." Jesus Christ Himself argues against your position.

I think they are talking about being free as to will, not free as to sin. If they say they can exercise self control so that it would appear that they can choose to sin or not to sin, then I would agree with that. It takes self control which is like will power. Jesus said, 'resist the devil'. The only thing is that they are depending entirely on themselves.

Human beings have a will, but it is not free. It is in bondage to sin and to the lusts of the devil.

Of some you can say that their will is to do the will of their father, the devil. They would be the sons of the evil one. However, if they are of God, then they will hear the words of God and God will set them free.

What does Paul say of the churches of Macedonia? "For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own freewill' 2 Cor. 8:3

Paul said, 'when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness'. Romans 6:20, which refers to the following of the law.

Human beings are not only incapable of freely choosing to follow God, but are repulsed at the idea, because they hate God, the true one atleast.

No. God put a new heart and a new spirit in his people and he caused them to walk in his statutes and to observe his ordinances. We were called from the womb. You've got the right idea in part. It was only when we read the Bible that we came to our senses. Before that we were living in the flesh and slaves to sin.

If any unconverted man sits down with a preacher and is taken through the Bible and given a complete overview of the nature and person of God, he will absolutely be repulsed at what he sees.

Actually it depends on the man; if he has the spirit to understand. The man who has root in himself will read the Bible. The ones who hate God will not understand.

"For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it"

God absolutely damns people to hell.

"Then said Jesus again to them, I go my way, and you shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: where I go, you cannot come."

What is this? Jesus is stating to the Pharisees absolutely that they are going to seek Him, and yet they are going to die in their sins. Where He goes, they cannot come. Not only does this clearly demonstrate that God has ordained some as vessels of destruction and that these cannot be saved, but Jesus is claiming that the Pharisees are going to seek him, and yet they cannot come to the place where He is going. How could that be? I mean, according to your view any man who freely chooses to follow Christ is saved, right? Jesus once again argues against your position. He says, no, some will seek me, and they cannot come to where I am going, and they will die in their sins, because God has ordained some as vessels of destruction, and no matter how hard they will, or run, or whatever effort they make, they cannot come to where He is going, because they are slaves to sin, and God chose not to set them free.

"What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.†So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy."

[/quote]

That's right Jay but you have to keep it in mind that we are all called to Gods purpose. Few are chosen to receive the higher gifts. I agree mostly with your understanding, but I wouldn't condemn the ones who are poor in spirit. In fact they are blessed. There are many more that are called who can not even understand what they are doing in the church. But that's Ok. I agree, they should seek the higher gifts too, but there are those who even though they are called, they can not bear to hear the words of God. You can find them in every church. You can't beat them over the head with the Bible.

The elect are the ones who have obtained a level of faith equal to the apostles, and as I see it, they should be feeding the flock, not scattering them, and certainly not damning them to hell.

 

[mondar]

You did not quote some definition with a reference to free will being a part of the definition, but you make some absurd claim that your notion is commonly accepted by all. That is what an axiomatic truth is. Your definition is simply not axiomatic. It is simply not true that everyone agrees with your definition.

I disagree - I believe that is universally accepted that being "without excuse" necessitates free will. Actually, since you do not accept it, and probably other Calvinists as wel, it is not universallyagreed. But I stand by my belief that an overwhelming majority of people believe this.

But this cannot go anywhere since I cannot take a huge survey. So we will just have to agree to disagree on this matter.

Drew, do you own a lexicon? Have you ever looked at a lexicon? Lexicons will list definition after definition of a word and group them into contexts. While there is nothing inspired about a lexicon, in your posts you are simply not taking any lexical studies serious. In lexical studies, I have never heard anyone ever make such an absurd claim as you are making that the meaning of a word is implicit. I really dont understand why you cannot see that your attitude is totally isogetical. The statement "it is implicit" is a major red flag for isogesis. The nuance of words are always demonstrated in the context.

Drew, I would lighten up, but you have done this so repeatedly, that it is a pattern with you. I honestly do not think you understand principles of exegesis. You do not understand how to draw meaning from the text, but you import meaning into the text. your not looking greek words up in a lexicon and saying "ahhh, this is what that word means." You just sit back and dream some stuff up "well, I think this means that."

You make this associations. When you see a word related to some covenant concept, your all over it. Now often there is some association between something like circumcision and the abrahamic and mosaic covenants, but you then make leaps in your mind to "this text is all about covenant community." That is not exegesis.

You are asserting that because a lexical definition is silent about the term free will you must be right.

What is the matter with you? I never ever said such a ridiculous thing. I would have to be an utter idiot to say such a thing.

I think we have taken this particular line of inquiry as far as it will go.

You have made repeated analogies of this "implicit definition" concept. Is it not the same thing to say that a lexical definition can be silent about the nuance of a term? This thread goes on and on, yet have you bothered to look at a lexicon yet? Comeon Drew, your not doing any work with the text but sitting behind your keyboard dreaming up the meanings to terms.

But I am interested in the following question

I still feel like I must ask, do you know the difference between will and free will? Of course humans can make decisions. The question is why do they make the decisions they do. Do you even know what free will is?

I hope to respond to this.

Since free will is not a biblical term except for the "free will offerings of the OT." I gotta see this definition. By the way, the free will offerings have little or nothing to do with the concept of free will. Since those offerings are the only time in the entire bible that the term is used, I gotta see this definition of a biblical term.

Since free will is not a biblical term, but is used in theology, I guess I am going to be at some disadvantage here. No exegetical tools will apply to this discussion.

Let me take a poke at this....

"Will" is the ability to make a decision. One can make a decision to get up and put your right shoe on before your left shoe. This has nothing to do with human nature, but is simply people making choices.

"Free Will" is when in human nature, we have the ability to make decisions pleasing to God without any restrictions within our nature. Well, we could look at the term doulos in scripture (Romans 6) but I have to go. Time is gone for now.

 

[Orion]

I awoke from my sleep, this morning, and these thought came to me. These thoughts are all contigent upon IF JayR (and Calvanists of his type) are, in fact, correct:

1. What's the point of "The Great Commission"? Christians are supposed to go "evangelize the world" for the purpose of "making converts". Why? If God elects a person, . . . then regardless of geographic location, that person will sense that call and be drawn. There is absolutely no reason to send missionaries anywhere.

2. Because the overwhelmingly vaste majority of humans who have ever lived died outside of this calling. . . . . because God hates them, thus didn't call them, . . . .then God is overwhelmingly NOT a "God of Love" at all, but rather, and obviously, a "God of hate".

 

[MarkT]

When Paul said of the churches of Macedonia? "For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own freewill' 2 Cor. 8:3, he was not talking about choice. 'Freewill' is being used here to say that it was in their heart to do it.

To take away the idea that no one forced them to do it or that it was their idea to do it, is really missing the point. It was in their heart to do it. In other words, the love of God was in them. The desire to do it was caused by the love of God.

But what does inserting the word 'choice' do? The term 'choice' negates what came from the heart. Instead, it implies or should I say it creates an equal 'not' choice. It creates an equal possibilty. It suggests they could have not done it. I believe this comes from a hatred of being told what to do. In fact it comes from the spirit of feminism. A spirit that would only love a god that loves them equally, someone who gives them an equal right to hate God if they so desired and who wouldn't hate them even if they did hate God. No one can be chosen, and God is a choice in their minds. In fact, God gives them the right to choose.

Indeed, the ones who argue for choice reveal themselves by saying they would not want to live with such a god, as if they have a choice, if what we say is true, and they would call God a monster.

 

[Drew]

Drew, do you own a lexicon? Have you ever looked at a lexicon? Lexicons will list definition after definition of a word and group them into contexts. While there is nothing inspired about a lexicon, in your posts you are simply not taking any lexical studies serious. In lexical studies, I have never heard anyone ever make such an absurd claim as you are making that the meaning of a word is implicit.

This is so silly I am surprised you are willing to pursue this line of thinking. It is universally known that all the entailments - all the implicit meanings of a word - are not going to be explicitly set forth in a lexicon or dictionary, nor are they fully detemined by "context" as we will see. Language is too complex to allow that - the definitions would become wildly unwieldly. I am making an assertion - that when people refer to someone in a state where they are "without excuse" they (almost universally) implicitly understand that free will is present.

Either I am right or I am wrong. But whether I am right or wrong cannot be ascertained by an appeal to "lexicons" or dictionaries. Why? Because, as I have proven, implicit concepts are not always present in dictionary definitions. No matter how much you would like this to be otherwise, it is simply not the case. And I will prove it yet again

Consider the statement: "Fred loves Jane". Now dumb old lexically-deprived Drew comes along and says "this statement implicitly entails the belief that Fred will not intentionally hit Jane with a baseball bat in order to cause her pain". Aha, people object! Drew cannot say this - no definition of love in any lexicon or dictionary or manual ever makes any mention of love implicitly entailing the thing about not whacking the beloved with a baseball bat. And baseball bats are nowhere in view in the present context. So Drew is inventing concepts and illicitly importing them. No one will buy that.

The statement "it is implicit" is a major red flag for isogesis. The nuance of words are always demonstrated in the context.

I am not denying that context has a determining effect on the nuance. But it is not all context - it is a mixture in the most general case. But when I say: "That boy Fred caught the baseball", the context has absolutely no determining effect on the content of the concept "boy". I know that you would not dispute this. So please do not accuse me of "importing concepts", unless you are going to argue that I cannot claim that a "boy" has such and such properties (e.g. has testosterone in his blood) since the true "exegete" does not import such concepts and determines meaning from the context.

 

[Drew]

You are asserting that because a lexical definition is silent about the term free will you must be right.

What is the matter with you? I never ever said such a ridiculous thing. I would have to be an utter idiot to say such a thing.

I think we have taken this particular line of inquiry as far as it will go.

You have made repeated analogies of this "implicit definition" concept. Is it not the same thing to say that a lexical definition can be silent about the nuance of a term? This thread goes on and on, yet have you bothered to look at a lexicon yet? Comeon Drew, your not doing any work with the text but sitting behind your keyboard dreaming up the meanings to terms.

You originally posted the following:

You are asserting that because a lexical definition is silent about the term free will you must be right"

Now you say

Is it not the same thing to say that a lexical definition can be silent about the nuance of a term?

I agree with the second statement - a lexical definition can be silent. But that is not your intial accusation which is yet another of your misrepresentations of me stretching back over months.

I never never said or implied that because a lexical definition is silent about the term free will I must be right.

If you are going to accuse me of being soft on exegesis, I suggest that you need to clear up your own thinking before you cast such stones. You are clearly mistaken in your initial claim.

 

[JayR]

I think they are talking about being free as to will, not free as to sin. If they say they can exercise self control so that it would appear that they can choose to sin or not to sin, then I would agree with that. It takes self control which is like will power. Jesus said, 'resist the devil'. The only thing is that they are depending entirely on themselves.

I agree with most of what you say here. But Jesus also commands to "be perfect as my Father in heaven is perfect" and unconverted men certainly cannot do that, let alone resist their master. Jesus gave that command to His people, and the only ones capable of obeying that command are those who God empowers by His grace to do so.

What does Paul say of the churches of Macedonia? "For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own freewill' 2 Cor. 8:3

Yes, absolutely, because becoming free from sin solely by the power of God they are now capable of choosing righteousness from the regenerated heart that God has placed within them.

[quote:2ed5d] Human beings are not only incapable of freely choosing to follow God, but are repulsed at the idea, because they hate God, the true one atleast.

No. God put a new heart and a new spirit in his people and he caused them to walk in his statutes and to observe his ordinances. We were called from the womb. You've got the right idea in part. It was only when we read the Bible that we came to our senses. Before that we were living in the flesh and slaves to sin.[/quote:2ed5d]

I made that statement regarding unconverted men. Sorry for not specifying.

Yes, Absolutely, but he does this upon conversion. This is what happens when the carnal, wicked, depraved, God hating man who is part of the elect is saved by God in God's time according to the counsel of His will. Reading the Bible isn't what brought us to our senses. I read my Bible plenty of times in my unconverted state and then I went and lived like a demon. What makes us come to our senses is when God places His Spirit within us and regenerates our hearts. We may very well be called from the womb, but that doesn't change the fact that we lived in wickedness and carnality, and were at enmity with God before conversion.

Anyhow, what verse says explcitly that God calls us from the womb? How do you know that being called isn't a term for when we are regenerated and then on from there called on to glory? How do you know the calling doesn't begin with regeneration? Or how do you know that calling doesn't begin when God begins to draw us to Christ?

"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be."

We had a carnal mind at enmity to God and were slaves to sin until God put His Spirit within us and caused us to keep His statutes and judgments.

Actually it depends on the man; if he has the spirit to understand. The man who has root in himself will read the Bible. The ones who hate God will not understand.

No. All unconverted men are at enmity with God and hate God. Men who live in carnality and who have carnal minds are at enmity against God. The Bible says "...no one understands... no not one."

That's right Jay but you have to keep it in mind that we are all called to Gods purpose.

We are all called to Gods purpose as a race, but God calls some to salvation and some to damnation. Some will be saved, and some can't and will not be saved.

Don't make the mistake of believing that just because someone goes to church building that they are called to salvation. Jesus said many would say to Him, "Lord, Lord..." and He would reply, "depart from me I never knew you." Hypocrites who die in their hypocrisy are not called. They aren't even believers.

The elect are the ones who have obtained a level of faith equal to the apostles, and as I see it, they should be feeding the flock, not scattering them, and certainly not damning them to hell.

No. The elect are the people who God will save and the only people who God will save. They are the people who God will justify, and the only people who God will justify. It doesn't matter who the person is, if God has regenerated their wicked heart and they hate the evil they once loved, and love the righteousness they once hated, if they have the indwelling Spirit of God and God has granted them repentance and a saving faith to any degree, they are part of the elect.

 

[Drew]

Hello JayR:

I have written many posts in which I do more than claim my position on the matter of election in respect to Romans 9 - I actually argue the point. Can you please either point to posts where you have done more than simply state your position. Or, actually make a case.

For example, do you dispute that Paul tells us what Esau and Jacob are "elected to" when he (Paul) writes this:

Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or badâ€â€in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who callsâ€â€she was told, "The older will serve the younger."

Paul has told us what the purpose of election is - the older shall serve the younger.

But, since I am a sporting fellow, I will acknowledge perhaps a double intent here and that there is an unstated implication (watch out for mondar!) of election to heaven and to hell. Tell me, exactly on what basis do you justify committing to what is clearly not explicitly stated?

Is it on the basis of the implications of "love" and "hate"? Then I suggest that you need to address my arguments, rooted in scripture and supported by the NET Bible commentaries, that these terms really connot "select" and "reject", neither of which would justify the conclusion that you draw.

 

[JayR]

1. What's the point of "The Great Commission"? Christians are supposed to go "evangelize the world" for the purpose of "making converts". Why? If God elects a person, . . . then regardless of geographic location, that person will sense that call and be drawn. There is absolutely no reason to send missionaries anywhere.

God commands us to preach the gospel. If God so pleased, He could raise up some frogs to hop over to His elect and proclaim the gospel to them. The fact that He uses His people is just how He chose to do it. Christians don't make converts. God makes converts, because salvation is totally and absolutely a supernatural work of God. You're right in saying that if God elects a person they will be saved, absolutely, but God commands us to preach the gospel to every creature, so we do so, and if God chose to save His elect through the preaching of His people, then so be it.

Because the overwhelmingly vaste majority of humans who have ever lived died outside of this calling. . . . . because God hates them, thus didn't call them, . . . .then God is overwhelmingly NOT a "God of Love" at all, but rather, and obviously, a "God of hate".

God absolutely is love, but He also hates. God hates workers of iniquity because He is absolutely holy and is repulsed at their existence. God is the God of love, but He does hate, and that is good. Hating evil isn't a bad attribute, it's a blessed virtue.

 

[Orion]

Because the overwhelmingly vaste majority of humans who have ever lived died outside of this calling. . . . . because God hates them, thus didn't call them, . . . .then God is overwhelmingly NOT a "God of Love" at all, but rather, and obviously, a "God of hate".

God absolutely is love, but He also hates. God hates workers of iniquity because He is absolutely holy and is repulsed at their existence. God is the God of love, but He does hate, and that is good. Hating evil isn't a bad attribute, it's a blessed virtue.

Yet he CHOOSES to LOVE and CALL only SOME of these "workers of iniquity", . . .which YOU were and still are, and not [again] the overwhelming majority of humanity throughout time, past, present, and future! That means he HATES them. . . . . . MANY more than who "are called". It is obvious that your god is one of HATE, . . . . with a few small reminant of called. This has nothing to do with "hating evil". Your god could very well call everyone, but chooses to damn almost everyone, for his own pleasure, and for his own glory. :-?

This ideology is NO different than me ONLY loving my own blood family and HATING everyone else on the face of the planet, and killing them all, in due time. If I did that, it would be detestable, and any sane person would agree.

 

[JayR]

Yet he CHOOSES to LOVE and CALL only SOME of these "workers of iniquity", . . .which YOU were and still are, and not [again] the overwhelming majority of humanity throughout time, past, present, and future! That means he HATES them. . . . . . MANY more than who "are called". It is obvious that your god is one of HATE, . . . . with a few small reminant of called. This has nothing to do with "hating evil". Your god could very well call everyone, but chooses to damn almost everyone, for his own pleasure, and for his own glory. :-?

Yes, He chooses to call some workers of iniquity, and I was, but no longer am by His regenerating work, because the counsel of His perfect will led Him to do so. He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy and whom He will He hardens. What reply do you intend to make against a perfect God with a perfect will? "There is no wisdom nor understanding nor council against the Lord."

No. God couldn't call everyone. If He could He would, because He isn't willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. That is the desire of His heart, but the counsel of His perfect will has Him choose to damn some and execute PERFECT JUSTICE in perfect righteousness as He would on His elect if He hadn't justified them according to His own love, mercy, and unmerited favor.

And yes, it does have to do with hating evil. God is holy, holy, holy. He is pure, pure, pure. He is perfect, perfect, perfect, and He cannot and will not tolerate sin to any degree whatsoever.