Free will or no free will?

[Bubba]

I am quite serious in my intention to discover the truth of the Word of God.

However, the text you provided is entirely silent on the matter of the "unconditional" nature of the election process.

I do not think that the Scriptures teach the form of election that I believe you advocate. However, the post f mine that you are responding to does not even get into that - my post was merely addressing the incoherence of any suggestion that God's election is truly unconditional (and I assume, for the sake of argument, that the doctrine of election, but not its unconditionality, is correct). Perhaps you meant unconditional in a different sense than I understood it.

If you mean that there is absolutely nothing "about Fred" that plays a role in God's election of Fred, then you are saying something that simply cannot be true, unless you agree that election is arbitrary.

Now the Scripture above makes absolutely no claim that election is unconditional. If you disagree, please point out the specific statement(s).

Note what I am not saying: I am not saying that it is incoherent to assert that God elects people based on some unknowable (to us) criteria.

But to say that God's election of Fred has nothing to do with the characteristics of Fred, unless election is random, is simply conceptually incorrect - it is like saying that a triangle has four sides.

Selection of A versus B has to be made on the basis of properties that inhere in A and B. Otherwise, selection is random.

Drew,
I am not sure how you can say that the text is entirely silent, when I hear God loud and clear say that He predestines, adopts and chooses for no other reason then His kind intentions and pleasure. In regards to unconditional or conditional election, what condition did Jacob have over Esau when God said before they had done anything wrong and while still in the womb God chose Jacob over Esau. What condition did Paul have of a good nature that made God choose him (Acts 9) as he was “still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord� Yet, God tells Ananias that He chose Paul to be a vessel to bear his name before the Gentiles. Reads a lot like Romans 9:18-24 would you not say? What condition did the nation of Jews have in their possession when God said He would He change their hearts for His namesake, the one they had profaned among the nations (Ezekiel 36:22)?
If Fred is dead in his sins and a object of God’s wrath like the rest of the human race prior to regeneration (Ephesians 2:1-7), then I would have to say that there was nothing in Fred that God would find as a condition for election. Election is not random; in fact, before the foundation of the earth he already had you in mind according to Ephesians 1:4-6 for no other reason then His good pleasure.
Grace, Bubba

 

[jgredline]

Javier,
I think you could probably answer this question without my help. Nonetheless, I believe that what ever actual torment the lost have is temporal, but the punishment is eternal, which is death, both physical and spiritual. The more I read Scripture, the more I see that death has always been the penalty for the evil we do. Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty that we deserve. The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23) and because all have sinned (Romans 2:23), we are all under the curse of death; again physical as well as spiritual. A Christian is not saved from physical death, because we all die physically, but spiritually we have been given life in the Son (Colossians 1:13-14), thus though we in the flesh die in the Spirit we go to be with the Lord. This is where a nihilist’s like SDA’S and others would differ from my thoughts.
I leave you with but another copy and paste quote to consider:

“If death is truly the penalty for sin, as the Apostle Paul claims it is, then by dying on the cross, Jesus actually suffered the same consequence that unrepentant sinners will bear. In this way, he truly "took our place" on the cross so that we would not have to face this consequence of our sins. If on the other hand the wages of sin is not death but eternal infliction of unbearable pain, then Jesus's temporary suffering did not even come close. Christians often emphasize the enormity of Jesus's anguish on the cross, but if traditional teaching on Hell is at all accurate, His pain is not even an ounce of what most of the world is supposedly going to endure. If this is the case, He certainly did not take upon himself the penalty for our sin.â€Â
J. Moritz
Granted, I do not know how it must have been for Jesus, being separated from the Father, and the physical pain that He endured, but one would wonder when compared to eternity of the terrible torment the unbeliever will have, if this is truly the God of Scripture that the traditionalist believe.
Bubba

Bubba
What is your interpretation on Matt 25:41 and 46?

 

[Drew]

I am not sure how you can say that the text is entirely silent, when I hear God loud and clear say that He predestines, adopts and chooses for no other reason then His kind intentions and pleasure.

Wheredoes the Ephesians text require that "his good pleasure" does not account for something "about Fred"?

Even though I disagree with your general take on election, I am, for the moment and for the sake of the discussion, going to assume that people are indeed elected.

On precisely what basis do you conclude that "God's kind intentions and pleasure" are not informed by some knowledge about the people He elects?

It is simply conceptual non-sensical to assert the following: "I chose A instead of B but I made my choice in a manner that did not take into account any of the characteristics of A or B". Unless, of course, we grant that the choice was arbitrary.

One cannot do this - it is impossible even for God, unless God can make round squares.

Abouit Jacob and Esau - I am not denying that God chose Jacob over Esau in the womb when neither had done anything wrong. You have given me no reason to believe that God made his choice without using some knowledge about what differentiated Jacob from Esau. And by the very structure of reality, those differences have to inhere in the individuals involved.

To say that one chooses A over B without reference to something about A and / or B is a conceptual absurdity (unless a random choice is made).

The reason should be obvious - any two objects A and B can only be differentiated from one another based on their characteristics- something about them. This is fundamentally how the universe is structured.

 

[jgredline]

Even though I disagree with your general take on election, I am, for the moment and for the sake of the discussion, going to assume that people are indeed elected.

Drew....Anyone who wishes to be one of the elect, is welcome to be one of the elect...They simply can choose to say Yes...

These 5 point or hyper calvinist would have you believe that if your not one of the elect, God created you to be tormented for all eternity or annihilated...

The fact is simple...but too hard for some to understand...
Is man depraved and can't come to God on his own? Yes...
Does the Holy Spirit call ''all'' men to himself? Yes
Is it Gods will for all men to be saved? Yes
Are all men saved? NO....
Why are not all men saved? Because some choose of their own free will not to follow the messiah....The Lord Jesus Christ.....
Who's fault is it? Not Gods...He is a equal opportunity savior.......

One more thing....''IF'' Esau had repented would God have taken him in and welcomed him to his kingdom???? YES.....Unless of course God is a Hyper Calvinist....Which thankfully he is not...

 

[Bubba]

Bubba
What is your interpretation on Matt 25:41 and 46?

Javier,
This is not the place to argue these verses, but I would say if you had talk with me a couple of years ago, I would have given you a great argument in favor of eternal conscious torment in Hell. I also would of given you a high Calvinist view on God’s sovereignty (I called myself Beza then). Thankfully God has me reassessing particular dogma I have held dear. If you are sincere about the truth of God’s Word in regards to Hell, put aside your preconceived idea’s about cults and aberrant teaching and look what people like Quibox, RND and others have already written on this subject. Two years ago, I learned a lot from this forum about Annihilation as Beza. The cool thing is God doesn’t give up on you and say, “he has gone to far†when you venture out of the comfortable world of what we think is orthodoxy, actually at times He probably is pleased. Orthodoxy is why the Pharisees wanted to kill Jesus and they definitely thought they were right at the time.

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life ... For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?" (John 5:39,40,46,47)

“You may be familiar with this passage, but did you know what stirred Jesus to say it? There were two things, and they were both connected. The first was based in their lifeless, legal perceptions of the recorded words of God scribed by Moses. The second, because they refused to recognize that the one standing in front of them was the incarnation of Moses' testimony.†J. Minker
"For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God." (John 5:18)

Bubba

 

[Bubba]

Drew....Anyone who wishes to be one of the elect, is welcome to be one of the elect...They simply can choose to say Yes...

These 5 point or hyper calvinist would have you believe that if your not one of the elect, God created you to be tormented for all eternity or annihilated...

The fact is simple...but too hard for some to understand...
Is man depraved and can't come to God on his own? Yes...
Does the Holy Spirit call ''all'' men to himself? Yes
Is it Gods will for all men to be saved? Yes
Are all men saved? NO....
Why are not all men saved? Because some choose of their own free will not to follow the messiah....The Lord Jesus Christ.....
Who's fault is it? Not Gods...He is a equal opportunity savior.......

One more thing....''IF'' Esau had repented would God have taken him in and welcomed him to his kingdom???? YES.....Unless of course God is a Hyper Calvinist....Which thankfully he is not...

Romans 9:6-16

6But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." 8This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return and Sarah shall have a son." 10And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call-- 12she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
14What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

 

[Drew]

There are a lot of issues flying around.

Bubba: At the risk of "telling you what you think", I think that when you say that God elects "unconditionally", you do not mean that God elects without reference to anything at all about the person who is elected. I suspect that you mean that election is not based on foreknowledge of the works of that person as per Romans 9:11 which you just posted:

"though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call--"

To further complicate a possible "misunderstanding" here, I may have taken some liberties in respect to what you meant when you referred to unconditional election.

I have no specific dispute with a claim that election is not based on foreknowledge of works. I do think it is incoherent to state that the process is entirely agnostic to the characteristics (I mean much more than simply "works" here) of the persons elected.

So while Joe might do more "good works" than Fred, God could still elect Fred because, for example, Fred had a "weaker" personality than Joe or had red hair, or lived in East Rubber Boot Saskatchewan, or whatever.

The point again being that a choice between A and B absolutely has to be made on the basis on some discriminating characteristics that are "about" A and B - even if such characteristics are not "meritorious". Perhaps A was chosen specifically because A is worse than B and application of this seemingly strange criteria serves some higher purpose.

And note: Let's say that Fred is born in East Rubber Boot Saskatchewan. I call this a "characteristic" of Fred - something about Fred - even though it is not really about "Fred the person" but about "Fred as he is locationally situated". Perhaps I am stretching things here and you will say "being born in East Rubber Boot, Saskatchewan" is not really "about Fred". Fair enough - perhaps we agree on the fundamentals and are just mixed up over terminology.

But election that is entirely agnostic to the characteristics of A and B (things about A and B) is simply random election. There is no way around this if one wants to honour the concepts involved. And obviously we need to do this if we are not to make nonsense statements.

jg: I think that I agree with your conclusion, if not on your reasons for holding it. I am simply assuming the truthfulness of election to make a point about its nature. But, at the end of the day, I do not believe that God elects people unto salvation in the sense that I understand Bubba means. Perhaps, if time permits, I will provide my reasons.

 

[jgredline]

jg: I think that I agree with your conclusion, if not on your reasons for holding it. I am simply assuming the truthfulness of election to make a point about its nature. But, at the end of the day, I do not believe that God elects people unto salvation in the sense that I understand Bubba means. Perhaps, if time permits, I will provide my reasons.

Drew
Strange, but I am actually agreeing with what your saying...I would be very interested in reading your reasons.....

 

[jgredline]

Romans 9:6-16

6But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." 8This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9For this is what the promise said: "About this time next year I will return and Sarah shall have a son." 10And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call-- 12she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
14What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

Bubba
Who is this part of scripture written to? In fact who is chapters 9-11 directed at?
Who does Jacob and Esau represent?

 

[Drew]

Strange, but I am actually agreeing with what your saying...I would be very interested in reading your reasons.....

Well we are bound to agree on something eventually, if not simply due to random chance..... :-D

 

[Bubba]

Bubba
Who is this part of scripture written to? In fact who is chapters 9-11 directed at?
Who does Jacob and Esau represent?

Javier,
Election in Romans 9 started with individuals, the nations came from these two individuals. Yes, Romans chapters 9-11, talks a lot about the Jews and God placing a stupor upon them to allow His sovereign choice to be directed to the Gentiles. Yet, much more is expressed in these chapters then just in account of the Jews in particular. Here are but a few verses:Romans 9:6, Romans 9:24, Romans 10:12-13, Romans 11:5-6.
Bubba

 

[jgredline]

Javier,
Election in Romans 9 started with individuals, the nations came from these two individuals. Yes, Romans chapters 9-11, talks a lot about the Jews and God placing a stupor upon them to allow His sovereign choice to be directed to the Gentiles. Yet, much more is expressed in these chapters then just in account of the Jews in particular. Here are but a few verses:Romans 9:6, Romans 9:24, Romans 10:12-13, Romans 11:5-6.
Bubba

Perfect...Now lets take a look at one of the verses you quoted..
You mentioned Romans 10:12-13...How is about we look at it in context....

5 For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, “The man who does those things shall live by them.†6 But the righteousness of faith speaks in this way, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’†(that is, to bring Christ down from above) 7 or, “ ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ †(that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart†(that is, the word of faith which we preach): that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.†12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.â€Â

Clearly Paul is saying that it is up to ''us'' ''whoever'' means whoever chooses.....I do not read here where God is forcing him self on anybody

 

[Bubba]

Javier,
In this realm “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.†,in God's realm "chosen before the foundation of the earth".
Bubba

 

[jgredline]

Javier,
In this realm “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.†,in God's realm "chosen before the foundation of the earth".
Bubba

Bubba
So did God know who would choose him before the foundation of the world?

 

[Bubba]

Javier wrote:
"So did God know who would choose him before the foundation of the world?"

Loaded question Javier, kind of like saying "did you stop beating your wife?", if you answer yes, you are still in implicated.

The question should be what would God see in man if he looked in the future without His intervention before the foundation of the earth? The answer would be, individuals dead in their sins and deserving of His wrath.
Bubba

 

[Drew]

An attempt to summarize my reasons for rejecting the doctrine of election - specifically the form in which God "causes it to be so" that Fred will be saved and that Joe will not, independent of any meritorious actions on the part of Fred or Joe:

1. I think that many passages which are used to support election are really only consistent with the doctrine and do not rule out other competing interpretations.

2. Acceptance of the doctrine of election makes efforts at evangelism incoherent. I know that people will argue that this is not so, but I never found such arguments to be convincing. To have your heart in evangelism, you cannot believe that "its all pre-determined".

3. It forces an awkward reading of numerous texts that instruct us to "seek", "search", "choose", etc. I have always found it highly suspicious when words like "choose" need to be reworked to eliminate the notion of freedom to do otherwise that is carried by the nominal sense of such words. Although jg will object, I think that "eternal torment" supporters do this in spades - redefining "death" to connote a state of eternal conscious existence. I have always found "Calvinist" arguments that one needs to be "enabled" to choose or to seek to be somewhat circular - ambiguous texts (see point 1) are used to "prove" election and then those texts are the basis for what really amounts to a radical change to the meaning of words like "choose" or "seek".

4. It is incoherent to me that God could create a person, and pre-destine him for eternal torment, and still be legitimately described as loving. To be fair to Bubba: his view does not have this problem since I understand he leans towards annihilation.

5. I know that I will be accused of heresy for this one, but here goes. I believe that the Scriptures do not really teach "salvation by faith alone" - at least not in the sense most evangelicals ascribe to. I am inclined to think that Bishop NT Wright is correct when he asserts as follows in the context of a lecture (I have added bolding):

"The third point is remarkably controversial, seeing how well founded it is at several points in Paul. Indeed, listening to yesterday’s papers, it seems that there has been a massive conspiracy of silence on something which was quite clear for Paul (as indeed for Jesus). Paul, in company with mainstream second-Temple Judaism, affirms that God’s final judgment will be in accordance with the entirety of a life led – in accordance, in other words, with works. He says this clearly and unambiguously in Romans 14.10–12 and 2 Corinthians 5.10. He affirms it in that terrifying passage about church-builders in 1 Corinthians 3. But the main passage in question is of course Romans 2.1–16."

If this view is correct, then it would seem to affirm that our final destiny is not fully and sufficiently by God's decision in the mists of time, but rather, in part, on what we do. Now I want to be clear. NT Wright claims to be a "Calvinist" and I am only now starting to read him. So, good old NT might have something to say about what I have concluded from my agreement with what he has written. But the material I have quoted is straight from NT Wright's mouth. Perhaps NT would preserve a Calvinist take on election by arguing that getting a "passing score" on works is something that is fully determined by God at the beginning of time. I am not sure.

Aside: Its kind of funny that each of us - Bubba, jgredline, and Drew - line up "2 against 1" on a number of different issues with no issue producing unanimous agreement:

Drew and Bubba seem to agree on annihilation; jg disagrees.
jg and Bubba seem to agree on God's exhaustive foreknowledge; Drew disagrees
Drew and jg reject election: Bubba disagrees.

Just thought this was kind of amusing.

 

[jgredline]

Javier wrote:
"So did God know who would choose him before the foundation of the world?"

Loaded question Javier, kind of like saying "did you stop beating your wife?", if you answer yes, you are still in implicated.

The question should be what would God see in man if he looked in the future without His intervention before the foundation of the earth? The answer would be, individuals dead in their sins and deserving of His wrath.
Bubba

Bubba
You see this is the problem with playing scripture gymnastics...This is the problem with being dogmatic in a certain belief...The question is simple...
"So did God know who would choose him before the foundation of the world?" The Answer is yes...There is nothing that God does not know...he knows everything....

Scripture from Gen to rev is all about Gods Glory...Hyper Calvinism makes God out to be an ogre..which is the farthest thing from the truth...
As I have stated many times...Gods nature is
Grace, Mercy, Love and he is just....

Let me give you an example...of how Gods sovereignty works...
Acts 8:26
26 Now an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying, “Arise and go toward the south along the road which goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.†This is desert. 27 So he arose and went. And behold, a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge of all her treasury, and had come to Jerusalem to worship, 28 was returning. And sitting in his chariot, he was reading Isaiah the prophet. 29 Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go near and overtake this chariot.â€Â
30 So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?â€Â
31 And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?†And he asked Philip to come up and sit with him. 32 The place in the Scripture which he read was this:
“He was led as a sheep to the slaughter;
And as a lamb before its shearer is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.
33 In His humiliation His justice was taken away,
And who will declare His generation?
For His life is taken from the earth.â€Â
34 So the eunuch answered Philip and said, “I ask you, of whom does the prophet say this, of himself or of some other man?†35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. 36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?â€Â
37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.â€Â
And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.â€Â
38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. 39 Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip was found at Azotus. And passing through, he preached in all the cities till he came to Caesarea.

I was going to break this down verse by verse, but am short on time right now...So I will simply say this...
God saw that this Ethiopian fellow was ready to receive the gift of eternal life...What was the source of this mans eyes being opened and his ears prepared to hear? It was reading the Word....God sent over Philip to explain and the scriptures and Philip then presented him with a choice....“If you believe with all your heart, you may.†Philip at that point could have said, I do not believe and he would not have been saved...As it turns out he chose to believe....So God in his foreknowledge knew this man would receive him....so he sent him Philip...Then as the scripture tells us...The eunuch went on his way rejoicing...This indeed brought Glory to God because this man chose God of his own free will....

The Hyper Calvinist point of view would not have required Philip to be there, and the Gospel would not have been required because he was one of the elect...

 

[Bubba]

Bubba
You see this is the problem with playing scripture gymnastics...This is the problem with being dogmatic in a certain belief...The question is simple...
"So did God know who would choose him before the foundation of the world?" The Answer is yes...There is nothing that God does not know...he knows everything....

Scripture from Gen to rev is all about Gods Glory...Hyper Calvinism makes God out to be an ogre..which is the farthest thing from the truth...
As I have stated many times...Gods nature is
Grace, Mercy, Love and he is just....

Let me give you an example...of how Gods sovereignty works...
Acts 8:26
26 Now an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying, “Arise and go toward the south along the road which goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.†This is desert. 27 So he arose and went. And behold, a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge of all her treasury, and had come to Jerusalem to worship, 28 was returning. And sitting in his chariot, he was reading Isaiah the prophet. 29 Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go near and overtake this chariot.â€Â
30 So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?â€Â
31 And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?†And he asked Philip to come up and sit with him. 32 The place in the Scripture which he read was this:
“He was led as a sheep to the slaughter;
And as a lamb before its shearer is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.
33 In His humiliation His justice was taken away,
And who will declare His generation?
For His life is taken from the earth.â€Â
34 So the eunuch answered Philip and said, “I ask you, of whom does the prophet say this, of himself or of some other man?†35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. 36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?â€Â
37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.â€Â
And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.â€Â
38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. 39 Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip was found at Azotus. And passing through, he preached in all the cities till he came to Caesarea.

I was going to break this down verse by verse, but am short on time right now...So I will simply say this...
God saw that this Ethiopian fellow was ready to receive the gift of eternal life...What was the source of this mans eyes being opened and his ears prepared to hear? It was reading the Word....God sent over Philip to explain and the scriptures and Philip then presented him with a choice....“If you believe with all your heart, you may.†Philip at that point could have said, I do not believe and he would not have been saved...As it turns out he chose to believe....So God in his foreknowledge knew this man would receive him....so he sent him Philip...Then as the scripture tells us...The eunuch went on his way rejoicing...This indeed brought Glory to God because this man chose God of his own free will....

The Hyper Calvinist point of view would not have required Philip to be there, and the Gospel would not have been required because he was one of the elect...

Javier wrote:
“The Hyper Calvinist point of view would not have required Philip to be there, and the Gospel would not have been required because he was one of the elect...â€Â

No, the Calvinist view is that God used Philip as part of His master plan to bring the Ethiopian to faith. When a person is able to believe with all his or her heart, it is because God has done a heart transplant (regeneration). If this was not the case then take an eraser to Romans 3:10-18, 1 Corinthians 2:14, 2 Corinthians 4:4, etc. Mind you, what you consider Scriptural gymnastics’ I consider just being truthful to the Word as I see it. This whole foreknowledge thing you juggle with, is simply a way to rationalize the very clear passages of God’s sovereignty in ones salvation. Javier I do not understand your need of inflammatory remarks in respect to my thoughts being hyper-Calvinism, and creating a god who is an ogre. I assure you those who believe in the sovereignty of God in salvation throughout history have been a majority in Protestants ranks up until the last century and they have held a very high view of God. If I am reading the sign of recent church history correct, more and more believers are discovering this truth for themselves (by the Holy Spirit of course).
This will be my last post. May be in another year or so, I will check this site out again, but life is to precious to spin my wheels on a forum, pretending there is something righteous about arguing Scripture. Christ in me and in you, and experiencing His love in this union, should be our motivation for all we do, even our discussion of Scripture.
Take care, Bubba

 

[MarkT]

Again freewill? I don't recall this ever being an issue until only recently when men began to exhalt themselves. No Apostle wrote anything about freewill. It never came up. You know why? I'll tell you. No one can force a fig tree to bear figs. A fig tree doesn't choose its fruit. You exist for God's purpose. You don't argue with God. There are some of you who did choose God. However, if it was by choice, then it wasn't by grace. You usurp the power of the gospel when you say you chose God. Quite arrogant. All your explanations about God wanting you to love him according to your freewill - You who are evil? What arrogance! Even Jesus didn't say that. If you have to decide to love God, then what kind of love is it? Do you know Jesus? Do you know God? If you did, then you would love God. I don't know; how many of you decided to love your parents? And why? Did you make a conscious decision? What about seeking the kingdom? Love comes from God. Listen to God. He loves those who listen to him. Keep his words. That's what he wants; righteousness.

 

[MarkT]

If God was your Father, you would love God. You wouldn't say it was your choice. Did you choose your parents? Well, if you came from God, you didn't choose it.