Free will or no free will?

[unred typo]

If God chose those whom he foreknew, and election is before the foundation of the world, then foreknowledge is before the foundation of the world.
Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love:

He didn’t choose us, he chose CHRIST and those whoever are IN CHRIST.

For instance, I can choose to give my ‘Mickey Mouse- signed’ baseball to my first grandson of my youngest daughter on his third birthday, before my daughter is even pregnant. I have chosen him in the beloved.

You have it reversed. God did not love us because we loved him. Rather, we loved him because he first loved us.

You need to re read what I wrote. I said that. I wrote: “He so loved the world, but not all the world is going to return that love. Those that love him because he first loved us are those that he calls to be conformed to the image of his son. It was his plan to make of Abraham a family from all nations, who like their spiritual father Abraham, loved God and would willingly choose his ways. Without free will, you are missing the whole point.â€Â

If maintaining your salvation depends upon your righteousness, you are lost, and there is no salvation. You have fallen far short of the glory of God.

Maintaining my salvation is up to Christ. He promised that IF I walk in the light as he is in the light then the blood of Christ cleanses me from all sin. 1 John 1:7 If you think that sounds like I have to work out my own salvation with fear and trembling, then you’re right. That’s what we are told to do. Philippians 2:12

 

[Drew]

When God foreknows man, he is not looking at mans faith, therefore, while election has to do with those whom he foreknew, election is not based upon faith.

Gods foreknowledge speaks of his love, like Adam knew Eve.

I think that the above is simply a claim, not an argument. I have argued that it is possible to see that the object of foreknowledge - the thing that is known - is a faith that is based, at least in part, on a free will act of acceptance. The original text (1 Peter 1:1-2), as rendered in English is entirely consistent with such a reading. I have not claimed that this the only possible reading, but it is a reading that is consistent with the original text.

I see your response above as essentially a statement about what the object of the that foreknowledge is, to the exclusion of other objects (such as the kind of faith that involves an element of free will acceptance).

Do you not think that you need to justify this statement with an argument? Why should we believe that "to foreknow" is to "fore-love" as I think you are claiming?

Obviously the text as rendered in English is consistent with my reading. Presumably you have reasons, based on other Scriptures, as to why that reading is not legitimate. Can you please identify those Scriptures.

And, of course, you should be aware that if that those other Scriptures are themselves "ambiguous" - in the sense that they are consistent with both a Calvinist and an Arminian reading - this will be probably not go un-noticed.

 

[mondar]

I believe you are going back too far when you go to the foundation of the world to answer all questions dealing with foreknowledge.

mondar wrote:
If God chose those whom he foreknew, and election is before the foundation of the world, then foreknowledge is before the foundation of the world.
Eph 1:4 even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love:

He didn’t choose us, he chose CHRIST and those whoever are IN CHRIST.

For instance, I can choose to give my ‘Mickey Mouse- signed’ baseball to my first grandson of my youngest daughter on his third birthday, before my daughter is even pregnant. I have chosen him in the beloved.

First, you say that foreknowledge was not before the "foundation of the world." When I demonstrate that Eph 1:4 uses that very phrase (before the foundation of the world) to speak of election, and that foreknowledge occurs before election, you drop this topic like a hot potato and quickly talk bring up a different subject about the verse I used. So now suddenly you are suggesting that I am in error about foreknowledge occuring in the past because we are chosen "in Christ." Unred, your all over the place. It is hard to keep up with your frequent changes in subject.

Oh well, unto the new subject. If I understand what you are saying, you are suggesting that personal election of individuals is not a biblical concept. That Gods choice was of a group of people such as the Church (or those "in Christ"). I would agree that as elect we are placed into Christ, but this does not nullify that God choose us as individuals. Romans 9 demonstrates this.

11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.â€Â[d] 13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.â€Â

Notice how individuals are named as selected by God before they were even concieved. God had chosen to love Jacob and hate Esau. This passage demonstrates that Election is not simply as a group, but God chooses individuals in eternity past.

Concerning your comments on Ephesians 1:4, of course we are elected in Christ. The idea there is that there is no salvation anywhere except in Christ. The "in Christ" is not a denial of individual election, but is to be understood in the locative sense. We are then elected as individuals and placed in Christ.

Those that love God are those whom he knew. When did he come to intimately know them? When they loved him. He so loved the world, but not all the world is going to return that love. Those that love him because he first loved us are those that he calls to be conformed to the image of his son.

Yes, you did say that he loved us first, but you have a contradictory statement. You also say "When did he come to intimately know them? When they loved him. This statement places our love to be the basis of Gods love. That is what I am talking about when I say you reversed the scriptural teaching. In the quoted statement God loves us because we love him. That is the exact opposite of the scriptural statement "we love God, because he loved us."

Maintaining my salvation is up to Christ. He promised that IF I walk in the light as he is in the light then the blood of Christ cleanses me from all sin. 1 John 1:7 If you think that sounds like I have to work out my own salvation with fear and trembling, then you’re right. That’s what we are told to do. Philippians 2:12

So then, let me get this. Your salvation depends on Christ but he will only do his part if you do your part? How is this salvation by grace through faith? I agree that salvation always leads to fruit, but fruit does not keep us saved, nor does it contribute to salvation.

In 1 John 1:7, all who are saved walk in the light as he is in the light. This is not to say that we do not sin. Verse 8 makes it clear that we certainly do sin. We commit sins, but we do not walk in sin, we walk in the light. The regenerated person who has been saved by the blood is not under the mastery of sin. That does not mean that we do not sin, but it means sin is not our master. We now walk in the light.

Pauls comment in Phil 2:12 does absolutely say that we work out our salvation. Works are a result of salvation, but again, they do not keep us saved.

I have more comments to make, but they have a different twist. I might make them later and possibly in another thread.

PS I will be making comments on Et Sec, but I will do that in the "lose it" thread.

 

[MarkT]

“Chosen†does not equate to “chosen for salvationâ€Â. The disciples were chosen, but Judas was chosen to be the friend who betrayed Christ. He wasn’t chosen to be condemned for eternity. He could have repented and gone on to live for God instead of his money bag. (He may have repented before he killed himself, who knows but God? It still would have been better for him had he never been born for the shame he would endure.) The crowds were chosen to be present and yet be blinded to his parables. It was not for eternity, but for the time before his death when it was not given to them as a whole to understand. The nice thing about a parable is you remember it even if you don’t understand it. Later, the Spirit could reveal it’s meaning to those who were of a heart to understand.


MarkT wrote:
You can't decide to be your Father's son. It's not a decision to be made. It's a revelation, an awakening. It's like finding a rare jewel. You want to tell people. But as far as choosing by your own spirit, I don't think this is a doctrine that comes from God, not that I don't believe people can choose to commit themselves to a way of life but as doctrine it isn't true. I think you can choose to live a quite godly life and be a Christian but teachers are held to a higher standard. Look at what the Lord GOD said about the prophets of Israel, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, Woe to the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit and have seen nothing.' Eze. 13:3 Choosing by your will or spirit is like being blown about by the wind; the danger there is that you don't know what way to go.


That’s right. You don’t choose when and if you will be born as God’s son. You can only do good and live according to his ways and devote yourself to following those things which Jesus taught. It is by the will of God that anyone is born of the Spirit, not our will. We can only choose to be unprofitable servants doing whatever he commands us to do. He has promised to make us into his adopted sons when we choose to consistently do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

Luke 6:35 But love you your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and you shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Galatians 3:26 For you are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

You can't force your way into the kingdom unred. If it was just a decision to accept Christ, then Satan could decide to accept Christ. You might say it isn't in his nature to but if it was just a matter of choice, I'm sure he would choose Christ over hell and God would be bound by his word to let him into the kingdom. And then once inside he could decide not to accept Christ. But that won't happen. God declared that the serpent and his children will be cast into hell. You know false prophets and false teachers all preach the kingdom.

Judas was a devil. Jesus called him the son of perdition. He could not have done what you said. Again this isn't about what could have happened 'if'. The Bible tells us what did happened. If this is an example of what comes from your theology, then it must be your theology is seriously flawed. You should not insist that it is a teaching of Christ because it isn't.

 

[mondar]

This sort of agrees with you, mondar. I could certainly agree that the verse points to the whole phrase, but many Christians will put the emphesis on faith when the verse in context (verses 1-9) points to salvation. It is a salvation chapter.

http://www.faithalone.org/news/y1989/89july1.html

So it IS grammatically possible depending on;

1)presupposition

2) Who's Greek commentary one chooses to accept.

Vic, it looks like the person you quote has the same exegesis that I have, but we draw two separate conclusions. As the this person exegetes Eph 2:8 he admits that because of the neuter noun the gift is to be seen as "by grace you are saved through faith." Then he says "faith is not the gift." This seems to avoid the issue. I am not saying faith is the entire gift, but do see faith as part of the gift because it is part of the phrase "by grace are you saved through faith."

To focus on salvation alone as the gift would violate the same rule of grammar used to say that faith alone is the gift.

I only read the article quickly. I will go back and read it more closely, but the writer seems to be correct in his exegesis, but fails to consistently apply the exegesis.

 

[Vic C.]

Vic, it looks like the person you quote has the same exegesis that I have, but we draw two separate conclusions. As the this person exegetes Eph 2:8 he admits that because of the neuter noun the gift is to be seen as "by grace you are saved through faith." Then he says "faith is not the gift." This seems to avoid the issue. I am not saying faith is the entire gift, but do see faith as part of the gift because it is part of the phrase "by grace are you saved through faith."

To focus on salvation alone as the gift would violate the same rule of grammar used to say that faith alone is the gift.

I only read the article quickly. I will go back and read it more closely, but the writer seems to be correct in his exegesis, but fails to consistently apply the exegesis.

Keep in mind my first post is two part, with two different sources. I didn't want you to combine the two, in case you didn't see both sources.

Also, my second post reflects my stand on this matter; neither side can make a good case based on this (eph 2:8) verse alone. The "standard" interpretation of this verse annoys me as much as the "standard" interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:8. 8-)

 

[Drew]

The proper grammatical conclusion is then that faith is not the gift of God, but it is part of the gift. The gift is "by grace you have been saved through faith." While faith is not the whole gift, it is one part of the package given to us by God.

Even if the above is true, it does not follow that Ephesians 2:8 is incompatible with an Arminian reading. I will now attempt to explain why the Arminian reading is not damaged by the quoted material above, whose veracity I will not contest.

The hidden assumption is that if the "whole package" (grace through faith) is what is given to us by God, then each of its constituent elements, in particular "faith" is entirely a gift of God with no free will human act playing any role whatsoever.

Consider an analogy. Fred's dad (Joe) offers, for no reason other than his love for Fred to pay for Fred's college tuition and Fred freely accepts. We correctly assert as follows: "Fred has been saved from intellectual ignorance by 'grace through acceptance of the money'". The gift is indeed "grace through acceptance" - a true package deal - but it simply does not follow that we must conclude that Fred's acceptance was "injected into him" by Joe. Acceptance is the mechanism by which the grace becomes operative. The gift is the whole package - not the individual constituents. So it is an unjustified assumption to conclude that "faith" is a gift just because "grace through faith" is a gift.

A doctor holds out a pill to a sick person and says "trust me, this will cure you". The person freely takes the pill, choosing to indeed trust the doctor. It is entirely linguistically correct to say that the doctor has given the person "salvation from illness" by the gift "grace through trust". And yet he has not given them grace and trust.

If the Ephesians text said "For by grace and faith you have been saved; and these not of yourselves, these are the gifts of God", then I would find it hard to argue mondar's point. But this is not what the text says. The gift is the package and the way that grace and faith are connected that is indeed part of the gift. But the text does not require us to believe that faith is given to us by God.

Now, I am not stating that there are not other texts which may clearly state that faith is a gift of God. That may well be.

 

[unred typo]

Concerning your comments on Ephesians 1:4, of course we are elected in Christ. The idea there is that there is no salvation anywhere except in Christ. The "in Christ" is not a denial of individual election, but is to be understood in the locative sense. We are then elected as individuals and placed in Christ.

First, you say that foreknowledge was not before the "foundation of the world." When I demonstrate that Eph 1:4 uses that very phrase (before the foundation of the world) to speak of election, and that foreknowledge occurs before election, you drop this topic like a hot potato and quickly talk bring up a different subject about the verse I used. So now suddenly you are suggesting that I am in error about foreknowledge occuring in the past because we are chosen "in Christ." Unred, your all over the place. It is hard to keep up with your frequent changes in subject.

OK, maybe I didn’t make myself clear. Let me say it once again, s l o w l y. Ephesians 1:4 says “According as he has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:†Reading carefully, we see that it doesn’t say that he has chosen us before the foundation of the world, does it? That would read: “According as he has chosen us before the foundation of the world,†right? Instead it says, “According as he has chosen us in him before the foundation of the worldâ€Â. God chose Christ, the Word, the Son, before the foundation of the world. Now, if (IF) we are IN CHRIST we are chosen in the beloved Son of God.

Oh well, unto the new subject. If I understand what you are saying, you are suggesting that personal election of individuals is not a biblical concept. That Gods choice was of a group of people such as the Church (or those "in Christ"). I would agree that as elect we are placed into Christ, but this does not nullify that God choose us as individuals. Romans 9 demonstrates this.
11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.â€Â[d] 13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.â€Â
Notice how individuals are named as selected by God before they were even concieved. God had chosen to love Jacob and hate Esau. This passage demonstrates that Election is not simply as a group, but God chooses individuals in eternity past.

You have taken an entire discussion that has nothing to do with salvation and arbitrarily forced it into your interpretation. Election here is about the choosing of the nation of Israel to represent God to the world and then the choice of a blood line for the Son of God and the right of God to make those choices. Paul makes it quite clear that God’s choices in this area of special privileges and positions are not necessarily based on performance but on factors that we cannot dispute because God has the right to choose whomever he wants to do his will, whether it is the person who becomes pharaoh when Moses comes to confront him or who is to be the ancestors of the earthly human body that his Son will take. Election is never, ‘elected for salvation’, but it is ‘election to a task, a privilege, an honor or a disgrace’ but not an individual to be saved. (off topic but relevant, Esau was only hated in that he was not chosen to be given the birth rite and be in the bloodline of the Messiah, not that he would be rejected as a person. The elder would serve the younger, not be damned.)

Yes, you did say that he loved us first, but you have a contradictory statement. You also say "When did he come to intimately know them? When they loved him. This statement places our love to be the basis of Gods love. That is what I am talking about when I say you reversed the scriptural teaching. In the quoted statement God loves us because we love him. That is the exact opposite of the scriptural statement "we love God, because he loved us."

I didn’t make that contradictory statement, you misread my intended meaning. Perhaps I was ambiguous. Again: God so loved the world. This is a general love and concern for his entire creation. He comes to focus his love on individuals who respond to that love. Responding to love shown is not initiating love. I think you can see this concept used in Galatians 4:9 where Paul says, “But now, after that you have known God, or rather are known of God†. Paul is not saying God didn’t previously know of them but that he has come to know them in a new context of obedience and love to him.

So then, let me get this. Your salvation depends on Christ but he will only do his part if you do your part? How is this salvation by grace through faith? I agree that salvation always leads to fruit, but fruit does not keep us saved, nor does it contribute to salvation.

Please do get this straight. I don’t know how to make it any clearer. Jesus is the Lamb of God, right? OK, think back to the lamb of the OT covenant. What did that lamb do? He provided a substitute payment for the sins of the guilty. That is what Jesus did for the world. This is the free gift, his blood. You are saved by this blood because it is the only way your sins can be covered. You can’t pay for this gift of the blood, nor add to it nor boast of earning this gift. The blood was shed while we were yet sinners, not because we were so worthy of forgiveness.

How do we get eternal life? By following Christ perfectly and remaining in him every moment, in his teaching and walking in his ways without one mistake or one sin. How is this possible for imperfect sinners? Because when we freely choose to walk in the light as he is in the light, the blood cleanses us from all unrighteousness. The light is his teaching of love, forgiveness, humility, charity, purity and faith. Our reward of eternal life depends on us remaining faithful to our calling in Christ, to our walk in love and light. If we are not IN CHRIST, (read this as being in his teaching and following in his ways) we do not have life. Period.

In 1 John 1:7, all who are saved walk in the light as he is in the light. This is not to say that we do not sin. Verse 8 makes it clear that we certainly do sin. We commit sins, but we do not walk in sin, we walk in the light. The regenerated person who has been saved by the blood is not under the mastery of sin. That does not mean that we do not sin, but it means sin is not our master. We now walk in the light.
Pauls comment in Phil 2:12 does absolutely say that we work out our salvation. Works are a result of salvation, but again, they do not keep us saved.

Oh really? How do you explain Romans 2:6-11 ? “(God) Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, ( notice what their reward is! ) eternal life:
But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, (now notice what their reward is! ) indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and als of the Gentile;
But glory, honor, and peace, to every man that works good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God.â€Â

 

[unred typo]

You can't force your way into the kingdom unred. If it was just a decision to accept Christ, then Satan could decide to accept Christ. You might say it isn't in his nature to but if it was just a matter of choice, I'm sure he would choose Christ over hell and God would be bound by his word to let him into the kingdom. And then once inside he could decide not to accept Christ. But that won't happen. God declared that the serpent and his children will be cast into hell. You know false prophets and false teachers all preach the kingdom.

Judas was a devil. Jesus called him the son of perdition. He could not have done what you said. Again this isn't about what could have happened 'if'. The Bible tells us what did happened. If this is an example of what comes from your theology, then it must be your theology is seriously flawed. You should not insist that it is a teaching of Christ because it isn't.

Huh? Who is preaching ‘just a decision to accept Christ’? You must have me confused with someone else. That’s NOT what I preach. The choice is not making a verbal acceptance of what Christ did for us on the cross. I say the choice that is ours to make is to follow Christ, to live by his teaching and love and forgive one another as God has forgiven us. Tell me Satan is capable of doing that.

Jesus called Peter “Satan†in Matthew 16:23 and Peter denied the Lord more than three times but he was later repentant and forgiven. If you are going to judge my theology with such faulty reasoning, I don’t wonder that you have made the conclusions you have concerning other passages.

 

[jgredline]

During the time of the beast, is God going to force people to accept the mark?
666 ?

 

[MarkT]

Huh? Who is preaching ‘just a decision to accept Christ’? You must have me confused with someone else. That’s NOT what I preach. The choice is not making a verbal acceptance of what Christ did for us on the cross. I say the choice that is ours to make is to follow Christ, to live by his teaching and love and forgive one another as God has forgiven us. Tell me Satan is capable of doing that.

Jesus called Peter “Satan†in Matthew 16:23 and Peter denied the Lord more than three times but he was later repentant and forgiven. If you are going to judge my theology with such faulty reasoning, I don’t wonder that you have made the conclusions you have concerning other passages.

It has nothing to do with Peter denying he knew Jesus. Judas was a devil, a son of perdition. He fulfilled the prophesy as Jesus said, 'I have guarded them and none is lost but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled." John 17:12

As for Mt. 16:23, the words Peter spoke came from Satan. When Satan put the words in Peter's mouth, Jesus rebuked Satan. You have to understand it seemed right to Peter to say what came to his mind .. 'God forbid. This shall never happen to you' .. asking God to not let Jesus be killed. But, of course, it was God's will that Jesus would die on the cross. So it was Satan suggesting 'it shall never happen' and being a hinderance to Jesus even though the words came from Peter. Or another way of looking at it is Jesus knew where Peter's thoughts were coming from at that moment. It was Satan who was trying to tempt him by one of Jesus's own disciples. Either way, Jesus did not call Peter a devil. He was talking directly to Satan when he said, 'Get behind me, Satan!'

 

[unred typo]

It has nothing to do with Peter denying he knew Jesus. Judas was a devil, a son of perdition. He fulfilled the prophesy as Jesus said, 'I have guarded them and none is lost but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled." John 17:12

As for Mt. 16:23, the words Peter spoke came from Satan. When Satan put the words in Peter's mouth, Jesus rebuked Satan. You have to understand it seemed right to Peter to say what came to his mind .. 'God forbid. This shall never happen to you' .. asking God to not let Jesus be killed. But, of course, it was God's will that Jesus would die on the cross. So it was Satan suggesting 'it shall never happen' and being a hinderance to Jesus even though the words came from Peter. Or another way of looking at it is Jesus knew where Peter's thoughts were coming from at that moment. It was Satan who was trying to tempt him by one of Jesus's own disciples. Either way, Jesus did not call Peter a devil. He was talking directly to Satan when he said, 'Get behind me, Satan!'

I agree with your rendering of Jesus’ words to Peter. And you could be right about Judas being unable to repent because of his commitment to Satan. I’m going to refrain from making a judgment based on speculation since it isn’t spelled out exactly like that. Are you saying Judas was a physical or spiritual son of Satan or an actual demon incarnate? Didn’t Jesus also make a similar statement of the Pharisees?

 

[MarkT]

Are you saying Judas was a physical or spiritual son of Satan or an actual demon incarnate? Didn’t Jesus also make a similar statement of the Pharisees?

If he was a man then he wasn't a spirit. However he was also a serpent, like the Pharisees, destined to bite. Satan entered into him and by the activity of Satan, he betrayed Jesus.

 

[sisterchristian]

During the time of the beast, is God going to force people to accept the mark?
666 ?

Are you talking about the tribulation period? If so... no he is not going to force anyone but rather they are going to have to make that decision on their own, when they are told that in order to buy food or buy anything or sell anything you have to have the mark of the beast on you. But if you endure or are even killed for not accepting the mark than you will be able to go to heaven.

 

[jgredline]

Are you talking about the tribulation period? If so... no he is not going to force anyone but rather they are going to have to make that decision on their own, when they are told that in order to buy food or buy anything or sell anything you have to have the mark of the beast on you. But if you endure or are even killed for not accepting the mark than you will be able to go to heaven.

Exactly my point...It is up to the individual to choose whom he will serve...
The beast or God...If man had no free will to choose, then that would mean that God had to program or force people to choose the mark...That would make God evil, worse than Satan,...This would also make God not God because God is Love....There is no evil in Gods nature.....Those who teach we have no choice in the matter are teaching heresy....

 

[unred typo]

If he was a man then he wasn't a spirit. However he was also a serpent, like the Pharisees, destined to bite. Satan entered into him and by the activity of Satan, he betrayed Jesus.

How do you feel that this is so different from Jesus speaking to Peter and addressing him as Satan, except that Peter‘s heart was not inclined to evil like Judas‘ heart was. If Judas had no free will, why would he be any different than the ‘demon legion’ possessed man or the other demon possessed people who were healed by Jesus? It is said of Judas that he didn’t care for the poor but loved money. You said that Judas was a devil, a son of perdition that he fulfilled the prophesy as Jesus said, 'I have guarded them and none is lost but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled." John 17:12 If he were an unwilling pawn deceived by Satan, then, I don’t see why he couldn’t have repented as Peter did.

I think the big difference is the participation in the act inspired by Satan. Peter spoke, as you said, out of what he thought was a good thing to say but Judas seems to have been portrayed as a man with an evil heart in the matter who cared about wealth and prestige and didn’t act out of love for Christ. This shows to me that the volition of the person is a real determining factor in a person’s salvation. If we are ‘destined’ to do some evil deed, then our own inclinations and heart determines our fate in it.

 

[Vic C.]

You have taken an entire discussion that has nothing to do with salvation and arbitrarily forced it into your interpretation. Election here is about the choosing of the nation of Israel to represent God to the world and then the choice of a blood line for the Son of God and the right of God to make those choices. Paul makes it quite clear that God’s choices in this area of special privileges and positions are not necessarily based on performance but on factors that we cannot dispute because God has the right to choose whomever he wants to do his will, whether it is the person who becomes pharaoh when Moses comes to confront him or who is to be the ancestors of the earthly human body that his Son will take. Election is never, ‘elected for salvation’, but it is ‘election to a task, a privilege, an honor or a disgrace’ but not an individual to be saved. (off topic but relevant, Esau was only hated in that he was not chosen to be given the birth rite and be in the bloodline of the Messiah, not that he would be rejected as a person. The elder would serve the younger, not be damned.)

Golfjack,

You have shown here to not only rightly divide God's word but you also interpreted it properly. Thanks for that; it's what I believe also, but don't quite say it as well as you did.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sister and Javier, if I may play Devil's Advocate for a moment:

How do you see these verses in light of what you said above?

2 Thess 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2 Thess 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2 Thess 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

 

[unred typo]

Golfjack,

You have shown here to not only rightly divide God's word but you also interpreted it properly. Thanks for that; it's what I believe also, but don't quite say it as well as you did.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sister and Javier, if I may play Devil's Advocate for a moment:

How do you see these verses in light of what you said above?

2 Thess 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2 Thess 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2 Thess 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Vic, that quote is one of mine, not golf jack’s. Do you still agree? :-?

 

[Diolectic]

IRENAEUS of Gaul c.130-200. Against Heresies XXXVII
"This expression, 'How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldst not,' set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free (agent) from the beginning, possessing his own soul to obey the behests of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will (toward us) is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves . . ."

"If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the apostle, and much more the Lord Himself, to give counsel to do some things and to abstain from others? But because man is possessed of free-will from the beginning, and God is possessed of free-will in whose likeness man was created, advice is always given to him to keep fast the good, which thing is done by means of obedience to God."

ATHENAGORAS of Athens (2nd century). Embassy for Christians XXIV
"Just as with men who have freedom of choice as to both virtue and vice (for you would not either honor the good or punish the bad; unless vice and virtue were in their own power, and some are diligent in the matters entrusted to them, and others faithless), so is it among the angels"

THEOPHILUS of Antioch (2nd century). To Autolycus XXVII
"For God made man free, and with power over himself . . . now God vouchsafes to him as a gift through His own philanthropy and pity, when men obey Him. For as man, disobeying, drew death on himself; so, obeying the will of God, he who desires is able to procure for himself life everlasting."(Rom 5:19)

TATIAN of Syria (flourished late 2nd century). Address XI
"Why are you 'fated' to grasp at things often, and often to die? Die to the world, repudiating the madness that is in it. Live to God, and by apprehending Him lay aside your old nature. We were not created to die, but we die by our own fault. Our free-will has destroyed us; we who were free have become slaves; we have been sold through sin. Nothing evil has been created by God; we ourselves have manifested wickedness; but we, who have manifested it, are able again to reject(the way of sin) it."

BARDAISAN of Syria c.154-222. Fragments
" 'Why is it that God did not so make us that we should not sin and incur condemnation?'

if man had been made so, he would not have belonged to himself but would have been the instrument of him that moved him . . . And how, in that case, would a man differ from a harp, on which another plays; or from a ship, which another guides: where the praise and the blame reside in the hand of the performer or the steersman . . . they being only instruments made for the use of him in whom is the skill? But God, in His benignity, chose not so to make man; but by freedom He exalted him above many of His creatures."

TERTULLIAN of Carthage c.155-225 Against Marcion Book II ch.5I
-you will find that when He sets before man good and evil, life and death, that the entire course of discipline is arranged in precepts by God's calling men from sin, and threatening and exhorting them; and by this on no other ground than that man is free, with a will either for obedience or resistance.

ARNOBIUS of Sicca c.253-327
For what is so unjust as to force men who are reluctant and unworthy, to reverse their inclinations; to impress forcibly on their minds what they are unwilling to receive, and shrink from . . ."

 

[Vic C.]

Vic, that quote is one of mine, not golf jack’s. Do you still agree? :-?

LOL, I read the contents of the post without reading who posted it. Sorry. It does sound like something jack would say though.

Why would I disagree knowing you said it? I'm not partial to agreeing with one person over another if they share the same beliefs as I.

I agree with whom I agree and I disagree with whom I disagree. :-D