The Value of Evangelism in Reformed Theology

[GodsGrace]

wondering and Fastfredy0

This is why God created man. It was for His good pleasure that man was to take care of what God created.

Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Right for his glory....
Agreed.
I did mention this in my post....
I said that man was to be the steward of the earth.

I just don't know if there is A reason....
But the above is good.

 

[GodsGrace]

God needs nothing outside of himself!

Doug

I agree.
I should have used the word "wanted" more love instead.

 

[jerry63935]

That is the point. A Spiritually dead person cannot do anything of a Spiritual nature like repentance and believing. You must be born again to do those things Spiritually.

the repentance comes the moment your saved.. but after saved we still have to repent

 

[Fastfredy0]

We cannot know for sure why God created us.
Maybe He just needed more love than the Trinity

I don't know why you posted Job 35:7-8

I don't know why my saying that MAYBE God created us to love is "adding love" to Him.
God IS love. 1 John 4:8

I think you just missed my point.
God is never changing --- I agree.

You said the "Maybe He [God] just needed more love". I was pointing out that you (IMO) cannot add anything to God. Job 35:7-8 points out indirectly that you cannot add anything to God. I see in another post that you agree with this IMO. I think you meant a different word that "ADD". Trivial matter.

God is never changing --- I agree.

Why is stating that real love is free love "bait"?
If one is married and he forces (somehow) his wife to love him....how is that love?
Would that person be satisfied with that kind of "love"?
No.
Imagine how much more God would be unsatisfied with His creation if He knew He forced them to love Him?
(those that do).

No bait. It's a solid concept.

Again, you have yet to define Agape Love ... so I am not sure what you are talking about. What is "free love"; what is agape love in your mind (preferably with one source so I know you don't have a definition that no one agrees with). "Free Love" is not a 'solid' concept unless you lay a definitional foundation.

I don't think reformed people are "backward". I know you're just kidding.
But,,,if everything is created for God's pleasure and glory...What kind of a God are we serving?
He creates humans so most of them could go to the enemy, satan, and be with HIM forever?
It seems to me that satan is the enemy of God...why would God GIVE HIM, as a "gift" most of humanity?

I don't know. Romans 9:14-24 touching on the subject, but avoids a direct answer.
Why doesn't God save everyone?; which is my personal choice if I was in charge. He has the power, but not the will.

Isn't Jesus the propitiation of our soul?

The propitiation, redemption and reconciliation of the elect, yes.

Didn't Jesus BUY US BACK from satan?

If 'us' means the elect, yes. From your viewpoint IMO, Christ's death saved no one; if a person with a sin nature was righteous enough to generate his own faith then that plus Christ's death would 'purchase' us from your point of view IMO. For those that do not believe, from you viewpoint IMO, Christ died in vain despite knowing they would not come to faith. Example: Joe died 200 B.C.; yet Christ died for Joe ... therefore, Jesus in respect to Joe died for no purpose
Aside: Technically, Christ's work was to satisfy the Father and not payment to Satan.

Why do you think Jesus died anyway....was it not to release mankind from the grip of satan?

He wanted to give of Himself to part of mankind to manifest His glory and for His pleasure. (Aside: who knows the mind of God save the Spirit of God)

13When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,

Agreed, as brightfame52 pointed out ... the analogy of "dead" refers to spiritually dead and the dead cannot do anything spiritually to save themselves because THEY ARE DEAD .... and the verse goes on to say God made us alive. Thus, regeneration logically precedes conversion (faith + repentance.) Lots of analogies point out that we don't chose God, that He saves us without anything help.

1. Born again ... no one controls there own birth ... God did it all
2. Slave to satan .... no one frees himself from slavery ... God did it all
3. Sheep and a Shepherd ... the sheep don't chose the Shepherd ... God did it all
4. God referring to the elect as adopted children ... Children don't adopt their parents ... God did it all

Granted, analogies can be abused ... but all 5 analogies point to monergism.

God predestined us.
But what did He predestine?
Our salvation? No.
He predestined that we would become sons THROUGH JESUS,,,,this is the kind intention of His will.

Becoming "sons of God" and "salvation" are synonymous. Give me an example where a son of God is not saved ... or someone who is saved is not a son (daughter) of God?
Predestined = per-determined ... I say a wise God predestines all things, you say IMO that it is wiser for God to let man determine many things (I think because of the great importance of "Free Love" (which is as yet undefined).

I can find nowhere in scripture that states God predestined certain men to salvation.

Hmmm, I know 51 verses saying God chose (predestined, elected) men to salvation... many more where He "called" to salvation, many more where it states it is God will as to who is saved, verses where faith comes from God, yahda, yahda, yahda ...

1. Psalm 65:4 Blessed is the one whom You choose and bring near to dwell in Your courts. We will be filled with the goodness of Your house, Your holy temple.

1. Matthew 11:27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

There's a 10,000 character limit

God is not a respecter of persons.

Respect: a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements

He does not respect anyone for their abilities, qualities, or achievements because EVERY THING they do was given them from the Father. They did not do it on their own, so why would God respect their achievements?

I find only that God wishes to save all. 1 Timothy 2:4

I addressed this. "All" is ambiguous. Since your bias is to have ALL mean everyone without exception in this verse, that is what it means to you. I submit that the verse on its own COULD mean what you say. When you look at others verses using the word ALL it is plain that ALL does not always mean everyone without exception. For example: “And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins” (Mark 1:5). Does this mean that every man, woman and child from “all the land of Judea and they of Jerusalem” were baptized of John in Jordan? Surely not.

Hermeneutics101 ... Use explicit verses to determine verses that are implicit.
Again, the implicit meaning of the verse suits your purpose and you IMO refuse to acknowledge the ambiguous nature of the word ALL even when it is pointed out to you.
Same with 1 Timothy 2:6; 2 Peter 3:9

1 Corinthians 15:22 For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
There you go. Here is a verse that says EVERYONE is going to heaven for Christ has made us ALL ALIVE. If you are consistent with your use of the word ALL in scripture you will find scripture contradicts itself. Most people just define ALL to mean what fits with their doctrine. If you are a universalist then 1 Corinthians 15:22 proves everyone is saved, if you are a semi-pelagian then 1 Timothy 2:4, 1 Timothy 2:6; 2 Peter 3:9 etc. means Christ died for everyone without exception, if you are honest you will see a conflict in meaning and seek explicit verses for clarification.

Time for lunch. THanks for your thoughtful replies. (I need definitions ..lol)

 

[GodsGrace]

I don't think God ever feels sadness (may use the term amorpormorphicly). To be sad or to hate as human do is not possible for God as they are traits of imperfect being. (In other words, how can the PERFECT I AM have these negative traits) If he doth whatsoever he pleaseth, nothing can make him miserable, since misery consists in those things which happen against our will. Stephen Charnock
Granted this is based on reformed doctrine that God ordains (not causes) all things. I assume from your view point God doesn't control many things so He can become sad, depressed, angry ...

What is the difference between ORDAIN and CAUSES?

God does not determine everything...and He does have emotions.
Did Jesus not weep over Jerusalem? Because they WOULD NOT go to Him...which also shows free will.

God feels compassion:
Matthew 14:14
14When He went ashore, He saw a large crowd, and felt compassion for them and healed their sick.


God feels sadness:
John 11:35
35Jesus Wept


God can hate:
Proverbs 6:16-19
16There are six things which the LORD hates,
Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:

17Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
And hands that shed innocent blood,

18A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that run rapidly to evil,

19A false witness who utters lies,
And one who spreads strife among brothers.


God can be angry:
Exodus 4:14
14Then the anger of the LORD burned against Moses, and He said, “Is there not your brother Aaron the Levite? I know that he speaks fluently. And moreover, behold, he is coming out to meet you; when he sees you, he will be glad in his heart.



God is a jealous God:
Exodus 34:14

The word World is ambiguous. One should use explicit verses to form doctrine. Many examples, I cite one: If WORLD means everyone without exception then “Your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world” (Romans 1:8) would mean that the faith of the saints at Rome was the subject of conversation by every man, woman, and child on the earth. This is obviously untrue. Warning: Your bias may determine what the meaning is. (Granted, I did not prove you wrong; rather, I think I showed you should question the meaning and seek explicit verses.

The world can have different meanings....
But FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD...means everyone in the world so that He gave His only begotten Son for everyone who would choose to be saved by the blood of Christ.

Romans 1:8
God's word is being proclaimed throughout every nation of the whole world that was known at the time.
IOW...everywhere.

I would say God show no partiality because we did not determine things, therefore He is not partial to us (2nd causes).
From a human stand point it is obvious God is partial. I site His chosen (favorite) nation Israel. It's not as if they are special by their own.

How can y ou say God is partial when scripture says He is not partial and I gave you the verses?

There are reasons why God chose Israel.
Through Israel He would make Himself be known.
He is not partial to human beings individually....
Romans 1:11 is speaking of Romans 1:10 --- GLORY AND HONOR AND PEACE TO EVERY MAN THAT DOES GOOD.
EVERY MAN. (to the Jew AND to the gentile).

Re: WORLD ... Same explanation as John 3:16
Besides, if God has been propitiated (win or regain the favor of) for everyone without exception then why send anyone to hell. Also, the verse begins with "AND" referring to verse one where he is addressing "My little children". Children of God are saints and they definitely have been propitiated.

Where does John 3:16 show the word AND to have a connective meaning??
It's speaking about Moses lifting up the serpent
and so must the Son be lifted up...
THAT WHOSOEVER BELIEVES MAY IN HIM HAVE ETERNAL LIFE.

We BELIEVE and then we have ETERNAL LIFE.

FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD.....everyone in the whole world.


And as to everyone being saved if Jesus died for everyone...
Jesus DID die for every single human being so that if any person wants
to take advantage of this salvation -- he may.
Please don't bring up universalism.
You know very well that it's a strawman and that those wishing to be saved MUST adhere to God's condition.
I've said this a few times already and this seems very difficult for a calvinist to accept.


P.S. I think you meant 1 John 2:2
Sure John is speaking to the saved children of God...
but when John mentioned Jesus' propitiation he states:
NOT FOR OURS ONLY, BUT FOR THAT OF THE WHOLE WORLD.

Your understanding of this passage is not valid.
part 1 of 2

 

[GodsGrace]

Fastfredy0

part 2 of 2

This is the moral will of God, not the sovereign (what He ordains to occur). Example: God wish no one would sin. He has the power to end sin (assumes omnipotent), but He does not do so. He has the power to all come to repentence, but He does not do so. (Aside: there is also an issue with the ambiguity of the word "ALL"; does it mean without exception of without distinction.)

Re 2 Peter 3:9
So now God has TWO wills??
According to YOU....IF God wished no one would sin....then no one would!
Does HE not determine all?
If God wants all to come to repentance, then why don't all come to repentance??

Maybe because man has to WANT by his FREE WILL to be saved?

I don't know why. Possibly to show the futility of man's effort. The point is the verse tells one WHAT they must do; not how it is to be performed. You assume you have the power within yourself as it fits your doctrine. I assume that God changes me so I want to obey. The verse doesn't prove either of us right. One must seek more explicit verses.
Aside: I hear where you are coming from. If someone said to a group of student you must get a perfect SAT score IF you are to be accepted to a course you would either think, I am brilliant so I can do it ... or ... I am not brilliant so there is this method will not work for me.

Above is speaking to Luke 9:23
"And Jesus said to all.....IF anyone would come after me, let him deny himself.....

Jesus is leaving the decision to follow Him up to the individual person. THIS is the reason Jesus states those words.
He tells exactly WHAT AND HOW to follow Jesus.
I agree that God gives us the power to obey through the Holy Spirit.

Acts 1:8
"But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you...."

The power was for witnessing in this case, but Jesus said we can do nothing without Him:
John 15:5
".......For apart from Me you can do nothing."

This is the power TO DO....
But for salvation we call on the name of the Lord.
Acts 2:21
"Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Calling on the name of the Lord is an action we must freely take.
If God does the choosing...WHY should I call on the name of the Lord???

Again, you hi light the point of contention but this it not evidence of who is correct.
... and yes, I would say that if anyone is a new creation he is In Christ also .. there is not chronological or logical order in the verse. If any has facial hair he is an adult man .. or ... if anyone is an adult man they can have facial hair. There is not order suggested. (Yeah, I know it is not a perfect analogy ... some women have beards)

The order is clear FF.
First comes faith and belief and THEN comes salvation.

Faith comes by hearing.
Romans 10:17 first we hear, then we have faith


Abraham believed in the LORD, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (being right with God).
Genesis 15:6 Abraham believed then came righteousness


Believe in the name of the Lord and you will be saved.
Acts 16:31 first you believe in the name of Jesus, then you are saved

Seek God that you might find Him.
Acts 17:27 It's up to the person to seek God -- then He is found.

God was pleased to save those that believe.
1 Corinthians 1:21 Those that believed, God saved

Righteousness comes from God on the basis of faith.
Philippians 3:9 First we have faith, then we have righteousness (salvation)


plenty more....

I believe you interpret these verses to prove men don't need to hear the gospel to be saved. Very few agree, so I won't bother to comment.

OK

Agreed. By definition, if God does something it is just. I am just saying that by my distorted view of justice I would not have the grandson pay the debt of the grandfather (for example). This is the way our court run and seems right to me. (His ways are not our ways)

God also does not let the grandson pay the debt of the grandfather.
We are responsible for our own sins.

Problem with calvinism is that GOD is responsible for our sins.
By having a deterministic God, it removes our responsibility.

Well, I am waiting for your definition of Agape LOVE, Justice and Mercy before commenting further. I think you define them differently or add conditions.

I glad I have no life ... lol

I've explained agape love, justice and mercy ad infinitum.
How about showing me some verses that show we have no free will so we could comment on free will?

We both have a life...this is part of it.

 

[GodsGrace]

Part 2 of 2

Again, I need your definition. I need your definition of FREE WILL, AGAPE LOVE, Mercy and Justice


I need your definition of FREE WILL



I didn't realize it. I need your definition. I might think your idea of 'free will' influences how you in regards to TULIP



He does not create sin, He allows it, He restrains it, He uses it for good.

Re: And since it is HE that determines the unsaved.... this is not exactly correct .... we don't adovate double predestination ... subtle difference ... the unsaved (everyone) determine who is unsaved, God determines whom to have mercy upon.
Re: HOW is it just for Him to hate these in YOUR theology?? Again, I need your definitions of AGAPE LOVE, God's Hate, Mercy, Justice and "free will".



Agreed. I hope we get points for trying. (study to show thyself approved)
I hope I get more points than you. *giggles* just poking the bear in fun

I need your definitions to proceed further.

You're getting tired fastfredy...I can tell !!

I am NOT explaining free will again.
I went on with Hospes about this for post after post and achieved nothing.
If you stop any man on the street and ask h im what free will is,,,,he will tell you.
THAT is my explanation of free will.
Only relating to biblical matters, it centers around morality and moral choices.
We are FREE to make a choice between doing good or doing evil.
No other explanation needed.

As to free will being involved in 4 of the 5 concepts of TULIP...please think it over, or we could go over each one again.
I'm willing.

You say God does not create sin....
He allows it.

No. that is MY explanation.
Under your theology GOD CREATES all the evil that happened today.
Murder, rape, children being abused and killed, torture, etc.

As to double predestination....
If God chooses who will go to h ell,
be definition and necessity He also chooses who will go to heaven.
Think it over.

 

[brightfame52]

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Act 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Repenting comes first then the baptism of the Holy Spirit through the Spiritual rebirth.

Mat 3:1 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,
Mat 3:2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Mat 3:3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Repenting is confessing we are sinners needing God's grace as when we repent first this opens the path towards the Spiritual rebirth as we ask for forgiveness, God is quick to forgive and we are then washed in the blood of Christ and start looking for those Spiritual things from above as we are now dead to self and now Spiritually risen with Christ, Colossians 3:1-4.

How can a spiritually dead person do anything of a spiritual nature ?

 

[TibiasDad]

Why doesn't God save everyone?; which is my personal choice if I was in charge. He has the power, but not the will.

The problem is that he has the will to deliberately pass over and thus, condemn those passed over. If he had the will to save anyone, then he must choose not to will to save as well.

Doug

 

[Fastfredy0]

Here is a definition I like from Christianity.com
“Agape” is one of several Greek words for love. When the word “agape” is used in the Bible, it refers to a pure, willful, sacrificial love that intentionally desires another’s highest good."

Sweet, this is your official definition of agape love (God's love).
Minor flaw in the definition ... when I went to school and was asked for a definition I was told you can't use the word you are definition in the definition. (circular logic)
Possible flaw 2: Why does 'agape love' have to be sacrificial? Example: What does God give up when he makes sure we have something to eat or, is this not a manifestation of love?

Justice only means giving a person what he deserves

Agreed

Mercy means to have compassion on someone

I don't fully agree. I think the compassion has to be in lieu of an offense
I can have compassion of a blind person; yet not don't have to show mercy
Dictionary: compassion or forbearance shown especially to an offender or to one subject to one's power;

I don't agree with your definition of Justice and Mercy. They are not incompatible.

Give me an example of Justice and Mercy for the same circumstance. (unless you mean partial justice and partial mercy. )

The reason you believe we're speaking past each other is because I cannot accept a God as being
JUST UNLESS He gives to everyone the same opportunity to be saved.

How it is justice then to send a baby to heaven and not everyone else. Given the choice, I think most would say: "I would prefer to go to heaven right away than take the chance of going to hell ... especially since 90% (my guess) go to hell. This is a clear example of not giving everyone the same opportunity to be saved. (100% vs. 10%)
Aside: I partially see why you think people who don't hear the gospel can go to heaven. It fits your definition of a just God.
Conjecture: I assume that the same percent of people go to heaven that hear the gospel as don't hear the gospel; otherwise, that wouldn't fit your definition of a just God which is "gives to everyone the same opportunity to be saved." Considering the theme of the thread (the value of evangelism in reformed theology) that would infer that evangelism has no effective role from your view point ... at least in regard to number of people being saved.

​

Again,,,could y ou show me some scripture that supports the idea that God only picks who HE feels should be saved BASED ON NOTHING AT ALL.....?

I never said "based on nothing at all". Based on God will ... he makes some to be His children and others to be sons of Satan. I do contend that salvation is not based on what the elect do. I do say the elect will manifest God's regeneration by obedience because their will has been changed by God.
I showed a few verses in previous post. I can list 100s (some more to the point than others).

My assertion was that GOD IS NOT THE CAUSE of all things.
I DID NOT mention creations.
Everything is created by God.

Now this is interesting ...
Give me an example of something God did not cause ... and then tell me what was the cause. (Oh, I think I will enjoy this answer.
Now for a tricky question. You said God created everything. Did He create evil? (dirty question... but interesting)

This is where free will again comes into the discussion - which, actually, should be relegated only to free will, this discussion, I mean.

You have yet to define "free will" so I won't respond.

You believe God created evil. Or at least you do if you're an honest calvinist.

This is a complete and utter misunderstanding of calvinism in this regard. It is also a misunderstanding of what 'evil' is IMO. See the following.
THE BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH states: God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein
The Westminster Confession says something similar. Find me anything where Reformed Theology says God created evil. Give me a quote. God permits evil (I assume you agreed) and God uses evil for good (I assume you agree), but He does not author evil. FIND ME A QUOTE (not a statement from which you infer to mean God created evil)

I say we cannot know where evil comes from.
This is the most asked question in Christiandom that has no answer.
If God is all-good and all-powerful; why does evil exist?

Agreed ... was just how you would answer. *mischievous grin*

Dualism doesn't work or God would not be sovereign and almighty.

Calvinist's considered semi-pelagians dualists which is to say there are two powers determining events: God and man.
God can sovereignly choose to make some of his decisions dependent upon the decisions of creatures. God takes the risk that his desires may be thwarted in some cases—we may not do what God desires. Hence, given the type of world God decided to create, he cannot guarantee that everything will go precisely the way he would like. God has sovereignly decided to make his election to salvation dependent upon human response to divine grace. John Sanders - http://drjohnsanders.com/is-open-theism-a-radical-revision-or-miniscule-modification-of-arminianism/

What do you believe my false conclusion is?
That God IS NOT the creator of evil?

These seems to be your contention in regards to Reform theology. I showed above that Reformed doctrine specifically states God is not the author of evil. I think you conflate God's allowing for evil with God authoring evil in regards to reform theology.

Yes, I'd say that in Romans 9, the word hate means to love less.
Let's not discuss God loving all people the same anymore----

You agree with me. God loves some people less than others. That is manifested in his elected (loving) some for salvation.

Just need your definition of "free will".

Almost your bedtime.

 

[brightfame52]

the repentance comes the moment your saved.. but after saved we still have to repent

You have to be saved from spiritual death before you can repent. Repentance is a spiritual act, performed by the new spiritually alive person,

 

[Fastfredy0]

What is the difference between ORDAIN and CAUSES?

Ordain = an outline of all events controlled by God (order or decree)
The divine decree is the eternal and sovereign purpose of the triune God, based upon his will alone according to his incomprehensible wisdom and goodness, that determines all persons, things, events, and relationships outside of himself for his manifest glory in Jesus Christ. Joel Beeke Reformed Systematic Theology
Keeping in mind that both of us don't know where evil comes from ... God knows it will comes and plan for it to come and plan what it will do or how it will be restrained.

Cause = The 'thing' which is the precursor to an effect. Every effect has a cause. God does not CAUSE evil, he does plan for it to happen.
Aside: Perhaps you conception of evil is different than mind. Consider:
Evil is nothing. It is not a thing that has existence. It is an action of something that is a thing. When I do something that is not good, then I am doing something that is evil, but evil then is an activity of some being. It has no being of itself.
I will send you the rest in a CONVERSATION. Don't wish to bore people. You don't have to read it.

God does not determine everything...and He does have emotions.
Did Jesus not weep over Jerusalem? Because they WOULD NOT go to Him...which also shows free will.

Well, we disagreed on whether or not God determines everything. You are a dualist in this matter as you believe man and God determine things... I guess you believe Satan also determines outcomes too.

God has emotions ..... I would say God has emotions but is not emotional. I would say God lacks many emotions man has (He is never surprised, He is never angry (yeah, bible says He is ... I would argue this is a Anthropomorphism (I wish I could spell that ... lol) To say God is emotional is to say He is not immutable ... it is to say sometimes he's happy sometimes He is not. So, I would say he has emotion but not emotional.
Re: Jesus wept ... this has to due with the hypostatic union. This is Christ's human nature, not his divine nature.
Clearer example: God knows everything. Christ did not know the timing of his return. Conclusion: Christ is not God ... or Christ has two natures; the divine nature knows when Christ returns, the human nature does not. (same thing with verse saying something about the boy Christ growing in knowledge and wisdom or something like that).

Proverbs 6:16-19
16There are six things which the LORD hates,
Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:

I would God does not hate. The verse is an Anthropomorphism.
Strictly speaking, wrath [hate] is not an attribute of God’s nature, but is his “holy justice against sin”. Joel Beeke Reformed Systematic Theology
If he doth whatsoever he pleaseth, nothing can make him miserable, since misery consists in those things which happen against our will. Stephen Charnock
Strictly speaking, wrath [hate] is not an attribute of God. It would be more appropriate to say that the wrath of God is the manifestation of the holiness of God in the context of sinfulness of man. So, within the trinitarian fellowship that holiness is expressed amongst the members of the trinity but not wrath. Sinclair Ferguson
In the Bible, hatred is not an emotion primarily, but rather a covenant action to disfavor. Gotquestions.org

Job 35:7 “If you are righteous, what do you give God, Or what does He receive from your hand? 8 “Your wickedness affects only a man such as you, And your righteousness affects only a son of man [but it cannot affect God, who is sovereign]”

God can be angry:

Same answer as "hate".

God is a jealous God:

If by 'jealous you mean "feeling or showing envy of someone or their achievements and advantages", I don't agree.

The world can have different meanings....
But FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD...means everyone in the world so that He gave His only begotten Son for everyone who would choose to be saved by the blood of Christ.

The word world may mean what you think it means and it may mean other things as I pointed out. Again, one must use explicit verses to validate the meaning of implicit words like: ALL, EVERYONE, ANYONE, WORLD.
You agree that WORLD has different meanings, but you have not used other verses to validate your conclusion of John 3:16.
That being said. Let's assume WORLD means everyone without exception. The verse simple says whoever believes will have ever lasting life. There is nothing in the verse telling us why one believes. I say because God caused us to believe and you say your 'free will' (which you have yet to define) caused us to believe.
So the verse, if expounded upon by the writer, could be:
My way:
For God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whosoever believed [due to God causing him to believe] will not perish ....
Your way:
For God so love the world that he gave his only son that whosoever believed [as a result of their "free will"] will not perish ....
You must seek the answer to the question of the cause of your faith elsewhere than John 3:16 IMO

Romans 1:8
God's word is being proclaimed throughout every nation of the whole world that was known at the time.
IOW...everywhere.

This is factually incorrect if by everywhere you mean every people on the planet. This is why I caution against the biased interpretation of WORLD, ALL, EVERYWHERE, EVERYONE, ANYONE. (Maybe we have a semantic issue)

Where does John 3:16 show the word AND to have a connective meaning??

I think this was either misread by you are I didn't write comprehensively. The "AND" was in connection with 1 John 2:2 I believe and not John 3:16. Somewhere you, me or us muddled it up. Let's say it was me.

And as to everyone being saved if Jesus died for everyone...
Jesus DID die for every single human being so that if any person wants
to take advantage of this salvation -- he may.
Please don't bring up universalism.
You know very well that it's a strawman and that those wishing to be saved MUST adhere to God's condition.
I've said this a few times already and this seems very difficult for a calvinist to accept.

Well, that is your interpretation or "everyone" and as I mentioned... if that be true His for the most part was in vain.

I did not bring up the verse to promote universalism. I used the verse to demonstrate that the meaning of "ALL" does not necessarily means "everyone without exception" for if it did then we would have a verse promoting universalism which is contrary to both our views.

P.S. I think you meant 1 John 2:2

LOL .. I think you are right .. my bad.

Oh geez, there's a Part 2.
You may wear me down so that I become an Arminian due to exhaustion.
(Just teasing ... I admire your defense of your beliefs

 

[Fastfredy0]

I am NOT explaining free will again.
I went on with @Hospes about this for post after post and achieved nothing.

Yes, I read your responses and understood why he needed clarification.

If you stop any man on the street and ask h im what free will is,,,,he will tell you.
THAT is my explanation of free will.

O.K. .... I asked gotquestions.org:
Libertarian free will is basically the concept that, metaphysically and morally, man is an autonomous being, one who operates independently, not controlled by others or by outside forces. According to this view, a person who freely made a particular choice could have chosen differently, even if nothing about the past prior to the moment of choice had been different.” In the libertarian free will paradigm, the power of contrary choice reigns supreme. Without this ability to choose otherwise, libertarian free will proponents will claim that man cannot be held morally responsible for his actions.

So basically, Libertarian Free Will denies scripture where it explicitly talks about man's inability to chose God.

• Romans 3:11 No one understands [divine things]; no one seeks for God.
• 1 Corinthians 2:14 The natural [unregenerate] person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God [regeneration comes from the Spirit of God], for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually [the Holy Spirit] discerned.
• John 3:20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light
• Romans 7:18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot perform it.
• Romans 8:7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot.

Under your theology GOD CREATES all the evil that happened today.
Murder, rape, children being abused and killed, torture, etc.

Again, find me any quote by a reformed theologian to valid this false claim. You said John MacArthur claims God causes evil ... I say you made a false claim. PROVE IT!
I quoted a Reformed confession (the most authoritative source possible of Reform doctrine) for you stating the GOD IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF SIN, yet you won't stop stating this slander.

As to double predestination....

Again, you don't understand reform doctrine in this area either. I grant that this is easily misunderstood.
I refer you to https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=Awr...tion.pdf/RK=2/RS=wMn7MFVXq5bvjPmy17HUgnYNihA-
to read about "The Double-Predestination Distortion" by R.C. Sproul

It is one thing to disagree with another thoughts, it is quite another to misrepresent them repeatedly.

If God chooses who will go to h ell,
be definition and necessity He also chooses who will go to heaven.
Think it over.

I have. You are misinformed or not able to comprehend. I understand how one could be confused. Read the article.

 

[jerry63935]

You have to be saved from spiritual death before you can repent. Repentance is a spiritual act, performed by the new spiritually alive person,

i think i said that only failed to use spirit.. its a spiritual Birth

You have to be saved from spiritual death before you can repent. Repentance is a spiritual act, performed by the new spiritually alive person,

you like to try to complicate things dont you?

 

[Fastfredy0]

Reformed thinking of Double Predestination - R.C. Sproul

What Double Predestination is: We can call this a positive-positive view of predestination. This is, God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation. In the same way God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to sin.

This distortion of positive-positive predestination clearly makes God the author of sin who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly coerces man to do. Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of God. wondering This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine. Such a view may be identified with what is often loosely described as hyper-Calvinism and involves a radical form of supralapsarianism. Such a view of predestination has been virtually universally and monolithically rejected by Reformed thinkers.

The Reformed View of Predestination

In sharp contrast to the caricature of double predestination seen in the positive-positive schema is the classic position of Reformed theology on predestination. In this view predestination is double in that it involves both election and reprobation but is not symmetrical with respect to the mode of divine activity. A strict parallelism of operation is denied. Rather we view predestination in terms of a positive-negative relationship.


In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives. Even in the case of the “hardening” of the sinners’ already recalcitrant hearts, God does not, as Luther stated, “work evil in us (for hardening is working evil) by creating fresh evil in us.”
Luther continued: When men hear us say that God works both good and evil in us, and that we are subject to God’s working by mere passive necessity, they seem to imagine a man who is in himself good, and not evil, having an evil work wrought in him by God; for they do not sufficiently bear in mind how incessantly active God is in all His creatures, allowing none of them to keep holiday. He who would understand these matters, however, should think thus: God works evil in us (that is, by means of us) not through God’s own fault, but by reason of our own defect. We being evil by nature, and God being good, when He impels us to act by His own acting upon us according to the nature of His omnipotence, good though He is in Himself, He cannot but do evil by our evil instrumentality; although, according to His wisdom, He makes good use of this evil for His own glory and for our salvation.

Thus, the mode of operation in the lives of the elect is not parallel with that operation in the lives of the reprobate. God works regeneration monergistically but never sin. Sin falls within the category of providential concurrence.

Another significant difference between the activity of God with respect to the elect and the reprobate concerns God’s justice. The decree and fulfillment of election provide mercy for the elect while the efficacy of reprobation provides justice for the reprobate. God shows mercy sovereignly and unconditionally to some, and gives justice to those passed over in election. That is to say, God grants the mercy of election to some and justice to others. No one is the victim of injustice. To fail to receive mercy is not to be treated unjustly. God is under no obligation to grant mercy to all—in fact He is under no obligation to grant mercy to any. He says, “I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy” (Rom. 9). The divine prerogative to grant mercy voluntarily cannot be faulted. If God is required by some cosmic law apart from Himself to be merciful to all men, then we would have to conclude that justice demands mercy. If that is so, then mercy is no longer voluntary, but required. If mercy is required, it is no longer mercy, but justice. What God does not do is sin by visiting injustice upon the reprobate. Only by considering election and reprobation as being asymmetrical in terms of a positive-negative schema can God be exonerated from injustice.

Aside: The Reformed doctrine of Single Predestination is not easily grasped.

 

[jerry63935]

Reformed thinking of Double Predestination - R.C. Sproul

What Double Predestination is: We can call this a positive-positive view of predestination. This is, God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation. In the same way God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to sin.

This distortion of positive-positive predestination clearly makes God the author of sin who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly coerces man to do. Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of God. wondering This is not the Reformed view of predestination, but a gross and inexcusable caricature of the doctrine. Such a view may be identified with what is often loosely described as hyper-Calvinism and involves a radical form of supralapsarianism. Such a view of predestination has been virtually universally and monolithically rejected by Reformed thinkers.

The Reformed View of Predestination

In sharp contrast to the caricature of double predestination seen in the positive-positive schema is the classic position of Reformed theology on predestination. In this view predestination is double in that it involves both election and reprobation but is not symmetrical with respect to the mode of divine activity. A strict parallelism of operation is denied. Rather we view predestination in terms of a positive-negative relationship.


In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives. Even in the case of the “hardening” of the sinners’ already recalcitrant hearts, God does not, as Luther stated, “work evil in us (for hardening is working evil) by creating fresh evil in us.”
Luther continued: When men hear us say that God works both good and evil in us, and that we are subject to God’s working by mere passive necessity, they seem to imagine a man who is in himself good, and not evil, having an evil work wrought in him by God; for they do not sufficiently bear in mind how incessantly active God is in all His creatures, allowing none of them to keep holiday. He who would understand these matters, however, should think thus: God works evil in us (that is, by means of us) not through God’s own fault, but by reason of our own defect. We being evil by nature, and God being good, when He impels us to act by His own acting upon us according to the nature of His omnipotence, good though He is in Himself, He cannot but do evil by our evil instrumentality; although, according to His wisdom, He makes good use of this evil for His own glory and for our salvation.

Thus, the mode of operation in the lives of the elect is not parallel with that operation in the lives of the reprobate. God works regeneration monergistically but never sin. Sin falls within the category of providential concurrence.

Another significant difference between the activity of God with respect to the elect and the reprobate concerns God’s justice. The decree and fulfillment of election provide mercy for the elect while the efficacy of reprobation provides justice for the reprobate. God shows mercy sovereignly and unconditionally to some, and gives justice to those passed over in election. That is to say, God grants the mercy of election to some and justice to others. No one is the victim of injustice. To fail to receive mercy is not to be treated unjustly. God is under no obligation to grant mercy to all—in fact He is under no obligation to grant mercy to any. He says, “I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy” (Rom. 9). The divine prerogative to grant mercy voluntarily cannot be faulted. If God is required by some cosmic law apart from Himself to be merciful to all men, then we would have to conclude that justice demands mercy. If that is so, then mercy is no longer voluntary, but required. If mercy is required, it is no longer mercy, but justice. What God does not do is sin by visiting injustice upon the reprobate. Only by considering election and reprobation as being asymmetrical in terms of a positive-negative schema can God be exonerated from injustice.

Aside: The Reformed doctrine of Single Predestination is not easily grasped.

sproul good man ..but several points i disagree with

 

[brightfame52]

i think i said that only failed to use spirit.. its a spiritual Birth

you like to try to complicate things dont you?

Nothing complicated about it. A person needs spiritual life to perform spiritual activity, just like a person needs physical life to perform physical activities.

 

[JLB]

What Double Predestination is: We can call this a positive-positive view of predestination. This is, God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation. In the same way God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to sin.

This distortion of positive-positive predestination clearly makes God the author of sin who punishes a person for doing what God monergistically and irresistibly coerces man to do. Such a view is indeed a monstrous assault on the integrity of God.

Agreed

 

[JLB]

Nothing complicated about it. A person needs spiritual life to perform spiritual activity, just like a person needs physical life to perform physical activities.

Man is spirit, soul and body.

Man has spiritual life working in him from birth.

The burden of the word of the LORD against Israel. Thus says the LORD, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him:
Zechariah 12:1


IF a human being didn’t have a spirit within him, he would be dead.


For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. James 2:26




JLB

 

[brightfame52]

Man is spirit, soul and body.

Man has spiritual life working in him from birth.

The burden of the word of the LORD against Israel. Thus says the LORD, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him:
Zechariah 12:1


IF a human being didn’t have a spirit within him, he would be dead.


For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. James 2:26




JLB

I'm aware of what man consist of, nothing new there. However man by nature is dead spiritually in trespasses and sin Eph 2:1,5!