Login  | |
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/13/2008 12:25:01 AM
|
|
|
Destiny7777
Posts: 23
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tdd1975
but to those divinely selected and appointed
This definition makes the most sense and it fits with the Romans 8:30 passage.
But to those who are divinely selected and appointed Christ is the power of God and wisdom of God. Those that have this call will be justified and finally glorified.
quote:
FreeGrace: If you include Rom 8:29 with "for whom He foreknew" it all falls into place. God in His omniscience knows perfectly all who will respond to His gospel. It all begins with His foreknowledge.
quote:
FreeGrace : I think the key to Rom 8:30 is found in v.29, which begins with: "For whom He foreknew". I know the reformed understand "foreknew" as an intimate knowledge, kind of like the intimacy between husband and wife, but the word for "foreknew" is 'proginosko' and speaks of knowing "beforehand" what will occur. So it is quite acceptable to understand that God in His omniscience has always known who will believe His gospel, and it is to those He predestines, invites, justifes, and glorifies.
Wouldn't this explanation mean that the "called" or invited are the ones that God "foreknows" will respond? In the last sentence of yours (FreeGrace) that I have quoted you seem to be saying that God has always known who the believers will be and therefore he predestines, invites (= called, right?), justifies, and glorifies them. That is to say that the ones who are predestined, justified, and glorified are the ones that receive the call? That seems to be basically the same conclusion that tdd1975 reaches or am I missing something?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/13/2008 7:50:29 AM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 1455
Status: online
|
quote:
UMCBEE: And where do you think paradise was located ?
My understanding is that paradise is not heaven.
Scripture interprets itself here. Since neither the thief nor any OT sainst could go
to heaven before Jesus according to John 3:13, "paradiso" must some other place.
Also, 1Pet 3:18 tells me the "prison" is a "holding place", if you will, for those
who die not ever having a chance to hear the gospel and be saved.
quote:
Gen 5:24 > And Enoch walked with God : and he was not ; for God took him .
Took him where?? John 3:13 says it couldn't be heaven.
quote:
2 Kings 2:11 > And it came to pass , as they still went on , and talked ,
that , behold , there appeared a chariot of fire , and horses of fire , and
parted them both asunder , and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
Since Scripture cannot contradict Scripture, I'll take Jesus' words and go from there.
Since I already know there are at least 3 words translated as heaven (the air, the sky,
and actual heaven), I think it must mean something else other than with the Father,
not only because of John 3:13, but because of John 14:6 and Acts 4:12.
quote:
Where could paradise or Abraham's bosom possibly be located other than heaven ?
We'll find out one day. Like I said, could be in the 'burbs.
[EDIT] I don't know what this has to do with the topic.
< Message edited by rwe2156 -- 5/13/2008 8:08:19 AM >
_____________________________
The Truth is between the tensions. The "contradictions"only reflect our lack of understanding.
So we choose sides. God help us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/13/2008 9:53:43 AM
|
|
|
umcbee
Posts: 1515
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tdd1975
quote:
Thanks for the clarification. The Greek word for "called" is kletos, and is translated "called/invited". I see those who are "called" as simply those who have been invited to believe the gospel.
In this passage, you bagan with v.22, but I think v.21 is significant. "For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the messge preached to save those who believe." Throughout Scripture we read that our salvation (Eph 2:8), justification (Rom 3:23-25), forgiveness (Acts 10:43) and possession of eternal life (John 6:40) is based on faith. iow, we have these things because of our faith.
My disagreement with reformed theology is that they think God chose who would believe, though they never state it that way. But their view of election is just that; God chooses who will believe, and then gives them salvation, justification, forgiveness, eternal life, and, oh, by the way, the faith to believe.
Yet Scripture is very clear; faith is the means of all of these things.
So, to answer your question, I don't think the "calling" has anything to do with making the gospel believable. Titus 2:11 says "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men". That's real clear. I think the invitation to believe the gospel is made to all men. Some respond to the "call", many don't.
You are twisting this scripture big time. Just as with Bee, if the text said not many responded you might have a point but it most definately doesn't say that.
23but we preach Christ crucified, unto Jews a stumblingblock,
and unto Gentiles foolishness; 24but unto them that are called, both Jews
and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
Faith cannot be what seperates these two groups. You can't believe something before you are called to believe it.
Look , I'm not twisting anything The word translated as called in 1 Cor 1:24 is "kletos" (Strongs 2282) ; it is the exact same word Jesus uses in Matt 22:14 , when He says > For many are called , but few are chosen . From Strongs the definition is "from the same as #2281 ; invited , i.e. appointed , or (specifically) a sanit :- called ". From 2281 "an invitation (figuratively) : - calling". Therefore , it can not mean that all who are called are saved . Faith is what separates believers and unbelievers .
< Message edited by umcbee -- 5/13/2008 11:00:51 AM >
_____________________________
kingbee
Never let your education get in the way of your learning.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/13/2008 10:11:50 AM
|
|
|
umcbee
Posts: 1515
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Destiny7777
quote:
Thanks for the clarification. The Greek word for "called" is kletos, and is translated "called/invited". I see those who are "called" as simply those who have been invited to believe the gospel.
So, to answer your question, I don't think the "calling" has anything to do with making the gospel believable. Titus 2:11 says "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men". That's real clear. I think the invitation to believe the gospel is made to all men. Some respond to the "call", many don't.
Thank you for taking the time to respond. Sorry, but I'm still struggling to understand. If the calling is simply an invitation and all men are called then what does it mean in I Corinthians that not many wise are called, not many mighty are called, and not many noble are called? I think this is the real core of my original question. Exactly what does I Corinthians I : 26 mean?
quote:
1 Corinthians 1:26-29 (King James Version)
26For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
You have to go back to the book of Isaiah and 1 Cor 1:19 to understand . Paul is quoting Isaiah , where the rulers and wise men of Judah were planning to go down to Egypt and get the Egyptians to protect them from the coming Assyrian invasion and its king Sennacherib ( see Isaiah 19:12 ; 29:14 ; 30:1-5 ; 31:1-9) . Paul is telling them that the wise according to the flesh , the mighty , nor the noble , in Corinth are no more effective in saving people than the wise men of Judah were in Isaiah's day . Don't try and make more out of it than other Scripture backs up , its not a mystery what Paul is refering to .
_____________________________
kingbee
Never let your education get in the way of your learning.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/13/2008 10:25:41 AM
|
|
|
umcbee
Posts: 1515
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tdd1975
quote:
What do you think the "calling" is? I accept the lexicon meaning of "to be invited". iow, the invitation is given, and some respond. That is consistent with all of Scripture, and "whosoever" may believe.
Your theology has a big time problem with the word of Jesus, who grieved at the hardness of the hearts of some. That makes no sense under reformed thinking. He grieved because people weren't believing in Him, which He wanted them to do. Recall that "God our Savior wants all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth".
I agree with "to be invited" meaning of calling. Not many invited doesn't help your pov.
We have to rightly divide the Word. There is a general call that is given to all men. There are many that do not respond to this call and I agree with you that God is grieved with that.
But there is another call that is effectual.
(Romans 8:30) And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
predistined, called, justified, and glorified are all the same group of people. There are no drop outs or refused invitations.
There is no evidence from Scripture of a general call and an effectual call .
To understand Romans 8:30 , it is impotant to understand what the predestination in v. 29 is too . It is the predestination of believers to be conformed to the image of Christ . It is not a predestination to salvation . In v. 30 , it is evident from the language that called , justified , and glorified , are all expressed in the past tense ; which most likely means that Paul is viewing these things from the end of the age ; when it will be evident that those predestined to conformity to Christ were indeed called , justified , and glorified .
_____________________________
kingbee
Never let your education get in the way of your learning.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/13/2008 10:37:52 AM
|
|
|
Covaan_Meshuga
Posts: 2640
Joined: 6/8/2005
Status: offline
|
I wrote the following in the wrong thread, so I am moving it here.
Jimbo --
While I was in a particular brand of holiness (barely recognizable as Wesleyan), the thing that most thoroughly convinced me that reformed theology was closest to the truth was these "holiness people" themselves.
The main thing that made me think was the rampant unrepented sin (in that it was repeated, repeated, repeated) among some in that group that was ignored, and when it was not ignored, it was swept under the proverbial carpet.
Now, this church taught that any sin completely broke relationship with G-d, and that one lost their salvation and was hell-fodder. According to them, this was the case no matter what. However, these were people I knew personally, and as I watched some of them sin and sin -- the same egregious sins against others over and over! -- I began to realize that the glowing testimonies of victory were mere facades and their claims were groundless.
As i considered them, my initial response was that I was horrified that they condemned others to hell for what they were themselves doing! They seemed oblivious to that fact that their condemnation of others condemned themselves! But for me, the idea that they were going to hell for what they were doing was too much: there had to be another answer.
So I began to look into the reformed idea, to read it in my Bible, and to ask questions. What I learned was sosmetimes comforting when I considered these people and sometimes very disconcerting. What can I say.
In their services, they encouraged bright, glowing oral testimonies of their personal holiness-triumphs and of the church organization itself. The church was verbally responsive, so when people said things the leadership liked, they were "amen"ed, but if they said something that was not according to the leadership's preference, they were noticeably silent.
It became interesting in time as I noticed what when those who testified told of how they were overcoming evil with their goodness, or even of the good things they attributed to G-d Himself, they were "amen"ed. But when they told how they loved the church organization itself, of the benefits of the church organization itself, and of the good things they saw in the church organization itself, they were "AMEN!"ed very enthusiastically.
At the end of my tenure there, I decided to test this theory. I stood up during a camp meeting testimony time and gave a testimony, telling what G-d had done for me, and they "amen"ed. So I switched to the "glories" of the organization, and the "amen"s were very noticeably more enthusiastic. I ended my testimony and sat down. That was the last time I testified publically in that organization.
I believe there are innocent people there who simply love the L-rd. I have to believe that. But fortunately, G-d did not make me judge over the others for the sake of eternal condemnation. I would HATE that job. I just pray that those in that organization will somehow find Truth. Actually, I also pray that the organization will dissolve if it does not, because it has done enough damage already.
_____________________________
Abiyah
Why does He keep quoting Torah? Doesn't He know He's about to abolish it?
A tree's fruit is obvious; you have to look harder for the worm hole.
G-d has only one natural Son; EVERYONE else is adopted.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/13/2008 10:49:18 AM
|
|
|
umcbee
Posts: 1515
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
My understanding is that paradise is not heaven.
What else can it be then in your understanding ?
quote:
Scripture interprets itself here. Since neither the thief nor any OT sainst could go
to heaven before Jesus according to John 3:13, "paradiso" must some other place.
Where on where does any Scripture state that as fact ? Do you not resd the interpretation of John 3:13 I gave you from Deuteronomy ?
quote:
Also, 1Pet 3:18 tells me the "prison" is a "holding place", if you will, for those
who die not ever having a chance to hear the gospel and be saved.
It tells me something totally different . When Christ preached unto the spirits , it probably refers to those lost souls in hell who have rejected God . The immediate mention of Noah would indicate that these spirits be understood as the souls of those who heard and rejected Noah's preaching , since they represent the largest number of people to experience God's judgment at any one time . Dead OT saints are never said to have been in any kind of prison .
quote:
quote:
Gen 5:24 > And Enoch walked with God : and he was not ; for God took him .
quote:
Took him where?? John 3:13 says it couldn't be heaven.
No , John 3:13 certainly doesn't say that .
quote:
quote:
2 Kings 2:11 > And it came to pass , as they still went on , and talked ,
that , behold , there appeared a chariot of fire , and horses of fire , and
parted them both asunder , and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
quote:
Since Scripture cannot contradict Scripture, I'll take Jesus' words and go from there.
Well , you had best understand Jesus' words then .
quote:
Since I already know there are at least 3 words translated as heaven (the air, the sky,
and actual heaven), I think it must mean something else other than with the Father,
not only because of John 3:13, but because of John 14:6 and Acts 4:12.
Well.......I guess God just left Elijah blowing around in the breeze or sitting on a cloud playing his harp until Christ asended then ; dispite God's word as clear that Elijah went up to heaven .
_____________________________
kingbee
Never let your education get in the way of your learning.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/13/2008 3:20:58 PM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 1455
Status: online
|
quote:
Well , you had best understand Jesus' words then .
Yeah....
...FG says the same about the soils. 
Used to think perseverance was only for the Calvinists
'Til I found I could embrace it without the rest.
_____________________________
The Truth is between the tensions. The "contradictions"only reflect our lack of understanding.
So we choose sides. God help us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/13/2008 3:29:53 PM
|
|
|
rwe2156
Posts: 1455
Status: online
|
Manna -
If heaven rejoices over one repentant sinner,
why wouldn't God rejoice, too?
If God rejoices, then why?
If God does not rejoice, then why not?
_____________________________
The Truth is between the tensions. The "contradictions"only reflect our lack of understanding.
So we choose sides. God help us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/13/2008 3:49:21 PM
|
|
|
SureHope
Posts: 1373
Joined: 3/11/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Destiny7777
quote:
ORIGINAL: tdd1975
but to those divinely selected and appointed
This definition makes the most sense and it fits with the Romans 8:30 passage.
But to those who are divinely selected and appointed Christ is the power of God and wisdom of God. Those that have this call will be justified and finally glorified.
quote:
FreeGrace: If you include Rom 8:29 with "for whom He foreknew" it all falls into place. God in His omniscience knows perfectly all who will respond to His gospel. It all begins with His foreknowledge.
quote:
FreeGrace : I think the key to Rom 8:30 is found in v.29, which begins with: "For whom He foreknew". I know the reformed understand "foreknew" as an intimate knowledge, kind of like the intimacy between husband and wife, but the word for "foreknew" is 'proginosko' and speaks of knowing "beforehand" what will occur. So it is quite acceptable to understand that God in His omniscience has always known who will believe His gospel, and it is to those He predestines, invites, justifes, and glorifies.
Wouldn't this explanation mean that the "called" or invited are the ones that God "foreknows" will respond? In the last sentence of yours (FreeGrace) that I have quoted you seem to be saying that God has always known who the believers will be and therefore he predestines, invites (= called, right?), justifies, and glorifies them. That is to say that the ones who are predestined, justified, and glorified are the ones that receive the call? That seems to be basically the same conclusion that tdd1975 reaches or am I missing something?
I saw the same thing. In other words, however you interpret the word "foreknew," it is only those whom He foreknew that are called. The call is limited to those whom He foreknew.
_____________________________
-Fix Your Hope Completely on the Grace to be Brought to You at the Revelation of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/13/2008 4:45:38 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 5693
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Conquered
quote:
ORIGINAL: FreeGrace
quote:
ORIGINAL: Conquered
quote:
I suggest you pay attention to the point. When people don't hear or see, it is because they refuse to listen or pay attention. Those are choices freely made.
There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. -Romans 3:11
That doesn't sound like the product of someone who has the ability to make a free choice.
If you would pay attention, you might see my point. Rom 3:11 is referring to the fools, which Paul was quoting from Psa 14 and 53.
Well, I see the text and it doesn't support your view..
Well, let's see about that!
quote:
The LORD looks down from heaven
on the sons of men
to see if there are any who understand,
any who seek God.
3 All have turned aside,
they have together become corrupt;
there is no one who does good,
not even one. - Psalms 14:2-3 (emphasis mine)
Who is the "all?" The "sons of men." Who is that? Everyone, without exception.
How about the very next verse? v.12 says "All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one." Guess where Paul was quoting from? Yep, Psa 14:1-3 and Psa 53:1-3, and both passages begin with "the fool has said in his heart, there is no God". So, the "all" you speak of is also the "all" of v.12, which is a direct reference to fools.
quote:
quote:
Please pay attention to the verses I gave re: not paying attention and refusing to listen. Those most certainly ARE free choices Again, please take your own advice. They are free as far as they can choose to listen or pay attention. But the Scriptures state that no one has that capacity in and of themselves.
There isn't one passage that says that. you have not been paying attention.
quote:
Adam doesn't prove that. He was spiritually alive until he died in the garden.
Yes, of course he was. That isn't in dispute, but you seem not to be paying attention to the discussion. I am speaking of afater his fall. Is that clear to you now? After the fall, he was in need of regeneration, therefore spiritually dead, and still able to respond to the Lord. He disves your theory.
quote:
quote:
quote:
IOW, here's a catchy slogan for you: Dead men don't choose.
Since Adam has proven you wrong, the slogan isn't catchy. It's wrong.
No, it's right and ironically, I'm the one advocating that Adam did have a free will until he sinned.
No, it's wrong and I advocate that Adam was created with a free will, as you note, and he never lost it after the fall.
quote:
quote:
Unbelievers are separated from God.
Yes, and since they are spiritually separated they are dead. They cannot do anything apart from God, even choose God.
That isn't found anywhere in Scripture. Jesus was grieved at the hardness of hearts. That disproves your theory. Paul included the entire human race in who can be justified through faith in His blood. That disproves your theory.
quote:
quote:
quote:
Like Lazarus from the grave, you don't walk out of the tomb until God says "Come forth!"
Wrong example. John 5:25 says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall hear the Son of God; and those who hear shall live." This statement contradicts your theory.
Jesus noted that the dead will hear, and as a result of hearing, will live. So Jesus, along with Adam contradicts your theory. So don't tell me that the dead can't respond.
Not at all. The dead shall hear by the power of God, not because of anything they have within him.
That isn't what Jesus said. He said the dead WILL HEAR. Did you hear that? And, as a result of hearing, they will live. Jesus put hearing before living. That disproves your theory of regeneration preceding faith.
quote:
That is why I don't accept a gospel that preaches that the cross of Christ is only powerful enough to save me if it is coupled with my choice.
Why do you think your faith is "coupled" (whatever that means) with the cross of Christ? The Bible tells us plainly that God gives eternal life to those who believe. It's not the other way around, as your theology would have it.
quote:
quote:
quote:
And if you are separated from God, you are dead.
That is my point. It is a positional thing, NOT a functional thing.
It's both. Positionally if you are dead to God then functionally you are destined for death save God's own hand.
What does "functionally you are destined for death" mean to you? I have no idea what your point is here. The issue of being spiritually dead is positional only, and has nothing to do with function, as Jesus has noted that the dead SHALL HEAR and as a result, will live.
quote:
quote:
quote:
You are unable to choose God.
Jesus said the dead will hear and will live. You are wrong.
Yes
I'm glad you agree.
quote:
Only those whom God has appointed to hear will hear and not all the dead will hear because the Gospel says that not all the dead will hear.
Where do you read that only those whom God has "appointed to hear"? That is not taught in the Bible.
quote:
And why should they hear if they are deaf and the Lord does not open their ears?
What makes most sense is that those who fit the description of people in Rom 1 who don't recognize or honor God as God are the ones that God doesn't open the ears of. God turns them over to their own lusts.
quote:
quote:
quote:
This would include the idea of making the cross of Christ powerless and impotent until your choice is added to it.
Since it is the cross of Christ that provided the means of our forgiveness and salvation, one's faith has nothing to "add" to it, as you foolishly say. Why do you think that if man believes freely, that would "add" anything to what Christ did? I'm always amazed when the reformed think so.
I'm not saying that anything is added to salvation, you are.
You are the one who said "until your choice is ADDED to it". See your own quote above. How do you think that I am adding anything to it. I am denying that anything can be added to the cross, but you would have to be paying attention in order to understand that. Just read my post.
quote:
This is effectively what you advocate for when you require choice to be coupled with his cross in order to be saved.
Why to you keep saying "choice coupled with the cross"? Our salvation, justification, forgiveness and eternal life are all based on faith. But Scripture never describes that as a "coupling". You are using unbiblical wording.
quote:
If a man freely chooses without God then his choice gives him something to boast about. But the Scriptures do not confirm this at all:
Not one person on this thread who holds to free will agrees with your statement, but you would have to pay attention to the thread to know that. So, your "claim" in irrelevant and invalid.
Actually, just the opposite could be charged; that your view of the "elect" gives you something to boast about: "look at me, God chose me", etc.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/13/2008 4:47:23 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 5693
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Destiny7777
quote:
I see what you are asking. It could be that Paul is noting only those who answered the call. I really don't know. But I do know this, the word for "call" is rendered "invite" in my lexicons, so I see no issue of being elected. That answer is fair enough, (though it doesn't sound like Paul - He seems like the type to be pretty specific with words ??) Anyway, each answer just seems to spur a million more questions, and you've already experienced how scattered my mind is LOL. Thanks for continuing to bear with me.
My first question is "What is a lexicon? and how does it differ in function from the Crosswalk tool (Strong's I think) that I used to get the various definitions of "called"?
Strong's is a lexicon. It is a Greek dictionary.
I will post more questions and observations soon. I have them in my mind, but it will take me a while to find the words to formulate them.
I look forward to them.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/13/2008 4:51:46 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 5693
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Destiny7777
quote:
The simplest way for me is to replace the word with the definition and compare with other texts.
quote:
(1 Corinthians 1:23) but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,
(1 Corinthians 1:24) but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
but to those invited (by God in the proclamation of the Gospel) to obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom through Christ
This definition doesn't fit because we are commanded to preach the gospel to every creature in all the world. The very fact that Paul says "but to those" excludes some.
but to those divinely selected and appointed
This definition makes the most sense
This certainly makes sense. Verse 23 says the message of Christ crucified is a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles. Then to say, "but to those who are called....." it certainly seems to be making a distinction between the 2 groups in my mind. The first group, in order for them to stumble or consider it folly, must have been "invited" already otherwise they couldn't have rejected. So the second group, those who are called, must involve something more than the invitation that the first group received. Otherwise distinguishing them by labeling them, "those who are called" has no meaning because those who rejected the gospel were still invited to partake. I am still trying to work through all this in my mind so I want to tread carefully, but I really appreciate your response and insight. Thanks
Please review Rom 1:18-24. We read that not one person in humanity has an excuse for not recognizing and honoring God as God. And those who don't recognize and honor God as God are given over to their own lusts. This passage clearly indicates that all of mankind has the ability to do so, though reformed thought rejects this. Cornelius in Acts 10 is an excellent example of an unbeliever who actually did recognize and honor God. The result was that God answered his prayers and "opened his ears" to the gospel by bringing Peter to his home. God opens the eyes and ears of those who seek for Him, and the Bible has many promises that those who seek God will find Him.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/13/2008 5:04:53 PM
|
|
|
tdd1975
Posts: 248
Joined: 2/12/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
Look , I'm not twisting anything The word translated as called in 1 Cor 1:24 is "kletos" (Strongs 2282) ; it is the exact same word Jesus uses in Matt 22:14 , when He says > For many are called , but few are chosen . From Strongs the definition is "from the same as #2281 ; invited , i.e. appointed , or (specifically) a sanit :- called ". From 2281 "an invitation (figuratively) : - calling". Therefore , it can not mean that all who are called are saved . Faith is what separates believers and unbelievers
quote:
There is no evidence from Scripture of a general call and an effectual call .
I have already said that I agreed with the definition of called being invited. But what it doesn't mean is accept, receive, respond, or believe. Jesus said many are called and Paul says not many called. Either there is a contradiction (which neither of us believe) or we have to understand what is meant by called in each text.
There is a general call that goes out to all.
(Mark 16:15) And he said to them, "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.
And there is an effectual call that goes out to the elect.
(John 10:3) To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.
(John 10:16) And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.
quote:
Faith is what separates believers and unbelievers
That is not the issue here. We are talking about the "but to those who are called" in verse 24. How does someone believe before they are called to believe?
quote:
To understand Romans 8:30 , it is important to understand what the predestination in v. 29 is too . It is the predestination of believers to be conformed to the image of Christ . It is not a predestination to salvation . In v. 30 , it is evident from the language that called , justified , and glorified , are all expressed in the past tense ; which most likely means that Paul is viewing these things from the end of the age ; when it will be evident that those predestined to conformity to Christ were indeed called , justified , and glorified .
What do you mean not to salvation? Justification is salvation. I am pretty sure you believe this so perhaps I am not following you on this one.
If you are equating final glorification and being conformed to Christ, there is still the means of getting there through calling and justification. Arminians generally say that not all that get called get justified and not all that get justified get glorified (because they lose their salvation). But the text doesn't say some that were called were justified and some that were justified get glorified. Paul says "and those whom" referring to the same group of people.
_____________________________
In the Red Sea of His own blood, our Redeemer has
drowned the Pharaoh of our sins C H Spurgeon
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/13/2008 6:30:14 PM
|
|
|
Destiny7777
Posts: 23
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Destiny: Verse 23 says the message of Christ crucified is a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles. Then to say, "but to those who are called....." it certainly seems to be making a distinction between the 2 groups in my mind. The first group, in order for them to stumble or consider it folly, must have been "invited" already otherwise they couldn't have rejected. So the second group, those who are called, must involve something more than the invitation that the first group received. Otherwise distinguishing them by labeling them, "those who are called" has no meaning because those who rejected the gospel were still invited to partake.
quote:
FreeGrace: Please review Rom 1:18-24. We read that not one person in humanity has an excuse for not recognizing and honoring God as God. And those who don't recognize and honor God as God are given over to their own lusts. This passage clearly indicates that all of mankind has the ability to do so, though reformed thought rejects this. Cornelius in Acts 10 is an excellent example of an unbeliever who actually did recognize and honor God. The result was that God answered his prayers and "opened his ears" to the gospel by bringing Peter to his home. God opens the eyes and ears of those who seek for Him, and the Bible has many promises that those who seek God will find Him. Are you saying that "the called" are those whose eyes and ears God has opened?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/13/2008 6:35:41 PM
|
|
|
Destiny7777
Posts: 23
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Destiny: Wouldn't this explanation mean that the "called" or invited are the ones that God "foreknows" will respond? In the last sentence of yours (FreeGrace) that I have quoted you seem to be saying that God has always known who the believers will be and therefore he predestines, invites (= called, right?), justifies, and glorifies them. That is to say that the ones who are predestined, justified, and glorified are the ones that receive the call? That seems to be basically the same conclusion that tdd1975 reaches or am I missing something?
quote:
SureHope: I saw the same thing. In other words, however you interpret the word "foreknew," it is only those whom He foreknew that are called. The call is limited to those whom He foreknew. You said what I was trying to say very succintly. Thanks!!!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/13/2008 6:46:01 PM
|
|
|
Conquered
Posts: 187
Joined: 6/18/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
How about the very next verse? v.12 says "All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one." Guess where Paul was quoting from? Yep, Psa 14:1-3 and Psa 53:1-3, and both passages begin with "the fool has said in his heart, there is no God". So, the "all" you speak of is also the "all" of v.12, which is a direct reference to fools.
Yes. Everyone was or is a fool in their unbelief and in their unbelief has said “that there is no God” whether by unspoken thought or deed. And you and I are still fools on account of what was the case and what we are in the flesh (see Romans 7). So I don’t see how you’ve made your case at all. I wasn’t trying to point out that verse one didn’t exist. I was rather pointing out that you and I are these fools by nature.
_____________________________
You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last. - John 15:16
www.desiringgod.org
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/13/2008 7:10:24 PM
|
|
|
Destiny7777
Posts: 23
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
FreeGrace : Strong's is a lexicon. It is a Greek dictionary. Of course I see that now when I look up a word in the Strong's right at the top of the webpage. Thanks for bearing with me!! It takes me a while sometimes.
Ok, so the Strong's on Crosswalk lists several (I think 4) definitions of "called" - Why should only the first definition be considered valid?
tdd1975's statement "Jesus said many are called and Paul says not many called. Either there is a contradiction (which neither of us believe) or we have to understand what is meant by called in each text. " seems strong reason to consider that maybe more than one meaning of the word is used in Scripture.
Using the Crosswalk tools, Lexicon, I found 11 uses of this word translated "called" in the NT and one is in Romans 8:28. "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." In this case the calling certainly can't mean those who are merely invited or those who merely hear the gospel invitation. All things won't work out so well for those who reject the message. It seems that this has to be a different type of call.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/13/2008 7:50:30 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 5693
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Destiny7777
quote:
ORIGINAL: tdd1975
but to those divinely selected and appointed
This definition makes the most sense and it fits with the Romans 8:30 passage.
But to those who are divinely selected and appointed Christ is the power of God and wisdom of God. Those that have this call will be justified and finally glorified.
quote:
FreeGrace: If you include Rom 8:29 with "for whom He foreknew" it all falls into place. God in His omniscience knows perfectly all who will respond to His gospel. It all begins with His foreknowledge.
quote:
FreeGrace : I think the key to Rom 8:30 is found in v.29, which begins with: "For whom He foreknew". I know the reformed understand "foreknew" as an intimate knowledge, kind of like the intimacy between husband and wife, but the word for "foreknew" is 'proginosko' and speaks of knowing "beforehand" what will occur. So it is quite acceptable to understand that God in His omniscience has always known who will believe His gospel, and it is to those He predestines, invites, justifes, and glorifies.
Wouldn't this explanation mean that the "called" or invited are the ones that God "foreknows" will respond? In the last sentence of yours (FreeGrace) that I have quoted you seem to be saying that God has always known who the believers will be and therefore he predestines, invites (= called, right?), justifies, and glorifies them. That is to say that the ones who are predestined, justified, and glorified are the ones that receive the call? That seems to be basically the same conclusion that tdd1975 reaches or am I missing something?
Since Rom 8:30 actually begins with v.29 and "For whom He foreknew", it is clear that God's omniscience knows who will believe, and there is no support for the idea that God chooses or determines who will believe. Also, I think Rom 1:818-24 is relevant, for no one has an excuse for not recognizing and honoring God. That means we are all able to do so, and in fact, Cornelius is an excellent example of an unbeliever who did recognize and honor God. The result was that God invited him to believe the gospel, by sending Peter to his house.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/13/2008 7:53:51 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 5693
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rwe2156
quote:
Well , you had best understand Jesus' words then .
Yeah....
...FG says the same about the soils.
No, I say the same thing about Jesus' words about the soils.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/13/2008 7:56:42 PM
|
|
|
FreeGrace
Posts: 5693
Joined: 12/30/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rwe2156
Manna -
If heaven rejoices over one repentant sinner,
why wouldn't God rejoice, too?
If God rejoices, then why?
If God does not rejoice, then why not?
Good question, rw! I voiced the same thing a while back. If the calvinistic view of election is true, why do angels rejoice over 1 sinner who repents, since it would all have been "predetermined" in eternity past. None of the refomed could give a reasonable answer. I'll be curious what Manna says.
I think the fact that angels rejoice over 1 sinner who repents is more evidence that man freely believes God. When even 1 does, the angels rejoice. That makes perfect sense.
Rejoicing angels in calvinism doesn't make any sense.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Calvinism/Arminianism - One Stop Thread - 5/13/2008 7:56:47 PM
|
|
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
