God chooses...his call is effectual...case closed.
All that dwell on the earth shall worship him, every one whose name hath not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the lamb that hath been slain, Rev. 13:8; and we may contrast these with the disciples whom Jesus told to rejoice because their names were written in heaven (Luke 10:20), and with Pauls fellow-workers, whose names are in the book of life, Phil. 4:3.
Ooohh, so when the data of scripture doesn't fit the theology, we need multiple types of calling. I thought the case was closed and God's call is effectual? Instead of inventing inner and outer categories, how about rethinking your proposition that calling is effectual?
If God didnt control all events or have all events under his jurisdiction to control..would the events leading up to Calvary ever fulfill prophecy as wonderfully as it did?
I don't know what this has to do with the exegesis of the passage above. But having things under control or jurisdiction is different than causing them. The permissive will of God allows for free choice in his creatures at times.
Yes free choice is permitted but not unto salvation. The dead in spirit hears the word which is life as John 6 declares and it does a work or not according to God's grace and election. Your exegisis discounts the context which is the church stated from previous chapter in my opinion.
The general call is the one that we, while we evangelize, put forth as a broad invitation. The specific call is the one that God does Himself, this one determines whether or not someone will reject the general call.
Does this then mean that we should not evangelize since it really is up to God in the end? Not at all, God commands us to evangelize, who are we, mere men to refuse Him just because we don't understand His character fully Godcannotbeallthewayunderstoodlikeinthiscase
I think we can look at places like 1 John 2:2. This verse, among others, seems to distinguish amongst two separate groups. Also the verse that reads :Christ died for the whole world but especially for the elect.: I can't remember the reference for that one.
I believe that, (not only from this verse but also from ones such as John 6), that we are not able to accept Christ's sacrifice if God does not help us. Whether by doing it all for us or by giving us the strength.
Romans 3:10-11 support this, as well as Ephesians2:8-9.
Mr McCallum The context of the verse is found in chapter 8 37 "No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us" Therefore you are in grave error and are misleading many astray.
I think this video is an invention - the greek has largest meaning field of any language known to man since it was primarily meant for military instruction..so you have to go deeper and you surely cannot determine doctrine in a vacuum like you are doing...
Yes, no fallen person is capable of belief on their own. Only a quickening or drawing from God makes them able. Fortunately that drawing happens to all men acc. to Jn. 12 32
If mans feewill concerning salv. is true then there is no need for God to give Christ anyone. Who are these people given to Christ and on what basis are they given to Him?
Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Joh 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
Will only becomes free when the Holy Spirit convicts and draws people. These are given to Christ. If you're going to quote jn. 6:37, be sure to explain vs 40 40 For it is my Fathers will that all who see his Son and believe in him should have eternal life. I will raise them up at the last day.
Yes verse 40 is important but just which Jesus is being introduced, the one who died for all or the one who died for those given Him? Many believe in a false Christ which comes through a false gospel.
Since it seems that the word "all" is being viewed as meaning absolutely everyone,let me ask you this, will all Isreal be saved? According to this verse?
Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
You must read beyond verse 12, it is in verse 13 which shows that only by God, not blood, flesh or mans will is one bornagain. So again you can clearly see it is still by God alone. It even states the will of man, and still people will not submit to the truth.
Joh 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:
Joh 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Of His own will begat He us with the word of truth.
So then a mans will is not required in any way.
Only by God alone.Then why do professing christians continue to say a man must choose.
A dead man can only respond to what is done to him, there is no joint effort between God and man in his salv., this would make it a work. But more to the point,if God alone chooses who He will draw to Him, on what basis does He make this choice since there is nothing in man of any worth for all are unprofitable?
All of your statements are opinion and rationalism. None of them have anything to do with scripture. Why do people say we must choose? Because the Bible declares that. Jn. 1:12
Never,think any scripture is based on anything but the Nature of God. God is His Spirit and His Virtue .He is self existing Life that can never be suspended.God passed Moses in Spirit telling His Virtues mercy, compassion etc.God is telling Moses my self existing Life is my Spirit in Virtue.Therefore God cannot be anything but ordainer of all things.He cannot give freewill and He Himself be free.There can never be two freewill entitys in the universe at the same time and both be free.See part 2
just for the record i am having trouble in replying to you, when i get the message that you have answered me, i come to this page, when i get here all i see is your answers, it does not show what my ? was then your reply, it only shows your reply on here, so if i am answering someone els is ? i dont mean to, when i first came to your page it did not seem to do this, i dont know if something happend, but i am trying to answer you replys the best way i can
Yeah, that apparently happened because I was out of town and out of touch. Youtube doesn't seem to link answers to the comments, but to the date posted.
Im honestly not being sarcastic,Do you refer to original languages , have you researched the word foreknew, foreknow [n], foreordain,,etc.? If so, what was your findings? What greek lexicons or scholars have you refered to?Are you KJV only? How can you reason by proper interpretation that it is foreknowledge of the actions of men, and not men alone. Please answer each question so I know which question youre refering to. If I get these answers that should suffice my curiousity . thanks
I read Greek, and have studied proginosko in standard lexicons including bauer arndt and gingrich, kittle, et al. The word means to know beforehand. I am not KJV only.
Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
draw him — by an internal and efficacious operation; though by all the means of rational conviction, and in a way altogether consonant to their moral nature (Son_1:4; Jer_31:3; Hos_11:3, Hos_11:4).
Joh 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
except it were given him — plainly showing that by the Fathers drawing (Joh_6:44) was meant an internal and efficacious operation, for in recalling the statement here He says, it must be given to a man to come to Christ.
your whole arguement rests on the definition of prognosko on it your position stands or falls,. Have you read Julius R, Mantey ; H. E. Dana; a manual grammar of the greek new testament and their interpretation of that word. Please thoroughly research progonosko , doesnt matter if your semi pelagian or calvinist the definition and use of progonosko is Scholarly not influenced by doctrine
how can this be a meaningful conversation, if you dont post the things a say, your giving answers to things i posted a long time ago, i cant remeber what i put down days ago, why are you not putting the things up that i posted, then give a answer ?
I approved all the comments before answering each one. Apparently, Youtube puts them in the order in which they came in, not the time at which they were approves (I was out of town and offline). So, yeah, this looks real strange. When I posted each answer was directly below your comment.
its hard pick up were we left off, i had posted ? about 5 days ago or so, you are giving answers, but i cant remeber what i posted, why did you not post those last statements i mad days ago, thats wy its hard to follow you, you should post the things i last said then i have something to go off of
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. eph.2:8-9 is sais it is NOT of OURSELVES. as in we do not chose.
To the contrary--it is not of ourselves because it is not the result of works as the verse says. But Rom. 4:1-6 clearly distinguishes between coming by faith or by works. These are not the same.
As long as God gets the glory for our salvation by his grave then in the end it doesnt realy matter to me....the reason that predestination is soo important is because it makes God a big God and omnicient and in controle...if you start preaching anything else then you are a heretic.
I cannot judge your heart nor would i, but with the knowledge of the Word you posess. I cannot see how you can honestly infer the calling of Romans 8:28,30 can be refused
Doesnt make a difference what type of terminology, because I see alot of semi-pelagian terminology in your staements. Calling is only effectual in thoset who recieve it. You have to know not everyone gets the general call either ;they in effect have no free will because they were not given the choice
No, i think the problem would have to be if god is drawing all men as you say, then is all men saved, becouse befor you get to john 12:32, you have john 6:37,44,65, in those vs if you follow the text it say you cant come unless drawn by the father, and those who are drawn, the ones giving to him by the father will come, and be raised on the last day, so either there is 2 diferent calls, or you end up with universalism in a way,
so there is no contradiction if it means only jew and gentile
Your argument is that it can't mean X because that would conflict with your theology. Hardly convincing. No linguistic or contextual reason to limit the meaning here as you suggest, only the mistaken belief that all calling is effectual. But Jesus said many are called but few are chosen.
In the translation all and many are interchangeable. Look at the use of the word "all" throughout the NT, it doesnt always mean all. Check that out in a concordance
It can be used as hyperbole -- "all Judea came out to be baptized by John" but even then, it means "most." Neither "All" nor "Most" would fit your theology here. Many would not be an acceptable translation for panta here.
That is the correct translation, and the meaning of panta. ALL English translations take it that way. If he is using a figure of speech, that still wouldn't change the general picture.
P2 Of course God foreknows all our actions. you have to realize His other attributes also. It is an unbalanced doctrine to subject all scripture to foreknowledge to the actions of fallen men. Some do that with 'love' or the 'wrath' of God.
Sincerly.I thought when i first saw your page, you may have been on to something I havent seen before. I dont doubt that your position falls under the umbrella of orthodox christianity. But your strategy in defending your position seems disingenuous. When an assertion is made, you adress the points that you can explain because of "foreknowledge". P1
Yes, because that is what the Bible says. And it's an important point--fully explaining why people are held responsible to believe in Jesus and made capable of free choice.
Psalm 58:3-The wicked are estranged from the womb;
they go astray from birth, speak ing lies Romans 9:16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, [1] but on God, who has mercy.
ing lies Col 2:13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,
It has already been proved beyond all controversy that free-will is nonsense.Freedom cannot belong to will any more than ponderability can belong to electricity. They are altogether different things. Free agency we may believe in, but free-will is simply ridiculous. The will is well known by all to be directed by the understanding, to be moved by motives,to be guided by other parts of the soul, and to be a secondary thing Philosophy and religion both discard at once the very thought of free-will
free-will is none sense, Freedom cannot belong to the will anymore than ponderbility can belong to electricity. They are all together diferent things.Free agency we may believe in, but free-will is simply ridiculous, the will is well known to be directed by the understanding, to be moved by motives, to be guided by other parts of the soul, and to be a secondary thing, both philosophy,religion discard it
Pro 21:1 The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.
Pro 16:9 A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps.
Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. Phi_2:13, Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling: for it is God which, out of His own good pleasure, worketh in you both to will and to do.
All do not recieve the same choices. Those in a closed country do not recieve the same choices your family may recieve. So because not all get the same chances, and we can agree God is Sovreign. How could you justify the disadvantage some are placed in knowing God is in Charge and some do not get the opportunity to exercise free will? Their will is non-existent when the call is non existent
I never argued that everyone is equal. The Bible only says people are given a sufficient chance, so they are "without excuse." As long as God brings people to the threshold where they can, they are accountable for that. If he wants to give others more, that's his business.
Seems to me 4thstreetstudy center, you are interpreting Scripture not in its context but filtering the through pretext that predestination is dependant on the foreknowledge of the action of the object. When in those passages that premise is not inferred. The object of the foreknowledge is not the action, it is the called whom He predestined.
Predestination IS dependent on foreknowledge, not because of my grid, but because of the syntax of the statement. That's grammatical-historical hermeneutics. That's exegesis--leading the meaning out in accordance with the grammar.
so in other words, peter equates GODs predetermined plane, or foreordination, and his foreknowledge in addition to the idea of foreordination, the term forekowledge also connotes forelove. GOD has a predetermined divine love for those he planse to save.
sorry for double post, just want to make sure they go threw
First of all. 1 Pet. 1:20 is referring to Jesus, not to us. Yes, God loved the human race enough to launch his plan of redemption through Jesus. But which people get predestined or chosen is based on foreknowledg, as Peter agrees in 1:1,2.
and 1 pet 1:20, the term means the same thing in both places, Believers were foreknown in the same way christ was foreknown, that cannot mean foreseen, but must refer to a predetermined plan, not on mans actions, as who will reject or believe, christ was predetermined, so are the elect
So, do you not believe Jesus pre-existed and was eternal? It's not the same, because Jesus was actually there with the Father before the foundations. Peter is obviously referring to God's foreknowledge of Jesus' incarnation and mission as referred to in the previous verse. This is hardly analogous to Rom. 8
the problem you are having is that god was predetermined, and in him being predetermined he had to know who he was coming to save, is not christ Omnscient ?, he had known you befor the world even was, how els could christ predetermined plane exist if he did not know who he was coming to save=elect, the whole thing is christ predetermined plane was that he knew you and set his love upon you befor you were ever created.
is god Omniscient ?
in god omniscient did he know you befor the world ?
Well, I'm not going to claim I'm following your argument, but the fact that election is BASED ON foreknowledge means not that they are both there, but that one is dependent on the other. If God omniscient? Definitely. That's how he knew what I would do and what I would choose. But that's completely different than saying he MADE me do what I do. If that were the case, then foreknowledge would depend on election.
i am confused here you say the foreknowledge is based on our action, and that the forwkowledge there has no relationship=Love, but how could these be, if you go back befor the world was even created christ was predestined, and that was out of love for the elect.
foreknowledge — foreordaining love (1Pe_1:20), inseparable from Gods foreknowledge, the origin from which, and pattern according to which, election takes place. Act_2:23, and Rom_11:2, prove foreknowledge to be foreordination.
It's not just that for-ordination and foreknowledge are inseparable, but that for-ordination is BASED ON foreknowledge. That is what the syntax of Rom. 8:29 requires.
but it sais that those whom he foreknew he predestined and then ig goes on to say that he performs the progressin of salvation in them...santification, glorification, ect....it doesnt say that he may if we so chose to let him it sais he DOES>
35Jesus said to them, (AO) "I am the bread of life;(AP) whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37(AQ) All that(AR) the Father gives me will come to me, and(AS) whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
this is JOhn 6...look at verse 37 the Father gives us to Him.
Why stop there? What about verse 40: "For it is my Fathers will that all who see his Son and believe in him should have eternal life. I will raise them up at the last day.
i disagree with you on Romans 8, you say the greek word used there is [gnosko]
and not [prognosko] but the word used there is [Prognosko] , i have checked this out from sources such as
( H.E. DANA and Julius R. Mantey, A manual Grammar of Greek New Testament [New York : Macmillan, 1927]
p .147) also by John Macarthur,
Studylight,org , and E sword, etc, they all say the word used there is Prognosko , and Granville shar's Rule confirms this as well, There is a relationship in the election
No, Rom. 8 is prognosko. I never said otherwise. My point is that when it says Adam knew Eve, that is "to know" gnosko, not "to foreknow" prognosko. So citing Adam knowing eve is irrelevant to Rom. 8.
No you said never is the word prognosko used in a relationship of someone who does not exist yet, i am saying it does, right there in Romans, also foreknew is from proginosko, a compounnd word with meaning beyond that of simply knowing befor hand. in scripture to "know" often carries the idea of initmacy and is used of love relatioship Gen. 4:17 the word behind relations with is the normal Hebrew verb for knowing, its the same word translated "chosen" in Amos 3:2
Well in that case you're arguing in a circle. The question at hand is whether the word as used in Rom. 8 can be understood as having a relationship with someone who doesn't exist. If that's the question, you can't use that passage as your proof. Your conclusion is in your premis. You have to show somewhere else that uses the word they way you say.
This passage backs my interpretation, not yours. God has not rejected Israel whom he foreknew. How does this prove foreknowledge refers to relationship rather than knowledge of?
did i miss something how iam i going in circles, you stated something, which was wrong by the way as to that word never being used of god having a relationship with those whom he elected, i would say once again were do you believe gods omniscient starts, he had to know in advanced who he was sending the son for, he was foreordained, cant send someone wehn you dont k now who your sending them for, would not be a very omniscient God would he, and we know that plane was out of love set on us.
God operates within time, yet exists outside time. Because He created time. Therefore God can prognosko into time. He exists everywhere of course, but He is in another dimenion ,He is not bound to operate in this realm only. So His foreknowledge of those He loves, is based on His foreordination. Time of existence is irellavent, to Gods purposes. The attributes of God can never be forgotten, and His purposes cant be hindered by man. All that God intends to do gets accomplished.
big said, "So His foreknowledge of those He loves, is based on His foreordination."
Again, you have just nicely reversed the causal order given in Rom. 8:29. You can't do that. You're either under scripture authority or standing over it.
Your citation of a Calvinist author is unconvincing. Where is the word used that way in scripture? Also, if they are the same, why would Paul be redundant in saying one is based on the other?
Calvinists believe in "effectual calling" which is irresistable. But Jesus said, "Many are called, but few are chosen." Matthew 22:14. We believe calling is an invitation that can be refused.
29For those whom he(A) foreknew he also(B) predestined(C) to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be(D) the firstborn among many brothers. Romans 8:29 then later is sais he glofifies them...doesnt sound like they are given a choice to me.....
Eph. 1 says we are chosen in Christ. What does the "in Christ" mean? Jesus was the chosen one, and we partake in his chosenness because we are baptized into him.
ok but if we can reject his calling then why in Romans does it say that those whom he predestines he Glorifies?? if they are predestined then they ARE glorified..it doesnt say if they chose to be.
it sais specificaly: 30And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also(E) justified, and those whom he justified he also(F) glorified.
Yeah, and that sequence all follows foreknowledge. So because he foreknows what is going to happen, he knows who will believe, then he does these other things on that basis.
In latin a believe, or Hebrew it has the same intimate tone as when in genisis it sais And adam "knew" eve. what do you think the word Predestined means??
That word (Hebrew) is in the present tense--you know your wife. Never is prognosko used as an intimate relationship with someone who doesn't even exist yet.
well i dont know anything about Hebrew soo i will have to take your word for it for now. but you didnt awner my question on predestined or ephesians 1.
the way i see it is that we are Predestined and i believe that we do also have freewill to an extent...my friend compared it to the trinity in understanding...we cant expect to understand everything...its like we are 2D people living in a 3D world.
one more ? befor i go, i just want to make sure i dont get you wrong, on Election, you are basing it on the foreknowledge of God, and by this, are you saying that god looks down the future and see's who will except and who will reject the truth, the gospel, if this is so, would that not make it as if man has something in him that he can respond to the gospel on his own?
i could be off, so thats wy i am asking, so could you please explain your view a litle more to me, as to the action of it
No. Under moderate Arminianism, God must draw someone in order for them to believe. However, unlike Calvinists, we believe he draws "all men" Jn. 12:31-2.
look forward to your replys be back later, just a ?, is there anyway of turning that comment pending approval thing off, i like when you post somethign it just goes up, just a thought, later god bless
Romans 8:29,30Forknowledge refers to the special love God has for the elect. 'Those whom He foreknew He also predestined' The way the grammar is constructed in the greek', identifies the foreknown as the person who is predestined, not the actions that person took action. The knew is the same root words translated as the intimate love a man has for his wife. So God bestowed this special love on His elect. In verse 28& 30 are the called,this has to be a different calling
God chooses...his call is effectual...case closed.
All that dwell on the earth shall worship him, every one whose name hath not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the lamb that hath been slain, Rev. 13:8; and we may contrast these with the disciples whom Jesus told to rejoice because their names were written in heaven (Luke 10:20), and with Pauls fellow-workers, whose names are in the book of life, Phil. 4:3.
empiricalpoet 2 years ago
Now all you have to explain is why Jesus said, "many are called, but few are chosen."
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
what type of call is that? external call or internal? If external there is no problem correct?
empiricalpoet 2 years ago
Ooohh, so when the data of scripture doesn't fit the theology, we need multiple types of calling. I thought the case was closed and God's call is effectual? Instead of inventing inner and outer categories, how about rethinking your proposition that calling is effectual?
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
If God didnt control all events or have all events under his jurisdiction to control..would the events leading up to Calvary ever fulfill prophecy as wonderfully as it did?
empiricalpoet 2 years ago
I don't know what this has to do with the exegesis of the passage above. But having things under control or jurisdiction is different than causing them. The permissive will of God allows for free choice in his creatures at times.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Yes free choice is permitted but not unto salvation. The dead in spirit hears the word which is life as John 6 declares and it does a work or not according to God's grace and election. Your exegisis discounts the context which is the church stated from previous chapter in my opinion.
empiricalpoet 2 years ago
@empiricalpoet
The general call is the one that we, while we evangelize, put forth as a broad invitation. The specific call is the one that God does Himself, this one determines whether or not someone will reject the general call.
Does this then mean that we should not evangelize since it really is up to God in the end? Not at all, God commands us to evangelize, who are we, mere men to refuse Him just because we don't understand His character fully Godcannotbeallthewayunderstoodlikeinthiscase
adforhim 2 years ago
And where do we look in this text to find that distinction? I think he's talking about God's call in both cases
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
I think we can look at places like 1 John 2:2. This verse, among others, seems to distinguish amongst two separate groups. Also the verse that reads :Christ died for the whole world but especially for the elect.: I can't remember the reference for that one.
adforhim 2 years ago
Those passages show that limited atonement is wrong. But they don't establish two different kinds of calling.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
I think they do. They give the impression that people are broadly called but they only choose into that calling if God specifically chooses them.
What do you think those verses mean?
adforhim 2 years ago
I'm fine with reading it that way. This is basically saying that God's calling is effectual when we choose to accept it.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
If you mean that God's calling is only effectual when people accept it, yes. But you are definitely seeing more in these verses than the words say.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
I believe that, (not only from this verse but also from ones such as John 6), that we are not able to accept Christ's sacrifice if God does not help us. Whether by doing it all for us or by giving us the strength.
Romans 3:10-11 support this, as well as Ephesians2:8-9.
adforhim 2 years ago
I agree with that. The only difference is that I believe the Spirit convicts the whole world Jn. 16, and that Jesus draws all men 12:32.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
OK.....what would you say is the deciding factor in our coming to Him? Is it our will or His ultimate grace?
adforhim 2 years ago
His initiative, our decision.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Many are called few are chosen...why doesnt it say all are called but few are chosen?...Another way to look at it.
empiricalpoet 2 years ago
To all ARMENIANS:Everyone who desires Christ,will be saved.
CBALLEN 2 years ago
Why is video private all of a sudden ?
empiricalpoet 2 years ago
Because I got tired of answering all the comments.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Ha...well at least you were trying i ll give u that...my old pastor wouldnt discuss this subject..
empiricalpoet 2 years ago
Mr McCallum The context of the verse is found in chapter 8 37 "No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us" Therefore you are in grave error and are misleading many astray.
empiricalpoet 2 years ago
I think not.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
I think this video is an invention - the greek has largest meaning field of any language known to man since it was primarily meant for military instruction..so you have to go deeper and you surely cannot determine doctrine in a vacuum like you are doing...
empiricalpoet 2 years ago
Proverb 16 verse 9
In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps.
Proverbs 19:21 Many plans are in a man's heart, But the counsel of the LORD will stand.
Proverbs 20:24 Man's steps are ordained by the LORD, How then can man understand his way?
Jeremiah 10:23 I know, O LORD, that a man's way is not in himself, Nor is it in a man who walks to direct his steps
empiricalpoet 2 years ago
Here is a telling verse which shows that belief is "by Him" not by my power, it is given to a person God has chosen.
Php 1:29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;
And here again we see belief follows after a divine choice.
Act 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
Bobo9977 2 years ago
Yes, no fallen person is capable of belief on their own. Only a quickening or drawing from God makes them able. Fortunately that drawing happens to all men acc. to Jn. 12 32
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
If mans feewill concerning salv. is true then there is no need for God to give Christ anyone. Who are these people given to Christ and on what basis are they given to Him?
Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Joh 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
Bobo9977 2 years ago
Will only becomes free when the Holy Spirit convicts and draws people. These are given to Christ. If you're going to quote jn. 6:37, be sure to explain vs 40 40 For it is my Fathers will that all who see his Son and believe in him should have eternal life. I will raise them up at the last day.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Yes verse 40 is important but just which Jesus is being introduced, the one who died for all or the one who died for those given Him? Many believe in a false Christ which comes through a false gospel.
Bobo9977 2 years ago
Since it seems that the word "all" is being viewed as meaning absolutely everyone,let me ask you this, will all Isreal be saved? According to this verse?
Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
Bobo9977 2 years ago
You must remember that no man understands nor seeks after God and that a man is spiritually dead.
Belief is the fruit showing salvation.
2Th 2:13 ...because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.
God chooses before time and that person will in Gods time believe for it is given to him.
Joh 6:65 ...that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
God must choose in order for a man to come at all.
Bobo9977 2 years ago
Your assumption that I don't believe in total depravity is wrong. I do accept that.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
In this case then you would agree that unless God does anything nothing would happen to a man?
Bobo9977 2 years ago
Yes!
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
You must read beyond verse 12, it is in verse 13 which shows that only by God, not blood, flesh or mans will is one bornagain. So again you can clearly see it is still by God alone. It even states the will of man, and still people will not submit to the truth.
Joh 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:
Joh 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Bobo9977 2 years ago
Of course it's of God! But you're ignoring that man must believe and receive. What does that mean?
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Of His own will begat He us with the word of truth.
So then a mans will is not required in any way.
Only by God alone.Then why do professing christians continue to say a man must choose.
A dead man can only respond to what is done to him, there is no joint effort between God and man in his salv., this would make it a work. But more to the point,if God alone chooses who He will draw to Him, on what basis does He make this choice since there is nothing in man of any worth for all are unprofitable?
Bobo9977 2 years ago
All of your statements are opinion and rationalism. None of them have anything to do with scripture. Why do people say we must choose? Because the Bible declares that. Jn. 1:12
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Cinsider this
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way,they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
So then what if this man repents in this state, will God forgive him or are his works still unrighteousness and unacceptable?
If none seek God then his will isn't in action here and in all he does he sins again.
Bobo9977 2 years ago
Yes, but salvation doesn't depend on our good works. Only God's grace can forgive and regenerate a fallen human.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Never,think any scripture is based on anything but the Nature of God. God is His Spirit and His Virtue .He is self existing Life that can never be suspended.God passed Moses in Spirit telling His Virtues mercy, compassion etc.God is telling Moses my self existing Life is my Spirit in Virtue.Therefore God cannot be anything but ordainer of all things.He cannot give freewill and He Himself be free.There can never be two freewill entitys in the universe at the same time and both be free.See part 2
polopowers1 2 years ago
You are not speaking from scripture. This is nonsense.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
You are not speaking from scripture. I did .This is nonsense
polopowers1 2 years ago
just for the record i am having trouble in replying to you, when i get the message that you have answered me, i come to this page, when i get here all i see is your answers, it does not show what my ? was then your reply, it only shows your reply on here, so if i am answering someone els is ? i dont mean to, when i first came to your page it did not seem to do this, i dont know if something happend, but i am trying to answer you replys the best way i can
greatestgiftis 2 years ago
Yeah, that apparently happened because I was out of town and out of touch. Youtube doesn't seem to link answers to the comments, but to the date posted.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Im honestly not being sarcastic,Do you refer to original languages , have you researched the word foreknew, foreknow [n], foreordain,,etc.? If so, what was your findings? What greek lexicons or scholars have you refered to?Are you KJV only? How can you reason by proper interpretation that it is foreknowledge of the actions of men, and not men alone. Please answer each question so I know which question youre refering to. If I get these answers that should suffice my curiousity . thanks
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
I read Greek, and have studied proginosko in standard lexicons including bauer arndt and gingrich, kittle, et al. The word means to know beforehand. I am not KJV only.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
now there has to be a diference in this last 3 post i have made as in regards to the calling, salvation, and coming to christ.
greatestgiftis 2 years ago
Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
draw him — by an internal and efficacious operation; though by all the means of rational conviction, and in a way altogether consonant to their moral nature (Son_1:4; Jer_31:3; Hos_11:3, Hos_11:4).
greatestgiftis 2 years ago
Joh 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
except it were given him — plainly showing that by the Fathers drawing (Joh_6:44) was meant an internal and efficacious operation, for in recalling the statement here He says, it must be given to a man to come to Christ.
greatestgiftis 2 years ago
your whole arguement rests on the definition of prognosko on it your position stands or falls,. Have you read Julius R, Mantey ; H. E. Dana; a manual grammar of the greek new testament and their interpretation of that word. Please thoroughly research progonosko , doesnt matter if your semi pelagian or calvinist the definition and use of progonosko is Scholarly not influenced by doctrine
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
this is incoherant I have no idea who your answering
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
how can this be a meaningful conversation, if you dont post the things a say, your giving answers to things i posted a long time ago, i cant remeber what i put down days ago, why are you not putting the things up that i posted, then give a answer ?
greatestgiftis 2 years ago
I approved all the comments before answering each one. Apparently, Youtube puts them in the order in which they came in, not the time at which they were approves (I was out of town and offline). So, yeah, this looks real strange. When I posted each answer was directly below your comment.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
its hard pick up were we left off, i had posted ? about 5 days ago or so, you are giving answers, but i cant remeber what i posted, why did you not post those last statements i mad days ago, thats wy its hard to follow you, you should post the things i last said then i have something to go off of
greatestgiftis 2 years ago
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. eph.2:8-9 is sais it is NOT of OURSELVES. as in we do not chose.
chazsteve11 2 years ago
To the contrary--it is not of ourselves because it is not the result of works as the verse says. But Rom. 4:1-6 clearly distinguishes between coming by faith or by works. These are not the same.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
As long as God gets the glory for our salvation by his grave then in the end it doesnt realy matter to me....the reason that predestination is soo important is because it makes God a big God and omnicient and in controle...if you start preaching anything else then you are a heretic.
chazsteve11 2 years ago
Predestination is according to foreknowledge. Rom. 8:29
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
I cannot judge your heart nor would i, but with the knowledge of the Word you posess. I cannot see how you can honestly infer the calling of Romans 8:28,30 can be refused
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
Paul is using called in the sense of those who are believers. You haven't explained why Jesus would say "many are called, but few are chosen."
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
well, you probably already know there is a general call and an effectual call.
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
That's just Calvinist terminology for those who are called and do or don't respond. The point is, calling is not necessarily effectual.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Doesnt make a difference what type of terminology, because I see alot of semi-pelagian terminology in your staements. Calling is only effectual in thoset who recieve it. You have to know not everyone gets the general call either ;they in effect have no free will because they were not given the choice
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
That would flatly contradict Jesus' words in John 12 "If I be lifted up I will draw all men to myself."
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
No, i think the problem would have to be if god is drawing all men as you say, then is all men saved, becouse befor you get to john 12:32, you have john 6:37,44,65, in those vs if you follow the text it say you cant come unless drawn by the father, and those who are drawn, the ones giving to him by the father will come, and be raised on the last day, so either there is 2 diferent calls, or you end up with universalism in a way,
so there is no contradiction if it means only jew and gentile
greatestgiftis 2 years ago
Your argument is that it can't mean X because that would conflict with your theology. Hardly convincing. No linguistic or contextual reason to limit the meaning here as you suggest, only the mistaken belief that all calling is effectual. But Jesus said many are called but few are chosen.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
In the translation all and many are interchangeable. Look at the use of the word "all" throughout the NT, it doesnt always mean all. Check that out in a concordance
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
It can be used as hyperbole -- "all Judea came out to be baptized by John" but even then, it means "most." Neither "All" nor "Most" would fit your theology here. Many would not be an acceptable translation for panta here.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
your wrong
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
What do you take it to mean that "I will draw all men." Because check out the word all and its usages in the NT
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
That is the correct translation, and the meaning of panta. ALL English translations take it that way. If he is using a figure of speech, that still wouldn't change the general picture.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
P2 Of course God foreknows all our actions. you have to realize His other attributes also. It is an unbalanced doctrine to subject all scripture to foreknowledge to the actions of fallen men. Some do that with 'love' or the 'wrath' of God.
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
This verse doesn't teach that all things are according to foreknowledge, just who he predestines to salvation.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Sincerly.I thought when i first saw your page, you may have been on to something I havent seen before. I dont doubt that your position falls under the umbrella of orthodox christianity. But your strategy in defending your position seems disingenuous. When an assertion is made, you adress the points that you can explain because of "foreknowledge". P1
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
Yes, because that is what the Bible says. And it's an important point--fully explaining why people are held responsible to believe in Jesus and made capable of free choice.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Psalm 58:3-The wicked are estranged from the womb;
they go astray from birth, speak ing lies Romans 9:16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, [1] but on God, who has mercy.
ing lies Col 2:13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,
Free will doesnt exist until God makes us alive
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
Neither of these say anything about whether free will exists. They just teach that people are fallen.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
It has already been proved beyond all controversy that free-will is nonsense.Freedom cannot belong to will any more than ponderability can belong to electricity. They are altogether different things. Free agency we may believe in, but free-will is simply ridiculous. The will is well known by all to be directed by the understanding, to be moved by motives,to be guided by other parts of the soul, and to be a secondary thing Philosophy and religion both discard at once the very thought of free-will
greatestgiftis 2 years ago
"Free" Will: A Slave (C.H. Spurgeon) [1of4]
please go listen to this here on youtube,
free-will is none sense, Freedom cannot belong to the will anymore than ponderbility can belong to electricity. They are all together diferent things.Free agency we may believe in, but free-will is simply ridiculous, the will is well known to be directed by the understanding, to be moved by motives, to be guided by other parts of the soul, and to be a secondary thing, both philosophy,religion discard it
greatestgiftis 2 years ago
Pro 21:1 The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.
Pro 16:9 A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps.
Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. Phi_2:13, Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling: for it is God which, out of His own good pleasure, worketh in you both to will and to do.
So then it is not of him that willeth
greatestgiftis 2 years ago
Im sure you know what these verses are saying. And no they teach that people are DEAD spiritually
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
All do not recieve the same choices. Those in a closed country do not recieve the same choices your family may recieve. So because not all get the same chances, and we can agree God is Sovreign. How could you justify the disadvantage some are placed in knowing God is in Charge and some do not get the opportunity to exercise free will? Their will is non-existent when the call is non existent
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
I never argued that everyone is equal. The Bible only says people are given a sufficient chance, so they are "without excuse." As long as God brings people to the threshold where they can, they are accountable for that. If he wants to give others more, that's his business.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
To the threshold where they can what? To the last part of you statement ,thats the whole point of Romans 9 "thats His business" I agree with that
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
Seems to me 4thstreetstudy center, you are interpreting Scripture not in its context but filtering the through pretext that predestination is dependant on the foreknowledge of the action of the object. When in those passages that premise is not inferred. The object of the foreknowledge is not the action, it is the called whom He predestined.
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
Predestination IS dependent on foreknowledge, not because of my grid, but because of the syntax of the statement. That's grammatical-historical hermeneutics. That's exegesis--leading the meaning out in accordance with the grammar.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
I absolutley agree with the first part of that statement, where we differ is on the definition of foreknoledge(prognosko)
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
Fore
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
so in other words, peter equates GODs predetermined plane, or foreordination, and his foreknowledge in addition to the idea of foreordination, the term forekowledge also connotes forelove. GOD has a predetermined divine love for those he planse to save.
sorry for double post, just want to make sure they go threw
greatestgiftis 2 years ago
First of all. 1 Pet. 1:20 is referring to Jesus, not to us. Yes, God loved the human race enough to launch his plan of redemption through Jesus. But which people get predestined or chosen is based on foreknowledg, as Peter agrees in 1:1,2.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
the same word is used there in 1 peter1:2
and 1 pet 1:20, the term means the same thing in both places, Believers were foreknown in the same way christ was foreknown, that cannot mean foreseen, but must refer to a predetermined plan, not on mans actions, as who will reject or believe, christ was predetermined, so are the elect
greatestgiftis 2 years ago
So, do you not believe Jesus pre-existed and was eternal? It's not the same, because Jesus was actually there with the Father before the foundations. Peter is obviously referring to God's foreknowledge of Jesus' incarnation and mission as referred to in the previous verse. This is hardly analogous to Rom. 8
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
the problem you are having is that god was predetermined, and in him being predetermined he had to know who he was coming to save, is not christ Omnscient ?, he had known you befor the world even was, how els could christ predetermined plane exist if he did not know who he was coming to save=elect, the whole thing is christ predetermined plane was that he knew you and set his love upon you befor you were ever created.
is god Omniscient ?
in god omniscient did he know you befor the world ?
greatestgiftis 2 years ago
Well, I'm not going to claim I'm following your argument, but the fact that election is BASED ON foreknowledge means not that they are both there, but that one is dependent on the other. If God omniscient? Definitely. That's how he knew what I would do and what I would choose. But that's completely different than saying he MADE me do what I do. If that were the case, then foreknowledge would depend on election.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
If mans will, and Gods will come head to head whos will ,be acomplished? Oh , Gods because He foreknew what he would do
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
Yes, God's will prevails. But it is also his will that "all who hear and believe receive eternal life"
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
i am confused here you say the foreknowledge is based on our action, and that the forwkowledge there has no relationship=Love, but how could these be, if you go back befor the world was even created christ was predestined, and that was out of love for the elect.
foreknowledge — foreordaining love (1Pe_1:20), inseparable from Gods foreknowledge, the origin from which, and pattern according to which, election takes place. Act_2:23, and Rom_11:2, prove foreknowledge to be foreordination.
greatestgiftis 2 years ago
It's not just that for-ordination and foreknowledge are inseparable, but that for-ordination is BASED ON foreknowledge. That is what the syntax of Rom. 8:29 requires.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
The most important question i think is: Why did you "chose" God? was it just that you were better that those that didnt? more righteous? Smarter?
chazsteve11 2 years ago
First, because he pursued me, and enabled me to believe. Then because of choice, undetermined from outside, and therefore moral.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
or how about this one??: 11there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.
chazsteve11 2 years ago
In Romans 8:28,30 are the called Paul is refering to believers?
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
Yes.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
but it sais that those whom he foreknew he predestined and then ig goes on to say that he performs the progressin of salvation in them...santification, glorification, ect....it doesnt say that he may if we so chose to let him it sais he DOES>
chazsteve11 2 years ago
Of course he sanctifies, etc. because these are people he foreknew would become believers. Knowing they would believe, he determined to do the rest.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
soo do you not believe in irresistable grace? if not how are you calvinist?
chazsteve11 2 years ago
God chose those He Foreknew He would redeem
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
35Jesus said to them, (AO) "I am the bread of life;(AP) whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37(AQ) All that(AR) the Father gives me will come to me, and(AS) whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
this is JOhn 6...look at verse 37 the Father gives us to Him.
chazsteve11 2 years ago
Why stop there? What about verse 40: "For it is my Fathers will that all who see his Son and believe in him should have eternal life. I will raise them up at the last day.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Those who believe will have eternal life
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
Progonosko , check it out
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
i disagree with you on Romans 8, you say the greek word used there is [gnosko]
and not [prognosko] but the word used there is [Prognosko] , i have checked this out from sources such as
( H.E. DANA and Julius R. Mantey, A manual Grammar of Greek New Testament [New York : Macmillan, 1927]
p .147) also by John Macarthur,
Studylight,org , and E sword, etc, they all say the word used there is Prognosko , and Granville shar's Rule confirms this as well, There is a relationship in the election
greatestgiftis 2 years ago
No, Rom. 8 is prognosko. I never said otherwise. My point is that when it says Adam knew Eve, that is "to know" gnosko, not "to foreknow" prognosko. So citing Adam knowing eve is irrelevant to Rom. 8.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
No you said never is the word prognosko used in a relationship of someone who does not exist yet, i am saying it does, right there in Romans, also foreknew is from proginosko, a compounnd word with meaning beyond that of simply knowing befor hand. in scripture to "know" often carries the idea of initmacy and is used of love relatioship Gen. 4:17 the word behind relations with is the normal Hebrew verb for knowing, its the same word translated "chosen" in Amos 3:2
greatestgiftis 2 years ago
Well in that case you're arguing in a circle. The question at hand is whether the word as used in Rom. 8 can be understood as having a relationship with someone who doesn't exist. If that's the question, you can't use that passage as your proof. Your conclusion is in your premis. You have to show somewhere else that uses the word they way you say.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Rom 11:2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? .....
Rom 11:3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
Rom 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men...
Rom 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
there you go, same word.
greatestgiftis 2 years ago
This passage backs my interpretation, not yours. God has not rejected Israel whom he foreknew. How does this prove foreknowledge refers to relationship rather than knowledge of?
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
did i miss something how iam i going in circles, you stated something, which was wrong by the way as to that word never being used of god having a relationship with those whom he elected, i would say once again were do you believe gods omniscient starts, he had to know in advanced who he was sending the son for, he was foreordained, cant send someone wehn you dont k now who your sending them for, would not be a very omniscient God would he, and we know that plane was out of love set on us.
greatestgiftis 2 years ago
Sure he foreknew. That's the point--he foreknew, he did not compel them to believe as Calvinists argue.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
That is a nice standard answer. God knowing the actions of people doesnt explain what is being asked
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
God operates within time, yet exists outside time. Because He created time. Therefore God can prognosko into time. He exists everywhere of course, but He is in another dimenion ,He is not bound to operate in this realm only. So His foreknowledge of those He loves, is based on His foreordination. Time of existence is irellavent, to Gods purposes. The attributes of God can never be forgotten, and His purposes cant be hindered by man. All that God intends to do gets accomplished.
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
big said, "So His foreknowledge of those He loves, is based on His foreordination."
Again, you have just nicely reversed the causal order given in Rom. 8:29. You can't do that. You're either under scripture authority or standing over it.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Verse Display - Strong's Number: 4267
Original Word Transliterated Word
proginwñskw Proginosko
Translated Words
foreknow, foreordain, know, know before
My point is prognosko is foreordination and foreknowledge they are one in the same.
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
Your citation of a Calvinist author is unconvincing. Where is the word used that way in scripture? Also, if they are the same, why would Paul be redundant in saying one is based on the other?
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Am I correct in assuming you believe the calling in Romans 8:28 & 30 can be refused?
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
I think Paul usually uses "called" as being for believers. But it's also used in a retrospective way--believers reveal themselves as the called ones.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
That is not the case in Rom 8:28 ,30
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
please clarify, I didnt understand ,what type of calling is it?
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
I can't do any better than that.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
In Romans 8: 28 &30 What type of calling are the called being called with?
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
Calvinists believe in "effectual calling" which is irresistable. But Jesus said, "Many are called, but few are chosen." Matthew 22:14. We believe calling is an invitation that can be refused.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
29For those whom he(A) foreknew he also(B) predestined(C) to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be(D) the firstborn among many brothers. Romans 8:29 then later is sais he glofifies them...doesnt sound like they are given a choice to me.....
chazsteve11 2 years ago
Of course, because they've already made their decision. He foreknew what they would choose, and predestined them to be conformed.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
but thats not whatit sais it sais he specificaly Predestines them. and what about ephesians 1:4-9?
chazsteve11 2 years ago
Eph. 1 says we are chosen in Christ. What does the "in Christ" mean? Jesus was the chosen one, and we partake in his chosenness because we are baptized into him.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
i do like the in Christ argument though! that one was challenging at first. ;-)
chazsteve11 2 years ago
ok but if we can reject his calling then why in Romans does it say that those whom he predestines he Glorifies?? if they are predestined then they ARE glorified..it doesnt say if they chose to be.
chazsteve11 2 years ago
Because these are the ones he foreknew would not reject him.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
it sais specificaly: 30And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also(E) justified, and those whom he justified he also(F) glorified.
chazsteve11 2 years ago
Yeah, and that sequence all follows foreknowledge. So because he foreknows what is going to happen, he knows who will believe, then he does these other things on that basis.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
I notice a pattern in your answers
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
Yeah, because they are never refuted.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
i have a ? in that vs you are using, many are called few are chosen, who is the one doing the choosen there?
greatestgiftis 2 years ago
God chooses, again based on foreknowledge. 1 Pet. 1:1,2
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
What about Romans 8:30-32? there is no room for us rejecting him there...those whome he choses are saved...glorified
chazsteve11 2 years ago
That's referring to believers. They can't reject. But other people do reject him.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Shalow answer
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
Obvious answer
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
exactly what i said to you before.your whole arguement rest on the meaning of foreknowledge. That is why you keep running into a deadend
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
i do not know if my comment got through but what about Romans 8-29-32...it doesnt seem like it can be refused to me according to tht passage.
chazsteve11 2 years ago
What do you think the word "foreknew" means?
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
In latin a believe, or Hebrew it has the same intimate tone as when in genisis it sais And adam "knew" eve. what do you think the word Predestined means??
chazsteve11 2 years ago
That word (Hebrew) is in the present tense--you know your wife. Never is prognosko used as an intimate relationship with someone who doesn't even exist yet.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
well i dont know anything about Hebrew soo i will have to take your word for it for now. but you didnt awner my question on predestined or ephesians 1.
chazsteve11 2 years ago
Predestination means that once God sees you will believe, based on foreknowledge, he guarantees your destiny in heaven.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
how can the invitation be refused according to Romans 8:30-32?
chazsteve11 2 years ago
Many are called,not all are called. Do you agree?
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
That's not his point. He's comparing the number called with the number chosen.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
You know what i meant. I wasnt referring to chosen. I was asking is everyone in the history of the world called? We know that all arent chosen,
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
My point is that I don't know. This passage doesn't say, because he is contrasting many vs. few, not many vs. all.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
the way i see it is that we are Predestined and i believe that we do also have freewill to an extent...my friend compared it to the trinity in understanding...we cant expect to understand everything...its like we are 2D people living in a 3D world.
chazsteve11 2 years ago
I think free will is implied in many passages, and without any free will, humans could not form personal relationships. We would be machines.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
one more ? befor i go, i just want to make sure i dont get you wrong, on Election, you are basing it on the foreknowledge of God, and by this, are you saying that god looks down the future and see's who will except and who will reject the truth, the gospel, if this is so, would that not make it as if man has something in him that he can respond to the gospel on his own?
i could be off, so thats wy i am asking, so could you please explain your view a litle more to me, as to the action of it
greatestgiftis 2 years ago
No. Under moderate Arminianism, God must draw someone in order for them to believe. However, unlike Calvinists, we believe he draws "all men" Jn. 12:31-2.
God apparently is able to get outside time.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
look forward to your replys be back later, just a ?, is there anyway of turning that comment pending approval thing off, i like when you post somethign it just goes up, just a thought, later god bless
greatestgiftis 2 years ago
I have to watch for slander and gross off-the-subject profanity.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Please post and answer the 2nd comment i made
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
A duplicate, a duplicate.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Please post and answer the 2nd comment i made
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
Not sure that's possible. It looked like a duplicate, so I deleted it. Sorry.
4thstreetstudycenter 2 years ago
Romans 8:29,30Forknowledge refers to the special love God has for the elect. 'Those whom He foreknew He also predestined' The way the grammar is constructed in the greek', identifies the foreknown as the person who is predestined, not the actions that person took action. The knew is the same root words translated as the intimate love a man has for his wife. So God bestowed this special love on His elect. In verse 28& 30 are the called,this has to be a different calling
bigbadwolff1 2 years ago
Know is the same as that used re. husb