tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16963152.post2203357281453590649..comments2023-04-09T10:10:14.059-03:00Comments on On My Walk: Tripping TULIP Part 3: Unconditional ElectionKevlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18080346872086553798noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16963152.post-36676577761746355342011-09-08T07:59:38.493-03:002011-09-08T07:59:38.493-03:00Hi Paul,
When I look at the Greek of these verse...Hi Paul, <br /><br />When I look at the Greek of these verses I do not see an emphasis added on the "NO ONE".... I also find that there is no word "enable" in the Text. There is the word "granted." I've already explained that to you, so please see the comments in my previous reply to you with regard to what that means. <br /><br />Further, as I noted in my previous reply to you (and which you have not responded to) Christ drew all men when He was lifted up on the Cross. It was a demonstration of His love for all. <br /><br />There is no lack of ability to believe in these verses. There was a lack of permission which was overcome - see my last reply to this. <br /><br />Now thanks for your comments, but if you are not going to respond to what I write then I will not publish any of your further comments. <br /><br />KevKevlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18080346872086553798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16963152.post-23502384201591658672011-09-08T07:54:46.342-03:002011-09-08T07:54:46.342-03:00Paul, I don't allow comments with links to ext...Paul, I don't allow comments with links to external resources. You can quote portions that you think are helpful but this blog is not a platform for making converts to false religious systems. <br /><br />IN the comment that you submitted you wrote: <i>I realise that you probably dont like commentarys Kev especially when they dont line up with your traditions but we shouldnt despise the gifts that God has given to the church especially those who are more gifted than us in the original languages where you seem to fall short. </i><br /><br />Actually Paul, I don't like any commentaries. Pastors and Teachers are God's teaching model - Eph 4, not books and commentaries. Sure they can write them, but the problem is that once a book is written it sits on a shelf and is separated from it's author. Books that should have no influence because their authors are NOT Teachers or Pastors (in reality, gifted from God) but they end up being popular and influencing whole groups of Believers in God's Church. <br /><br />I read many books, but the only Commentary on the Bible that I read and trust is the Bible itself. <br /><br />That's not being high minded... it is being practical. I don't need to have to unlearn good things. <br /><br />Now finally... I'm not sure why Calvinists almost always seem to be so rude but I would appreciate it if you would STOP assuming you know my motivations. <br /><br />I probably will not allow another comment from you where you state what you believe my motivations are. <br /><br />KevKevlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18080346872086553798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16963152.post-52300372630859887312011-09-08T07:49:05.129-03:002011-09-08T07:49:05.129-03:00Paul, I have a chapter in my book on what you'...Paul, I have a chapter in my book on what you're attempting to do. <br /><br />I'm not going to play the game of following through proof-text after proof text until I get tired.... <br /><br />At my blog I expect some measure of respect between people. So when one person invests effort to answer another person's questions and then asks questions I expect them to be answered. I'm not going to restate, because you can read my last to you. <br /><br />Quoting a bunch of instances of the word foreknow does not prove that it means to "fore-love." You have not demonstrated that definition (and your conclusions as to what that would mean) from the Scriptures. <br /><br />Romans 8 says the person is foreknown and predestinated to what exactly? Your theology says one thing, the Text says another. <br /><br />KevKevlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18080346872086553798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16963152.post-45668329483023530412011-09-08T02:11:59.316-03:002011-09-08T02:11:59.316-03:00Finally you wrote Jesus said "NO ONE can come...Finally you wrote Jesus said "NO ONE can come to me unless the Father enabled him" Jn 6:65; 44; 10:25-28.<br /><br />Paul, misquoting the Lord in order to support one's theology is NOT a good idea. <br /><br />Kev, Jn 6:65 says,<br /> NO ONE can come to Me unless it is granted him [unless he is enabled to do so] by the Father.<br />The problem is? I cant see a misquote, more like a mis-read. Thats what happens when we look through the lenses off our traditions!PaulCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16963152.post-53212798439964251342011-09-08T01:10:35.728-03:002011-09-08T01:10:35.728-03:00you referred to Strongs to translate proginosko. T...you referred to Strongs to translate proginosko. The definition agrees with what i am saying, to know beforehand. The rest by G Archer is just commentary. Did God passivly take in our future actions? which is your interpretation or did he predestine which i believe is the correct reading.<br />Rom 8:29 <br />29For those whom He foreknew [of whom He was [a]aware and [b]loved beforehand], He also destined from the beginning [foreordaining them] to be molded into the image of His Son [and share inwardly His likeness], that He might become the firstborn among many brethren<br /><br />Rom 11:2<br />2No, God has not rejected and disowned His people [whose destiny] He had marked out and appointed and foreknown from the beginning. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?<br /><br />1 Peter 1:20<br />20It is true that He was chosen and foreordained (destined and foreknown for it) before the foundation of the world, but He was brought out to public view (made manifest) in these last days (at the end of the times) for the sake of you.<br /><br /> 21Through Him you believe in (adhere to, rely on) God, Who raised Him up from the dead and gave Him honor and glory, so that your faith and hope are [centered and rest] in God.<br /><br />These uses of the word foreknow are the same and agree with my original definition.See fore...know! What happens when we know beFORE!PaulCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16963152.post-73155261991747186192011-09-07T07:57:47.356-03:002011-09-07T07:57:47.356-03:00Hi PaulC,
You should read Romans 8 without any o...Hi PaulC, <br /><br />You should read Romans 8 without any of your commentaries and such. What is the person elected to in this passage? Can you answer it from the passage instead of from your theology? You can if you read it alone. <br /><br />You wrote: <i>"The word "foreknow" in Rom 8:29;11:2; 1Pet 1:2,20 means "fore-love" and "fore-appoint" it does not refer to a passive foreknowledge as arminians see it."</i> <br /><br />See this is why theological arguments are so "fun." You're so focused on attacking a system (arminianism) at you loose sight of the primary focus. <br /><br />First, Paul, I'm not an Arminian so... if you want to argue against one you've picked the wrong spot to do it. :) <br /><br />Second, the word translated foreknowledge is proginosko. Hrmm makes me think of prognose... but it would be wrong to put a modern definition on the ancient use of a similar word.<br /><br />So let's see what the definition actually is! <br /><br /><br /><a href="http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/4267.htm" rel="nofollow"><b><i>Strongs Numbers 4267</i></b></a><br /><br />Paul, I can see why the TULIP system needs the word to mean to fore-love... unfortunately it does not, nor did it mean that, and it's not how Paul or Peter used it. <br /><br />You wrote <i>"Since all are dead in sin no one who hears the gospel will ever come to Christ without an inner quickening that God imparts Eph 2:4-10."</i><br /><br />Once again, this is in line with your theology, but could you actually get what you wrote FROM this passage or is it just a convenient way to understand the passage in light of your theology? <br /><br />I'm not being harsh with you, but I am asking the tough questions that people tend not to ask when they are learning in groups of people of like thinking. Theology is meaningless if it is not exactly what the Scripture says it should be. <br /><br />Finally you wrote <i>Jesus said "NO ONE can come to me unless the Father enabled him" Jn 6:65; 44; 10:25-28.</i><br /><br />Paul, misquoting the Lord in order to support one's theology is NOT a good idea. <br /><br />Granted, not enabled. HUGE difference. God has now "granted" repentance to the Gentiles is a statement made by observers in Acts - not revelation from God, but an observation by people who saw that God was saving even the Gentiles. <br /><br />Israel could be joined, and salvation was through that nation. People could not come to God except by joining Israel. God had not permitted, or granted it. He had made Israel His choice nation. Now anyone can come to God apart from Israel. <br /><br />Jesus also said <b>John 12:30-32</b> 30 Jesus answered and said, “This voice did not come because of Me, but for your sake. 31 Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. 32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all to Myself.” <br /><br />The whole world is judged, and all are drawn. <br /><br />KevKevlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18080346872086553798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16963152.post-29751681960064802442011-09-07T07:38:32.982-03:002011-09-07T07:38:32.982-03:00Hi Paulc,
I'll warn you that I won't hav...Hi Paulc, <br /><br />I'll warn you that I won't have a lot of time to devote to this older thread but I'll answer quickly. You may be interested in this <a href="http://onmywalk.blogspot.com/2011/04/discussion-about-unconditional-election.html" rel="nofollow"><b><i>Discussion About Unconditional Election</i></b></a>. <br /><br />No one seeks after God. It is interesting that it says "no one" not just "no unsaved person" but that is perhaps a different conversation. <br /><br />Believing the Gospel is not seeking after God. If you look at the passages devoted to this in the OT and the NT you will find that it is about much more than believing Him. <br /><br />There is nothing in the Gospel that the Lord taught the Apostles to preach 1Cor 15:1-11, about seeking after God, doing good, or anything related to the thoughts. <br /><br />The Gospel is about God saving man, not man seeking God.. serving God... desiring God... or anything of the sort. <br /><br />That many people refuse to believe (they "disbelieve" is what the Scripture says) is not proof that people "cannot" believe and must be Unconditionally Elected and regenerated in order to become good enough or able to believe. Such is a poor logical argument. TULIP proponents are usually very logical in their arguments. <br /><br />Logical does not equate to truthful if the premis(es) the logic is based on is faulty. <br /><br />You wrote: <i>"Salvation is exclusive to the elect, as were the Israelites Gods chosen ones."</i><br /><br />Israel was God's chosen NATION. Not God's chosen "ones." People could join Israel, just like people can join the Church. <br /><br />You went on to write: <br /><br /><i>"But i think that the primary problem with most people like yourself Kev is your need to cling onto the notion of free will. Rather than allowing God to glorify himself in the choosing of an elect, as he did with Israel, we cant stand the idea of not having a say in our salvation."</i><br /><br />If a rich, powerful and even loving man grabs a homeless woman dying on the street forces her to live with him and love him, even if he saves her from death and provides for all her needs, even if he loves her and she comes to love him - he is a kidnapper, rapist, brute.... and many other things. <br /><br />God is not like that. God is powerful enough to do such a thing, but good enough not to. <br /><br />Without choice being forced to love is a violation. That being said, and true, it is the least of my arguments. The Scripture simply does not support your view, let alone promote it.<br /><br />KevKevlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18080346872086553798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16963152.post-79530103796940249402011-09-07T02:35:44.381-03:002011-09-07T02:35:44.381-03:00Scripture does say that some are Elected to Salvat...Scripture does say that some are Elected to Salvation, but in most cases Election has to do with a purpose God has for a person in the world.<br />The two words election and predestination as used in the NT are used the same ie of Gods choice of particular sinners for salvation and eternal life Rom 8:29, Eph 1:4-5,11. Predestination is Gods decision made in eternity before the world and its existence regarding the final destiny of individual sinners.The question is "on what basis did God choose individuals for salvation?", your response would seem to be on the basis of his foreknowledge that when faced with the gospel they would choose Christ as there saviour.This means in your view that foreknowledge is passive foresight on Gods part of whatindividuals are going to do, without his predetermining there actions. The word "foreknow" in Rom 8:29;11:2; 1Pet 1:2,20 means "fore-love" and "fore-appoint" it does not refer to a passive foreknowledge as arminians see it. Since all are dead in sin no one who hears the gospel will ever come to Christ without an inner quickening that God imparts Eph 2:4-10. Jesus said "NO ONE can come to me unless the Father enabled him" Jn 6:65; 44; 10:25-28. Sinners choose Christ only because God chose them for this choice and moved them to it by renewing there hearts.PaulCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16963152.post-4950742301052647882011-09-07T02:12:50.106-03:002011-09-07T02:12:50.106-03:00"The primary issue I have with Unconditional ..."The primary issue I have with Unconditional Election is that it teaches that Salvation is exclusive to the Elect, something that Scripture never says. This exclusivity is due to the idea that one must be good enough to ask for Salvation, and since everyone is Totally Depraved, only those who God has Elected will ask for Salvation" As this is your primary issue Kev I'll approach it first. Your understanding is a caricature of the reformed position of election. Firstly scripture is clear that nobody seeks after God Rom 3:11 and all are slaves to sin, and that even when Jesus returns and reveals his physical prescense they will still defy him Rev 6 says,<br /><br />15And the kings of the earth, and the great, and the chiliarchs, and the rich, and the strong, and every bondman and freeman, hid themselves in the caves and in the rocks of the mountains; <br /><br /> 16and they say to the mountains and to the rocks, Fall on us, and have us hidden from [the] face of him that sits upon the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; <br /><br /> 17because the great day of his wrath is come, and who is able to stand?<br /><br />So even when its clear to them people in there sin and rebellion will still refuse God. Rather than repent these people would rather be crushed by rocks. Salvation is exclusive to the elect, as were the Israelites Gods chosen ones. But i think that the primary problem with most people like yourself Kev is your need to cling onto the notion of free will. Rather than allowing God to glorify himself in the choosing of an elect, as he did with Israel, we cant stand the idea of not having a say in our salvation.PaulCnoreply@blogger.com