[George]

Originally Posted by Gord

"Brother George, with all due respect and love,
you call my summary statement "In other words God elected those for his glory and that is His Grace." my rejection.

It's really showing me that "human pride" really is stronger than one cares to admit or even notice within themselves. I thought I explained correctly that I wasn't a 'Georgist' and agreed that you aren't a Gordist, and you take that a rejection.

It's no wonder Mohandas Gandhi said "The only thing that keeps me from being a Christian, is Christians." They disguise their pride as did the Scribes and Pharisees behind the cloak of religion.

But what was I thinking, a Calvinist (reformed based on the word of God) on a KJV only Baptist based forum, we could learn from each other but not when only one side pays attention.

I apologize ahead of time, for also letting my pride take this to a personal level, so I will excuse myself.

I appreciate your study in opening my eyes to the truth, my payer is you will understand ."

Aloha brother Gord,

Now I am going to be real careful here - because I am not out to offend you in any way.

you said:

"Brother George, with all due respect and love, you call my summary statement "In other words God elected those for his glory and that is His Grace." my rejection."

But I said nothing of the kind. I never referred to your "summary statement" once. I never called your "summary statement": ""In other words God elected those for his glory and that is His Grace." - "my rejection. "I'm afraid that you are putting words in my mouth. The following is what I said:

My quote:

"You got it brother! "BELIEVING" IS NOT A "WORK"! I thought, with all of the Scripture and illustrations that I provided, that I made that clear in my studies, but either brother Gord REJECTS the teaching, or he MISSED it."

My comment was in relation to my belief (expressed in several of my Posts on Calvinism) that "BELIEVING" is NOT a "WORK". The verse that brother JohnG cited (I include Romans 4:4 for "context".) is one of the strongest verses in the Bible in support of my "belief":

Romans 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. {Notice the "contrast" between "WORK" & "BELIEVING"?}

Now, I was in no way referring to your "summary statement", I was referring to the fact that you either "missed" (which was possible) what I taught, or you "REJECTED" (which is your prerogative) what I taught - your ""summary statement" was not included in my comments at all!

In your Post #129 you said:

"Brother George, please don't feel saddened or disappointed. I'm am really not sure why it's so important to 'pigeon hole' people of varying thoughts or believes into a label? The uniqueness of everyone's understanding of God's Grace is as varied as the stars in the sky, and soon we will run out of labels."

But there is such a thing as God's "TRUTH"; and our "understanding" (or inability to understand) does not ALTER that "TRUTH". God's "truth" is not as "varied as the stars in the sky". God's "TRUTH" is "RIGHT" - regardless of "everyone's understanding": [Psalms 33:4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.]

Your Post #129 continued:

"By your definition, and need to for lack of a better term, 'pigeon hole', then I am what you call a Calvinist. But like you I too do not agree entirely with all Calvin taught, nor Arminus, so in reality I am just a Gordist, and you would be a Georgeist."

As far as pigeon-holing believers, I don't believe I engage in the practice. If a person is a Baptist they ought to declare themselves so (and more power to them). Brother tonybones makes no "bones" about being a "hyper-dispensationalist" - he declared so when he joined this Forum. If you want to be a Calvinist, that's your business. I wasn't berating you with my comment, I was just stating the obvious - you either have "missed" what I taught or you have "rejected" it.

As to declaring what I am (I am NOT a Georgeist) - whenever I am asked, I simply say that I am a Bible believing Christian. I stopped calling myself anything with a "ITE" after it or a "IST" after it over 20 years ago. I refuse to follow men (even those men that I may admire). With whatever time I may have left on this earth I am going to try to follow the Apostle Paul (as he has instructed us) as he followed the Lord Jesus Christ.

Philippians 3:17 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.

According to the biographies on Calvin - John Calvin did NOT follow Paul. Please check out my last lesson (Post #96) on Calvinism where I gave a short biography of John Calvin's life. Neither John Calvin nor his "exemplar" "Saint" Augustine were "exemplary" Christians {And certainly not somebody who we should be following!}.

Your Post #129 continued:

"You should be delighted that your study sparked me to look deeper and discover this great mystery of our Lord and Saviour, I know I sure am humbled to know that I had nothing to do with it. Please see my response to Brother Forest for my reasons of that excitement. I thank you for challenging my mind ."

WHY should I "be delighted"? IF what you now believe is really "true", then I am WRONG; and what I am teaching is "FALSE", and therefore I am found to be a "FALSE TEACHER"! IF, on the other hand, what you believe to be "true" is "FALSE", then you have embraced a "FALSE TEACHING" - there are NO "TWO WAYS" about it! One of us is "WRONG" - terribly "WRONG", WHY should I be "delighted" in that?

1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

[Gord]

:Brother Luke,
If you took the time to study this, you would know the answer, rather that formating your ideas and statements on the quotes of the hearsay of others who likewise did not take the time to search the scriptures for specific answers.

Originally Posted by Luke

.....

Let me ask you this. Since you believe "God elected those for his glory and that is His Grace.", why did he reject billions more, if he actually wants them to be saved? God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Eze 33:11), and yet, according to you, God intentionally reprobated or passively passed them by, depending on your lapsarian view, for his sovereign pleasure, when he could have elected them.


Eze*18:23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

The Bible says that all things were created for His pleasure Re*4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created., but Eze*33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways;

This does not look like intentional reprobation, rather it looks to me like keeping his promise of justice to all who sin, with as he points out no pleasure. Justice is not supposed to be fun.

So either God does take pleasure in the destruction of the wicked, or he doesn't take pleasure in it.

The Bible says that all things were created for His pleasure (Rev 4:11), but God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Eze 33:11).

Now, the standard calvinist answer to my above question is either

i) The secret will of God cannot be known, who art thou O man that repliest against God...

Or, if you want to be more discussive & turn it around to be positive, it's usually

ii) God looked down upon man concluded all under sin and was not obliged to save any. The wonder of His grace is that He chose to save some!

But those don't answer the question at all, but bypass it. The question remains, why does a Sovereign God who emphatically states he

i) Takes no pleasure in the wicked
ii) Wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth
iii) Is not willing that any should perish
iv) Recieves glory from praise and obedience

A typical Arminian response to not knowing the scripture well enough, or, in your training, you have come to listen to what those around say rather that seek the truth for yourself. I don't adhere to either or your suppositions, rather the scripture tells us

1Ti*2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
Lu*13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Ro*2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
2Pe*3:9 ¶ The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

In other words, ever since Adam, all man will face the justice of God, DEATH. That is not God choosing some to die, he already granted his justice that 'all likewise perish."

,Secretly declare that BILLIONS will go to hell (because he either chose them (reprobated) to go, or passed over them while he was decreeing unconditional election - the difference is moot really), and that the reason they go to hell is for his Sovereign PLEASURE and GLORY?

Brother Luke, again, as I pointed out, he did not choose the billions to perish, we were all doomed in the first place. Rather he elected those to be saved because,
Eph*1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
You have a God who contradicts his own nature and very word.
Eph*1:9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
You have a God who contradicts his own nature and very word.

Please show me the so called contradictions from the above scriptures.

[Gord]

Originally Posted by Diligent

I recall when I was sucked into Calvinism. It was shortly after I "got serious" about Bible study. I first resisted it. This is how it went:

1. Somebody tells me, God predestinated us to be saved or not.
2. I say, no, that makes us all robots.
3. They point out all the verses that use the word "predistinate" "elect" and the forms thereof.
4. Suddenly I have to become a Calvinist.

Why the leap from 3 to 4? Because I let the Calvinist define what predestination affects, so when I run across the word, I have to accept their position.

The key (and why I finally dropped Calvinism and took God out of Calvin's box) is what does God predestinate? You ask a Calvinist to find you a verse that says God predestines us to belief or not, and they will never produce a single one -- they will run all sorts of circuits trying to link things up, but they can't do it.

The fundamental failure in the Calvinist "process" of Salvation is that they place the seal if the Holy Spirit before belief. They say nobody can believe God until the Holy Spirit changes them so that they can. But Paul leaves no room for this error:

Ephesians 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

The whole point of predestination is that God chose us IN CHRIST. We become in Christ by believing on him and receiving him. The corporate body of Christ was predestined to this inheritence (verse 14), which is still future.

Ephesians 1:14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

What we "get" out of predestination hasn't even occurred yet -- it's a future redemption.

The other taboo verse for Calvinism is this:

Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Calvinism turns this verse into a mockery instead of an invitation. It turns our Saviour into a disingenuous pleader. The standard Calvinist response to this is "nobody will." That just turns the words of our Lord into a void, and we know that isn't possible. (Isa 55:11)

Brother Brandon:
Thank you for chiming in, could you please do me a favor then and look at my arguments of scripture that I posted to Brother Luke and Brother Forest back a few, and tell me how that relates to your experience. I didn't use any of the quotes you mentioned, as I am trying not to 'pigeon hole' myself as a Calvinist, but rather some of what Calvin preached, makes perfect sense to me based on my thoughts responding to Brother Luke and what I see and understand in scripture.

[Gord]

Originally Posted by George

Aloha brother Gord,

Now I am going to be real careful here - because I am not out to offend you in any way.

....

Brother George, I am sorry I am really not HTML savvy, and when I try to respond to you I get lost in hyperlink html hell. All the bolds, quotes, colors take away from my train of thought.

I really wish I could just sit with you over a lemonade and chat and learn.

Please read my responses to Brother Luke, and Diligent, and reread my thoughts to Brother Forest above, as they pretty much answer your questions about my theology. I am sorry if I offended you with the Georgist handle, it was my way of being sarcastic. I have not learned your art of being that literal, or the art or rereading before I post, as I don't have near the experience that you have. I thank you for your patience though.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Gord

:Brother Luke,
If you took the time to study this, you would know the answer, rather that formating your ideas and statements on the quotes of the hearsay of others who likewise did not take the time to search the scriptures for specific answers.

This is just a plain out accusation with no foundation. You assume I know nothing, yet it would appear that I know more about what you believe than you do... without trying to sound proud, because I am not in this situation, I will try to educate you in your own belief system...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke View Post
.....

Let me ask you this. Since you believe "God elected those for his glory and that is His Grace.", why did he reject billions more, if he actually wants them to be saved? God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Eze 33:11), and yet, according to you, God intentionally reprobated or passively passed them by, depending on your lapsarian view, for his sovereign pleasure, when he could have elected them.


Eze*18:23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

The Bible says that all things were created for His pleasure Re*4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created., but Eze*33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways;

This does not look like intentional reprobation, rather it looks to me like keeping his promise of justice to all who sin, with as he points out no pleasure. Justice is not supposed to be fun.

Ezekial 18:23 and 33:11 both say what I was saying - that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Rev 4:11 says all things were created for His pleasure.

Now, here is where you spin out... I never said anything about reprobation from Eze 33:11. I simply stated that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. Now, to link them up, and I quote myself with some modifications -

Calvinists believe that God intentionally reprobated or passively passed them (the wicked) by, depending on your lapsarian view, for his sovereign pleasure, when he could have elected them.

According to the Calvinist view, God takes pleasure in reprobation. I'll explain what the lapsarian views are.

By lapsarian view, I mean the order of God's decree. There are generally three views. Sub, Supra and Infra. There are supposedly five parts to God's eternal decree. Here they are in no particular order

i) The decree to elect some to salvation and leave others to their just condemnation. (some modify this to include the purposeful reprobation of the wicked, rather than the passive "leaving others")
ii) The Decree to create all men
iii) The Decree to permit the fall
iv) The Decree to provide salvation for men
v) The Decree to apply salvation to men

Those are given in no order. The three different lapsarian views attempt to put in order God's decrees.

The Sublapsarian view puts them in this order

i) Decree to create all men.
ii) Decree to permit the fall.
iii) Decree to elect those who do believe and to leave in just condemnation those who do not believe.
iv) Decree to provide salvation for men.
v) Decree to apply salvation to those who believe.

In this order, God creates all men, permits the fall, elects those who believe and then provides Jesus Christ as the means to redeem those he has elected.

The Infralapsarian view puts them in this order

i)Decree to create all men.
ii)Decree to permit the fall.
iii)Decree to provide salvation for men.
iv)Decree to elect those who do believe and to leave in just condemnation all who do not believe.
v)Decree to apply salvation to those who believe.

This view is normally taken by more moderate calvinists. Charles Stanley, Lewis Sperry Chafer and most older dispensationalists held to this view. It is similar to the Sub view...

And then there is the Superlapsarian view. This is the consistent view of most calvinists especially presbyterians, as well as men like John Piper, Paul Washer, A.W. Pink, Sproul, Ryle etc.

i)Decree to elect some to be saved and to reprobate all others.
ii)Decree to create men both elect and non-elect.
iii) Decree to permit the fall.
iv) Decree to provide salvation for the elect.
v) Decree to apply salvation to the election.

Here is the most consistent calvinist view of God's eternal decrees. Except the order given directly makes God the author of all sin.

You see, according to the common calvinist view, God elects those who he would save BEFORE he even permits the fall, before he provides salvation, before he decrees anything else. It's not that he looks on all mankind and sees none worthy of salvation and has grace on some anyway, but that he "sovereignly" decrees some to heaven while reprobating all others and so the fall is the means to reprobation. Everything that follows is simply to complete this "secret will" of divine reprobation. God created the elect and non elect because he had already decreed to save some and damn others. He FORCED the fall because he had already decreed to save some and damn others. He provides salvation for those he chose to save while leaving the others without hope. And he forcibly saves those He chose while forcibly offering no hope to those he willed to perish.

So you still didn't answer my question

Does God take pleasure in damning souls to eternity that he personally reprobated, or does it sadden him? And if it saddens Him, why did he do it? And if he willed it all to happen, as the common calvinist interpretation sees it, why does He say it's not His will to see any perish?

A typical Arminian response to not knowing the scripture well enough, or, in your training, you have come to listen to what those around say rather that seek the truth for yourself. I don't adhere to either or your suppositions, rather the scripture tells us

And here it is! Everyone that is not calvinist is Arminian. You have been taught well. You'll find I will very rarely accuse a man of not knowing scripture well enough. Because anyone can know the scripture well enough to support their own view. It's not about knowing the most, it's about knowing the truth.

1Ti*2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
Lu*13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Ro*2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
2Pe*3:9 ¶ The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Those verses are great. But it doesn't answer the question, since that is what most of us have been saying. It is NOT God's will that ANY perish. And yet I showed you above how the common Calvinist view (Supralapsarianism) says the very opposite!

In other words, ever since Adam, all man will face the justice of God, DEATH. That is not God choosing some to die, he already granted his justice that 'all likewise perish."

But that's not God's decree according to the Calvinists. God's decree is that some would perish, BEFORE he even decreed the fall. The fall was decreed as the means to the perishing, so that God would be justified in damning billions to hell for His glory.

,Secretly declare that BILLIONS will go to hell (because he either chose them (reprobated) to go, or passed over them while he was decreeing unconditional election - the difference is moot really), and that the reason they go to hell is for his Sovereign PLEASURE and GLORY?

Brother Luke, again, as I pointed out, he did not choose the billions to perish, we were all doomed in the first place. Rather he elected those to be saved because,

And as I pointed out, the common view of God's decree taken by all Calvinist superstars (Washer, Piper etc) is that God elected those to be saved BEFORE he even decreed the fall. So in actuality, he looked upon all men as innocent, declared who he would saved, reprobated the others, and decreed the fall as the means of reprobation, and then decreed Christ as the way to get those that he chose to save back.

Please show me the so called contradictions from the above scriptures.

There are no contradictions in the scriptures you quoted. The scriptures contradict YOUR theology, not each other.

Also:
It's really hard to reply when you make changes to a quote. You should quote small portions at a time.

God bless

[Diligent]

Originally Posted by Gord

Thank you for chiming in, could you please do me a favor then and look at my arguments of scripture that I posted to Brother Luke and Brother Forest back a few, and tell me how that relates to your experience. I didn't use any of the quotes you mentioned, as I am trying not to 'pigeon hole' myself as a Calvinist, but rather some of what Calvin preached, makes perfect sense to me based on my thoughts responding to Brother Luke and what I see and understand in scripture.

I simply wanted to share my own experience on this topic. In your post 120, you said something that caused me to remember how I originally bought into Calvinism:

Originally Posted by Gord

When I read Paul's statement Ro*8:29 ¶ For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Ro*8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Since the verse you quote specifically says that the predestination is for those whom God forknew "to be conformed to the image of his Son," not to believe, I thought that perhaps you did what I did and let someone else tell you that predestination means God decided you would believe. Romans 8 was one of the passages I recall reading and then deciding that Calvin must have had it right -- because I was letting someone else define predestination for me. That's why I thought it related in some part to your own experience.

Anyway, we can move on, as my past experience is really only anecdotal.

I looked over your list of verses to Forrest. I wish I had time to respond to each one, as I have seen the same list many, many times. I will respond to a few of them:

You said:

1. The belief that God predestined people for salvation before the beginning of time. God’s election is not conditioned by anything in man, good or evil, foreseen or present, but upon God’s sovereign choice.

Then you quoted Ro 3:10-18; Jer 13:23; Tit 3:3; Joh 6:44, 65, 37 -- none of which say anything about the ability of man to believe the Gospel. This stems from the fundamental error of Calvinism in equating works with and in defining belief as a fruit of the Spirit that can only come after salvation. I am not arguing that in my unsaved state that I could "come to" God. I couldn't. He came to me. I could not do anything to please God nor would I have sought to in my unsaved state. But I could believe. God did the work -- I simply believed. Belief is not a work.

As I pointed out before:

Ephesians 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Note that Paul says "ye believed." That's us. Not God. Belief is not a work and it is something that we did.

You then said:

2. The Bible clearly teaches that election is not conditioned on man.

One of the verses you quote is Romans 9:10-13, which has nothing to do with salvation, from a passage talking about the national selection of Israel. I do not have time to go into this as deeply as I'd like.

Then you quote this verse:

John 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

Which is odd, since neither you nor I can claim the promise "whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you," and more interestingly, Judas was among those that Jesus said he chose. Why not quote this verse too:

John 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

What business does anyone have saying that John 15:16 describes how we are saved? It doesn't.

This is how proof-texting in Calvinism works. They find verses that use words like "elect" "choose" and "predestinate" and then say that means we can't believe the Gospel without God making us believe it.

You say: "God’s election is not conditioned by anything in man." To that I say Amen -- his election is in Christ. But your point is that there is no "condition" on our salvation. That's simply not true:

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

There's your "condition." And there's that word again: believe.

You also say:

5. Salvation is by grace alone and for God’s glory alone. If people are elect based on their own choice, then merit is gained through the work of the individual (i.e., their faith).

Which, again, is a problem with the way Calvinism has defined belief as a work, contrary to how the Bible clearly defines belief as not a work (Romans 4:5). My belief does not merit me anything. God's work is what saves me. The work of Christ; his faith, is imputed to me. It is not of me. I have no works at all to boast over in my salvation, save the works of Christ!

[Gord]

The gifted Bible teacher, scholar, desiring to grow in knowledge of the Bible, Pink immigrated to the United States to study at Moody Bible Institute. He died in 1952. He once began a sermon by
saying this, "I am going to speak tonight on one of the most hated doctrines of the Bible, namely that of
God's sovereign election,"

He was right. It is a hated doctrine at least it seems around here.


He later wrote these words, and I find them very insightful, "God's sovereign election is the truth
most loathed and reviled by the majority of those claiming to be believers. Let it be plainly announced
that salvation originated not in the will of man but in the will of God that were it not so none would or
could be saved. For as the result of the Fall man has lost all desire and will unto that which is good and
that even the elect themselves have to be made willing and loud will be the cries of indignation against
such teaching." Then he says, "Meritmongers will not allow the supremacy of the divine will and the
impotency of the human will. Consequently they who are the most bitter in denouncing election by the
sovereign pleasure of God are the warmest in crying up the free will of fallen man,"


What he's saying is it's hard for some people to accept the biblical doctrine of sovereign election.
It's hard for man to acknowledge the fact that his salvation is an act of God. In his fallenness he wants
to assume some responsibility, even if it's a small responsibility, for having believed. He wants some
credit desperately for having made a right choice.


Furthermore, the doctrine of election seems repulsive to some because by our standards it seems unfair
that God should out of all the world of human beings choose some at His own discretion to be saved
and not the rest. But you understand, don't you, that the reason man so desperately wants to have a part
is because in his fallenness he wants to exercise his pride.

And so we can eliminate pride as a real issue,
it only is an expression of fallenness. What about the part about being unfair? Is God unfair? No, God
is never to be measured by any human standard, certainly not by the human standard of fairness which
is also a reflection of man's fallenness, or sin if you will.

Are we so foolish as to assume that we who are fallen
sinful creatures have a higher standard of what is right than an unfallen and infinitely and eternally holy
God? What kind of pride is that? Therein lies the real problem.

Arthur Pink again said, "The only reason anybody believes in election is because he finds it taught in
God's Word. No man or number of men ever originated this doctrine. Like the doctrine of eternal
punishment, it conflicts with the dictates of the carnal mind and is repugnant to the sentiments of the
unregenerate heart and like the doctrine of the holy trinity and the miraculous birth of our Savior, the
truth of election must be received with simple unquestioning faith."

That is enough for me, I don't understand the Trinity, but I believe it, Virgin birth, I don't understand it, but I believe it, so I will continue to pray and study this for the truth. As brother George said, one of us is right, one of us is wrong, like him I don't want that to be me who is wrong.

I also pray that everyone would take the time to look within, and make sure you don't let your pride make the choice for you. Do not let your preconceived ideas stop you from taking the time.

[Luke]

And then there is the Supralapsarian view. This is the consistent view of most calvinists especially presbyterians, as well as men like John Piper, and A.W. Pink

i)Decree to elect some to be saved and to reprobate all others.
ii)Decree to create men both elect and non-elect.
iii) Decree to permit the fall.
iv) Decree to provide salvation for the elect.
v) Decree to apply salvation to the election.

Here is the most consistent calvinist view of God's eternal decrees. Except the order given directly makes God the author of all sin.

You see, according to the common calvinist view, God elects those who he would save BEFORE he even permits the fall, before he provides salvation, before he decrees anything else. It's not that he looks on all mankind and sees none worthy of salvation and has grace on some anyway, but that he "sovereignly" decrees some to heaven while reprobating all others and so the fall is the means to reprobation. Everything that follows is simply to complete this "secret will" of divine reprobation. God created the elect and non elect because he had already decreed to save some and damn others. He FORCED the fall because he had already decreed to save some and damn others. He provides salvation for those he chose to save while leaving the others without hope. And he forcibly saves those He chose while forcibly offering no hope to those he willed to perish.

Since you replied with a quote from A.W. Pink that basically said we all have carnal minds, instead of actually reading what the Bible says, I have quoted again for your benefit the teaching of A.W. Pink on God's decrees and his reprobation.

A.W. Pink believed that God decreed the fall simply to give a reason for him to condemn those he had already chosen to reprobate. Many publishers removed the chapter on "Reprobation" from his book "The Sovereignty of God" for this very reason.

Here are some quotes from Calvin for you to ponder.

I freely acknowledge my doctrine to be this: that Adam fell, not only by the permission of God, but by His very secret counsel and decree;

God certainly did decree from the beginning everything which should befall the race of man

God foresees all future events only by reason of fact that he decreed that they take place

But why should we say "permission" unless it is because God wills

Nothing happens except what is knowingly and willingly decreed by Him

According to Calvin, not even Adam, in the image of God, had free will, since God had ordained him to fall.

--references
Secret Providence p 266-67
Eternal Predestination p 93

Both by Calvin


--
No one is arguing with you that none would come if God did not draw them. But God does draw all men through the preaching of His word and Christ lifted up. We are saying that men can choose to reject the influence of the spirit, or heed it and believe. Without the spirit, there is no way a man could believe, because he is bent towards natural things.

[Diligent]

The Calvinist ideal of God's sovereignty is decidedly unBiblical. Let's see an example:

Jeremiah 19:1-5 Thus saith the LORD, Go and get a potter's earthen bottle, and take of the ancients of the people, and of the ancients of the priests; And go forth unto the valley of the son of Hinnom, which is by the entry of the east gate, and proclaim there the words that I shall tell thee, And say, Hear ye the word of the LORD, O kings of Judah, and inhabitants of Jerusalem; Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, the which whosoever heareth, his ears shall tingle. Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents; They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:

I know what a Bible corrector would do with this verse -- he might go to his Bible Buffet and select a version that works better for him, or he may correct it with "the Hebrew." What does a Bible believer do with this verse? Doesn't it clearly teach that there are things happening that God has not decreed to happen?

[Gord]

Originally Posted by Diligent

...

You said:

Then you quoted Ro 3:10-18; Jer 13:23; Tit 3:3; Joh 6:44, 65, 37 -- none of which say anything about the ability of man to believe the Gospel. This stems from the fundamental error of Calvinism in equating works with and in defining belief as a fruit of the Spirit that can only come after salvation. I am not arguing that in my unsaved state that I could "come to" God. I couldn't. He came to me. I could not do anything to please God nor would I have sought to in my unsaved state. But I could believe. God did the work -- I simply believed. Belief is not a work.

Brandon, thank you for your insight. But I must add that you really proved my point on a lot of things I said about everyone coming in with preconceived ideas about the "C" word and going blind to give the response they 'preconceived' to give me.

Let me point out:

I made a statement:
1. The belief that God predestined people for salvation before the beginning of time. God’s election is not conditioned by anything in man, good or evil, foreseen or present, but upon God’s sovereign choice.

Then I cited scripture to verify that statement.
Ro 3:10-18; Jer 13:23; Tit 3:3; Joh 6:44, 65, 37

Then you go on to give me the standard anti-"C word" answer about
-- none of which say anything about the ability of man to believe the Gospel. Gods sovereign choice was not conditional on man, but you had to tell me about belief. That's a condition of man. Belief comes after regeneration, and that is what God granted to us.

I know that the ability of man to believe is paramount, but if you re read the statement and verify it with the scriptures I provided to back up my statement you will see I didn't want to say anything about the ability of man to believe the Gospel. At least not in the context of the point I was trying to share.

This could go on forever, back and forth as I assume you know what I mean, and you assume I know what you mean, so I will spend a few days on my word processor, I will come back to post a start to finish, and back it with scripture, explanation of what I gather the scriptures to mean on this topic. I won't be using quotes from the respondents per say, but I will answer all the questions and objections of the respondants with scripture to back it up.

I don't believe my theology is entirely Calvinistic, (even though that's where I've been pigeon holed) but I do believe it to be entirely scriptural. I understand that this is a very difficult topic, and quite frankly a sore spot with those who have already formulated their own theologies based on scripture as they understand it, and what I would like to do, from a new angle share mine in a way that no one will come in with that idea, and perhaps we can share and edify each other. Even (as they understand it) will rub a lot the wrong way, but remember, before we were saved, things like the Virgin Birth, the Trinity were totally incomprensable until we believed. I don't want this going in the direction of an 'I know more than you' or 'my belief is more correct than yours' forum, but I want us all to learn from each other what the Holy Spirit has taught us each through His precious Word (KJV) and thereby each become edified in His name for the Glory of God.