In Christ

T

TomFL

Guest
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that God's ability to choose under what conditions he desires to save is not in the slightest a sound/rational question to be asking? I don't have to provide evidence for something as clear as "according to the good pleasure of His will." That statement, in the English language, speaks for itself. Will and desire are the same thing, which is the same as want. So He chose because He wanted to. That is synonymous to unconditional, or better yet, without merit. There is nothing you had done that drew Him to you before the foundation of the world, that is, before you were even born. Before Adam was even created. Yet, such a statement means that God knew Adam would sin before the foundation of the world. Take that bone and chew on it. It seems that God is more Creator then He is human, yet you keep looking at Him as human, and judging Him on a completely unsuitable standard.

His choice was His will, since it was "according to the good pleasure of His will", so He willed to be unconditional, and chose how He felt like.

Ephesians 1:4 is something that God did in His domain. Ephesians 1:13 is in our domain, speaking of our salvation, the fulfilling of His choice by His will before the foundation of the world. It was destined to happen, because God chose, and God willed it. He is the author of salvation.

Why can't He choose arbitrarily? Are you going to throw a tantrum about all the work you did to get Him to choose you? I am not assuming that "according to the good pleasure of His will" is unconditional, I am fully digesting the English phrase and its meaning, and that is it's meaning. It is unconditional, based on no merit of our own. No amount of work on our part to stick out has any impact on the choice He made before the foundation of the world. Since you are saying that what I am saying has no support in scripture, then the burden of proof, when being rational, is on you to give the list of conditions God used to choose. Since "according to the good purpose of His will" is placed in the sentence where a condition would be placed, and this basically means it was how He felt, or even arbitrary, then this verse is not evidence of what you are saying. So please, give us the list of conditions God used when choosing us before the foundation of the world, and it has to be connected to what Ephesians 1:4 states, which is He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. Give us the in stone conditions, the list of requirements God had in order to choose us. Saying He looked forward beyond the foundation of the earth is, for obvious reasons, an unsound/invalid argument, since it clearly states that it was before the foundation of the world. If you can't just state that you can see how this can be, but you can't understand it, you have not freed God from your human standards.
The problem with your interpretation of Eph 1:4

It nowhere states he unconditionally chose men to be in Christ

and such a conclusion flies in the face of the context

Eph. 1:13 —KJV
“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,”

men are in Christ when they believe

not before

Eph. 2:12 —KJV
“That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:”

So not only do we see the condition upon which men are in Christ

In fact there is not a single verses which states God unconditionally places men in Christ

Worse not only do we not have any such verses but we have a multitude of verses which show things which accompany being in Christ are all stated to accrue upon faith

Forgiveness of sin, Salvation . justification, regeneration, reception of the spirit, eternal life, adoption

all are predicated upon faith

None are ever stated to be unconditional

There is no reason at all to believe your assumption that God chose the faithful in Christ to be holy and blameless

means he unconditionally chose them to be in Christ

and There simply is no reason to believe your assumption over the abundant biblical record
 

armylngst

Well-known member
So if yio do not you have no objection to what i noted

There were many even among those you gave that agree with the reading I showed

As for your claim they disagree with me

How can you conclude the word saints refers to unbelievers ?

rather I would state all versions disagree with you

There is a condition in the verse: "in Christ"
That doesn't make sense. He chose us in Christ, before the foundation of the world. That before the foundation of the world changes the in Christ to some future existence by His choice, hence the rest of the verse is in the future tense. He adds an according to, which means conditions follow. According to the good pleasure of His will. What kind of condition is that? He chose how he chose because...He felt like it? You have to consider the context of the whole passage, not two words completely removed with the rest of the verses thrown away.
 

armylngst

Well-known member
The problem with your interpretation of Eph 1:4

It nowhere states he unconditionally chose men to be in Christ

and such a conclusion flies in the face of the context

Eph. 1:13 —KJV
“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,”

men are in Christ when they believe

not before

Eph. 2:12 —KJV
“That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:”

So not only do we see the condition upon which men are in Christ

In fact there is not a single verses which states God unconditionally places men in Christ

Worse not only do we not have any such verses but we have a multitude of verses which show things which accompany being in Christ are all stated to accrue upon faith

Forgiveness of sin, Salvation . justification, regeneration, reception of the spirit, eternal life, adoption

all are predicated upon faith

None are ever stated to be unconditional

There is no reason at all to believe your assumption that God chose the faithful in Christ to be holy and blameless

means he unconditionally chose them to be in Christ

and There simply is no reason to believe your assumption over the abundant biblical record
So, a simple question. Since this condition you are basically saying is required to be chosen by God, was completely absent from Saul, does that mean Paul was never chosen, given Ephesians 1:4-5? I mean, it is funny that even Saul's conversion and Ephesians 2:8-9 both avoid your works based salvation. As in his salvation, so is his writings. You state that forgiveness of sin, salvation, justification, regeneration, reception of the spirit, eternal life, and adoption are predicate on faith. So faith is a work. God is clear that salvation is a gift. Gifts are not predicate on conditions other than the good will of the one who is gifting.

You are correct, there is no reason to believe that when it says that God chose the faithful in Christ to be holy and blameless that it means it is unconditional, unless one reads something later that looks like "according to the good pleasure of His will", which is a quote which points back to this, and to the passage about being predestined. At that point, it is no longer an assumption, but a sound/rational interpretation of the English language. Because...He felt like it.
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that God's ability to choose under what conditions he desires to save is not in the slightest a sound/rational question to be asking? I don't have to provide evidence for something as clear as "according to the good pleasure of His will." That statement, in the English language, speaks for itself. Will and desire are the same thing, which is the same as want. So He chose because He wanted to. That is synonymous to unconditional, or better yet, without merit. There is nothing you had done that drew Him to you before the foundation of the world, that is, before you were even born. Before Adam was even created. Yet, such a statement means that God knew Adam would sin before the foundation of the world. Take that bone and chew on it. It seems that God is more Creator then He is human, yet you keep looking at Him as human, and judging Him on a completely unsuitable standard.

His choice was His will, since it was "according to the good pleasure of His will", so He willed to be unconditional, and chose how He felt like.

Ephesians 1:4 is something that God did in His domain. Ephesians 1:13 is in our domain, speaking of our salvation, the fulfilling of His choice by His will before the foundation of the world. It was destined to happen, because God chose, and God willed it. He is the author of salvation.

Why can't He choose arbitrarily? Are you going to throw a tantrum about all the work you did to get Him to choose you? I am not assuming that "according to the good pleasure of His will" is unconditional, I am fully digesting the English phrase and its meaning, and that is it's meaning. It is unconditional, based on no merit of our own. No amount of work on our part to stick out has any impact on the choice He made before the foundation of the world. Since you are saying that what I am saying has no support in scripture, then the burden of proof, when being rational, is on you to give the list of conditions God used to choose. Since "according to the good purpose of His will" is placed in the sentence where a condition would be placed, and this basically means it was how He felt, or even arbitrary, then this verse is not evidence of what you are saying. So please, give us the list of conditions God used when choosing us before the foundation of the world, and it has to be connected to what Ephesians 1:4 states, which is He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. Give us the in stone conditions, the list of requirements God had in order to choose us. Saying He looked forward beyond the foundation of the earth is, for obvious reasons, an unsound/invalid argument, since it clearly states that it was before the foundation of the world. If you can't just state that you can see how this can be, but you can't understand it, you have not freed God from your human standards.
Ephesians 1:13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Context helps. There is much about the first chapter that demonstrates what is being said to you about being in Christ. The verse above makes a clear point.
Notice the words that show the sequence:
after listening
having also believed
were sealed in Him


When were we sealed in Him? After listening, having also believed.
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
That doesn't make sense. He chose us in Christ, before the foundation of the world. That before the foundation of the world changes the in Christ to some future existence by His choice, hence the rest of the verse is in the future tense. He adds an according to, which means conditions follow. According to the good pleasure of His will. What kind of condition is that? He chose how he chose because...He felt like it? You have to consider the context of the whole passage, not two words completely removed with the rest of the verses thrown away.
According to the pleasure of His good will would be that He chose us based on our faith. That is His pleasure and His will. Do you disagree that God has the right to choose however He sees fit? God decided to reward faith. He counts it as righteousness
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
So, a simple question. Since this condition you are basically saying is required to be chosen by God, was completely absent from Saul, does that mean Paul was never chosen, given Ephesians 1:4-5? I mean, it is funny that even Saul's conversion and Ephesians 2:8-9 both avoid your works based salvation. As in his salvation, so is his writings. You state that forgiveness of sin, salvation, justification, regeneration, reception of the spirit, eternal life, and adoption are predicate on faith. So faith is a work. God is clear that salvation is a gift. Gifts are not predicate on conditions other than the good will of the one who is gifting.

You are correct, there is no reason to believe that when it says that God chose the faithful in Christ to be holy and blameless that it means it is unconditional, unless one reads something later that looks like "according to the good pleasure of His will", which is a quote which points back to this, and to the passage about being predestined. At that point, it is no longer an assumption, but a sound/rational interpretation of the English language. Because...He felt like it.
Faith is never a work. That is a fatal flaw in Calvinist arguments. It is impossible to find any scripture stating that faith is a work, unless you intentionally distort what Jesus said about the work of God.
For any of you lurkers reading, after He miraculously fed the crowd, some came to Him wanting to know what work they should do so that they could create food miraculously. Jesus used their word "work" turning it on its head and told them the "work" they should do for God was for them to believe.
 

Chalcedon

Well-known member
Faith is never a work. That is a fatal flaw in Calvinist arguments. It is impossible to find any scripture stating that faith is a work, unless you intentionally distort what Jesus said about the work of God.
For any of you lurkers reading, after He miraculously fed the crowd, some came to Him wanting to know what work they should do so that they could create food miraculously. Jesus used their word "work" turning it on its head and told them the "work" they should do for God was for them to believe
Where has any " so-called " calvinist said faith is a work and not a grace granted by God ?

Another one of your false claims sethproton.
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
Hello

Its not his word that is the problem but your por ibterpretation of his word

Eph. 2:12 —KJV
“That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:”
Its His Word you need to take, not mine, I am merely a witness to His Word. The Elect were in Christ Jesus before the foundation Eph 1 4, even those in Eph 2 12 whom Paul was writing.
 
T

TomFL

Guest
Its His Word you need to take, not mine, I am merely a witness to His Word. The Elect were in Christ Jesus before the foundation Eph 1 4, even those in Eph 2 12 whom Paul was writing.
No you are witnessing to your interpretation which is not what is stated in scripture

No where do we read men are arbitrarily selected to be in Christ
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
No you are witnessing to your interpretation which is not what is stated in scripture

No where do we read men are arbitrarily selected to be in Christ
I think TULIP is interesting. It is a finely concocted schematic. They all depend on all 5 being true. Once you can break thru one of them and understand how it is false, the rest fall like a house of cards. I have found it to be the most expertly concocted system of specious arguments. But it can fall if one card is dislodged.
But as we see here, there is a carefully controlled response to all questions. This includes denial of scriptural truth to the point at times of just simply refusing to address some scriptures. Those they will address they often twist into something different than what is plainly stated. I used to talk about the stronghold of Calvinism. Biblically a stronghold is something that grabs your attention, makes you feel like you are on the inside track, puffs up your ego, blinds you to anything that opposes your view and strangely, causes a bitter spirit.
 

Chalcedon

Well-known member
I think TULIP is interesting. It is a finely concocted schematic. They all depend on all 5 being true. Once you can break thru one of them and understand how it is false, the rest fall like a house of cards.
But as we see here, there is a carefully controlled response to all questions. This includes denial of scriptural truth to the point at times of just simply refusing to address some scriptures. Those they will address they often twist into something different than what is plainly stated. I used to talk about the stronghold of Calvinism. Biblically a stronghold is something that grabs your attention, makes you feel like you are on the inside track, puffs up your ego, blinds you to anything that opposes your view and strangely, causes a bitter spirit.
pelagianism, open theism and jehovah witness beliefs are satanic, a stronghold, deception, a false god, false christ and false gospel.

thanks once again for bringing up the stronghold on the new forums...............

you see sethproton both Arminians and Calvinists believe we are brothers and sisters in Christ but on the above we both believe you are outside of Christ with your false teachings on pelagianism, open theism, JW false doctrines concerning Jesus, His Resurrection, remaining a man etc........

hope this helps !!!
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I think TULIP is interesting. It is a finely concocted schematic. They all depend on all 5 being true.

Yes, they are all interlocking, and that is why no one can break through any of them.

Once you can break thru one of them and understand how it is false, the rest fall like a house of cards.

How would you know?
It's never happened.

I have found it to be the most expertly concocted system of specious arguments.

Nice ad hominem.
It seems all that you have.

But as we see here, there is a carefully controlled response to all questions. This includes denial of scriptural truth to the point at times of just simply refusing to address some scriptures.

We don't deny ANY "Scriptural truth", Seth.
But thank you for the continued mud-slinging.

Those they will address they often twist into something different than what is plainly stated.

Ah yes, the old "plainly stated" gambit.
Your false interpretation is proclaimed "what is plainly stated".
So you can never be wrong.
And YOU get to dictate what Scripture means.
And YOU get to dictate what is "plainly stated".

I used to talk about the stronghold of Calvinism. Biblically a stronghold is something that grabs your attention,

"used to"?
As in "past tense"?
Are you trying to claim that you didn't bring it up again TWICE, just TODAY?

Why don't you try talking about the "strong-hold" of "free will"?

makes you feel like you are on the inside track,

Wrong.

puffs up your ego,

Wrong.
I have found for myself, and especially for others, that Calvinism HUMBLES a person.
We are NO BETTER than the reprobate.
We didn't do "fewer sins".
We didn't make a "better decision".

We DIED in our sins, and it was GOD who rescued us.
And He didn't rescue us BECAUSE of anything in us, that allegedly makes us "better" than anyone else (we aren't), He rescued us DESPITE our sins.

There is NOTHING here to "puff up [our] ego".

blinds you to anything that opposes your view

Wrong.
Again, I have found that I can see and understand the opposing view (having been an Arminian once), but non-Calvinists are the ones who are unable to see anything that opposes THEIR view. That's why all they do is repeat the same arguments, and never address what we ACTUALLY believe.

and strangely, causes a bitter spirit.

Wrong.
I've seen no more "bitter spirit" than among non-Calvinists.
 
T

TomFL

Guest
I think TULIP is interesting. It is a finely concocted schematic. They all depend on all 5 being true. Once you can break thru one of them and understand how it is false, the rest fall like a house of cards. I have found it to be the most expertly concocted system of specious arguments. But it can fall if one card is dislodged.
But as we see here, there is a carefully controlled response to all questions. This includes denial of scriptural truth to the point at times of just simply refusing to address some scriptures. Those they will address they often twist into something different than what is plainly stated. I used to talk about the stronghold of Calvinism. Biblically a stronghold is something that grabs your attention, makes you feel like you are on the inside track, puffs up your ego, blinds you to anything that opposes your view and strangely, causes a bitter spirit.
This true it is a chain

The most critical link however in my opinion is Total inability - the idea men can believe the gospel
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
This true it is a chain

The most critical link however in my opinion is Total inability - the idea men can believe the gospel

Yet that "link" was historically agreed to by Arminians.
ALL of Protestantism at the time agreed that it was Biblical.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I used to talk about the stronghold of Calvinism. Biblically a stronghold is something that grabs your attention, makes you feel like you are on the inside track, puffs up your ego, blinds you to anything that opposes your view and strangely, causes a bitter spirit.

Does assuming your opponent is "under a stronghold", as an excuse for why they refuse to accept your opinion, is that something that would "puff up your ego"?

(Asking for a friend.... ;) )
 
T

TomFL

Guest
Yet that "link" was historically agreed to by Arminians.
ALL of Protestantism at the time agreed that it was Biblical.
Yet it was denied by the first 400 hundred years of Christian history

and it is denied by traditionalists/provisionist

And quite possibly Wesleyians
 

brightfame52

Well-known member
No you are witnessing to your interpretation which is not what is stated in scripture

No where do we read men are arbitrarily selected to be in Christ
I have been witnessing that Election in Christ is unconditional, since the elect didnt exist yet in time. Their choice was before the foundation Eph 1 4
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Yet it was denied by the first 400 hundred years of Christian history

Are you sure?
Exactly how much of the ECF's have you actually studied?


Barnabas, associate of Paul (A.D. 70): “Learn: before we believed in God, the habitation of our heart was corrupt and weak.”

Ignatius (A.D. 110): “They that are carnal [unbelievers] cannot do the things that are spiritual…Nor can the unbelievers do the things of belief.”

Justin Martyr (A.D. 150): “Mankind by Adam fell under death, and the deception of the serpent; we are born sinners…No good thing dwells in us…For neither by nature, nor by human understanding is it possible for me to acquire the knowledge of things so great and so divine, but by the energy of the Divine Spirit…Of ourselves it is impossible to enter the kingdom of God…He has convicted us of the impossibility of our nature to obtain life…Free will has destroyed us; we who were free are become slaves and for our sin are sold…Being pressed down by our sins, we cannot move upward toward God; we are like birds who have wings, but are unable to fly.”

Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 190): “The soul  cannot rise nor fly, nor be lifted up above the things that are on high, without special grace.”

Origen (A.D. 230): “Our free will…or human nature is not sufficient to seek God in any manner.”

Eusebius (A.D. 330): “The liberty of our will in choosing things that are good is destroyed.”

Augustine (A.D. 370): “If, therefore, they are servants of sin (2 Cor. 3:17), why do they boast of free will?…O, man! Learn from the precept what you ought to do; learn from correction, that it is your own  fault you have not the power…Let human effort, which perished by Adam, here be silent, and let the grace of God reign by Jesus Christ…What God promises, we ourselves do not through free will of human nature, but He Himself does by grace within us…Men labor to find in our own will something that is our own, and not God’s; how can they find it, I know not.”

and it is denied by traditionalists/provisionist

I'm not sure why you think I should care about that...

And quite possibly Wesleyians

Again, who cares?
And if you don't know for sure, why do you even bring it up?
It kind of destroys your credibility. You do understand that, right?
 
T

TomFL

Guest
Are you sure?
Exactly how much of the ECF's have you actually studied?

Enough
Barnabas, associate of Paul (A.D. 70): “Learn: before we believed in God, the habitation of our heart was corrupt and weak.”

Nothing there about men being unable to believe
Ignatius (A.D. 110): “They that are carnal [unbelievers] cannot do the things that are spiritual…Nor can the unbelievers do the things of belief.”

Nothing there about men being unable to believe either
Justin Martyr (A.D. 150): “Mankind by Adam fell under death, and the deception of the serpent; we are born sinners…No good thing dwells in us…For neither by nature, nor by human understanding is it possible for me to acquire the knowledge of things so great and so divine, but by the energy of the Divine Spirit…Of ourselves it is impossible to enter the kingdom of God…He has convicted us of the impossibility of our nature to obtain life…Free will has destroyed us; we who were free are become slaves and for our sin are sold…Being pressed down by our sins, we cannot move upward toward God; we are like birds who have wings, but are unable to fly.”

Nothing there about man being unable to believe

what are you trying to prove
Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 190): “The soul  cannot rise nor fly, nor be lifted up above the things that are on high, without special grace.”

Nothing there about man being unable to believe
Origen (A.D. 230): “Our free will…or human nature is not sufficient to seek God in any manner.”

Eusebius (A.D. 330): “The liberty of our will in choosing things that are good is destroyed.”

Nothing there about being unable to believe

Augustine (A.D. 370): “If, therefore, they are servants of sin (2 Cor. 3:17), why do they boast of free will?…O, man! Learn from the precept what you ought to do; learn from correction, that it is your own  fault you have not the power…Let human effort, which perished by Adam, here be silent, and let the grace of God reign by Jesus Christ…What God promises, we ourselves do not through free will of human nature, but He Himself does by grace within us…Men labor to find in our own will something that is our own, and not God’s; how can they find it, I know not.”

Still nothing there about man being unable to believe

That man cannot keep the law or save himself or earn salvation which all believe is not the point
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Augustine (A.D. 370): “If, therefore, they are servants of sin (2 Cor. 3:17), why do they boast of free will?…O, man! Learn from the precept what you ought to do; learn from correction, that it is your own  fault you have not the power…Let human effort, which perished by Adam, here be silent, and let the grace of God reign by Jesus Christ…What God promises, we ourselves do not through free will of human nature, but He Himself does by grace within us…Men labor to find in our own will something that is our own, and not God’s; how can they find it, I know not.”

Still nothing there about man being unable to believe

Okay....

So now it's time for you (since you have claimed to have studied the ECF's "enough") to QUOTE where they taught, "all men have the inherent ability to believe, outside of God's help".

Ready.... Set.... Go!
 
Top