# Hebrews 13



## hobbs27 (Aug 1, 2015)

Hebrews 13 Let brotherly love continue.

2 Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.

3 Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them; and them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body.

4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but *****mongers and adulterers God will judge.

5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

6 So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, and I will not fear what man shall do unto me.

7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

9 Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.

10 We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.

11 For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.

12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

13 Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.

14 For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come.

15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.

16 But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.

17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

18 Pray for us: for we trust we have a good conscience, in all things willing to live honestly.

19 But I beseech you the rather to do this, that I may be restored to you the sooner.

20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

22 And I beseech you, brethren, suffer the word of exhortation: for I have written a letter unto you in few words.

23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you.

24 Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints. They of Italy salute you.

25 Grace be with you all. Amen.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 1, 2015)

5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

Case for If Saved Always saved? I believe so.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 1, 2015)

I've often wondered if I've ever entertained any angels that were here in the form of humans. Strangers appearing beside the road needing help maybe. Perhaps a young, cold, wet girl knocking on your door in the middle of the night.


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 1, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> 5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.
> 
> Case for If Saved Always saved? I believe so.



Your tired, right? He might not leave thee, but good sense might leave you?

I could show the case for many things in my favor... I don't believe in or understand OSAS .. but what favor would it be to you... that you might disagree... and all kind of moth come into the door between you and I ?

"They in Italy salute you." And I do also salute you Hobbs.  Hebrews was a good study for me and I thank you for finishing what you started.  Thanks bros.

Oh! And what does this mean, I'm not certain:

7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 1, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I've often wondered if I've ever entertained any angels that were here in the form of humans. Strangers appearing beside the road needing help maybe. Perhaps a young, cold, wet girl knocking on your door in the middle of the night.




Never know.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 2, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> Your tired, right? .


 
 Gordon, I've put 60 hrs in this week and I'm up at 6 am getting ready to go in for another 8-10 hr day. Most of that has been in hot motor rooms or on roofs, so yes, I'm a bit tired, but we have a Savior that never tires nor forsakes us, always with us!

 Blessings and thanks so much for the contributions you've made to the Hebrews study..verse 7 is about remembering and honoring teachers/preachers/leaders. Not to make Idols of them, but appreciate them {1 Thessalonians 5:12-13}

 We are to follow  and imitate them, considering the outcome of their lives....The Lord never forsook them. {2 Timothy 4:16-17}

 Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord { Revelation 14:13}.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 2, 2015)

It's funny but before I believed in OSAS, I thought the whole book of Acts  was a warning against falling away from salvation.


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 3, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> It's funny but before I believed in OSAS, I thought the whole book of Acts  was a warning against falling away from salvation.




O my, O my! Did the writer's of Romans believe they were OSAS? As son's and heirs was salvation conditional even then to the good ole boys? I'm not certain what they thought... but seems to me that their was conditions or at least one when they were suffering persecution as in Romans for  example. 

Romans 8:15-17
15For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!" 16The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, 17and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.

Do you see it?  The "if"...? Having received a spirit of adoption as sons... fellow heirs with Christ.... IF we suffer with Him ... so that we may also be glorified with Him.

 My biological father had seven sons, all potential heirs.

  For people who run marathon's ( race)  is suffering part of that race? What does suffering mean in the context of Romans above. Is it indeed a condition of salvation even when one is an adoptive son as we are? " "Suffering with Him" what does that mean?


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 3, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> O my, O my! Did the writer's of Romans believe they were OSAS? As son's and heirs was salvation conditional even then to the good ole boys? I'm not certain what they thought... but seems to me that their was conditions or at least one when they were suffering persecution as in Romans for  example.
> 
> Romans 8:15-17
> 15For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!" 16The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, 17and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.
> ...




This is another reason I prefer the " If Saved Always Saved"


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 3, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> This is another reason I prefer the " If Saved Always Saved"



I don't see the difference, If you are saved it was once.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 3, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I don't see the difference, If you are saved it was once.



I've heard the testimony of many people that thought they were saved because they, quoted a prayer, signed a sheet of paper, were dragged to an altar and told what to say. Only to realize later on they were never really saved. 
 That's the difference, If you are truly saved He will never forsake you.


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 3, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> This is another reason I prefer the " If Saved Always Saved"



I assume that receiving the that born again spirit is not sufficient to salvation then, because those who did are told they still must suffer to be glorified with Him:  " ...you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!"  PLUS  or AND...  if indeed we suffer with Him so we may also be  glorified with Him."?

Begs the question when are people saved bros? According to this, receiving the "spirit of adoption" is not sufficient... so what gives? Is there something else required? Is there a difference with being truly saved and not truly saved--being said saved on both counts?

How do you realize a person is not saved that say they are saved? Your litmus test?


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 3, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I don't see the difference, If you are saved it was once.



How did that "once" happen? When, why, where?


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 3, 2015)

What does " suffer with Him" mean?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 3, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> I've heard the testimony of many people that thought they were saved because they, quoted a prayer, signed a sheet of paper, were dragged to an altar and told what to say. Only to realize later on they were never really saved.
> That's the difference, If you are truly saved He will never forsake you.



It sounds like you are saying it takes more than once. What is your litmus test? When is grace not sufficient?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 3, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> What does " suffer with Him" mean?



I'm not sure but that is a good question. We also have other verses such as;

Acts 14:22
where they strengthened the believers. They encouraged them to continue in the faith, reminding them that we must suffer many hardships to enter the Kingdom of God.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 3, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> What does " suffer with Him" mean?



We are partakers of His sufferings. 

Coll.1:24
1 Pet.4:13
2 Tim.3:12


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 3, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm not sure but that is a good question. We also have other verses such as;
> 
> Acts 14:22
> where they strengthened the believers. They encouraged them to continue in the faith, reminding them that we must suffer many hardships to enter the Kingdom of God.



This is interesting. Believers, the born again, the baptized must suffer many hardships to enter the Kingdom of God. Do I perhaps read this correctly? And entering the Kingdom is salvation. Do I understand this correctly?


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 3, 2015)

welderguy said:


> We are partakers of His sufferings.
> 
> Coll.1:24
> 1 Pet.4:13
> 2 Tim.3:12




Colossians 1:24King James Version (KJV)

24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:


1 Peter 4:13King James Version (KJV)

13 But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.


2 Timothy 3:12King James Version (KJV)

12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
-------------------------------
So we are fellow heirs of Christ "if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him."

And suffering means the above:  to live Godly or Christ like or on behalf of the church( believers)...for which we do suffer.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 3, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> This is interesting. Believers, the born again, the baptized must suffer many hardships to enter the Kingdom of God. Do I perhaps read this correctly? And entering the Kingdom is salvation. Do I understand this correctly?



It does sound like it is more than "partakers of His sufferings." Maybe the apostles or Early Church had to suffer. Must I wear a long sleeve shirt in the summer time and no coat in the winter? Where is our peace and liberty if we must suffer?
What do you think it means?


----------



## welderguy (Aug 3, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> Colossians 1:24King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:
> 
> ...



The sufferings are not the cause of salvation(not by works lest any man should boast), but rather the result of salvation(for whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son....).


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 3, 2015)

Is living the Christian life, loving, and helping others suffering? I thought it was more like the suffering Christians in Muslim countries.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 3, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Is living the Christian life, loving, and helping others suffering?



It could be, but in most respects it's just our reasonable service.




			
				Artfuldodger said:
			
		

> I thought it was more like the suffering Christians in Muslim countries.



We may get a taste of that also in this country.There are many forms of suffering.Jesus said blessed are you when men shall revile you and persecute you and say all manner of evil against you falsely,for my names sake.For great is your reward in heaven.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 3, 2015)

During tribulation there is always suffering. The church suffered in it's tribulation until Christ returned.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 3, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> During tribulation there is always suffering. The church suffered in it's tribulation until Christ returned.



Has all suffering like Christ ended with the tribulation?

I remember an old futurist song with the lyric;

"We'll work till Jesus comes and then we'll be gathered home."

I think it gave people that were suffering financially, mentally, physically, and spiritually some hope that things would be better in the afterlife.
But then again, why were they waiting until Jesus came to enjoy the benefits of physical death and everlasting spiritual life with God and his Son?
Most people want work or suffer until Jesus comes even if it is in the future.

Perhaps;

"We'll work till we die a physical death, and then we'll be with the Lord."


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 3, 2015)

Again it sounds like the suffering is related more to persecution than performing "works."
It's like the Christians are living in a country that doesn't believe in Christianity and Jesus is telling them that they will suffer as he did for the same reason. Not necessarily death but persecution none the less.
Persecution for living the Christian life.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 3, 2015)

The Christian Life;   Notice the cigarette!


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 4, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Has all suffering like Christ ended with the tribulation?
> 
> I remember an old futurist song with the lyric;
> 
> ...


 
 There's still Christians suffering in third world countries, but the Kingdom as a whole is way over the hump of being persecuted. If we point to things happening in the USA today as tribulation and deny what Christians went through in the first century as the great tribulation then we make liars of ourselves.This parable explains how the Kingdom began it's small and vulnerable trek to where it is today...and that the Kingdom is here!


<SUP class=versenum>31 </SUP>Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
<SUP class=versenum>32 </SUP>Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.

 The Kingdom of God truly is mighty!


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 4, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> There's still Christians suffering in third world countries, but the Kingdom as a whole is way over the hump of being persecuted. If we point to things happening in the USA today as tribulation and deny what Christians went through in the first century as the great tribulation then we make liars of ourselves.This parable explains how the Kingdom began it's small and vulnerable trek to where it is today...and that the Kingdom is here!
> 
> 
> <SUP class=versenum>31 </SUP>Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
> ...



So is salvation being in the Kingdom?


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 4, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> There's still Christians suffering in third world countries, but the Kingdom as a whole is way over the hump of being persecuted. If we point to things happening in the USA today as tribulation and deny what Christians went through in the first century as the great tribulation then we make liars of ourselves.This parable explains how the Kingdom began it's small and vulnerable trek to where it is today...and that the Kingdom is here!
> 
> 
> <SUP class=versenum>31 </SUP>Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
> ...



 And "to suffer" means the tribulation of the first century or the persecution of the first century Christians. It means that even though they had received the "spirit of adoption" they were not to quit the new way but rather to carry on through the persecution or tribulation if they wanted to be glorified with Jesus.

In my case  I have found that even after receiving the "spirit of adoption" even after entering the Kingdom promised, I still suffer when asked to carry the cross of my Lord. It is not a simple walk in the park for me. Many times my still rebel mind and arthritic body are hardly willing. This is when I have to bare down and work hard in faith. But that's me.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 4, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> So is salvation being in the Kingdom?



IMO, Yes. Those of us under Gods rule are all one family, made new creatures, born of the spirit , and pilgrims in a foreign land, with a ruler that will never forsake us.


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 4, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> IMO, Yes. Those of us under Gods rule are all one family, made new creatures, born of the spirit , and pilgrims in a foreign land, with a ruler that will never forsake us.



So the litmus test that one is saved must be knowing that someone is in the Kingdom. What is the evidence that someone is a pilgrim in our Kingdom? What does the world see? What do saints see?

The poor in spirit who have inherited the Kingdom can you pick them out?

----------------------------------------
Pilgrim: a person who journeys, especially a long distance, to some sacred place as an act of religious devotion:
pilgrims to the Holy Land.
2.
a traveler or wanderer, especially in a foreign place.
3.
an original settler in a region.
4.
(initial capital letter) one of the band of Puritans who founded the colony of Plymouth, Mass., in 1620.
5.
a newcomer to a region or place, especially to the western U.S.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 4, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> So the litmus test that one is saved must be knowing that someone is in the Kingdom. What is the evidence that someone is a pilgrim in our Kingdom? What does the world see? What do saints see?
> 
> The poor in spirit who have inherited the Kingdom can you pick them out?



I don't think there is a litmus test, but to answer the gist of your questions to the best of my ability. I can't judge anyone if they're saved or not by their actions. What I can do is feel a shared spirit with them when speaking of our Lord. There's no doubt when you feel connected to another person through the love of God.


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 4, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> I don't think there is a litmus test, but to answer the gist of your questions to the best of my ability. I can't judge anyone if they're saved or not by their actions. What I can do is feel a shared spirit with them when speaking of our Lord. There's no doubt when you feel connected to another person through the love of God.



I have met very sincere JWs that say they really, really love God ( Jehovah). Since they believe the Kingdom is to come yet, could it be these were the "poor in spirit" being in it and yet they not knowing it? Could this happen?


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 4, 2015)

:n:





gordon 2 said:


> I have met very sincere JWs that say they really, really love God ( Jehovah). Since they believe the Kingdom is to come yet, could it be these were the "poor in spirit" being in it and yet they not knowing it? Could this happen?



They worship a different God, don't they? If we believe the Son is a part of the one God, and they don't, then they obviously worship a different God than the Christian God.

Muslims sincerely worship their God, but as with them and JW's when we get together to worship our God, I seriously doubt a mutual spirit will be felt.


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 4, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> :n:
> 
> They worship a different God, don't they? If we believe the Son is a part of the one God, and they don't, then they obviously worship a different God than the Christian God.
> 
> Muslims sincerely worship their God, but as with them and JW's when we get together to worship our God, I seriously doubt a mutual spirit will be felt.



Interesting. Jews don't worship our God, the God of Abraham? Muslim don't worship the God of Abraham? JWs don't worship the God of Abraham? This is news to me. I think these don't worship the same, or similarly, but does it follow that these although they worship differently that they worship a different God from ours? And are their mindsets much different than the mindsets of various christian denominations--churches etc...? Who in the group above does not accuse our understanding to be a lie?


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 4, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> Interesting. Jews don't worship our God, the God of Abraham? Muslim don't worship the God of Abraham? JWs don't worship the God of Abraham? This is news to me. I think these don't worship the same, or similarly, but does it follow that these although they worship differently that they worship a different God from ours? And are their mindsets much different than the mindsets of various christian denominations--churches etc...? Who in the group above does not accuse our understanding to be a lie?



Seriously, I've thought about this a lot. If we believe God is The Father , The Son, The Holy Spirit. Three distinct persons making up a single God head. Then it cannot be possible by definition to take one of these away and call him the same God....Can it?


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 4, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Seriously, I've thought about this a lot. If we believe God is The Father , The Son, The Holy Spirit. Three distinct persons making up a single God head. Then it cannot be possible by definition to take one of these away and call him the same God....Can it?



How many people do  we you know in part or alot about even  and yet do not know their name. Seriously. Doesn't matter now much you've studied in the Kingdom I think, some of the first there are the last, and some of the last well...first...regards understanding.

A person that worships by faith God the giver of laws by faith and from a natural heart by faith... they worship not our God? And man even not of our belief, as per the Good Samaritan he worshiped not Christ by another name? Especially that his worship was not of his mouth, but in his acts---as many Muslim believe--- for example. Who said" He who cares for the poor, cares for me?" And we witness this, but not Him in the poor or a man's ministry and worship?


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 4, 2015)

I still think that the Kingdom is not our resurrection and not the end of our salvation. It is linked to our salvation, but not it. For me my salvation will be my resurrection in Christ. It goes beyond the hope which we have of getting into heaven, because in some way being in the Kingdom we are in heaven, but rather my hope is the resurrection bodily, as a soul in the image of God( incorruptible)... as per His created origin for me.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 4, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> :n:
> 
> They worship a different God, don't they? If we believe the Son is a part of the one God, and they don't, then they obviously worship a different God than the Christian God.
> 
> Muslims sincerely worship their God, but as with them and JW's when we get together to worship our God, I seriously doubt a mutual spirit will be felt.



Some say that by believing in free will, you are worshiping a different God. That God is sovereign and all powerful. That to just believe you had anything to do with your salvation is worshiping the wrong God. Some say that by believing Jesus has already returned, you are worshiping a different Jesus. They know for a fact that the correct Jesus will return some day in the future.

Some say one must believe in Free Will in order to choose the correct God. 
Oneness believe Trinitarians are worshiping a different God. That God is one and his name is Jesus. Just by being baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit has made your baptism in the name of the wrong God.

It's a slippery slope to say JW's aren't Christian. There are many denominations that think the other ones are worshiping the wrong God. Even to the point of denying the salvation of the others in those denominations.
Does the correct God tell us to be baptized by full immersion in water is a good example. While many say these things don't matter and we are all worshiping the correct God, not all the others see it that way.

God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 4, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Seriously, I've thought about this a lot. If we believe God is The Father , The Son, The Holy Spirit. Three distinct persons making up a single God head. Then it cannot be possible by definition to take one of these away and call him the same God....Can it?



It's amazing that some Christians believe in salvation by grace alone and then come up with all kinds of stipulations.
After awhile they sound just like the works based faith group. 
Listening to you and Gordon for instance y'all aren't that far apart as far as how we must maintain or prove our salvation.

Either salvation is all from God or it isn't. There is no gray areas. No stipulations. It's either Lordship salvation or it's free grace salvation.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 4, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> I still think that the Kingdom is not our resurrection and not the end of our salvation. It is linked to our salvation, but not it. For me my salvation will be my resurrection in Christ. It goes beyond the hope which we have of getting into heaven, because in some way being in the Kingdom we are in heaven, but rather my hope is the resurrection bodily, as a soul in the image of God( incorruptible)... as per His created origin for me.



I've heard it said "we are now in the kingdom but at our resurrections we'll be in the KINGDOM."
I wouldn't hold it against a fellow Christian if he doesn't believe this. The same God is the God of the kingdom and KINGDOM.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 4, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Seriously, I've thought about this a lot. If we believe God is The Father , The Son, The Holy Spirit. Three distinct persons making up a single God head. Then it cannot be possible by definition to take one of these away and call him the same God....Can it?



Wait a minute I just read where JW's believe one has to work his way to salvation. That salvation is a free gift but works are required to keep it. 
Perhaps you are right, my God doesn't require this.

John 20:17
Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

That's the God I'm worshiping. The one my brother Jesus worships. His Father and my Father. I'm telling all of his brothers that they can be adopted.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 4, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> How many people do  we you know in part or alot about even  and yet do not know their name. Seriously. Doesn't matter now much you've studied in the Kingdom I think, some of the first there are the last, and some of the last well...first...regards understanding.
> 
> A person that worships by faith God the giver of laws by faith and from a natural heart by faith... they worship not our God? And man even not of our belief, as per the Good Samaritan he worshiped not Christ by another name? Especially that his worship was not of his mouth, but in his acts---as many Muslim believe--- for example. Who said" He who cares for the poor, cares for me?" And we witness this, but not Him in the poor or a man's ministry and worship?




Maybe I'm just a little more orthodox than you?


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 4, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Maybe I'm just a little more orthodox than you?



That's funny right there..but there is something to it... I think the pendulum is swinging... the revolutionaries are more and more reactionaries... maybe...  How many orthodox can stand on the head of a pin? Do you know? Perhaps many when the flames are compassing all round them. Maybe...


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 4, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Maybe I'm just a little more orthodox than you?



Can't God elect people that have never heard of Jesus? They know God by his creation and are without excuse.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 4, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Can't God elect people that have never heard of Jesus? They know God by his creation and are without excuse.


 
 What would be a good scriptural answer to that question?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 4, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> What would be a good scriptural answer to that question?



Romans 1:19-24
19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. 24Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.

This shows the lack of salvation by condemnation. Jesus isn't even mentioned in these verses yet there is no salvation only condemnation. No mention of not knowing the Good News, only knowing God by his creation.
If they had honored God and worshiped God, would they not have had salvation? They only knew God by his invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, yet they were without excuse.

They were part of God's Elect as they knew God but exchanged worshiping God for idols. They abandoned God for idols.
Even if they weren't part of God's Elect, God was going to elect them until they started worshiping idols. Remember they only knew God by His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature.
They were so close to being elected and yet they never knew Jesus. I would assume that if God had elected them, he would have sent his Holy Spirit to testify with there spirit and teach them about Jesus. They never gave God this chance so he did what he had to do;

28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,


----------



## welderguy (Aug 4, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Romans 1:19-24
> 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
> 22Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. 24Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
> 
> ...



I think you may be confused about when election took place.


Ephesians 1:4 - According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

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.

2 Timothy 1:9 - Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

John 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.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 4, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I think you may be confused about when election took place.



True, but isn't it possible that God could and can elect individuals that have never heard of Jesus? That God could provide his Gospel by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? That God will elect whom he will elect? That God is no respecter of man?


In regards to the group in Romans 1, why were they without excuse if they were not of the elect? How could they worship and honor God if their eyes and ears had never been opened by receiving this knowledge from the Holy Spirit? If they were so depraved? If they were reprobates how was it possible to turn them over to a reprobate mind?


----------



## welderguy (Aug 5, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> True, but isn't it possible that God could and can elect individuals that have never heard of Jesus?/QUOTE]
> 
> I still don't think you understand that election took place before creation.No one had heard of Jesus then because we were not created yet.We only existed in the mind of God.
> 
> Before we can even begin to discuss the meat of Romans 1, we must understand the milk of Eph.1 regarding election and predestination.


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 5, 2015)

John 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.

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me.

 If all here means people, this sentence means that all the people who are aware of the Father, as Jesus in a similar tradition is aware of the Father, some shall come to Jesus.

and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.


And if him here means the person that the father giveth to Jesus, it follow that Jesus will not abandon that person. BUT is does not say that that person who the Father gave cannot abandon Jesus! Because man has free will...he is a free agent.

Example of free will in scripture: 

22Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 5, 2015)

2 Timothy 1:9 - Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Man was created with a heavenly design from the get go, that is with a holy calling he is able to pay attention. This is the purpose and grace of God before the world began that all  are elect, which again becomes evident for the ministry of Jesus Savior because it rubs out the interference of original sin and restores the spirit of man to it's design of origin.

But man is still able to say NOPE to election. We are destined to salvation because we have ears or hearing or understanding sympathetic to the voice of our creator. But we can toss all of it at any time--choosing to do this.


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 5, 2015)

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.

Follow your bliss... in Christ( which is your gift(s) in Christ) and you shall bring forth fruit and your fruit will remain. You can choose to not follow your bliss, not use your gifts in Christ, it is your choice...


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 5, 2015)

Ephesians 1:4 - According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Yep... we are all predestined to be elected! Amen. It was planned before the foundation of the world, it was willed even perhaps before the design was brought forth! Amen. This is due to the grace of God, his loving disposition towards his creation, in his work. Amen. We are all predestined to be elected...if we chose to answer to the call of our Creator.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 5, 2015)

Gordon, what about Esau?
In Rom.9, God said He hated him.Even before he was born an had done neither good nor evil?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 5, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Artfuldodger said:
> 
> 
> > True, but isn't it possible that God could and can elect individuals that have never heard of Jesus?/QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 5, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Gordon, what about Esau?
> In Rom.9, God said He hated him.Even before he was born an had done neither good nor evil?



He  also didn't like the Canaanites very much... even the peaceful ones.


Yep, God is not happy with some nations even before they are born.

Paul is talking about Israel the chosen people as the elect-- the nation. He concludes that not all Israel is Israel-- that out of that nation not all will chose the spiritual way of God, but some like Esau will chose temporary sustenance.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 5, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> He  also didn't like the Canaanites very much... even the peaceful ones.
> 
> 
> Yep, God is not happy with some nations even before they are born.



Esau being Edom? Malachi 1, very good!


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 5, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Esau being Edom? Malachi 1, very good!



When I was a kid in grade primary we would play tag round the seesaws when people were using them.  We added  dodging the two by 12s to the sport for more excitement and sometimes when rounding the corners really fast I'd put my hand when the seesaw was coming down on the pivot. It would usually take a fingernail off. 

I would go back to class crying at first, the teacher would give me a candy and tell me to stop crying and go sit down. After awhile when my fingernails came off ( I was heavy into sports then) I'd go to the teacher- show here my bloody finger(s) and not cry being use to it, and I'd get a candy and I'd go sit down without her telling me to.

Is "very good" a candy where your at Hobbs? or almost a star?


----------



## welderguy (Aug 5, 2015)

I understand that Esau does represent the heathen nations and Jacob represents the nation of Israel(chosen nation).But vs. 11 says "that the purpose of God, according to election might stand".We also know that "they are not all Israel which are of Israel."

Later in this same chapter, he says there are vessels of wrath fitted for destruction and vessels of mercy fitted for honour.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 5, 2015)

At the foundation of the world, did God elect any Hindus and natives from small islands that are without excuse because they knew God by his creation yet they exchanged the glory of God and started worshiping idols made in the image of birds and man?


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 5, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I understand that Esau does represent the heathen nations and Jacob represents the nation of Israel(chosen nation).But vs. 11 says "that the purpose of God, according to election might stand".We also know that "they are not all Israel which are of Israel."
> 
> 
> Yes,  I agree... the purpose of election is  ultimately salvation, but not by any means...it is through faith... as per Abraham's.
> ...


----------



## welderguy (Aug 5, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> At the foundation of the world, did God elect any Hindus and natives from small islands that are without excuse because they knew God by his creation yet they exchanged the glory of God and started worshiping idols made in the image of birds and man?



I can't judge who's elect and who's not.I do know from Rev.5 and Rev.7 that God has a people out of every kindred, tongue and nation.

As far as calling them out of idolatry, sure.Not a problem for God.
Look at Nebuchadnezzar, before and after God called him.


----------



## gemcgrew (Aug 5, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> Paul is talking about Israel the chosen people as the elect-- the nation. He concludes that not all Israel is Israel-- that out of that nation not all will chose the spiritual way of God, but some like Esau will chose temporary sustenance.


Are you saying that God sovereignly chooses nations and that nations do not choose themselves?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 5, 2015)

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

I've never known anyone to explain who this group of individuals were. If they were without excuse wouldn't they have to be of the elect?
If they were reprobates how could they exchange their worship of God for idols?
If they only knew God by his creation then how were they to find out about Jesus? Yet although they knew God they exchanged glorifying Him and started worshiping idols. God condemned them and gave them over to a reprobate mind. How could he give them over if they were already reprobates? They had or were offered salvation without knowing Jesus. Otherwise they couldn't have been condemned.
They were without excuse. Reprobates eyes and ears aren't opened to understand God. But if they were elect how did they slip out of God's hands?


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 5, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Are you saying that God sovereignly chooses nations and that nations do not choose themselves?


 Nations chose themselves I think and God chose the Hebrews, a people, for spiritual purposes? 


Maybe kinda? He definitely chose the Hebrews, who it is said were under oppression, because of their prayers to the God of their fathers,--- to get mankind from polytheism to what is salvation through Jesus. Of those who followed the lessons and understood Jesus, Jesus could possible say the Father gave them to me. Maybe. Kinda.

Note that Hebrews prayed first and then grace kicked in. Did Abram have a choice to stay with the name Abram?


----------



## welderguy (Aug 5, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> Note that Hebrews prayed first and then grace kicked in.



I think you may have that backward because:

1 John 4:19
" We love him, because he first loved us."

and:

Rom.5:10
" For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life."

and here's the big one(note when grace was given) :

2 Timothy 1:9 
" Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,..."


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 5, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I think you may have that backward because:
> 
> 1 John 4:19
> " We love him, because he first loved us."
> ...



So it is...before the world began that God's grace and purpose was to call [us] with a holy calling. Amen.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 6, 2015)

In Rom.8, Paul speaks of those that God foreknew(elect).

But, there's also a group of people spoken of in Matt.7 that Jesus says "depart from me, for I never knew thee."(non-elect)

His fore-knowing us has nothing at all to do with any choice we made.He knew us before we were even capable of making any good choices; even when we were yet enemies.(Rom.5:8-10)


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 6, 2015)

welderguy said:


> In Rom.8, Paul speaks of those that God foreknew(elect).
> 
> But, there's also a group of people spoken of in Matt.7 that Jesus says "depart from me, for I never knew thee."(non-elect)
> 
> His fore-knowing us has nothing at all to do with any choice we made.He knew us before we were even capable of making any good choices; even when we were yet enemies.(Rom.5:8-10)



Yet people are without excuse. Even if they only know God by his creation, eternal power and divine nature.


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 6, 2015)

welderguy said:


> In Rom.8, Paul speaks of those that God foreknew(elect).
> 
> But, there's also a group of people spoken of in Matt.7 that Jesus says "depart from me, for I never knew thee."(non-elect)
> 
> His fore-knowing us has nothing at all to do with any choice we made.He knew us before we were even capable of making any good choices; even when we were yet enemies.(Rom.5:8-10)



The "depart from me, for I never knew thee" is interesting. I think the issue here is that some folk might "believe" they know Jesus, but it was the wrong one, cause our's did not know them.

Maybe some of our choices were made by our ancient fathers--we just live in the world they chose for us,  knowing it or not. For example, it could be said that Herman Melville, the author of Moby Dick, fore-knew Americans as individuals and a people today because of his study of the moral-religious-social choices Americans had made in their past prior to Mr Melville's and in Mr. Melville's day.

Maybe, kinda... 

Listen if you are happy with predestination and the election of some and not at all others, good for you. I don't think it takes away from the Gospel provided it is not a blast from the pulpits and essentially supplants the Good News.  

In my case so far I think it is a waste of time to the mindly, so much so that it haggards  and withers their election and it is a disservice to the worldly. It is a great worry on the pivot of ideas, who's burdens should be light--even and especially to the poor in spirit.  But that's just my opinion. I just don't get what the fuss is all about... but hey if it's for you, go for it. May the promises of our Lord be all yours.

It is my view presently that God fore-knows us and those that will follow us by the choices made for us in our past by our ancient fathers and also the choices we make today which will impact who people are in the future. We don't fall far from our original trees I think... and somehow ( in some way) we are not a real complicated design-- even if we think so. Perhaps.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 6, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Yet people are without excuse. Even if they only know God by his creation, eternal power and divine nature.



If you are able to see God's creation and you still deny He created it, and instead you turn and worship idols, unless you are covered in the blood of Jesus, then yes, you are without excuse.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 6, 2015)

Romans 8:29
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.

I'm real interested in this image and being conformed to the image of God's son. 
What does "that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters" mean?

If God foreknew us, does that mean we too came from Heaven? What position did we hold? angels, gods, eternal spirits?
In what capacity did God know us before we were born?
When did the elect or pre-existing children of God become made in the image of the Son? Were they already in the image of the Son in their pre-existence?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 6, 2015)

welderguy said:


> If you are able to see God's creation and you still deny He created it, and instead you turn and worship idols, unless you are covered in the blood of Jesus, then yes, you are without excuse.



How is it possible for a totally depraved person to possibly believe? I thought God chooses to save people unconditionally; that is, they are not chosen on the basis of their own merit.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 6, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Romans 1:20
> For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
> 
> I've never known anyone to explain who this group of individuals were. If they were without excuse wouldn't they have to be of the elect?
> ...



Don't you mean "I've never known anyone who knew how to put this is the box I have prepared for it"


----------



## welderguy (Aug 6, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> How is it possible for a totally depraved person to possibly believe? I thought God chooses to save people unconditionally; that is, they are not chosen on the basis of their own merit.



He CHOSE(not chooses) to save His elect, before He created us physically in time.He knew us.We existed in His mind,in His "foreknowledge".He makes it possible for us to believe when He regenerates us(born again).At this exact time, He gives us faith.Faith is the key to being able to believe.
He then puts us in His workshop to "conform" us into His image.He hammers on us and chisels on us and puts heat to us, all for the purpose of shaping and molding us into His image.All for His glory.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 6, 2015)

welderguy said:


> He CHOSE(not chooses) to save His elect, before He created us physically in time.He knew us.We existed in His mind,in His "foreknowledge".He makes it possible for us to believe when He regenerates us(born again).At this exact time, He gives us faith.Faith is the key to being able to believe.
> He then puts us in His workshop to "conform" us into His image.He hammers on us and chisels on us and puts heat to us, all for the purpose of shaping and molding us into His image.All for His glory.



Then it is possible that this is the way Jesus was the Word(foreknowledge) of God and it's possible that this is how Jesus was made in his Father's image? Maybe this is the way God knew Jesus before his incarnation. If it's the way God knew us before we were born, then it's possible that's the way he knew Jesus. 
If we are to become the image of the Heavenly man, then maybe this is how the Heavenly man became the image of his Father.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 6, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> Don't you mean "I've never known anyone who knew how to put this is the box I have prepared for it"



I would like to hear everyone's views(box) of exactly who this group is. It's a part of the Bible that's often quoted and used. You'd think we would know exactly who this group is that Paul is describing.
It's often used that all of us are without excuse from believing in God. Doesn't this go against election?
I would like to hear your views on what it means to you as to who is without excuse?
I don't really have one as it has always been a mystery to me. Reprobates are excused. If it's elected, they are without excuse but are already forgiven. If elected then how does one exchange worshiping God for idols? Yet if it's reprobates how can they exchange worshiping God for idols because they aren't worshiping God to start with?


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 6, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I would like to hear everyone's views(box) of exactly who this group is.



Why?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 6, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> Why?



I'm required to test the spirits. I don't recall you ever having a problem sharing beliefs but if you don't feel it is beneficial I understand. The Spirit will guide me as needed with other avenues. The GON has been very helpful in my quest to my enlightenment.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 6, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm required to test the spirits. I don't recall you ever having a problem sharing beliefs but if you don't feel it is beneficial I understand. The Spirit will guide me as needed with other avenues. The GON has been very helpful in my quest to my enlightenment.



With or without the Spirit, there is only one answer; sadly for the ego, it is theocentric.  No, I do not think it is beneficial to repeat answers previously given, only to receive responses previously refuted.


----------



## gemcgrew (Aug 6, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I would like to hear everyone's views(box) of exactly who this group is. It's a part of the Bible that's often quoted and used. You'd think we would know exactly who this group is that Paul is describing.
> It's often used that all of us are without excuse from believing in God. Doesn't this go against election?


No man can escape the evidence of God. Within theology, it is referred to as "general revelation". Men know about God but they do not necessarily acknowledge Him. Truth is suppressed due to their rebellion and wickedness. They become fools (Romans 1:22).


Artfuldodger said:


> I would like to hear your views on what it means to you as to who is without excuse?


Men who deny that God is.


Artfuldodger said:


> I don't really have one as it has always been a mystery to me. Reprobates are excused. If it's elected, they are without excuse but are already forgiven. If elected then how does one exchange worshiping God for idols? Yet if it's reprobates how can they exchange worshiping God for idols because they aren't worshiping God to start with?


Reprobates are without excuse due to general revelation. They lack a special revelation, the gospel.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 6, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> No man can escape the evidence of God. Within theology, it is referred to as "general revelation". Men know about God but they do not necessarily acknowledge Him. Truth is suppressed due to their rebellion and wickedness. They become fools (Romans 1:22).
> 
> Men who deny that God is.
> 
> Reprobates are without excuse due to general revelation. They lack a special revelation, the gospel.



What is the difference between "general revelation" and "election?" How can a reprobate be required to, not only acknowledge God's existence but he also must worship him?
If the reprobate is blind until called, how can he acknowledge God by worship? Even better, how can the reprobate quit worshiping God and exchange that worship for that of idols? We're not talking about a depraved reprobate that has always worshiped idols. Paul said that though they knew God they exchanged the worship of God for the worship of idols. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie. 
Either the reprobate is totally depraved or he isn't. Either God Elects us to revelation and general revelation or he doesn't. 
I can understand the concept but not half the concept. How can God expect someone to be without excuse to general revelation yet not require anything for revelation?
God is no respecter of man. He doesn't use works as a basis for election. Man is either totally depraved before election or he isn't. If he is then there is no way for him to believe in God by his creation. There is no way for him to exchange anything let along worshiping and glorifying God.

1 Corinthians 2:14
The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

No way a reprobate can worship God with just a general revelation. He needs election and the Holy Spirit to even consider it.

Their blindness would prevent them from worshiping God and their election would prevent them from worshiping idols.


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 7, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> No man can escape the evidence of God. Within theology, it is referred to as "general revelation". Men know about God but they do not necessarily acknowledge Him. Truth is suppressed due to their rebellion and wickedness. They become fools (Romans 1:22).
> 
> Men who deny that God is.
> 
> Reprobates are without excuse due to general revelation. They lack a special revelation, the gospel.



I think that elements of the gospel are available in general revelation. Take the relationship of a male and female that love each other and who know separation form each other. From this wholesome union and their relationship to their family and the world, I think many elements of the gospel can be said of general revelation-- not to mention that careless love is a teacher to many...


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 7, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> I think that elements of the gospel are available in general revelation. Take the relationship of a male and female that love each other and who know separation form each other. From this wholesome union and their relationship to their family and the world, I think many elements of the gospel can be said of general revelation-- not to mention that careless love is a teacher to many...



What does general revelation allow or cause as it pertains to condemnation or salvation? 
The people in Romans 1 were without excuse. They knew enough about God that they weren't totally depraved.
The people in Romans 1 were already worshiping God in some capacity. They were capable of exchanging this worship and start worshiping idols. 
If they were elected or had already acquired eternal security, how could they do this?
Yet if they hadn't been elected, how were they capable to come to God without their eyes and ears being opened? If they weren't capable of obtaining salvation by eventual full revelation, why were they without excuse? Why were they turned over to a reprobate mind?
It appears they were halfway between being reprobates and elected. Maybe almost elected reprobates. Elected from the beginning of time but not yet regenerated. We must also consider that reprobates are chosen form the beginning of time by default. Yet they are without excuse.

Under free will or election I still can't figure out who this group in romans is. For me it's an enigma. The Holy Spirit hasn't lead me to an answer. I guess that's why I don't like for people to use Romans 1 to prove something. I don't know what it can prove or show.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 7, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> They knew enough about God that they weren't totally depraved.
> The people in Romans 1 were already worshiping God in some capacity.



If you determine why these two statements are incorrect you'll have a good start on solving your problem.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 7, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> If you determine why these two statements are incorrect you'll have a good start on solving your problem.



That would definitely solve my dilemma.


----------



## gemcgrew (Aug 7, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> I think that elements of the gospel are available in general revelation. Take the relationship of a male and female that love each other and who know separation form each other. From this wholesome union and their relationship to their family and the world, I think many elements of the gospel can be said of general revelation-- not to mention that careless love is a teacher to many...


They are foolishness.


----------



## gemcgrew (Aug 7, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I guess that's why I don't like for people to use Romans 1 to prove something. I don't know what it can prove or show.


Romans 1-3 condemns everybody. Romans 1 and 2 proves that all are under sin.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 8, 2015)

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 8, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Romans 1-3 condemns everybody. Romans 1 and 2 proves that all are under sin.



I agree but the group in Romans 1 knew God and "exchanged" their worship of him for the worship of idols.
They "exchanged" the truth for a lie. They "exchanged" a lot of other things too.

How is it possible for a group of totally depraved reprobates to do all of these exchanges? They didn't get turned over to a reprobate mind until they exchanged their worship of God for idol worship. This made God angry that they suppressed their knowledge of truth. Why would God get angry at reprobates knowing that they couldn't suppress the truth for a lie until he gave them the insight to do so? Before then they are totally depraved. 
They would know the truth if it hit them in the face until their eyes have been opened.

These people knew God, their eyes were opened by the general revelation. They were without excuse. They were already worshiping and glorifying God. They had the knowledge and could see it very clearly. Blindness was not their defense. Even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks. Reprobates would not be honoring God or giving him thanks. That isn't even remotely possible. There is no way a reprobate could praise God. 

A general revelation might give a reprobate enough knowledge to know there is a God but even that's not enough knowledge needed for election. The reprobate would have to have a full fledged election to have a desire to worship, glorify, praise, and give thanks to God.


----------



## gemcgrew (Aug 8, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> These people knew God, their eyes were opened by the general revelation. They were without excuse.


I think that this is where you are confused. The eyes of their mind are not opened by "general revelation", but by "special revelation". Paul explains this in 2 Corinthians. The non-Christian is blind(defective) in the mind.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 8, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> I think that this is where you are confused. The eyes of their mind are not opened by "general revelation", but by "special revelation". Paul explains this in 2 Corinthians. The non-Christian is blind(defective) in the mind.



It sounds like "general revelation" doesn't do much for the reprobate nor the elect. I don't see the need for it.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 8, 2015)

What was God's point in giving these reprobates general revelation?
If they were born with no choice of a future with God, what good did it do to dangle the carrot of salvation in front of them? Why tell them to use this general revelation to worship and praise God if it was never going to be possible for them to do so? Even to the point of saying they have no excuse for not worshiping God? It must have been a totally useless revelation in the context that these reprobates were abandoned by God from the foundation of the world. I don't mind God making me without excuse but this group had an excuse, they just didn't use it. I don't mind God abandoning me but this group abandoned God first. They exchanged their worship of God for idols. Then and only then did God give them over to a reprobate mind.

If they never had a choice at election then how did God come to abandon them? They were born abandoned. Not even God can give a reprobate a reprobate mind. God himself made that decision at the foundation of the world.

It almost sounds like this group had the revelation/knowledge needed but "rejected" God by their failure to no longer worship God. Let's say they were reprobates who weren't worshiping God. They still had the revelation or knowledge to do so. They still rejected God by having this revelation and rejecting it. It made God angry that they suppressed their knowledge of truth. So angry that he gave them over "to" a reprobate mind. From something to something because of them exchanging something for something.


----------



## gemcgrew (Aug 8, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> It sounds like "general revelation" doesn't do much for the reprobate nor the elect. I don't see the need for it.


It condemns.

BTW, I think the answer to your dilemma is in your post #92. See if you can recognize it.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 8, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> It condemns.
> 
> BTW, I think the answer to your dilemma is in your post #92. See if you can recognize it.



They were already condemned. Having a general revelation didn't condemn them, sin did that. I would think a general revelation would lead one to find out who this God is. If I'm sitting on a small isolated island and suddenly realize by His creation that there is a God, then I very well better start worshiping, praising, and giving that God thanks.
If he gave me that revelation then he expects me to worship Him, praise Him, and give Him thanks. If I don't use this general revelation to worship God and yet exchange this for idol worship, God will abandon me. 
This is what happened to the group in Romans. They had enough revelation that God expected them to worship him. They did but thought themselves wise and decided to exchange this type of worship for idol worship.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 8, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> It condemns.
> 
> BTW, I think the answer to your dilemma is in your post #92. See if you can recognize it.



Is it this?

A general revelation might give a reprobate enough knowledge to know there is a God but even that's not enough knowledge needed for election. The reprobate would have to have a full fledged election to have a desire to worship, glorify, praise, and give thanks to God.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 9, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> If you determine why these two statements are incorrect you'll have a good start on solving your problem.



I haven't been able to determine either of those statements to be false.

They had enough revelation to worship and praise God. Paul said so. Even though they knew, they didn't.

They had to be worshiping God in some capacity as they "exchanged" this worship for idols. God had just said he expected them to worship him by the general revelation he had gave them. They exchanged this truth for a lie. They made a choice. They made a decision. They chose to worship idols instead of using the knowledge they had and worship God.
They were under God's protective wing up to this point. God had made it plain to them. See, God had opened their eyes. It was evident within them. It was revealed to them, it was clear to them. There is no denying they knew to worship God. It was manifest in them.

They changed or exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things.

Before this day or period of time they weren't worshiping idols otherwise they couldn't have changed to this new type of worship. This "change" is what angered God. This "change" of the truth is what angered God.

Before this "change" they could have been God's. The path was there. God had set it in motion by the manifest of his existence to them. This "change" of worship from God to idols made God so angry he gave them over to their lusts. Not before this day, event, or period. They were not abandoned from the foundation of the world, 10 years before their idol worship or 10 months before their idol worship. They were not abandoned when they worshiped, praised, and gave God thanks. They were abandoned by God when they exchanged this worship, praise, and thankfulness to Him for idols. After they thought themselves wise enough to do this. After they exchanged the truth for a lie. After they "traded" the truth about God for a lie. After they became ungodly.


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 9, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I haven't been able to determine either of those statements to be false.
> 
> They had enough revelation to worship and praise God. Paul said so. Even though they knew, they didn't.
> 
> ...



I think this sums it up well, "they" did this and it was a choice for some of them:  "After they exchanged the truth for a lie. After they "traded" the truth about God for a lie. After they became ungodly." And I might add, you could put yourself blue in the face telling them, they heard not, perceiving themselves "The Elect".


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 9, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Romans 1-3 condemns everybody. Romans 1 and 2 proves that all are under sin.



So.. All are under sin or in Adam? But only some are cleansed of their sin, or in Christ?

 So what Christ did wasn't good enough to repair all of what Adam did?
 That's an interesting way of looking at this, just not the way I see it.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 9, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> I think this sums it up well, "they" did this and it was a choice for some of them:  "After they exchanged the truth for a lie. After they "traded" the truth about God for a lie. After they became ungodly." And I might add, you could put yourself blue in the face telling them, they heard not, perceiving themselves "The Elect".



Regardless of who they were or how one wants to look at it, they had the revelation and chose not to use it. They thought themselves wise and chose idols. When they made the change or exchange from God to idols, God gave them over to a reprobate mind. It happened after this event and not before. It took this event to anger God enough to abandon them. Even with their revelation from God, they still chose idols and this is what angered God. 
I wonder if this was eternal condemnation or did this group eventually get offered salvation? Don't we have a chance right up until the day we die?


----------



## welderguy (Aug 9, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> So.. All are under sin or in Adam? But only some are cleansed of their sin, or in Christ?
> 
> So what Christ did wasn't good enough to repair all of what Adam did?
> That's an interesting way of looking at this, just not the way I see it.



What Christ did WAS good enough to accomplish what He purposed to do.It was not intended to save everyone.Only His elect.

John6:39
" And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day."

The "all" is not all-inclusive of mankind but rather all-inclusive of the elect.I know this because of these two texts:

Rom.8:29-30
" 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.
 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."

He foreknew these^^^

He never knew these vvv :

Matt.7:23
" And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 9, 2015)

welderguy said:


> What Christ did WAS good enough to accomplish what He purposed to do.It was not intended to save everyone.Only His elect.
> 
> John6:39
> " And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day."
> ...




 Then only his elect were in Adam...correct?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 9, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Then only his elect were in Adam...correct?



Good point, either it all concerns the elect or it doesn't. Maybe that was what marketgunner was saying, that only the Elect have souls. Only the Elect will be made to conform in the image of the man from Heaven.
That we were with God in Heaven just as God knew Jesus in Heaven. Sounds like more than foreknowledge(Word).


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 9, 2015)

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

What does it mean to be conformed in the image of Jesus? Why did God not say "to be conformed to the image of me?" Why did we have to be conformed in the image of the Son in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers?

We will eventually become made  in the image of Jesus. Not now but when he returns. But if he has already returned then why aren't we already 100% in the image of Jesus?

It says God actually foreknew us before we were born. For God knew his people in advance, and he chose them to become like his Son. Doesn't this sound like the way God foreknew Jesus?


----------



## welderguy (Aug 9, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Then only his elect were in Adam...correct?



As far as sin,no.Sin passed upon all through Adam.

1Cor.15:21-22
" For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."

This text shows the physical resurrection of the elect and the non-elect BTW.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 9, 2015)

welderguy said:


> As far as sin,no.Sin passed upon all through Adam.
> 
> 1Cor.15:21-22
> " For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
> ...




 Perfect example of my point. If you believe all men physically die in Adam then you must believe all men are made alive in Christ which is universalism. 

 My point is and has been that the death in Adam is not physical death. This means "All" is concerning of the elect that are in covenant with God and the death is spiritual.

 Sin is disobeying God, it's only possible to disobey if you have been commanded in covenant.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 9, 2015)

welderguy said:


> As far as sin,no.Sin passed upon all through Adam.
> 
> 1Cor.15:21-22
> " For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
> ...



It actually sounds like universal salvation "for all will be made alive." If Adam caused everyone to die, then the second Adam made all alive.
I understand many believe "made all alive" pertains to the resurrection.
It would stand to reason the if it's the resurrection that makes sinners and saints alive then we would all be sleeping in the ground in order to be given this new life. Life meaning bodily resurrection. You can't be alive somewhere else if it's the bodily resurrection that gives you life.

Then there is this version;
Just as everyone dies because we all belong to Adam, everyone who belongs to Christ will be given new life.
That Paul wasn't concerned with "all" by a general resurrection but that "all" was all in Christ. "All who are in Christ will be made alive."

With this version only the elect or saints will be given new life.

Hey, this is one of those examples of when we argue so much we eventually sound like the other side!


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 9, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Perfect example of my point. If you believe all men physically die in Adam then you must believe all men are made alive in Christ which is universalism.
> 
> My point is and has been that the death in Adam is not physical death. This means "All" is concerning of the elect that are in covenant with God and the death is spiritual.
> 
> Sin is disobeying God, it's only possible to disobey if you have been commanded in covenant.



I thought we were all in covenant? Will there be men who die that won't be judged by God because they weren't in a covenant with God to not sin? Men who can't die a spiritual death?
Wow, I'm getting really confused.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 9, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I thought we were all in covenant? Will there be men who die that won't be judged by God because they weren't in a covenant with God to not sin? Men who can't die a spiritual death?
> Wow, I'm getting really confused.



Maybe this will help you, or confuse you more. I think this is an example of the elect in the OT.

http://deathisdefeated.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-problem-of-context-in-the-genealogy-of-genesis-5


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 9, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Maybe this will help you, or confuse you more. I think this is an example of the elect in the OT.
> 
> http://deathisdefeated.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-problem-of-context-in-the-genealogy-of-genesis-5



Thanks, I've made it to here and this caught my eye;

3 And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.

I'll get back to the context of the article later but I've really been stuck on the word "image" lately. 
Was Seth actually Adam?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 9, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Maybe this will help you, or confuse you more. I think this is an example of the elect in the OT.
> 
> http://deathisdefeated.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-problem-of-context-in-the-genealogy-of-genesis-5



I see the concept starting with Doug's response. I've never really heard of all of this. It could explain man being on the earth before Adam. I'll have to absorb that concept slowly. It's another thing that goes against my indoctrination.

"Basically, if Adam had essentially all of the Law given in Exodus, and Adam did not represent all mankind, as these posts demonstrate, then we've made a serious misinterpretation of Scripture, that has been going on for a very long time."

Jesus was the Lamb "slain from the foundation of the world"

Again we get into the argument of what actually happened at the foundation of the world. What did God do then and what actually existed vs just God's foreknowledge/Word?

Did Jesus die then? Was he actually with God then? Were we actually with God then? Did God actually create and make everything happen to his creation at the foundation of the world?
If all of this is so I really don't see a point in having to live it all out. What purpose is life it Jesus was slain at the foundation of the world?

Back to "image;
"I tend to think that the image of God is something Adam lost when he sinned.  Only Christians have it today.  In ancient societies, kings were in the image of their patron god and were sons of their patron god.  Was this biological or physical?  Or was this a declaration of their "god given" authority (as covenantal head)?"

If Adam was the first man made in the image of God whose image were the other men before Adam made in?
If only the offspring of Adam were made in God's image then there can only be salvation for his offspring. Wouldn't this show as marketgunner brought up that not all men have souls? Well at least until the flood. But then again if the flood wasn't world wide we could have men alive today that aren't from Adam.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 9, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> If only the offspring of Adam were made in God's image then there can only be salvation for his offspring. Wouldn't this show as marketgunner brought up that not all men have souls? Well at least until the flood. But then again if the flood wasn't world wide we could have men alive today that aren't from Adam.



You mean Seth don't you? The line of Gods chosen followed Seth. Only the men that lived hundreds of years were men of Seth's genealogy and not Cain's.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 9, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> You mean Seth don't you? The line of Gods chosen followed Seth. Only the men that lived hundreds of years were men of Seth's genealogy and not Cain's.



That's true, Cain's first child, was named Enoch. This could also be used to show another example of God not choosing the firstborn. 
That God planned our lineage. That God chose and chooses. In recognizing a chosen line of ancestry exist for the Jews, one must also see the remaining chosen line for the Gentiles.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 9, 2015)

welderguy said:


> > all which he hath given me
> 
> 
> 
> ...







Artfuldodger said:


> either it all concerns the elect or it doesn't


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 9, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


>



For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions. So God gave them over to a depraved mind. They knew the ordinance of God. They knew God's judgement. They were without excuse.


Their thinking "became" futile. They "became" fools.
They "exchanged" the glory of God for idols. 
For this "reason," God gave them "over."

Isn't it just a tiny bit possible they had a choice?


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 9, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
> Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions. So God gave them over to a depraved mind. They knew the ordinance of God. They knew God's judgement. They were without excuse.
> 
> 
> ...



Are you starting a new conversation?  If not I have no idea from where you derived your question.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 9, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> Are you starting a new conversation?  If not I have no idea from where you derived your question.



If the discussion is headed in the line of showing "election" I was going to defend by showing "choice." Romans 1 was a good place to start.

We can move back to predestination;

Romans 8:29
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.

God foreknew these.

Matt.7:23
" And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

He never knew these.

If the elect were in Heaven with God or at least in his foreknowledge, where did the people he never knew come from?  Was this the people not from Adam's lineage?
This is a group God never knew or foreknew. They were never in God's image otherwise they could never be conformed in Christ's image. They were never Children of God. Where did they come from?

When Jesus came to the earth as a man, whose image did he put on? Just that of the elect or the reprobate too?


----------



## welderguy (Aug 9, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> where did the people he never knew come from?  Was this the people not from Adam's lineage?
> This is a group God never knew or foreknew. They were never Children of God. Where did they come from?



Cain was of Adam's lineage(his son).But look at this:

1 John 3:12
" Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous."


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 9, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> If the discussion is headed in the line of showing "election" I was going to defend by showing "choice." Romans 1 was a good place to start.
> 
> We can move back to predestination;
> 
> ...



I , for one, never foresaw anything headed toward election vs. choice.

As I see the conversation is was #86â†’ #90â†’ #101â†’ #103â†’ #104â†’ #105, to which I responded #116 because:
There are ultimately only two groups:
God’s people and not God’s people;
saved and unsaved;
elect and reprobate;
God’s disciples and Satan’s disciples;
or another scriptural choice.

What you affirmed (#105) was, essentially, that those who are “not God’s people/unsaved/reprobate/, etc.” were not condemned (“not under sin”); which ignores scripture clearly showing that none are excused, except by the grace of God.  As for those who “are not of the linage of Adam”; that also ignores scripture (except perhaps Rm. 1:21 “… they … became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.”).  Now we are deep into “not beneficial”.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 9, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> If the discussion is headed in the line of showing "election" I was going to defend by showing "choice." Romans 1 was a good place to start.
> 
> We can move back to predestination;
> 
> ...



I , for one, never foresaw anything headed toward election vs. choice.

As I see the conversation is was #86â†’ #90â†’ #101â†’ #103â†’ #104â†’ #105, to which I responded #116 because:

There are ultimately only two groups:
God’s people and not God’s people;
saved and unsaved;
elect and reprobate;
God’s disciples and Satan’s disciples;
or another scriptural choice.

What you affirmed (#105) was, essentially, that those who are “not God’s people/unsaved/reprobate/, etc.” were not condemned (“not under sin”); which ignores scripture clearly showing that none are excused, except by the grace of God.  As for those who “are not of the linage of Adam”; that also ignores scripture (except perhaps Rm. 1:21 “… they … became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.”).  Now we are deep into “not beneficial”.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 9, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> I , for one, never foresaw anything headed toward election vs. choice.
> 
> As I see the conversation is was #86→ #90→ #101→ #103→ #104→ #105, to which I responded #116 because:
> There are ultimately only two groups:
> ...



Wow, we've been discussing election vs choice since about page two with God electing people who have never heard the Gospel. From there we touched on God electing from the foundation of the world. I really don't think none of us are condemned until we die a physical death. Until then God can regenerate what ever reprobate he elected at the foundation of the world. I didn't confirm anything in #105 just seeking answers. It was mentioned earlier that perhaps all of us (man) didn't come through Adam and didn't have a covenant with God. I'm just exploring that possibility. I didn't say that I believe it to be so. 
It's not any stranger than God making people reprobates with never any chance of salvation. 

I'm not ready to put my beliefs in the box you have prepared for your beliefs.

One question I just thought of; Would you consider yourself a reprobate before God regenerated you? Before God opened your eyes? Even though you were elected at the foundation of the world were you a reprobate before your regeneration?
If scripture shows that we were all condemn and you were without excuse? Wasn't there a time period when you were condemned? Like before your regeneration? Not even the elect can escape this condemnation  without grace. Was this grace applied at your foundation election or at your regeneration? Did you have salvation before you were born? If so why did you need Jesus? If you were already elected at the foundation of the world, why were you born condemned?


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 10, 2015)

Wow,
Art, I'm just speechless!


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 10, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> Wow,
> Art, I'm just speechless!



I think what it boils down to is our outlook of exactly who this group is in Romans 1. We can't put them in our belief box as to if they are totally depraved or not.


----------



## gordon 2 (Aug 10, 2015)

I don't know what got into you lately, Art.  Your on a good roll. I like that. I like it alot.  I think you were predestined to be a real fine air conditioner. It is  real good to wake up to your ideas this morning.  I like them alot.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 10, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I think what it boils down to is our outlook of exactly who this group is in Romans 1. We can't put them in our belief box as to if they are totally depraved or not.



If you can't see yourself as part of this group(at least before God quickened you), then you've missed the whole lesson.It all boils down to Paul teaching us that no one is better than anyone else.We all came from the same cesspool of iniquity.If we judge others, we condemn ourselves because we were the same way before grace.hint:read 2 or 3 more chapters further.It makes it more plain.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 10, 2015)

welderguy said:


> If you can't see yourself as part of this group(at least before God quickened you), then you've missed the whole lesson.It all boils down to Paul teaching us that no one is better than anyone else.We all came from the same cesspool of iniquity.If we judge others, we condemn ourselves because we were the same way before grace.hint:read 2 or 3 more chapters further.It makes it more plain.



Oh yes, I've read chapter 2 many times. Most people don't read chapter 2 along with chapter 1 so they don't get the real message.
But still although the lesson is on us judging it doesn't answer exactly who the group is in chapter 1. It doesn't explain how they are expected to worship God before their eyes are opened to worship God. 
It definitely doesn't explain why God would punish them for exchanging the truth for a lie. Why would God abandon them at the exact moment  they exchanged the truth for lie and started worshiping idols?
If they were totally depraved how could they worship God. I don't know who they were but I do know God expected them to worship him. He gave them a choice.
They rejected this revelation and exchanged his glory for that of idol.

They don't fit in any of our east belief boxes so we just say they were reprobates or the non-elect or believers who abandoned God. We say they had a choice or perhaps they were never elected. 
Perhaps they were elected at the foundation and will be regenerated at a later date.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 10, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Oh yes, I've read chapter 2 many times. Most people don't read chapter 2 along with chapter 1 so they don't get the real message.
> But still although the lesson is on us judging it doesn't answer exactly who the group is in chapter 1. It doesn't explain how they are expected to worship God before their eyes are opened to worship God.
> It definitely doesn't explain why God would punish them for exchanging the truth for a lie. Why would God abandon them at the exact moment  they exchanged the truth for lie and started worshiping idols?
> If they were totally depraved how could they worship God. I don't know who they were but I do know God expected them to worship him. He gave them a choice.
> ...



Still a lot of your theology that seems off to me.

Here's an example:
A person who is a proclaimed atheist today.Maybe he grew up going to church and was taught by God-fearing parents about God.So he had a knowledge ABOUT God and he could also see the obvious things in creation that proclaim the existence of God.He is not yet born again so he doesn't have faith to believe SPIRITUALLY, but he has the basic carnal knowledge in his brain to know NATURALLY about God.
  But, later on in his life, he decides to reject those things he's been taught and the things he's seen with his own natural eyes.He decides there is no God, and he goes and does whatever he pleases and makes idols of himself and all the other indulgences he desires.
Can God still turn him.Yes.Paul tells the Romans that they did the same things before they were called by God.He's showing grace.He's laying the foundation of depravity to build up to grace in chapter 8.But not all will receive this grace (chap.9).


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 10, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Still a lot of your theology that seems off to me.
> 
> Here's an example:
> A person who is a proclaimed atheist today.Maybe he grew up going to church and was taught by God-fearing parents about God.So he had a knowledge ABOUT God and he could also see the obvious things in creation that proclaim the existence of God.He is not yet born again so he doesn't have faith to believe SPIRITUALLY, but he has the basic carnal knowledge in his brain to know NATURALLY about God.
> ...



One flaw in your example is that God is no respecter of men. He could care less if the reprobate grew up in a Hindu Church or Baptist Church. To the reprobate it all looks foolish.
You make it sound like he is half depraved, that his eyes are partially opened. You make his future election sound like it is based on his upbringing or his general revelation is a basis for his election. You make it appear to be based on a totally depraved reprobate can somehow yearn for salvation. 
In your example you didn't mention God's reaction to this elected boy's rejection of God? In your example do we know if the boy is of the elect and hasn't been regenerated yet? In the Romans account God became angry at their actions and turned them over to a reprobate mind. Did God do that to the boy in your example?

Regardless the way election works is the individual doesn't have a choice in his destiny. The group in Romans and the boy in your example are just following the path God has predestined them to follow. They "had" to turn from worshiping God for idols. They didn't have a choice. It was God's will that they worship idols as part of his plan. It was their destiny. The event had already happen in God's Word/plan/eyes. One can't all of a sudden start worshiping God with or without a general revelation if his eyes haven't been opened. It would all sound foolish. The preacher would just be preaching jibberish. Now when God opens up the Hindu's eyes or the person on a small isolated village, he will see everything very clearly.
Until that moment of regeneration his he can't fathom enough of anything to glorify and praise God. Totally depraved reprobates do not glorify and worship 
God. There is no amount of general revelation to give them this ability.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 10, 2015)

Another possibility, weird as this may be, is that the group in Romans or the boy in the example weren't totally deprave reprobates. Perhaps they were half-depraved reprobates but this isn't the way election works. Perhaps they did resist God's revelation, His desire for them to worship Him, His will that they worship Him. But resisting God's desire isn't possible under election. 

Maybe, weird as it may be, these people in Romans 1 and the boy thought about God and decided using their own mind/soul/spirit that they would exchange the truth for a lie. Remember, they knew the truth but using their free will decided to worship idols instead. This decision would never be possible under "election." Do reprobates have free will before their "election?"

Then under election we have to figure out why God got angry and turned them over to a reprobate mind. If they were already reprobates how was it possible for God to do this? Yet again if they were elected how could they quit worshiping God and start worshiping idols. But then again God suddenly got angry when they quit worshiping Him and started worshiping idols. If they were reprobates, why would God get angry at their actions. God of all spirits knows that he would need to open their eyes in order for them to worship him. Even if they had never worshiped Him before. Under election God isn't too concerned with who or what one is worshiping. He can regenerate a rock worshiping Wiccan if their name is on the Elect's roster. We keep saying God can elect anyone anywhere anytime but the reality is under "Election,"he did his electing at the foundation of the world and only chooses his regeneration time as a future event. God wouldn't get angry knowing that the group in Romans were of the Elect when they started worshiping idols because he knew that one day he would bring them back home to Himself.
Just like the boy in example that used his free will to walk away and exchange God for idols. If he was of the elect then God would protect him until he returned to the flock. If he didn't have free will then God wouldn't get angry at his actions and turn him over to a reprobate mind.

Yet they were without excuse. Under election their excuse would be total depravity or election itself. Under election nobody has an excuse because their destiny is already predestined. They don't need an excuse.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 10, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> I don't know what got into you lately, Art.  Your on a good roll. I like that. I like it alot.  I think you were predestined to be a real fine air conditioner. It is  real good to wake up to your ideas this morning.  I like them alot.



Well you gotta sing when the Spirit says sing.

Remember the Jerry Clower coon hunting story where Marcel Ledbetter climbed the tree to shake the coon out?
Well it weren't no coon but a Lynx. Marcel kept tryin' to get Jerry to shoot the Lynx but Jerry was afraid he'd shoot Marcel. Marcel finally said  "Just shoot up here amongst us, one of us has got to have some relief."

That's what I'm doing, just shooting up here amongst us.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 10, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Another possibility, weird as this may be, is that the group in Romans or the boy in the example weren't totally deprave reprobates. Perhaps they were half-depraved reprobates but this isn't the way election works. Perhaps they did resist God's revelation, His desire for them to worship Him, His will that they worship Him. But resisting God's desire isn't possible under election.
> 
> Maybe, weird as it may be, these people in Romans 1 and the boy thought about God and decided using their own mind/soul/spirit that they would exchange the truth for a lie. Remember, they knew the truth but using their free will decided to worship idols instead. This decision would never be possible under "election." Do reprobates have free will before their "election?"
> 
> ...



You've misunderstood again my friend.Bless your heart.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 10, 2015)

welderguy said:


> You've misunderstood again my friend.Bless your heart.



Let's start with the boy in your example. The boy knows God by general revelation and decides to walk away and worship idols or become an atheist. 
Did he have the free will to do this?
If in fact he is of the elect and just not regenerated yet, what if anything would bother God if his elect did this? Remember, he has been elected but he hasn't been regenerated yet.
If Christ has already died for the sins of the elect how can an elect person be viewed as condemned in the eyes of God until he is born again?


----------



## welderguy (Aug 10, 2015)

Art.I never thought I'd say this but I have to give up on you.The more I try to simplify something, the more you complicate it.I don't have what it takes to make you understand what I'm trying to relate.I've never run into someone like you.Maybe some of the more patient brothers here can untangle the mess for you.Or, better yet, maybe the Spirit of truth will reveal it to you.God bless you.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 10, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Well you gotta sing when the Spirit says sing.
> 
> Remember the Jerry Clower coon hunting story where Marcel Ledbetter climbed the tree to shake the coon out?
> Well it weren't no coon but a Lynx. Marcel kept tryin' to get Jerry to shoot the Lynx but Jerry was afraid he'd shoot Marcel. Marcel finally said  "Just shoot up here amongst us, one of us has got to have some relief."
> ...



That would have been John Eubanks, a great American and a professional tree climber, would have been a conservationalist if he were here today. " Knock Him Out John"!


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 10, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Art.I never thought I'd say this but I have to give up on you.The more I try to simplify something, the more you complicate it.I don't have what it takes to make you understand what I'm trying to relate.I've never run into someone like you.Maybe some of the more patient brothers here can untangle the mess for you.Or, better yet, maybe the Spirit of truth will reveal it to you.God bless you.



The Spirit of Truth already has, he just put it in different type of box than the did yours. I guess you've never met someone halfway between freewill and predestination. I'm sure I'm not the only one. I'll admit it's a weird place to be.

                                                                                                                                    I'm asking some very basic questions about your faith. I'm torn somewhere between election and free will, predestination and choice. 
I see God as an Omniscient, all knowing, all causing spirit.
I read all the scriptures to include being elected at the foundation of the world. I try and I try to understand election and predestination because it's scriptural. God did harden Pharaoh's heart. God did blind the Jews. God and Jesus did ultimately give us salvation. God knew how it would go down from before time. It was his plan. The Jews, Pontius Pilate, and the Romans were just pawns in God's ultimate plan. Abel's son Seth was chosen,  Noah was chosen, Moses was chosen, Abraham was chosen, Jacob was chosen, Mary was chosen, and Saul was chosen. Even the timeline within Christianity was chosen, already laid out at the foundation of the world.
Believe me I do understand the concept of election and predestination. If all of those people were chosen, why wouldn't we be chosen, hardened, or blinded?

Now here is this guy, let's called Artful, and he wants to make the leap to a full fledged 100% , five points, reformed believer. Just answer a few of his simple questions about your beliefs.

edited; It would be wrong to say that I want to make that leap. What I really want is the truth. I want to be lead where the Spirit of Truth leads me.

Realize too that not all of the beliefs of the Reformed are rejected by other faiths. Many believe God knew who would be saved from the foundation. Many believe in effectual calling. We might be closer than you think in our beliefs.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 10, 2015)

Simple question;
Is the Elect ever condemned? Is there any way for an elected person to die before his effective calling, New Birth, regeneration, and/or justification?
What does the dwelling of the Holy Spirit give an elected person that he didn't already have? I guess God would never take an elects life or Jesus won't return until all of the elect are regenerated. If this is so where is the condemnation?
It's like an elected person never had to fear God's wrath.

edited; but then again, if God foreknew who would come to him by their own free will, what's the difference? Where was their condemnation? Wouldn't God also keep these people alive until their effectual calling. I understand why people believe in Election.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 10, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Art.I never thought I'd say this but I have to give up on you.The more I try to simplify something, the more you complicate it.I don't have what it takes to make you understand what I'm trying to relate.I've never run into someone like you.Maybe some of the more patient brothers here can untangle the mess for you.Or, better yet, maybe the Spirit of truth will reveal it to you.God bless you.



Before you go did the boy in your example have the free will to make a choice to stay with God given his general revelation?
I understand he hasn't been regenerated yet which could take away his ability to resist god's grace. He hasn't received his effectual calling which would remove his ability to fall. So can he make a decision to trade the truth for a lie and worship idols?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 10, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> That would have been John Eubanks, a great American and a professional tree climber, would have been a conservationalist if he were here today. " Knock Him Out John"!



Wasn't he the host of "The Dating Game?"

Election would make "I gave my life to Jesus" or "I became a Christian" useless sayings. They would say "God gave my life to him" and "I was born a not yet reborn, regenerated, pre-elected, never condemned  Christian."


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 10, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Wasn't he the host of "The Dating Game?"
> 
> Election would make "I gave my life to Jesus" or "I became a Christian" useless sayings. They would say "God gave my life to him" and "I was born a not yet reborn, regenerated, pre-elected, never condemned  Christian."



No sir, I think you're thinking of Bob Eubanks, and the newly wed game show.

I don't get it Art. I know Salvation is of the Lord, but I also feel we all have hope.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 10, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> No sir, I think you're thinking of Bob Eubanks, and the newly wed game show.
> 
> I don't get it Art. I know Salvation is of the Lord, but I also feel we all have hope.



I don't get it either and I too have hope for all.. In Romans 1 this group chose to ignore God and worship idols. This angered God and he gave them over to a reprobate mind.
Now if they didn't have a choice, why did God expect them to worship Him? I could probably read on and Paul would mention some predestination stuff. I've already posted how God chose all of those people in the Bible. How do you justify free will and having a choice if none of those I mentioned  didn't? If we don't have a choice then how can God? If God has already elected or used his foreknowledge to know who will come to him, how then can God change anything now? If God is limited by his foreknowledge, then he has no free will either.

The bible goes back and forth even in one passage between free will and election. Just look at my "Gentile branches cut off." It goes back and forth between free will & election and eternal salvation & branches being cut off.
In that passage the reprobates sought knowledge in ernest.They couldn't obtain it. Their eyes were blinded. The elect could see it clearly. In the end it didn't matter as they were all elected.
Then Paul switches back to free will, he want the people of Israel to be jealous of what the Gentiles have. I guess he forgot God had just given them a spirit of stupor.
Later Paul says the Jewish branches were broken off because of their unbelief, but earlier he said it was because they were blinded. Of course they wouldn't believe they were blinded.

I'm not seeing the free will side any plainer so I hope the Reformers don't think I am picking on them. 

I just get tired of the Reformers, Preterists, and the eternal punishment crowd getting to interject their beliefs within every thread if I'm not given the same opportunity.
Well I am given the opportunity so I don't see why they get so riled up.
But then again when something is as clear as a bell as your Preterist views are to you or my Christian Unitarian views are to me, I can see why it's easy to do.
Sometimes I'm about as wishy washy as Paul was. He was always torn. Always questioning. Always seeking. 
And he was a prophet!


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 10, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> No sir, I think you're thinking of Bob Eubanks, and the newly wed game show.
> 
> I don't get it Art. I know Salvation is of the Lord, but I also feel we all have hope.



What is your hope for all the people who only know God by his general revelation? The people who haven't heard the gospel or just happened to have grown up in the wrong country under a false religion? 
Election will reach more of them than we will. Just think of God being able to open their eyes. They have more hope in God saving them than us. Salvation is of the Lord.

Yet they are without excuse. That is just so weird to me. I hope God hasn't given all of the Atheists and people of other religions a reprobate mind. Yet they do know God by his creation. They have exchanged the truth for a lie.
Maybe Romans 1 isn't even about them at all. It might have been a group of Romans who had been in the Church. 
Maybe they were worshiping God and switched to idols and this angered God. They would have been without excuse. Except the excuse of Eternal Salvation.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 10, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I don't get it either and I too have hope for all.. In Romans 1 this group chose to ignore God and worship idols. This angered God and he gave them over to a reprobate mind.
> Now if they didn't have a choice, why did God expect them to worship Him? I could probably read on and Paul would mention some predestination stuff. I've already posted how God chose all of those people in the Bible. How do you justify free will and having a choice if none of those I mentioned  didn't? If we don't have a choice then how can God? If God has already elected or used his foreknowledge to know who will come to him, how then can God change anything now? If God is limited by his foreknowledge, then he has no free will either.
> 
> The bible goes back and forth even in one passage between free will and election. Just look at my "Gentile branches cut off." It goes back and forth between free will & election and eternal salvation & branches being cut off.
> ...



Thanks for confirming what I have been thinking for a long time.
***You've been pulling everybodies chain for over 3 1/2 years.***


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 10, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> Thanks for confirming what I have been thinking for a long time.
> ***You've been pulling everybodies chain for over 3 1/2 years.***



And to think, I didn't have a choice! How long have you had this conviction?
Why have you continued to help me with responses? Were you just pulling my chain? I wish you would have shown me the error of my ways whenever you were first convicted and given me a chance to at least talk about it. I feel like you at least owed me that much.

With all of the sincere bearing of my heart to you, this is all you believe? With all of my soul searching and being on a religious roller coaster for 3 1/2 years as I seek the truth, all you see is a chain puller? 
All of this because I challenged your beliefs about the group in Romans 1? All of this because I can't commit to predestination or free will? Because I don't have the faith to pick and choose beliefs as easy as you? Because I change my beliefs and question my beliefs yet you are secure in yours? 
Wow, you have placed me in a box. I 'm glad I was only seeking help from you and not judgement.
Please place me one your ignore list if you need to. 

To the others please don't follow me as any type of leader. I'm as mixed up as Hogans' goat. Just use me to "test the spirits" I'd hate for anyone to follow my beliefs as I could be very wrong. I was asked to always speak from my heart and that is what I do. I'm not very good at sticking to the way "man" has indoctrinated me. Yet the enigma is I am seeking help from men. I thought this was the idea of this forum. I'm seeking the truth. I'm not here to dispel the beliefs of others. They could be right and I could be very wrong.

Perhaps my eyes haven't been opened and my seeking is in earnest. I'm honestly trying to see and I haven't been trying to pull everyone's chain. 
I could see where it might come across that way  since I haven't committed to a certain indoctrination. I might appear to pull "everyone's" chain because I'm always testing the spirits. 
Today I pulled the chains of the predestination believers and the free will believers. It wasn't done in that vain but if y'all took it that way, I apologize.

I guess after 3 1/2 years if I haven't figured it out, maybe I never will. I do thank each and every one of y'all who have helped me in my spiritual journey. I wish I could understand as easy as y'all. How do you commit to certain beliefs when the scripture says it is a mystery? Why do some of you never change your beliefs and some of you do change your beliefs? Why didn't you have the faith to stay with what you previously believed? Why did the Holy Spirit lead you one way and then the other?  

You know in relation to Romans 1, I sincerely believe that this group was a part of God that somehow exchanged God for idols. I don't really know how to accept that realization. I can assure you that my questioning it is my dilemma and not done for chain pulling reasons. My final answer will be between me and God.

I wish the Spirit would tell me to shut up. I wish I could see everything as clear as everyone on this forum does. It must give peace of mind. Maybe I'm seeking with my flesh and need to seek with my spirit. But then this doesn't explain all of the different beliefs. It doesn't explain how the Holy Spirit can lead us all on different paths of understanding. Different boxes if you will.

I've even thought I may be a "vessel of wrath" sent here by God to get you all to test your spirit. To help you make sure your spirit is in unity with God's spirit. I pray that if this is so and that there is no hope for me, that God will have mercy on each and every one of you. I do understand that all of us won't be elected so if not me then I do have hope for all of you.


----------



## gemcgrew (Aug 10, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Sometimes I'm about as wishy washy as Paul was. He was always torn. Always questioning. Always seeking.
> And he was a prophet!


Paul explains why you would think this way.


----------



## gemcgrew (Aug 10, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> All of this because I challenged your beliefs about the group in Romans 1?


I haven't seen it as a challenge at all. I do believe that you are attributing different meanings to words though.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 10, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> I don't know what got into you lately, Art.  Your on a good roll. I like that. I like it alot.  I think you were predestined to be a real fine air conditioner. It is  real good to wake up to your ideas this morning.  I like them alot.



Thanks, I needed some assurance, peace, and hope.
Brotherly love is wonderful. Your kind words will help me sleep with tranquility.

Unless the Spaghetti sauce overrules!


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 10, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> I haven't seen it as a challenge at all. I do believe that you are attributing different meanings to words though.



Because I'm showing a group that doesn't easily fit into the box of reprobate or elect.

I'm showing a group that might have lost their salvation.
I'm showing a group that knew God and was expected to worship God. I'm showing a group that chose to worship idols by their own accord. I'm showing  an account of what God did when they did this. I'm showing an angry God whose wrath is bestowed on the group for their change of worship from Him to idols. I'm showing a group that God turned over to a reprobate mind. This could challenge the Reformer's belief that this was a reprobate. It challenged my belief in eternal salvation. I would much rather believe the group were reprobates than the elect or potential elect. I'd hate to believe God gave up on them. I'd like to believe they still have hope. That God just hasn't regenerated them yet. That he has just temporarily turned them over to a reprobate mind. I'd like to bleieve he didn't do it our of anger. That it was a part of his master plan. I do have hope that we will all be saved. I do know that this is impossible. 
It's as big a challenge for me as it is for everyone else if we are all willing to see it as a challenge and learn exactly who this group is.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 10, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I wish you would have shown me the error of my ways whenever you were first convicted and given me a chance to at least talk about it. I feel like you at least owed me that much.



I tried, you didn't hear.



> All of this because I challenged your beliefs about the group in Romans 1? All of this because I can't commit to predestination or free will? Because I don't have the faith to pick and choose beliefs as easy as you? Because I change my beliefs and question my beliefs yet you are secure in yours? Wow, you have placed me in a box. I 'm glad I was only seeking help from you and not judgement.
> Please place me one your ignore list if you need to.



Point by point, you could not possibly be more wrong.



> I might appear to pull "everyone's" chain because I'm always testing the spirits.



Asking questions of others, that you haven’t taken time to give serious personal consideration, is not testing the spirits.  Asking questions that you know very well are not really questions is not testing the spirits, its inconsiderate.  Asking questions just to see if someone will say what you think they will say, isn’t testing the spirits, its disrespectful.  Praying, studying, working to suppress ego, working to open your soul to God though the Spirit; that is testing the spirit.  At least that what I think it is. 



> Maybe I'm seeking with my flesh and need to seek with my spirit.



How many times have you been told that?  Have you taken a month to try it?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 11, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> Asking questions of others, that you haven’t taken time to give serious personal consideration, is not testing the spirits.  Asking questions that you know very well are not really questions is not testing the spirits, its inconsiderate.  Asking questions just to see if someone will say what you think they will say, isn’t testing the spirits, its disrespectful.  Praying, studying, working to suppress ego, working to open your soul to God though the Spirit; that is testing the spirit.  At least that what I think it is.
> 
> How many times have you been told that?  Have you taken a month to try it?



Thanks for your response. I'll try to see what my motives are and consider your points. Maybe I've stepped on a few toes. Maybe my ego has me just trying to prove myself right by proving others wrong. 
I will pray for more conviction. I'd love to have the conviction you and others have on knowing you are right.
I'm always afraid I'm not following the correct path to the "Light." 
Maybe I'll just have to make myself choose free will and one's ability to fall away. 

I'm going to work at seeing my responses as you or the other members see them and as to my reasons for posting. It could be I need to become a more humble person. I think one of my problems is I don't see everything as black and white. I don't see everyone as either a depraved reprobate or an elected person. I see God having mercy on whom he will have mercy. I see each person's relationship between that person and God. Meaning what may qualify me for salvation might not qualify others.
God might expect more out of a reprobate who has been raised in Christian Church/nation like Rome  than a reprobate raised in a Hindu Church/nation like India.
Maybe all of us have a different general revelation and God expects different levels of praise and glory depending on this level of general revelation. That none of us are totally depraved. That even a little knowledge gives us the responsibility to worship God. The Romans had such knowledge. Hindu's, I'm not sure about. I'm sure God knows who does and this is what he bases his expectations on.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 11, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Paul explains why you would think this way.



“Conflict Between Spirit And Flesh"


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 11, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Maybe I'll just have to make myself choose ...



It is my opinion that “making yourself choose” will insure failure.  Is not the goal to see God’s revelation of Himself?  Only God can show that, no man can.


----------



## gemcgrew (Aug 11, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm sure God knows who does and this is what he bases his expectations on.


Expectations?

"God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom".


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 11, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Expectations?
> 
> "God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom".



"The preaching of salvation for lost sinners by the sufferings and death of the Son of God, if explained and faithfully applied, appears foolishness to those in the way to destruction."

Yet the group in Romans knew God. "They" knew God. God expected "them" to worship him. In fact he "demanded" them to worship him."They" chose idols. God became angry and turned them over to a reprobate mind. "They" didn't already have a reprobate mind as "they" knew the truth and exchanged the truth for a lie.

Let me see if I get this; Lost sinners are expected and demanded to worship God yet the salvation part of this worship is foolish to them. They are suppose to worship God, and somewhere within this worship, God may or may not enlighten them about his Son. Even without this enlightenment, "they" are still required to worship God.
I'm afraid I'd have a hard time worshiping a God that required me to worship Him without offering me the "eyes" to see his Son. If his son was the only way to salvation.

Or, maybe the group isn't lost sinners. Either way, they knew God and God expected them to worship him.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 11, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Expectations?
> 
> "God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never know him through human wisdom".



Hello Gem, I've asked this and haven't received an answer;
If one is elected at the foundation of the world, what condemnation are they under from the time of their physical birth and their spiritual birth? 
If you were never under the wrath of God as far as ever going to He!!, was your condemnation only earthly?

This question could be answered by others who believe that, although God didn't elect us, he knew which ones of us would eventually come to him.

I'm not trying to pull your chain. If I don't understand it because it's just foolishness in my eyes, I'll accept that answer too.

I'm just trying to understand some basic concepts of the various avenues Christians take on their path to enlightenment.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 11, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Hello Gem, I've asked this and haven't received an answer;
> If one is elected at the foundation of the world, what condemnation are they under from the time of their physical birth and their spiritual birth?
> If you were never under the wrath of God as far as ever going to He!!, was your condemnation only earthly?
> 
> ...



Please excuse my intrusion.

As to basic concepts.

John 6:
 37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

Does not the promise make the questioned conditions insignificant?  One could say “a matter of faith”.


----------



## gemcgrew (Aug 12, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Hello Gem, I've asked this and haven't received an answer;
> If one is elected at the foundation of the world, what condemnation are they under from the time of their physical birth and their spiritual birth?


God's condemnation. 


Artfuldodger said:


> If you were never under the wrath of God as far as ever going to He!!, was your condemnation only earthly?


No. See Ephesians 2.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 12, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> Please excuse my intrusion.
> 
> As to basic concepts.
> 
> ...



No intrusion, when I question things it is because perhaps my eyes haven't been opened. The promise makes the question insignificant. You say "a matter of faith" which means "let the mystery be." 
Your answer to me is I'm asking questions from the flesh and not spirit, while your way out is God hasn't revealed that mystery or answer.

I am most certain that all that God gives Jesus will be raise up. My question is when were they condemned. You answer was "don't ask." 
I agree that at some point even the ones who have eyes to see must let the mystery be and rely on faith.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 12, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> God's condemnation.
> 
> No. See Ephesians 2.



God elected you at the foundation of the world and then condemned you after this election. I'm sure we'll have to let that mystery be. There was a time when not even the Elect had hope or the dwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Ephesians 2:12-13
remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

There was a time when none of the Gentiles had any hope but now they are Citizens of Israel. No it's not that little group over in the middle east. But then again that's another mystery that we shouldn't question.

Every question truly is insignificant.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 12, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> No intrusion, when I question things it is because perhaps my eyes haven't been opened. The promise makes the question insignificant. You say "a matter of faith" which means "let the mystery be."
> Your answer to me is I'm asking questions from the flesh and not spirit, while your way out is God hasn't revealed that mystery or answer.
> 
> I am most certain that all that God gives Jesus will be raise up. My question is when were they condemned. You answer was "don't ask."
> I agree that at some point even the ones who have eyes to see must let the mystery be and rely on faith.



I look at more like this:







and we should listen if that is what God is saying.

edit: Wait a minute, I may be confused.  When you say "My question is when were they condemned?" are you referring to the elect.  If so, what is your basis for the condemned elect.  Your route to that question would make a difference.


----------



## gemcgrew (Aug 12, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> God elected you at the foundation of the world and then condemned you after this election. I'm sure we'll have to let that mystery be.


There is no mystery in that which is revealed. I died in Christ and arose in Christ! Now, “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.” 
There is no more condemnation. Christ is the purpose. He is not the cause of God's love for me, but the result of it.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 12, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> I look at more like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually I asked this of all "faiths," Reformed, Catholics, Protestants, Free Will believers, Election believers, and Predestination believers and your beliefs are appreciated.

If the elect are chosen by God at the foundation of the world or God uses his foreknowledge to know who will accept his way to salvation through his Son Jesus, how is it possible for this group, to ever actually be in a state of condemnation?

I guess I could ask it this way? What would happen to a pre-Christian or an Elected pre-Christian if he died a physical death before he was born again and regenerated? Before he had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? If he is somehow under God's protection until God regenerates him then he was never lost, never condemned.

Maybe this way; If elected at the foundation of the world then wouldn't this person/soul/spirit be one of God's children at birth or possibly even before birth? If so is he born into a period of condemnation where he is separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship, and a foreigner to the covenant of the promise, without hope and without God?

I understand why a preacher wouldn't want to stand up before his congregation and say  "why not tonight, tomorrow might be too late" if God is going to offer divine protection of the elect.
I don't understand how the elect is ever under any condemnation between his physical birth and his spiritual birth.

I can handle the truth but if all of this is a mystery and should be left alone then I'm OK with that answer but where do we draw the line in our journey for the truth?
If the promise makes the question's conditions insignificant then at some point  we do have to rely on faith. 
I have the faith to let the mystery be but don't accuse me of being blind if I don't understand. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 12, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> There is no mystery in that which is revealed. I died in Christ and arose in Christ! Now, “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.”
> There is no more condemnation. Christ is the purpose. He is not the cause of God's love for me, but the result of it.



I understand there is no more condemnation when you died in Christ and arose in Christ. I'm asking about your time on the earth before you died in Christ and arose in Christ.
In the period before the Holy Spirit's indwelling in you, were you born into a period of condemnation where you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship, and a foreigner to the covenant of the promise, without hope and without God?


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 12, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> If the elect are chosen by God at the foundation of the world or God uses his foreknowledge to know who will accept his way to salvation through his Son Jesus, how is it possible for this group, to ever actually be in a state of condemnation?



That's the premise that I ask you to justify.
You have made several statements based on the FACT that that those "chosen at/before the foundation ..." are condemned.  Please support that premise.

Art, please stay on point.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 12, 2015)

Starting at post #156, I asked Gem if one is elected at the foundation of the world, what condemnation are they under from the time of their physical birth and their spiritual birth? 
His answer in post #158 was, God's condemnation. Do you agree?

I also asked him, If you were never under the wrath of God as far as ever going to He!!, was your condemnation only earthly?
His answer was, No, See Ephesians 2. Do you agree?

I'm asking if those elected at the foundation of the world were condemned between their physical birth and their spiritual birth?
In relation to Ephesians 2 were you ever separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship, and a foreigner to the covenant of the promise, without hope and without God?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 12, 2015)

We don't have to continue if it's a mystery that hasn't been revealed. We could just rely on faith.
I've about decided that's what we need to do about that group in Romans who were required to worship God with only a general revelation. Even before they were elected into salvation. That's another one I haven't figured out; a God that requires someone to worship him even though he hasn't opened his eyes for salvation. I'd think God would elect him for salvation and then require that person to worship him. Not the other way around.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 12, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Starting at post #156, I asked Gem if one is elected at the foundation of the world, what condemnation are they under from the time of their physical birth and their spiritual birth?
> His answer in post #158 was, God's condemnation. Do you agree?
> 
> I also asked him, If you were never under the wrath of God as far as ever going to He!!, was your condemnation only earthly?
> ...



Aha!
I understood Gem's responses differently.

I don't see a national association with God (not a respecter of persons).

Best I get out-a-here for a while.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 12, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> We don't have to continue if it's a mystery that hasn't been revealed. We could just rely on faith.
> I've about decided that's what we need to do about that group in Romans who were required to worship God with only a general revelation. Even before they were elected into salvation. That's another one I haven't figured out; a God that requires someone to worship him even though he hasn't opened his eyes for salvation. I'd think God would elect him for salvation and then require that person to worship him. Not the other way around.



Candidly, you are not going to get over Rm 1 until you can get over your misunderstanding of "exchanged".  It's blocking the real issue.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 12, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> Candidly, you are not going to get over Rm 1 until you can get over your misunderstanding of "exchanged".  It's blocking the real issue.



OK, I'm willing to look at it that they didn't exchange or change their worship. Some interpretations use "instead."

Let's go with that. For although they knew God they didn't glorify and praise God. "Instead" they worshiped idols.
They never worshiped God. They actually never worshiped anything until one day they thought themselves wise and instead of worshiping God, worshiped idols. 

They exchanged the truth for a lie. Sorry, they traded the truth for a lie. God abandoned them or gave them up to their evil ways. Even their women exchanged, sorry traded or turned from what was natural to unnatural.

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a reprobate mind.

My questions still stand. Did God expect this group to worship him even though he hadn't elected them?
Does God require reprobates to worship him with his General Revelation although he doesn't offer them salvation until he gives them a Special Revelation?

I don't understand God requiring this. Why would God open their eyes to just a little revelation and expect people to worship him? How could a totally depraved reprobate do this or does depravity only blind one from the special revelation? Scripturally  what is God's plan for expecting reprobates to worship him if he isn't going to ever give them a Special Revelation?
                                                                                                                                     To the group of reprobates in Romans, God only became angry when they didn't worship him and "instead" worshiped idols. How was it possible for God to give reprobates a reprobate mind? 

If I'm looking at this from a Reformed prospective God expects totally depraved reprobates to worship him with their General Revelation with partially opened eyes and God may or may not grant them salvation through opening their eyes to a Special Revelation.
God expects some reprobates, such as the group in Romans, to worship him first and then he might grant them salvation. At other times God elects and grants salvation to totally depraved Atheists, Hindus, and false God worshipers.

The bottom line is, I can see God expecting us to worship Him if he "is" going to grant us salvation. If he isn't then I don't see his point in expecting us to worship him. Why would God abandon someone before ever giving them a chance to acquire salvation or electing them to salvation? 
That would make God a respecter of men.
Worshiping God with no eyes to see his salvation plan is hard to be expected. His salvation plan is a major part of why we worship him.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 12, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> Aha!
> I understood Gem's responses differently.
> 
> I don't see a national association with God (not a respecter of persons).
> ...



We don't have to look at it as a national association and I don't believe that is why Gem wanted me to look at Ephesians.

Our time on earth from physical birth to spiritual birth as a child of God before regeneration is a mystery.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 12, 2015)

Art, I am really sorry.  After trying to read your post, for about 12 or 15 minutes, I'm only about 2/3rds of the way through.  Imagine me working my way down a road in my old Dakota and, every 50' or so, I have to hook up to a Jersey Barrier and pull it out of the way.  That's what happens mentally every time I read that God expects something.  I just can't find a way to think of omniscient God expecting something.

I'll give it another shot in a little bit.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 12, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Scripturally  what is God's plan for expecting reprobates to worship him if he isn't going to ever give them a Special Revelation?                                                                                          Worshiping God with no eyes to see his salvation plan is hard to be expected.



God is their sovereign creator.That is the bottom line.That is THE reason.If you can't understand that concept,it's a clear indication that you don't understand His sovereignty.

If that is hard for you,then this will blow your mind:

Rev.13:8
" And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 12, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> Art, I am really sorry.  After trying to read your post, for about 12 or 15 minutes, I'm only about 2/3rds of the way through.  Imagine me working my way down a road in my old Dakota and, every 50' or so, I have to hook up to a Jersey Barrier and pull it out of the way.  That's what happens mentally every time I read that God expects something.  I just can't find a way to think of omniscient God expecting something.
> 
> I'll give it another shot in a little bit.



Change it to God "makes" instead of "expects" and see if that helps. Since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has "made" it plain to them. So they have no excuse for not knowing God. The sovereign, omnipotent God "made" it where they could not worship or praise him. 
The sovereign God "made" them think up foolish ideas of what God was like. God made them profess to be wise, then made them fools. 
"Instead" of making them worship Him, God blinded them and made them worship idols. They had no excuse even with this blinding. 
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of "their" hearts. Hearts that had been hardened to make them do this. The omnipotent God made them "trade" the truth that he gave them about himself for a lie.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.

Furthermore, just as "they" did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, because God blinded them, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.
(I must say that I understood God's sovereignty until this.
Because "they" didn't have a free will choice.)

Then "they" do a bunch of terrible evil things.

Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Wow, they knew better. These totally depraved, turned over to a depraved mined, doubly depraved, reprobates knew better.They knew the judgement of God.
"They" had pleasure in watching others do these evil deeds. They approved of the others doing these evil deeds.

We're not talking about your normal "run of the mill" sinner here. We are talking about a reprobate who not only knows the truth but exchanged the truth for a lie. Who not only didn't worship God, he thought himself wise enough, although foolish, to worship idols.
This reprobate received pleasure from others doing evil deeds. He encouraged others to do evil deeds. Can you imagine God making you so depraved that you have pleasure in watching other people perform evil deeds and then punishing you for this "pleasure."

Wow, that is one terrible, evil, sick, group of individuals.

All of that presented by Paul to show us that we are just like them if we judge others.  OK, my judging is over.
I can't even imagine such a terrible bunch of sick weirdos.

I can't imagine, even a sovereign God, having any part of making them what they became except giving them over to what they had already became.

I guess it is a dumb question if God made them do all of that and didn't expect them to worship Him.

I've always and still believe that this sovereign God expects us to worship him. He doesn't make us.
I've never thought this omnipotent God made people worship idols. Especially people who knew God and exchange this truth for a lie.
I think they knew better and just did it because they wanted to. They themselves thought they were wise.
They themselves chose to worship idols. They themselves knew what God's judgement would be but instead of stopping their evil ways, they encouraged others to do evil deeds. 
This turn of events, sorry, chain of events starting at idol worship, is why God gave them over to a depraved mind.
They surely were "without excuse."


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 12, 2015)

Art, I know that your efforts should be better respected, but I only read the first paragraph and a sentence here and there.  I just wonder this: do you have a developed system of worshiping man and self, or is it more of a free form thing.

What I read was clearly rooted in the idea that if God would just leave men alone they would do ok for themselves.  But there is this irresistably powerful god who makes men do his will, so men have to figure out how to deal with it.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 12, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> Art, I know that your efforts should be better respected, but I only read the first paragraph and a sentence here and there.  I just wonder this: do you have a developed system of worshiping man and self, or is it more of a free form thing.
> 
> What I read was clearly rooted in the idea that if God would just leave men alone they would do ok for themselves.  But there is this irresistably powerful god who makes men do his will, so men have to figure out how to deal with it.



I tried to present Romans 1 through my preconceived notion of what you see.  Changing words from "exchanging" to "instead" and "expecting" to "making."
Seeing through the eyes of a Reformist. I guess I didn't do a very good job. I don't even know if I had the free will to attempt it.

Although I don't worship man or self, I feel God expects, and desires us to worship him. I truly feel we have some free will and responsibility. I truly believe the group in Romans had choices and received the actions of God based on their free will choices.

I do agree that I am trying to "deal" with how an all powerful omniscient God can give us choices. Especially after seeing all of the individuals elected in the Bible; Adam, Seth, Noah, Moses, Jacob, Abraham, David, Mary, and a host of others. That and the fact that I also have to "deal" with all of the hardening of hearts and blinding by God to make his plan materialize.

I'm admitting that this is hard. I've read all of the verses about predestination and election. I truly can see why you believe what you believe. I'm not that blind. I understand why you believe what you do.

That being said, you don't give me the same respect or what ever you want to call it to believe in free will. You are also in the same boat as I as you try to "deal" with scriptures where God does give people choices and consequences for their actions. What you call a revelation about election, I call indoctrination of your Church as the way they believe an understand Scripture. I'm not knocking your Faith as I understand why your Faith believes what they believe. 

You can't see how I see the group in Romans as your eyes are blinded from seeing my views. I on the other hand can see my views and your views. You can't see how or why I'm trying to understand an elect's state from his physical birth to his spiritual birth because you are blinded by your beliefs. You say it's an unrevealed mystery.
I'm willing to look into the mystery and try to understand.
You think my motives are either foolishness or pride in delving into this line of questioning.
Yet I'm the one who is blinded and you are the one who has revelation.

Again this is just the way I see all of this going down within this discussion. I respect your beliefs and for trying to help me understand. I do agree that trying to figure free will into the Kingdom of an omnipresent God is more of a challenge for man than accepting that this omnipresent God is controlling everything. Your way is easier and I wish that I believe as you.
Perhaps my free will makes me choose a free will belief system. If not then I truly am blind. If this is the case then this blindness is truly from God.
I don't particularly look at free will as a form of self and man worship although I do see why one such as your self can. 
Even though I may be blind, I have been enlightened to see both free will and predestination. I agree I don't understand that mystery.


----------



## gemcgrew (Aug 13, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Does God require reprobates to worship him with his General Revelation although he doesn't offer them salvation until he gives them a Special Revelation?


"General revelation" condemns only. Reprobates are never given "Special revelation".


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 13, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> "General revelation" condemns only. Reprobates are never given "Special revelation".



Why are reprobates made to worship God through the knowledge God gives them through a General revelation if it condemns only? If they are never given a Special revelation why does God make them worship him?

In relation to the Elect before his effectual calling, what is his status concerning General Revelation? What is a good term to call a totally depraved Elect person before his regeneration as opposed to reprobate?

I'm trying to get a better understanding of the person elected at the foundation of the world in regards to his time on the earth between his physical birth and spiritual birth. Especially as it concerns his state of condemnation or separation from God as he doesn't yet have the Holy Spirit. 
Before he died in Christ and arose in Christ. Before he was washed in the blood?
Was he equal in God's wrath and condemnation?

Romans 3:11-12
11there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. 12All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."

What is it then that a General Revelation offers the reprobate or the pre-regenerated elect? According to Romans 3:11-12, I can't see anyone having enough of an understanding to seek God. I don't understand why God makes or expects reprobates or the pre-regenerated elect to worship him through a General revelation. Not even the pre-regenerated elect understand. He doesn't even seek God. How can he worship God?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 13, 2015)

Ephesians 1:4
Even before he made the world, God loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in his eyes.

Romans 8:29-30
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.
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.

I see no condemnation or separation from God between the elect's physical birth and their spiritual birth.
The elect were always holy and without fault.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 13, 2015)

I don't understand how the lost sinner can repent and believe the truth. That somehow he isn't depraved enough to do this.
That this repentance grants the lost sinner peace and lightens his burdens while on earth but it doesn't offer him salvation.
His repentance from knowledge through his General revelation  only offers him protection from earthly condemnation.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 13, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I call indoctrination of your Church as the way they believe an understand Scripture.


I understand your assumption, men think of themselves as the only truly independent thinker, but it occurs to me that it might help our communication if you knew that I have never belonged to any group, or attended any formal or informal instruction, that would be considered reformed by those who assign such labels.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 13, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> I understand your assumption, men think of themselves as the only truly independent thinker, but it occurs to me that it might help our communication if you knew that I have never belonged to any group, or attended any formal or informal instruction, that would be considered reformed by those who assign such labels.



Yes that does help and I apologize for my assumption.
I was raised the Southern Baptist persuasion but no longer adhere to "man's" creeds and statements of faith as a group.
I find it very hard to not be influenced by others. I wonder what my beliefs would be if I was raised on a deserted island. Also I wonder if those beliefs would change if I found a Bible and read it with no indoctrination or preconceived notions.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 13, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I wonder what my beliefs would be if I was raised on a deserted island.



But you weren't, and that was God's call, not yours.

I didn't decide to spend 27 years in the world after He called me, God put me there.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 13, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> But you weren't, and that was God's call, not yours.
> 
> I didn't decide to spend 27 years in the world after He called me, God put me there.



Then I would assume your answer is that I shouldn't ponder such foolishness.
My response would be how can I not without free will?

Then we are back to why God became angry at the group in Romans who wouldn't worship him. 
The answer is, they couldn't. They didn't have a choice. They had to worship idols. 
I don't know, it still sounds like God is blaming them instead of making them. Mainly it sounds like God is blaming them for trading the truth for a lie. I've read this chapter over and over wearing various types of glasses and with no glasses and it still appears that God if giving them a choice to choose him or idols. Choose the truth or a lie. That even with this knowledge from God almighty they chose idols. They themselves thought they were wise. Because they had this knowledge from God and didn't follow the truth, they were without excuse.

I guess unless I have a new divine revelation from God, this is how I'll continue to see it. This is how the Holy 
Spirit has revealed it to me. He hasn't decided to make me change my beliefs about it with a new revelation.


----------



## gemcgrew (Aug 13, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Why are reprobates made to worship God through the knowledge God gives them through a General revelation if it condemns only?
> If they are never given a Special revelation why does God make them worship him?


A reprobate can not worship God "in spirit and in truth". True worship is spiritual and carnal worship is idolatry.


Artfuldodger said:


> In relation to the Elect before his effectual calling, what is his status concerning General Revelation?


It shuts him up to himself.


Artfuldodger said:


> What is a good term to call a totally depraved Elect person before his regeneration as opposed to reprobate?


Elect.


Artfuldodger said:


> I'm trying to get a better understanding of the person elected at the foundation of the world in regards to his time on the earth between his physical birth and spiritual birth. Especially as it concerns his state of condemnation or separation from God as he doesn't yet have the Holy Spirit.
> Before he died in Christ and arose in Christ. Before he was washed in the blood?
> Was he equal in God's wrath and condemnation?


Art, as I previously mentioned, I am afraid that we are inferring different meaning of words. The elect(vessels of mercy, objects of God's love) are never reprobate(vessels of wrath). God's love for the elect is not something started in time. It is eternal, everlasting love.


----------



## gemcgrew (Aug 13, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> But you weren't, and that was God's call, not yours.
> 
> I didn't decide to spend 27 years in the world after He called me, God put me there.


Amen. I wouldn't change a thing, even if I could.


----------



## gemcgrew (Aug 13, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I don't understand how the lost sinner can repent and believe the truth.


God makes the sinner and God saves the sinner. God does this.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 13, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> The bottom line is, I can see God expecting us to worship Him if he "is" going to grant us salvation. If he isn't then I don't see his point in expecting us to worship him.



Rm 9:
20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God?




Artfuldodger said:


> I've always and still believe that this sovereign God expects us to worship him. He doesn't make us.
> I've never thought this omnipotent God made people worship idols.



Welder correctly introduced this idea earlier.
God doesn't make anybody do anything.  He creates everything.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 13, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> A reprobate can not worship God "in spirit and in truth". True worship is spiritual and carnal worship is idolatry.
> 
> It shuts him up to himself.
> 
> ...



Thanks that clears up a few things. I thought even the elect were lost until regeneration but that wouldn't make any sense. I thought there might have been a name for them while they were in the period before their indwelling of the Holy Spirit or that they would be in a different state before their regeneration. That perhaps they were somehow different before being born again. 

There also wouldn't be any need in telling reprobates to repent and worship Jesus.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 13, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> Rm 9:
> 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God?
> 
> Welder correctly introduced this idea earlier.
> God doesn't make anybody do anything.  He creates everything.



Please explain that difference between God making the group in Romans worship idols and creating them to worship idols. Doesn't the Potter make some vessels for dishonorable use? It would stand to reason in order to do this it is the same as making them worship idols. If he made the vessels for the purpose of dishonorable use, then he is in fact making them perform dishonorable use.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 13, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Please explain that difference between God making the group in Romans worship idols and creating them to worship idols.



That is best explained in terms more commonly used and understood by high level philosophers and logisticians, something of which I am incapable, but I’ll take a shot.

Those who are attempting to refute the sovereignty of God will most commonly build a case for natural man being “capable”, or some similar term, of acting in a way not in accordance with God’s will, as though men being able to imagine the possibility makes it real.  In fact, for natural man to exist requires that he came into existence, which is acknowledged by those arguing both sides of sovereignty, and its meaning, to be the result of God’s creation.  God being acknowledged as creator, it can not be denied that His will for that He has created will necessarily happen.  Now, that which could have happened (that which was speculated as possible) didn’t happen because it was not God’s will for His creation.  The only thing that necessarily happens is that which is in accordance with the will of the only necessary being, God (everything else being created by Him).

Does God make His creation act in any particular way.  No, that which happens is of necessity.  The other possibilities can not exist in the presence of necessity.

I just found a note that I made some time ago, it makes sense to me, I’ll post it just in case it does to anyone else.

“If God wills it, the consequence is necessary.
If man can imagine it not happening, the consequent is not necessary.”

Here’s another shot: He doesn’t have to make (force) them, He created them.

As you can see, the only way for anything to happen outside of God’s direct control is if He is not God.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 13, 2015)

Hope it's ok if I play with this a little



Artfuldodger said:


> Doesn't the Potter make some vessels for dishonorable use? It would stand to reason in order to do this it is the same as making them to worship idols. If he made the vessels for the purpose of dishonorable use, then he is in fact making them to perform dishonorable use for His purpose.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 13, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> That is best explained in terms more commonly used by high level philosophers and logisticians, something of which I am incapable, but I’ll take a shot.
> 
> Those who are attempting to refute the sovereignty of God will most commonly build a case for natural man being “capable”, or some similar term, of acting in a way not in accordance with God’s will, as though men being able to imagine the possibility makes it real.  In fact, for natural man to exist requires that he came into existence, which is acknowledged by those arguing both sides of sovereignty, and its meaning, to be the result of God’s creation.  God being acknowledged as creator, it can not be denied that His will for that He has created will necessarily happen.  Now, that which could have happened (that which was speculated as possible) didn’t happen because it was not God’s will for His creation.  The only thing that necessarily happens is that which is in accordance with the will of the only necessary being, God (everything else being created by Him).
> 
> ...



I understand where you are coming from in that God created so therefore he doesn't have to "make" them do anything. I thought about this last night saying I bet Hummer thinks I'm using "make" in the place of "force."
Naturally the Creator doesn't force his creation to do anything. He doesn't make them do anything by force but he does make them do things by design. 

I would disagree that his design/creation wouldn't have to act a certain way. They would indeed act in the exact way they were created. They couldn't act any other way as everything has already happened. It's predestined. Everything has to go down exactly as God has foreseen.
If God created men to worship idols then even the exact day they worship idols and even the exact idols they worship has already happened. They do indeed act as God designed them. God can't make a vessel of wrath and then let him act within the boundaries of a vessel of wrath. He would have to plan his every move and every action.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 13, 2015)

God would never make someone worship an idol.That would go against His own command to have no other gods before Him.He is not the author of sin, neither tempteth He any man.But every man sinneth when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 13, 2015)

welderguy said:


> God would never make someone worship an idol.That would go against His own command to have no other gods before Him.He is not the author of sin, neither tempteth He any man.But every man sinneth when he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed.



And yet He is sovereign of all that He created.  When God allows those things which are against His command, which we see many times in scripture, he does not do so unwillingly.  Being Holy, He does not allow those things except that, knowing all, it is assured that the ultimate result will be good.  The cross,  the Chaldeans overran Israel, Saul as king, etc.; therefore we "rejoice in tribulation" (Rm. 5:3).


----------



## welderguy (Aug 13, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> And yet He is sovereign of all that He created.  When God allows those things which are against His command, which we see many times in scripture, he does not do so unwillingly.  Being Holy, He does not allow those things except that, knowing all, it is assured that the ultimate result will be good.  The cross,  the Chaldeans overran Israel, Saul as king, etc.; therefore we "rejoice in tribulation" (Rm. 5:3).



Absolutely


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 13, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> And yet He is sovereign of all that He created.  When God allows those things which are against His command, which we see many times in scripture, he does not do so unwillingly.  Being Holy, He does not allow those things except that, knowing all, it is assured that the ultimate result will be good.  The cross,  the Chaldeans overran Israel, Saul as king, etc.; therefore we "rejoice in tribulation" (Rm. 5:3).



Are you saying the omnipotent sovereign God "allows" things to happen without causing them?
Did God only "allow" Adam to sin? Did God only allow Saul to become Paul? The all powerful creator only gets the credit for the good stuff but since he isn't allowed to do things unholy, he only "allows" things to happen.

This from the Creator who can create vessels of wrath. Again if God can create vessels of wrath the he knows exactly what they will do. Just as he doesn't make or force his creation as the creator he doesn't "allow" his creation to do anything. This would be God giving part of his creation, the vessels of wrath free will but not his vessels of honor.

God doesn't "allow" anything.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 13, 2015)

What happened here is who killed Jesus;

Acts 4:27
Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed.
28to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.

Why would one assume the Creator only allowed Adam to sin and only allowed Herod, Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles, and Israel to kill Jesus if this was God's plan as the Creator?

If vessels of wrath were only allowed to do what happens for necessity, things might not happen to accomplish God's plan.
God doesn't leave things to chance. God doesn't make his creation do anything. God doesn't allow his creation to do anything.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 6:51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.


I'm pretty sure Jesus did the will of his Father as does Satan.
Even Satan himself has no free will. Remember Job? He is part of God's plan and when God is ready to place him in the Lake of Fire, that's where he'll be.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 13, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Are you saying the omnipotent sovereign God "allows" things to happen without causing them?



No.

You've been around me long enough to know that I'm lazy.

I was trying to avoid another long drawn out discussion going all the way back to the created condition before the foundation ..... which would have to include "if He this then He that", "He could have this or that", "He wouldn't do thus-and-such" and all the rest of it, probably including having to refute the two wills of God idea, etc., etc., etc.; which I figured would take long enough for the creek water to start cooling and spookiest fish in the world (shallow water smallmouth) would be out feeding without me there to harass them.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 13, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> What happened here is who killed Jesus;
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



Hey, it's working so far.  Your doing the work.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 13, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> No.
> 
> You've been around me long enough to know that I'm lazy.
> 
> I was trying to avoid another long drawn out discussion going all the way back to the created condition before the foundation ..... which would have to include "if He this then He that", "He could have this or that", "He wouldn't do thus-and-such" and all the rest of it, probably including having to refute the two wills of God idea, etc., etc., etc.; which I figured would take long enough for the creek water to start cooling and spookiest fish in the world (shallow water smallmouth) would be out feeding without me there to harass them.



I'm glad that we got that straightened out. I was about to say we were gonna need Brother Gem to set us straight.

In your answer to Welderguy, you used the word "allow." 
I think Welderguy might be more inline with my beliefs that God only allows vessels of wrath to sin and evil things to happen. That deep down since God is Holy, he only allows earthquake destruction, Adam to fall, Jesus to die, cancer, etc.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 13, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Even Satan himself has no free will.



2 Timothy 2:26
" And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him AT HIS WILL."

care to explain this one?


----------



## welderguy (Aug 13, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I think Welderguy might be more inline with my beliefs that God only allows vessels of wrath to sin and evil things to happen./QUOTE]
> 
> I do not believe this.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 13, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> Hey, it's working so far.  Your doing the work.



Yes, sometimes when we try to prove our point, we actually prove the other person's point. I thought about that last night while thinking about God the creator "making" his creation do something and today thinking about God the creator "allowing" his creation to do something.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 13, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Artfuldodger said:
> 
> 
> > I think Welderguy might be more inline with my beliefs that God only allows vessels of wrath to sin and evil things to happen./QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 13, 2015)

welderguy said:


> 2 Timothy 2:26
> " And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him AT HIS WILL."
> 
> care to explain this one?



And that they may come to their senses [and] escape out of the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him, [henceforth] to do His [God’s] will.

or;
Then they might come back to their senses and God will free them from the devil’s snare so that they can do his will.

or;
 They may come to their senses and be rescued from the power of the devil by the servant of the Lord and set to work for God’s purposes.

or;
Then they will come to their senses and escape from Satan’s trap of slavery to sin, which he uses to catch them whenever he likes, and then they can begin doing the will of God.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 13, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> welderguy said:
> 
> 
> > I thought you said that since God is holy, he only allows vessels of wrath to do their evil deeds? Do vessels of wrath have within their confines the ability to do evil as they choose or is each individual evil deed they commit God's choice/design/creation?
> ...


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 13, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Artfuldodger said:
> 
> 
> > I quoted from James1:13-14 "Let no man say when he Iis tempted, I am tempted of God.For God cannot be tempted with evil neither tempteth He any man.For every man sinneth when he ia drawn away of his own lust.
> ...


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 13, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Artfuldodger said:
> 
> 
> > I quoted from James1:13-14 "Let no man say when he Iis tempted, I am tempted of God.For God cannot be tempted with evil neither tempteth He any man.For every man sinneth when he ia drawn away of his own lust.
> ...


----------



## gemcgrew (Aug 13, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I quoted from James1:13-14 "Let no man say when he Iis tempted, I am tempted of God.For God cannot be tempted with evil neither tempteth He any man.For every man sinneth when he ia drawn away of his own lust.
> 
> God is not the author of sin.


So God is not God? If I deny that God is the author of sin, I am denying his providence and sovereignty.

There is nothing wrong with God being the author of sin.

Welder, James 1:13-14 is not addressing the authorship of sin.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 13, 2015)

I don't want to get into anything like an in-depth conversation about whether God authors, brings about, causes, controls, creates, decrees, foreordains, incites, includes within his plan, makes happen, ordains, permits, plans, predestines, predetermines, produces, stands behind, or wills sin, because it can not seem to be anything but an issue of semantics rather than of theology.  Even those who have done nothing but study and discuss the issue for years of their lives find it difficult to focus on the issue at hand due to the diverse definitions of the words used (no mater the language used).

I got lucky on a google search and the first one up was a series of articles that show the problem.  While only lightly touching on the issue, and the portion of the subject book quotes extensively from only one classic theologian (Calvin), I would, nevertheless suggest that anyone desiring to proclaim their position on God's control of, or lack of control of, sin or evil carefully read the four articles.  It should be enough to scare anyone away from the idea that they know how to discuss the issue.

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/does-god-author-sin
(when an unrelated article comes up, just hit next)

If anyone thinks they might be serious about the issue of God and His relationship to sin or evil be prepared to dedicate your life to it.  That's why I use the simple "God's in control and He insures favorable results" explanation that I posted earlier (author, caused, allows being options only).  It works for me.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 13, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> So God is not God? If I deny that God is the author of sin, I am denying his providence and sovereignty.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with God being the author of sin.
> 
> Welder, James 1:13-14 is not addressing the authorship of sin.



I agree, James 1:13-14 does not address the origin of sin.

And there is nothing wrong with anything that God does, and He is sovereign over all of His creation and all that happens in it.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 14, 2015)

1John1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. 

 The only way anyone can claim God is the author of sin is to claim the law as evil or bad. Scripture tells us it is not the Law that was bad, but man.

 Sin is simply breaking Gods law. I stand strong on this that man has free will to author sin.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 14, 2015)

Yes.Man has choices to make each and every day.Thats one of the reasons He gave us this handbook for navigating through life called the bible.

Martha was cumbered about with much serving, but Jesus said Mary chose the better part.Just one example.

We are chastened for our bad choices also.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 14, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I wonder what my beliefs would be if I was raised on a deserted island.



If Art had free will he could have been born on that island.
Only God has a will that is free.

Yes, God has established all of those things which influenced me to type this.
And you or me imagining something different is just another spice in the soup.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 14, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> If Art had free will he could have been born on that island.
> Only God has a will that is free.
> 
> Yes, God has established all of those things which influenced me to type this.
> And you or me imagining something different is just another spice in the soup.



But,God does not make (force) you to sin, even though He knows you will.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 14, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> Welder correctly introduced this idea earlier.
> God doesn't make anybody do anything.  He creates everything.



Apparently I misunderstood you earlier.



welderguy said:


> But,God does not make (force) you to sin, even though He knows you will.



Of course not, God has no need to "force" anything.  He created everything, therefore it all satisfies His will.  He would only need to force something if He made a mistake in creating it.  Are you suggesting that He could have made a mistake?


----------



## gemcgrew (Aug 14, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> Of course not, God has no need to "force" anything.  He created everything, therefore it all satisfies His will.  He would only need to force something if He made a mistake in creating it.  Are you suggesting that He could have made a mistake?


I do not see where "force" is relevant to the conversation. To say that God has to force something is to imply that God does not control the resistance or reluctance.

Mind boggling.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 14, 2015)

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.


Whosoever will, is the final message to the church.
 The elect, was a group of people from two tribes of Israel becoming ( one house) in ( the wilderness) the 40 years between the two Covenants ad 30 to ad 70.

There's no longer a group known as the elect, the Gospel is for whosoever will.


----------



## gemcgrew (Aug 14, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> Whosoever will, is the final message to the church.
> ...


Unbelievable.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 14, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Unbelievable.



I call it , problem solved .


----------



## welderguy (Aug 14, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> Welder correctly introduced this idea earlier.
> God doesn't make anybody do anything.  He creates everything.



You definitely misunderstood apparently. Sorry I didn't catch it then.

Remember Balaam? He went intending to curse Israel, but God caused him to bless them instead.

When we say" God doesn't make anybody do anything", we are putting God in a little box that He doesn't belong in.He does whatever He wants, but He doesn't sin, nor does He directly make people sin.They do that on their own by giving in to their own lust and other temptations.

But, note this:
When we are tempted, we have a choice to sin or not.That is shown in 1 Cor.10:13


----------



## gemcgrew (Aug 14, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> I call it , problem solved .


I call it more than doctrinal error.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 14, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> I call it more than doctrinal error.



Then it should be very easy to point out. Prove that the term ( elect) is about a group of people outside of the years between the cross and 70 ad.


----------



## gemcgrew (Aug 14, 2015)

welderguy said:


> But, note this:
> When we are tempted, we have a choice to sin or not.That is shown in 1 Cor.10:13


What is shown is that you are forcing choice into the passage. Please back up and read verse 11 over and over again.


----------



## gemcgrew (Aug 14, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> Then it should be very easy to point out. Prove that the term ( elect) is about a group of people outside of the years between the cross and 70 ad.


Sorry Hobbs, I will not play.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 14, 2015)

welderguy said:


> You definitely misunderstood apparently. Sorry I didn't catch it then.



That I understand perfectly, I think I miss about 95%.




> Remember Balaam? He went intending to curse Israel, but God caused him to bless them instead.


I read Num. 22-24; I did not see Balaam’s intent to curse Israel.

I did see 22:34 Balaam said to the angel of the LORD, “I have sinned, for I did not know that you were standing in the way against me. Now then, if it is displeasing to you, I will turn back.”  I think the reason Balaam “did not know” is that God showed the angle to the donkey but not to Balaam.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 14, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> What is shown is that you are forcing choice into the passage. Please back up and read verse 11 over and over again.



God used their bad choices for our example.That's nothing new.The entire Old Testament is for our example.

Same as when I stole that pocket knife from the feed store.Daddy made an example of me to my brother.Daddy didn't make me take that knife, but he sure made sure of the end consequences.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 14, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> That I understand perfectly, I think I miss about 95%.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Num.23 KJV


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 14, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Num.23 KJV



OK, now I have read it four times in three translations; still no intent to curse.  What do you want me to do now?


----------



## welderguy (Aug 14, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> OK, now I have read it four times in three translations; still no intent to curse.  What do you want me to do now?



Vs.7 and 11 should help you.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 14, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Vs.7 and 11 should help you.



Sorry, no help.  Both express Balak's intent to curse.  11 even expresses Balaam's intent to speak whatever God tells him to speak.

Shall I do anything else?


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 14, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Sorry Hobbs, I will not play.



I don't blame you.


----------



## gemcgrew (Aug 14, 2015)

welderguy said:


> God used their bad choices for our example.That's nothing new.The entire Old Testament is for our example.


Welder, the passage does not address the topic of choice at all. You are inferring from it what you want. Even so, "Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come" would also include their choices.



welderguy said:


> Same as when I stole that pocket knife from the feed store.Daddy made an example of me to my brother.Daddy didn't make me take that knife, but he sure made sure of the end consequences.


Welder, God's control over creation is far greater than your "Daddy over you" analogy.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 14, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> Sorry, no help.  Both express Balak's intent to curse.  11 even expresses Balaam's intent to speak whatever God tells him to speak.
> 
> Shall I do anything else?



Haha.King Balak hired Balaam to curse the nation of Israel but after he(Balaam)spoke with God, Balaam could only bless them instead.


----------



## gemcgrew (Aug 14, 2015)

hobbs27 said:


> I don't blame you.


Hobbs, I do not take you as serious. You have had my email address for 8 months now and you have yet to engage.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 14, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Haha.King Balak hired Balaam to curse the nation of Israel but after he(Balaam)spoke with God, Balaam could only bless them instead.



Right, Balaam never intended to curse as you said he did.
So what's your point?  That only proves mine.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 14, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Hobbs, I do not take you as serious. You have had my email address for 8 months now and you have yet to engage.



I recall, I asked why would God create some men with no hope? 
 You wanted to take answering that via email, which is fine by me, but the topic of predestination hasn't really interested me much until lately. 
 Now I can see clearly that the (elect) was simply a group of people in the ad30-ad70 time period. Just as Moses led the ( children of Israel) out of bondage by Egypt. Jesus led the ( elect ) out of bondage of the law and sin.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 14, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> Right, Balaam never intended to curse as you said he did.
> So what's your point?  That only proves mine.



I know we are really getting off the subject here but I'm confused about why yout think a false prophet who was hired by a king to curse was not intending to curse until God changed his mind?
Especially in light of what 2 Pet.2:15 says about him.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 14, 2015)

welderguy said:


> I know we are really getting off the subject here but I'm confused about why yout think a false prophet who was hired by a king to curse was not intending to curse until God changed his mind?



I'm not sure I would call Balaam a "false prophet", although a practitioner of divination he certainly was.  I know, that requires explaining.  I'm hesitant to use false prophet because he accurately spoke for God; that's what a prophet does.  More on divination in a moment.

He was "not intending to curse" because he never intended to curse; his first and only intent was to go to God.



> Especially in light of what 2 Pet.2:15 says about him.



The practice of divination is connected here, but I'll let other's more skilled do the explaining.

From 2 Pet. 2:15 go to Jud. 1:11.

Now if I recall correctly you are familiar with the Primitive Baptist, and if you are familiar with the PB's you are familiar with the work of John Gill.  If you go to his commentary on Jude 1:11 first, then to his commentary on 2 Pet. 2:15 I think you will understand Balaam's problem with his practice of divination and Peter's reference to his "love of the wages of unrighteousness"

I have noted that you have not mentioned Balaam's confession of sin (Num 22:34) and the context of that confession.  That is quite understandable, given your current convictions, and I am not asking you to comment at this time.  However, if the Spirit moves you to pray and study on it, and that prayer and study produces any adjustment, I would appreciate hearing about it.  I understand that could be a long time.


----------



## welderguy (Aug 14, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> I'm not sure I would call Balaam a "false prophet", although a practitioner of divination he certainly was.  I know, that requires explaining.  I'm hesitant to use false prophet because he accurately spoke for God; that's what a prophet does.  More on divination in a moment.
> 
> He was "not intending to curse" because he never intended to curse; his first and only intent was to go to God.
> 
> ...



Hummer,you were right! I owe you an apology my brother. What was I thinking?
I was going on memory alone and didn't read the entire account before I made my comments,and somehow I got my facts mixed up.I'm truly sorry for the trouble I put you through today,but I appreciate your patience with me.I learned some things today and I am very grateful but also humbled. PM sent.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 14, 2015)

welderguy said:


> God used their bad choices for our example.That's nothing new.The entire Old Testament is for our example.
> 
> Same as when I stole that pocket knife from the feed store.Daddy made an example of me to my brother.Daddy didn't make me take that knife, but he sure made sure of the end consequences.



Sorry, I've been busy today.
Now back to Romans 1;
And although Welderguy knew the truth about stealing, He thought himself wise and exchanged the truth for a knife.
Daddy became angry and Welderguy suffered the consequences.

Now why I say you believe as me is because even though God elects the good for salvation and the bad for dishonor, they still have day to day choices about stealing pocket knives or not worshiping God.
God chooses some things to insure the results he wants and we choose some things to go against God's results.

Wait this isn't going to work. If I get to choose results and even sins, God's plan isn't gonna go as he planned.
Causing or allowing humans to do anything  can't be used by God as this still gives "man" a tiny bit of changing the end results of God's foreseen plan.

If God allows me to sin I might choose to ignore a particular sin which would change my fate.


----------



## hummerpoo (Aug 14, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Hummer,you were right! I owe you an apology my brother. What was I thinking?
> I was going on memory alone and didn't read the entire account before I made my comments,and somehow I got my facts mixed up.I'm truly sorry for the trouble I put you through today,but I appreciate your patience with me.I learned some things today and I am very grateful but also humbled. PM sent.



No worries on this end.  That patience you refer to others sometimes call stubbornness.


----------

