# The Simple Truth About Predestination



## StriperAddict

A note on this subject that's worth a look.  From an email by "Church without Religion/ A. Farley"
================================


The Simple Truth About Predestination

Some say God handpicked those who will believe, while others have no hope of ever believing and being saved.

Others claim that God pre-selected believers but that we also chose God. Then they say it's just impossible for us to fully understand on this side of heaven.

But God didn't spend nearly 3 chapters in Romans and Ephesians to detail a doctrine that we cannot understand!

The truth about predestination is actually straightforward and simple. And in this 5-minute video, I offer an easy-to-grasp perspective on this often misunderstood idea.


----------



## gemcgrew

I made it to about the 1:30 mark and realized that he is a very stupid person.


----------



## Big7

That's easy.. NO SUCH THING. Been saying that on here for years.

Same goes for OSAS.


----------



## welderguy

How does a person, that holds to this guy's ideas, reconcile these two texts?

2 Timothy 2:19
19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal,The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

and...


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


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> How does a person, that holds to this guy's ideas, reconcile these two texts?
> 
> 2 Timothy 2:19
> 19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal,The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
> 
> and...
> 
> 
> Matthew 7:23
> 23 And then will I profess unto them,I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.



When did the elect finally obtain Salvation.. In reference to 2 Timothy 2:. 10 Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> How does a person, that holds to this guy's ideas, reconcile these two texts?
> 
> 2 Timothy 2:19
> 19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal,The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
> 
> and...
> 
> 
> Matthew 7:23
> 23 And then will I profess unto them,I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.



How does one cleanse themself to become something greater than what they were? Referencing  2Timothy 2:20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay, some for honor and some for dishonor. 21 Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared for every good work


----------



## Artfuldodger

I watched the video. He says God predestined the Gentiles who were without hope and without God to receive salvation after Jesus came. That that was God's predestined plan. To harden Israel so that those who were without hope and without God would now receive salvation.

I guess the way the man sees it and perhaps me too is that God's plan all along was to harden Israel to save the Gentiles. Kinda like Israel was set up for failure and the Gentiles were always predestined as his chosen. 

The questions this leaves is will Israel, his other chosen, eventually be saved as predestined in Romans 11:26? 
What about the Gentiles before Jesus came who were without God and without hope? If all Gentiles are now chosen for the offering of salvation, what about the one's who never heard the offering?

The video presentation doesn't remove any predestination after all. There is no simple truth to this mystery.


----------



## Artfuldodger

One could also look at the video as God predestining the events from Adam to shortly after the Cross and at that point his plan was finished so he turned everything over to free will with a bit of intervention here and there.

I say shortly after the Cross because we know he called Saul to become Paul. So he was calling some time after the Cross. He was still using predestination at that time. Maybe Paul was the last to be predestined to salvation. He was needed to present the Gentiles with God's original plan which was that they were once without hope and without God but now were being offered salvation. They were now being offered to be grafted in to the Jewish root. To become adopted citizens of the Commonwealth of Israel. That we become heirs of God and co-heirs with Jesus.


----------



## hobbs27

In searching the context of 2Timothy 2 one needs to be very careful not to establish doctrine on any single verse.  This verse supports free will in the fact that they had a choice to deny Him. 

2 Timothy 2:11 It is a trustworthy statement:

For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him;
12 If we endure, we will also reign with Him;
If we deny Him, He also will deny us;
13 If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> In searching the context of 2Timothy 2 one needs to be very careful not to establish doctrine on any single verse.  This verse supports free will in the fact that they had a choice to deny Him.
> 
> 2 Timothy 2:11 It is a trustworthy statement:
> 
> For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him;
> 12 If we endure, we will also reign with Him;
> If we deny Him, He also will deny us;
> 13 If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.



One could also easily use this scripture to show one using his free will to not endure and lose his salvation. Again the mystery remains. 

Just as Big7 suggests, perhaps free will and losing one's salvation co-exist if either exist.

You do make a good point of 2 Timothy 2:21 with one cleansing themselves to become a vessel for honor. The overall picture shows a Christian who perhaps begins to follow the wrong teachers and becomes a vessel of dishonor.

Then again if one can cleanse themselves, why did they need the cleansing blood of Christ? The mystery remains. The very verses you are using to show free will could also be used to show losing salvation.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> One could also easily use this scripture to show one using his free will to not endure and lose his salvation. Again the mystery remains.
> 
> Just as Big7 suggests, perhaps free will and losing one's salvation co-exist if either exist.
> 
> You do make a good point of 2 Timothy 2:21 with one cleansing themselves to become a vessel for honor. The overall picture shows a Christian who perhaps begins to follow the wrong teachers and becomes a vessel of dishonor.
> 
> Then again if one can cleanse themselves, why did they need the cleansing blood of Christ? The mystery remains. The very verses you are using to show free will could also be used to show losing salvation.




 When I read it I see a Bridegroom that has gone away to prepare a home for His bride.. and the Bride awaiting Him in her purification process.  ...Maybe a bride that had been chosen by the Bridegrooms Father. 

Anyway.. I don't think we should establish a doctrine of salvation on anything written in 2Timothy alone.


----------



## gemcgrew

hobbs27 said:


> In searching the context of 2Timothy 2 one needs to be very careful not to establish doctrine on any single verse.  This verse supports free will in the fact that they had a choice to deny Him.
> 
> 2 Timothy 2:11 It is a trustworthy statement:
> 
> For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him;
> 12 If we endure, we will also reign with Him;
> If we deny Him, He also will deny us;
> 13 If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.


These verses show zero interest in "choice". You are forcing that.


----------



## hobbs27

gemcgrew said:


> These verses show zero interest in "choice". You are forcing that.



your doctrine obviously  has you in enslaved to blocking out scripture that doesn't support it. 
 I'm forcing nothing into the scripture... No eisogesis on my end of this.

If we deny Him,  He also will deny us. 

Us.. Includes the author Paul.


----------



## gemcgrew

hobbs27 said:


> your doctrine obviously  has you in enslaved to blocking out scripture that doesn't support it.
> I'm forcing nothing into the scripture... No eisogesis on my end of this.
> 
> If we deny Him,  He also will deny us.
> 
> Us.. Includes the author Paul.


"This verse supports free will in the fact that they had a choice to deny Him."

Where in this verse does it say that "they had a choice"? Again, your man-centered thinking forced it. 

"If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:"

This verse tells us that if we deny him, he also will deny us. It does not tell us that any will deny him, or by what power would any deny him. It does not tell us the metaphysical or spiritual cause behind the action. We find that elsewhere in scripture, not here. Freewill and choice are not relevant.

Yes Hobbs, God centered doctrine prevents me from thinking as you do.


----------



## hobbs27

gemcgrew said:


> "This verse supports free will in the fact that they had a choice to deny Him."
> 
> Where in this verse does it say that "they had a choice"? Again, your man-centered thinking forced it.
> 
> "If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:"
> 
> This verse tells us that if we deny him, he also will deny us. It does not tell us that any will deny him, or by what power would any deny him. It does not tell us the metaphysical or spiritual cause behind the action. We find that elsewhere in scripture, not here. Freewill and choice are not relevant.
> 
> Yes Hobbs, God centered doctrine prevents me from thinking as you do.



Paul is writing to Timothy and says. 

If we deny Him, He will deny us. 

That is not( us) as you and me. But as in Paul and Timothy. 

If all they had already been through,  if one or both of them decided to deny Him... Then He would deny them.

God centered doctrine knows exegesis from eisogesis.

How can you deny something if you had no choice in denying?


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> Maybe a bride that had been chosen by the Bridegrooms Father.



Say what? Do you believe in partial election?


----------



## gemcgrew

hobbs27 said:


> How can you deny something if you had no choice in denying?


You are making my point for me.

This verse does not tell us. We find the answer elsewhere in scripture.


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> Say what? Do you believe in partial election?



I'm not sure what partial election is.  I've said it many times,  that this group in the first century is the only group in the bible that are referred to as the elect unto salvation . As so many people do,  Calvin trapped himself in that transitional period of scripture and created a doctrine we know of as election.  Today,  the Kingdom has come and the water of life is freely given to whosoever will.  Rev.22. And it is awesome that a lot of churches teach this salvation to whosoever will,  but don't realize that required Christ coming back in His kingdom with the Glory of the Father. 

Others that have done this require water baptism for salvation.. Again,  something that was required in the transitional period but is now fulfilled. 

Some believe we can posses the fruits of the Spirit that were only given to establish the church... Another first century phenomenon.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Maybe transitional election would be a better term.  There was a time or dispensation that contained election but now it's over.

The video in the OP suggests this type of election. The Gentiles were without hope, without God, and strangers to the promises.

Now they are offered salvation.

Ephesians 2:19
Therefore you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens of the saints and members of God's household,


----------



## hobbs27

Artfuldodger said:


> Maybe transitional election would be a better term.  There was a time or dispensation that contained election but now it's over.
> 
> The video in the OP suggests this type of election. The Gentiles were without hope, without God, and strangers to the promises.
> 
> Now they are offered salvation.
> 
> Ephesians 2:19
> Therefore you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens of the saints and members of God's household,



Maybe this will help. 
THE FIRSTFRUIT = THE REMNANT = THE ELECT
THE FIRSTFRUIT = THE ELECT = THE REMNANT
THE REMNANT = THE FIRSTFRUIT = THE ELECT
THE REMNANT = THE ELECT = THE FIRSTFRUIT
THE ELECT = THE FIRSTFRUIT = THE REMNANT
THE ELECT = THE REMNANT = THE FIRSTFRUIT
THUS: SINCE THE FIRSTFRUIT AND THE REMNANT WERE FIRST-GENERATION CHRISTIANS, SO THE ELECT WERE FIRST-GENERATION CHRISTIANS  THE BRIDE FOR THE LAMB.

THE FIRSTFRUIT/FIRSTBORN

Romans 8:28: "…the called according to God's purpose," "firstborn among many brethren" (v. 29), 

Revelation 14:4c: "These were brought forth from among men to be firstfruits to God and the Lamb."

James 1:18b: "Of God's own will He brought us forth by the Word of Truth so that we would be the firstfruits of His creation."

Hebrews 12:23: "…the church of the firstborn ones…."

THE REMNANT

Romans 9:27-28: "'Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, the remnant will be saved. For God will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness, because the Lord will make a short work upon the earth.'"

Romans 11:5: "At this present time there is the remnant according to the election of grace."

THE ELECT(ION)

Romans 9:11: All of this context has God's election being related to those to whom were the promises (v. 4), and the Israelites exist no more.

Romans 11:5: "At this present time there is the remnant according to the election of grace."

Romans 11:7: "What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were hardened."

Romans 11:28: Concerning Israel (v. 26), "…they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers."

1 Thessalonians 1:4: "your election by God"; cf. Acts 17 to see the Thessalonian Christians were Jews.

1 Peter 1:1-2a: "To the pilgrims of The Dispersion … elect according to the foreknowledge of God."

THE CALLED (ONES)

Romans 8:28: "…the called according to God's purpose."

Jude 1:1: "Jude … to the called ones," and all of Jude was very obviously written to Israelite Christians.

SINCE THESE PASSAGES CONCERNING THE FIRSTFRUITS, THE FIRSTBORN ONES, THE REMNANT, AND THE ELECT(ION) RELATE THESE TERMS TO BELIEVING ISRAELITES, AND SINCE ISRAEL CEASED TO EXIST CA. THE EVENTS OF AD 70, THEN HOW CAN ANYONE POST AD 70 BIBLICALLY BE ELECT ONES?

+++++++++

Since believing Israelites of the last generation of Israel's existence were the firstfruits (per Rev. 14:4 & context), the firstborn ones (Heb. 12:23), the remnant (Rom. 11:5), and the elect (Rom. 11:7) according to the Bible, then where do we get the hermeneutical authority to apply those terms to anyone post AD 70? The Bible's elect were fulfilled nearly 2000 years ago. The elect became the Lamb's wife. If we're to continue applying the Bible's elect to folks post AD 70, then we're implying that there are still elect ones to be purified/sanctified for a wedding yet to transpire (aka futurism); and such a union (if at an end to time) will of course produce no offspring. Point? Calvinism isn't compatible with preterism. As for me and my house, we believe in fulfillment and a God who's sooo sovereign that He finished His work "in total" nearly 2000 years ago, not to mention that He's sooo sovereign that He co-exists in relationship to men whom He created with free-will. All Scripture concerning the elect, the remnant, the firstborn ones, etc. concerns those who became our foundation &/or our "mother" as the Messiah is our "Father" (Isa. 9:6; cf. Luke 20:36).
 Tony Denton.


----------



## hummerpoo

The first of two lists is just one example of egocentric (self-centered) vs. theocentric (God-centered) theology. Or should it be "egology" vs "theology".



hobbs27 said:


> Maybe this will help.
> THE FIRSTFRUIT = THE REMNANT = THE ELECT
> ...................
> THE FIRSTFRUIT/FIRSTBORN
> 
> Romans 8:28: "…the called according to God's purpose," "[in order that he might be]firstborn among many brethren" (v. 29),



Rom 8:28  And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. 
Rom 8:29  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.

"he" = "those who are called"
or
"he =  "His Son"


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> The first of two lists is just one example of egocentric (self-centered) vs. theocentric (God-centered) theology. Or should it be "egology" vs "theology".
> 
> 
> 
> Rom 8:28  And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.
> Rom 8:29  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.
> 
> "he" = "those who are called"
> or
> "he =  "His Son"




 There is no (or)  to be answered.  He (our Lord) was The First Fruit among many brethren which were The First Fruits.


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> There is no (or)  to be answered.  He (our Lord) was The First Fruit among many brethren which were The First Fruits.



Then your post is meaningless unless, excluding all others, He is also "the remnant" and "the elect", which is nonsense.


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> Then your post is meaningless unless, excluding all others, He is also "the remnant" and "the elect", which is nonsense.



No sir. The First Fruit was our Lord.  The First Fruits was His brethren.


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> No sir. The First Fruit was our Lord.  The First Fruits was His brethren.



Your post says:


> THE FIRSTFRUIT = THE REMNANT = THE ELECT
> THE FIRSTFRUIT = THE ELECT = THE REMNANT
> THE REMNANT = THE FIRSTFRUIT = THE ELECT
> THE REMNANT = THE ELECT = THE FIRSTFRUIT
> THE ELECT = THE FIRSTFRUIT = THE REMNANT
> THE ELECT = THE REMNANT = THE FIRSTFRUIT
> >>OOPS - added by edit<<
> THUS: SINCE THE FIRSTFRUIT AND THE REMNANT WERE FIRST-GENERATION CHRISTIANS, SO THE ELECT WERE FIRST-GENERATION CHRISTIANS  THE BRIDE FOR THE LAMB.



Hobbs,
If God were to show you the true nature of those you follow, you might well be one of His great sources of knowledge on false teaching.


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> Your post says:
> 
> 
> Hobbs,
> If God were to show you the true nature of those you follow, you might well be one of His great sources of knowledge on false teaching.



 He already did that,  that's why I'm exposing the false teachings of election .

I have yet to see why the post is difficult for you to understand.  Possibly I'm not understanding your questions. 
 Maybe you can show election unto salvation in the old Testament?


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> He already did that,  that's why I'm exposing the false teachings of election .



One example of many which show what happens when God show's the egocentric that He is the "center" of all.



> Hab 1:2  O LORD, how long shall I cry for help, and you will not hear? Or cry to you "Violence!" and you will not save?
> Hab 1:3  Why do you make me see iniquity, and why do you idly look at wrong? Destruction and violence are before me; strife and contention arise.
> Hab 1:4  So the law is paralyzed, and justice never goes forth. For the wicked surround the righteous; so justice goes forth perverted.
> ........................................
> Hab 3:17  Though the fig tree should not blossom, nor fruit be on the vines, the produce of the olive fail and the fields yield no food, the flock be cut off from the fold and there be no herd in the stalls,
> Hab 3:18  yet I will rejoice in the LORD; I will take joy in the God of my salvation.
> Hab 3:19  GOD, the Lord, is my strength; he makes my feet like the deer's; he makes me tread on my high places.


But you can probably find a man who will tell you that it is fulfilled, and doesn't apply to God's favored.
-------------------------------------------------
I don't know if I missed this or you added it,


> I have yet to see why the post is difficult for you to understand. Possibly I'm not understanding your questions.
> Maybe you can show election unto salvation in the old Testament?



You may forget, I'm the one who believes God when He says He does not change, perfection can not be improved.
I never really did any work on the question, but my impression is that there is more about election in the NT than the OT.  It makes sense, being that revelation is progressive.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> Maybe you can show election unto salvation in the old Testament?



If I may? 

Rom.4:16-17
16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.



Abraham's faith was by grace. This concept of grace was veiled in the OT, but was made manifest in the NT. This is the good news we have today.

Notice in verse 17, the "quickening". Abraham was quickened by the Spirit just as NT saints are. (It just wasn't known about yet).


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> One example of many which show what happens when God show's the egocentric that He is the "center" of all.
> 
> 
> But you can probably find a man who will tell you that it is fulfilled, and doesn't apply to God's favored.
> -------------------------------------------------
> I don't know if I missed this or you added it,
> 
> 
> You may forget, I'm the one who believes God when He says He does not change, perfection can not be improved.
> I never really did any work on the question, but my impression is that there is more about election in the NT than the OT.  It makes sense, being that revelation is progressive.



Yes,  I added that,  as you know it's a hot day and as an hvac and refrigeration guy, they have me hopping so I'm going to get back to this later tonight so I can read your question and or statements more clearly.


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> One example of many which show what happens when God show's the egocentric that He is the "center" of all.
> 
> 
> But you can probably find a man who will tell you that it is fulfilled, and doesn't apply to God's favored.
> -------------------------------------------------
> I don't know if I missed this or you added it,
> 
> 
> You may forget, I'm the one who believes God when He says He does not change, perfection can not be improved.
> I never really did any work on the question, but my impression is that there is more about election in the NT than the OT.  It makes sense, being that revelation is progressive.




 Romans 15:8 

For I say that Christ has become a servant to the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God to confirm the promises given to the fathers,

 On this,  yes.  Jesus is the remnant,  He is the Elect,  He is the First Fruit. 

 His brethren,  Israelites were the remnant,  the Elect(ion) the First Fruits.


The Verses in Habukkuk  are similar to many verse throughout the old Testament and in the last days of the first century.  They were separated from God.. Knowing Him from afar,  and the Law was a constant reminder of their sin that separated them.  It was a awful time to live compared to today. 

 You think we could ever have a conversation without condescending remarks?  I never claim that God has changed, as I never heard you claim that our only law is to not eat of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil.

God hasn't changed,  but our contract has.


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> If I may?
> 
> Rom.4:16-17
> 16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
> 17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
> 
> 
> 
> Abraham's faith was by grace. This concept of grace was veiled in the OT, but was made manifest in the NT. This is the good news we have today.
> 
> Notice in verse 17, the "quickening". Abraham was quickened by the Spirit just as NT saints are. (It just wasn't known about yet).




Quickeneth...does not equal quickened


----------



## Artfuldodger

hobbs27 said:


> Romans 15:8
> 
> For I say that Christ has become a servant to the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God to confirm the promises given to the fathers,
> 
> On this,  yes.  Jesus is the remnant,  He is the Elect,  He is the First Fruit.
> 
> His brethren,  Israelites were the remnant,  the Elect(ion) the First Fruits.
> 
> 
> The Verses in Habukkuk  are similar to many verse throughout the old Testament and in the last days of the first century.  They were separated from God.. Knowing Him from afar,  and the Law was a constant reminder of their sin that separated them.  It was a awful time to live compared to today.
> 
> You think we could ever have a conversation without condescending remarks?  I never claim that God has changed, as I never heard you claim that our only law is to not eat of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil.
> 
> God hasn't changed,  but our contract has.



Jesus became a servant to the Jews. There must have been some really bad racial tension between the Jews and Gentiles that Paul was trying to defuse. 
I must agree that our contract has changed. I'm lost. I see predestination but not the way the Reformed see it. 

I see gentiles that were without hope. Without God, and without the promises made to the patriarchs. This is what the Op's video is showing. It's not like it has always existed but was a mystery. It took the hardening of Israel to exist. 

I can't explain it any better than saying our contract has changed.


----------



## hummerpoo

hobbs27 said:


> It was a awful time to live compared to today.



This seems, to me, to be the basis of your scriptural structure; and is, to me, the most worrisome.


----------



## welderguy

hobbs27 said:


> Quickeneth...does not equal quickened



Then what is the relevance of "quickening" as it would relate to Abraham in the context of this verse?

...anyway, my point was to show you Abraham's faith was by grace, even in the OT, there was grace. And election is based on grace alone. That's a foundational truth revealed in the NT.

Even as far back as Able, there was grace. Because Heb. tells us Able had faith.


----------



## hobbs27

hummerpoo said:


> This seems, to me, to be the basis of your scriptural structure; and is, to me, the most worrisome.



 I'm not sure why you see that as worrisome.  The bondage of law made many happy to receive the Good News in which had finally come to them.


----------



## hobbs27

welderguy said:


> Then what is the relevance of "quickening" as it would relate to Abraham in the context of this verse?
> 
> ...anyway, my point was to show you Abraham's faith was by grace, even in the OT, there was grace. And election is based on grace alone. That's a foundational truth revealed in the NT.
> 
> Even as far back as Able, there was grace. Because Heb. tells us Able had faith.



Abraham received the promise based on his faith not on his circumcision or works of the law. 

The quickening is not so much of Abraham but is reference to God which gives life to those that are dead.  Abraham was about to be raised,  his promise of  people among many nations was about to be fulfilled.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Must be library day at the asylum.


----------



## gordon 2

SemperFiDawg said:


> Must be library day at the asylum.



Normally I would think this somewhat in your face. However, since in an asylum things are not exactly renowned for normalcy I find this funny, and even funnier than the funniest funny stuff I've read lately. As a matter of fact, I find it funny everytime I read it... like some happy chemical in my brain does not settle whatsoever. Might have to check my meds. with nursing station.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

It IS funny.  Watching a debate between one who eisegetes scripture for the sake of determinism and another who eisegetes scripture to support his eschatology and all the twisted doctrines that come with it such as cessation.  Witnessing this one has to ask why we need scripture at all.


----------



## StriperAddict

*Getting back to the vid ..*

The Jews of the OT thought all gentiles rubbish.  The means Paul used in Ephesians and Romans to direct the gospel toward them by way of Predestined makes sense when coupled with the willingness of God that "none perish". 

I think selective salvation is a dangerous doctrine. It certainly doesn't provoke any to seek, let alone see that the "door is wide open" for all to come ... as clearly scripture after scripture teaches.

But this "gentile inclusion" understanding of PD has a welcoming content, one I am thankful for, dog I once was!  
Anyway, Has not the Alpha and Omega said: "Come to me all you who are weary and I will give you rest" ?  

Consider:
2 Cor 11:3


----------



## Israel

I know of no dissonance between election and _invitation_ as thus might be seen in "whosoever will may come".
For it truly is only in the coming that any man discovers the frailty, futility, and utter temporality of the will of man. To "provoke to jealousy" as some esteemed brother once said is not for the purpose of elevating jealousy, but in fact, alleviating it to its removal.
We all start somewhere till we see Him who is the starter of all, Himself, without beginning or end.


----------



## welderguy

I think we can all agree salvation is by grace, through faith...right?

Ok, lets look at how we get this faith, shall we?

2 Peter 1:1
1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:


Peter is telling us that it is an "obtained" thing.
If you look up this word "obtained" in the Strong's concordance, you'll see that it does not mean we aquire by some action or will, but rather by lot. Divine allotment.
In other words, we are passive in the receiving of it, based solely on God's own purpose.



Word: lagcanw

Pronounce: lang-khan'-o

Strongs Number: G2975

Orig: a prolonged form of a primary verb, which is only used as an alternate in certain tenses; to lot, i.e. determine (by implication, receive) especially by lot:--his lot be, cast lots, obtain.

Use: TDNT-4:1,495 Verb

Heb Strong: H3920

    1) to obtain by lot
    1a) to receive by divine allotment, obtain
    2) to cast lots, determine by lot


----------



## centerpin fan

welderguy said:


> In other words, we are passive in the receiving of it,



I haven't disagreed with anyone in awhile, so I'll go ahead and do it now.


----------



## welderguy

centerpin fan said:


> I haven't disagreed with anyone in awhile, so I'll go ahead and do it now.



...based on.....what?


----------



## centerpin fan

welderguy said:


> ...based on.....what?



Scripture and 2,000 years of church history.


----------



## welderguy

centerpin fan said:


> Scripture and 2,000 years of church history.



No specifics?

What do you interpret this Divine allotment to be then?


----------



## centerpin fan

welderguy said:


> No specifics?



Repentance is not passive, but we've already discussed that.


----------



## centerpin fan

welderguy said:


> What do you interpret this Divine allotment to be then?



Example # 8,437 of man's needless complication of the simple gospel.


----------



## welderguy

centerpin fan said:


> Repentance is not passive, but we've already discussed that.



Repentance is not passive, but must be done in faith.


----------



## welderguy

centerpin fan said:


> Example # 8,437 of man's needless complication of the simple gospel.



So are you saying Peter, by divine inspiration, was complicating the gospel?


----------



## centerpin fan

welderguy said:


> So are you saying Peter, by divine inspiration, was complicating the gospel?



No, I'm saying you are.


----------



## welderguy

centerpin fan said:


> No, I'm saying you are.



I'm reading it just the way Peter penned it.
He used the word lagcanw, which means divine allotment.

He did not use the word epitugchanó, which means to attain.

You are the one who has the wrong interpretation, and it is twisting your doctrine accordingly.


----------



## centerpin fan

welderguy said:


> I'm reading it just the way Peter penned it.
> He used the word lagcanw, which means divine allotment.
> 
> He did not use the word epitugchanó, which means to attain.



There's nothing plainer and less open to interpretation than Peter's admonition to repent in Acts 2 and 3, yet you still deny it's necessary for salvation.


----------



## centerpin fan

Fourteen people reading this thread ...


----------



## hobbs27

Peter taught if the elect stumbled they would not gain entrance into the kingdom. 

2Peter: 
10 Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble; 11 for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.


----------



## panfried0419

Artfuldodger you are hitting the nail on the head and very articulate


----------



## StriperAddict

hobbs27 said:


> Some believe we can posses the fruits of the Spirit that were only given to establish the church... Another first century phenomenon.



(Gal 5:22-24)
So are you suggesting that "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, meekness and self control", 
a.k.a. the fruit of the Spirit, is no longer given to believers, or (at worst) come NOW by way of "self effort" and not a by-product of the Holy Spirit living within each believer?

Having begun in the Spirit, are you/we seeking to be perfected by the flesh? 

IMO, saved by Grace thru faith, KEPT by grace thru faith ...


----------



## hobbs27

StriperAddict said:


> (Gal 5:22-24)
> So are you suggesting that "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, meekness and self control",
> a.k.a. the fruit of the Spirit, is no longer given to believers, or (at worst) come NOW by way of "self effort" and not a by-product of the Holy Spirit living within each believer?
> 
> Having begun in the Spirit, are you/we seeking to be perfected by the flesh?
> 
> IMO, saved by Grace thru faith, KEPT by grace thru faith ...



No.. But thank you for pointing out my mistake.  I had been reading and discussing both first fruits and the gift of the Spirit and totally missed the word. 
 It should say the (gifts)  of the Spirit,  not fruit.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

centerpin fan said:


> Fourteen people reading this thread ...



Well all you post are short videos.  You rarely say anything so when you DO, people take notice.


----------



## StriperAddict

hobbs27 said:


> No.. But thank you for pointing out my mistake.  I had been reading and discussing both first fruits and the gift of the Spirit and totally missed the word.
> It should say the (gifts)  of the Spirit,  not fruit.



Got it, thanks.


----------

