Free Choice to Accept or Reject?

[ChristB4us]

You either don't understand what I am getting at

That must be it, then.

 

[JIM]

An unrepentant sinner who has not been regenerated and brought to faith by the Most High God. Anyone who is not one of God's elect.

So the reprobate is one that God has chosen not to regenerate. In other words, all that is needed is for God to regenerate him and he would not be a reprobate. Thus God is the only one standing in the way of the reprobate receiving eternal life. OK, I get it now. That is wrong but I get it.

 

[JIM]

Is [occasional] disobedience not rejecting God in some form?

No.

 

[makesends]

So the reprobate is one that God has chosen not to regenerate. In other words, all that is needed is for God to regenerate him and he would not be a reprobate. Thus God is the only one standing in the way of the reprobate receiving eternal life. OK, I get it now. That is wrong but I get it.

False equivalence, again, not to mention ad hom via scorn.

You pretend that we advocate some construction where the natural order of things is interrupted by God's lack of action. @Arial, and I don't know how many others here, have consistently been showing you that the natural order of things is that all deserve condemnation. Why would you hold God alone to any sort of responsibility for the choices of his enemies? Why would you suppose to hold God to account for choosing only some? Why would you hold God to account as if you even understand what he had in mind in creating? Why would you suppose to hold God to account at all —you, a mere creature!

 

[Arial]

So the reprobate is one that God has chosen not to regenerate.

Five puppies are for sale and I can only have one. I choose one. Does that mean that I actively chose not to choose any of the other four? Did I sit there and first say, "Not you, not you, not you, not you. That leaves you number five." There are a lot of things one could speculate about that analogy, all of them irrelevant, as I am making a point. Remember what God is choosing for. Who to give to the Son who will pay the highest price possible, his own suffering and death, to purchase them for the Father.

If you want to see it as God actively choosing who to not save and as being the only thing standing in their way of salvation, in order to paint the doctrine in the worst possible light, you go right ahead and do so. But here's the thing. Where is the gratitude in that? If you are a believer it is not of your own doing but because of God's incredible mercy on you in giving you to Christ, and you refuse to accept that. It is you insisting that your salvation is dependent on what you do or don't do, and if it is not, then God is unjust and unfair.

Thus God is the only one standing in the way of the reprobate receiving eternal life. OK, I get it now. That is wrong but I get it.

The only thing standing in the way of the reprobate is their sin that they love. A quick question and I would appreciate an answer. Consider it hypothetical as it is in your view. But I do not want a red herring, a doctrinal discourse or denial, a deflection, or talk around. I am phrasing it as an "if" and I expect you to answer it as an "if."

If God chose who to save by giving them to Christ, and those who he did not choose were left in their sins (being the reprobate) would you hate God?

 

[Mr GLee]

And I will add another question for you. If he can't choose to not believe what he believes about Christ that gives eternal life, how did he come to believe it when so many hear the same thing and do not believe it?

I would offer.

Not a salvation issue

Hearing the same that others hear and not believing as others is the result of not mixing with the eyes see the temporal historical with the unseen eternal. Therefore No gospel understanding as it is written.

Not having the same Spirit of faith (Christ) that works in the believer.. . to them the mystery of the parable. The mystery of faith is hid .

Hebrews 4King James Version4 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

2 Corinthians 4:13 We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;

The prescription. . mixing power needed to rightly divide the parables ( 2 Corinthians 4:18 )

 

[Arial]

I would offer.

Not a salvation issue

Hearing the same that others hear and not believing as others is the result of not mixing with the eyes see the temporal historical with the unseen eternal. Therefore No gospel understanding as it is written.

Not having the same Spirit of faith (Christ) that works in the believer.. . to them the mystery of the parable. The mystery of faith is hid .

Hebrews 4King James Version4 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.

2 Corinthians 4:13 We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;

The prescription. . mixing power needed to rightly divide the parables ( 2 Corinthians 4:18 ) Interpreting the Bible as completely allegorical will never arrive at its meaning.

Interpreting the Bible as completely allegorical will never arrive at its meaning.

 

[Mr GLee]

So the reprobate is one that God has chosen not to regenerate. In other words, all that is needed is for God to regenerate him and he would not be a reprobate. Thus God is the only one standing in the way of the reprobate receiving eternal life. OK, I get it now. That is wrong but I get it.

Some Nicolaitans were trusting thier fleshly leaders . Having fallen form grace God just as the first time salvation. . . repenting them empowering them to return to first love "hear God" and doing the first works "move mankind" according to it

New creation not rebuilt .

No reincarnation.

 

[Mr GLee]

Interpreting the Bible as completely allegorical will never arrive at its meaning.

Hi Thanks

Believers must be careful how they understanding who they say they do . Many false apostles bringing false prophecies as oral traditons of dying mankind

Which meaning? The literal temporal or spiritual eternal ? or is there a mix?

Parables teach believers how to walk by faith the unseen eternal. Many good examples.

It does not changes the simplicity of the gospel .God saves sinners ."Let there be a new creation" and the" bride was good".

 

[makesends]

Five puppies are for sale and I can only have one. I choose one. Does that mean that I actively chose not to choose any of the other four? Did I sit there and first say, "Not you, not you, not you, not you. That leaves you number five." There are a lot of things one could speculate about that analogy, all of them irrelevant, as I am making a point. Remember what God is choosing for. Who to give to the Son who will pay the highest price possible, his own suffering and death, to purchase them for the Father.

If you want to see it as God actively choosing who to not save and as being the only thing standing in their way of salvation, in order to paint the doctrine in the worst possible light, you go right ahead and do so. But here's the thing. Where is the gratitude in that? If you are a believer it is not of your own doing but because of God's incredible mercy on you in giving you to Christ, and you refuse to accept that. It is you insisting that your salvation is dependent on what you do or don't do, and if it is not, then God is unjust and unfair.

The only thing standing in the way of the reprobate is their sin that they love. A quick question and I would appreciate an answer. Consider it hypothetical as it is in your view. But I do not want a red herring, a doctrinal discourse or denial, a deflection, or talk around. I am phrasing it as an "if" and I expect you to answer it as an "if."

If God chose who to save by giving them to Christ, and those who he did not choose were left in their sins (being the reprobate) would you hate God?

What seems to me obvious fact that both sides neglect (to differing degrees) is that God created the reprobate to be just that. That doesn't mean that their main use is their reprobation. God has gone out of his way to show us that his use for them is (what I call) 'the production' of his end result—the members of the body of Christ which is all for his glory. The fact of their reprobation —no! The fact of his creating them FOR their reprobation— is part of what it takes to do that.

We somehow keep attempting to justify God when he needs none of it. We have glorified man to the point that we assume some worth to man apart from the work of God in his use of his mere creatures. We keep trying to revolve the universe, (including God, of course), around us —around what (and WHO!) we think we are.

The ugly fact we refuse to see is that we are ONLY what God has in mind concerning us, from beginning to end, and what he is doing to accomplish that is not ours to judge.

 

[Arial]

What seems to me obvious fact that both sides neglect (to differing degrees) is that God created the reprobate to be just that. That doesn't mean that their main use is their reprobation. God has gone out of his way to show us that his use for them is (what I call) 'the production' of his end result—the members of the body of Christ which is all for his glory. The fact of their reprobation —no! The fact of his creating them FOR their reprobation— is part of what it takes to do that.

We somehow keep attempting to justify God when he needs none of it. We have glorified man to the point that we assume some worth to man apart from the work of God.

I am not attempting to justify God, though it may sound like that. God creates all men, so yes, just as the elect are created to be those who belong to Christ, so are those not of the elect created to be the reprobate. What I am trying to avoid is the assumption by the opposition that God is unjust in not choosing all; and the idea that their is a pool of people (the whole) that after they are born, God "picks a team" "You yes, you yes, you no, no, no, no, yes, yes, no, no, no, yes, no, no----". There seems to be something in the mind of the opposition that that is what Reformed believes and is saying.

And what is ignored in rejecting the idea that God would ever do such a thing, as choose some and not all, is that the entire Bible shows God always choosing. Both for mercy and for judgement. He even sometimes chose his enemy to execute his judgement on Israel, his people. And then turned around and executed judgement on that same enemy because they took all the credit for themselves and their own power when it was God who had given it to them, and for their motive in going after Israel was evil. (I speak of the king of Assyria in the account of Hezekiah.)

 

[makesends]

I am not attempting to justify God, though it may sound like that. God creates all men, so yes, just as the elect are created to be those who belong to Christ, so are those not of the elect created to be the reprobate. What I am trying to avoid is the assumption by the opposition that God is unjust in not choosing all; and the idea that their is a pool of people (the whole) that after they are born, God "picks a team" "You yes, you yes, you no, no, no, no, yes, yes, no, no, no, yes, no, no----". There seems to be something in the mind of the opposition that if God did that he would be an evil God. Even though it is perfectly alright for us to do that same thing when we choose one thing over another.

YES! I agree that those who insist on self-determination in salvation characterize his choosing as selection from a pool of possibles —a logically vapid notion, since God is the creator!

 

[JIM]

Five puppies are for sale and I can only have one. I choose one. Does that mean that I actively chose not to choose any of the other four?

You compare salvation of mankind to buying puppies! ! ! !

 

[Arial]

You compare salvation of mankind to buying puppies! ! ! !

I guess you have run out of ammunition. Childish. No weapons against the rest of my post? Refusal to answer a hypothetical question? That all by itself tells the story. You are at a loss for words and no way to refute.

If you want to see it as God actively choosing who to not save and as being the only thing standing in their way of salvation, in order to paint the doctrine in the worst possible light, you go right ahead and do so. But here's the thing. Where is the gratitude in that? If you are a believer it is not of your own doing but because of God's incredible mercy on you in giving you to Christ, and you refuse to accept that. It is you insisting that your salvation is dependent on what you do or don't do, and if it is not, then God is unjust and unfair.

The only thing standing in the way of the reprobate is their sin that they love. A quick question and I would appreciate an answer. Consider it hypothetical as it is in your view. But I do not want a red herring, a doctrinal discourse or denial, a deflection, or talk around. I am phrasing it as an "if" and I expect you to answer it as an "if."

If God chose who to save by giving them to Christ, and those who he did not choose were left in their sins (being the reprobate) would you hate God?

Since you refuse to answer that question I can only presume, and hope, that in the deepest recesses of your heart, you think Reformed may be correct after all. No shame in admitting it. No shame in turning from misunderstanding to truth. Courage to be sure. But also great joy.

 

[prism]

Is it possible to believe something and reject it at the same time?

Since we are simul justus et peccator,...yes

 

[His clay]

False equivalence, again, not to mention ad hom via scorn.

You pretend that we advocate some construction where the natural order of things is interrupted by God's lack of action. @Arial, and I don't know how many others here, have consistently been showing you that the natural order of things is that all deserve condemnation. Why would you hold God alone to any sort of responsibility for the choices of his enemies? Why would you suppose to hold God to account for choosing only some? Why would you hold God to account as if you even understand what he had in mind in creating? Why would you suppose to hold God to account at all —you, a mere creature!

Good point. The assumption that we are our own clay is replaced by the biblical reality; we are His clay. God sets the standards; He is the ultimate judge; God holds us to account. The roles are never reversed, and it is the height of hubris to presume that they are. God had a couple of chapters' conversation with Job, where Job was put in his place.

 

[His clay]

You compare salvation of mankind to buying puppies! ! ! !

You're right! puppies are much cuter

But in all seriousness, you have failed to even begin addressing the main point of the analogy. Do you not know what analogies and metaphors are?

 

[His clay]

Since we are simul justus et peccator,...yes

positionally justified in God's legal assessment yet sinful in practice is not a valid comparison for believing and rejecting since both the believing and rejecting would be at the same practical level. . . apples and oranges

 

[His clay]

. . . .

If you want to see it as God actively choosing who to not save and as being the only thing standing in their way of salvation, in order to paint the doctrine in the worst possible light, you go right ahead and do so. But here's the thing. Where is the gratitude in that? If you are a believer it is not of your own doing but because of God's incredible mercy on you in giving you to Christ, and you refuse to accept that. It is you insisting that your salvation is dependent on what you do or don't do, and if it is not, then God is unjust and unfair.

. . . .

A total failure to recognize personal sin, and the absolutely utterly and incomprehensible grace of God to choose a piece of **** like me. Utterly undeserving of all good . . . thoroughly, profoundly earning hell . . . completely deserving of the wrath of God . . . but God chose to love and save me. The fact that He saves any of the sinful human garbage is the truly astounding thing.

Sometimes 4 letter words are perfectly appropriate, but for the sake of the forum I've left it omitted by asterisks. Paul called his own good works "refuse" in Philippians 3, so I think that it is appropriate at rare times.

 

[prism]

positionally justified in God's legal assessment yet sinful in practice is not a valid comparison for believing and rejecting since both the believing and rejecting would be at the same practical level. . . apples and oranges

At least they are both simultaneous. The comparison is subjective since justification is objective rather than just positional.