MacArthur

[Alan]

23 hours ago, Alan said:

It is the Calvinist who twists the scriptures, brings out new definitions of scriptural terminology, plagiarizes the words of God, and causes confusion among brethren. It was John Calvin who, "wrongfully appropriated" the words of God, the bible, and applied them to his own system of beliefs. It was John Calvin who plagiarized the scriptures. John Calvin, and the false teachers who teach the five points of TULIP, will one day stand before God and give an account of their plagiarism.

Brethren,

I still stand by my above quote. I am not going to change a word.

Alan

[wretched]

Speaking only logically through numbers.

When it comes to proof texts for calvinism compared to proofs texts for free will in the NT, there are at least five times more on the free will side.

Keeping that in mind could it be possible that proofs texts for calvinism have all along been about foreknowledge only and not selection since the overwhelming evidence sides with free will?

Just trying to understand the allure of calvinism, It is the most unjust idea I can imagine and it is the exact opposite of God's Justice documented throughout Scripture. His Justice is always based on our choices (that ratio is at least 1000:1). It only appears different on the surface on a rare occasion or two and in those cases the people hardened their own hearts initially, God just knew their hearts and used them for His Glory.

If you drill this idea of calvinism down it basically relieves man of all accountability for anything at the same time. Man is forced to believe and is unable to not persevere to perfection so no real accountability in any area.

Lucifer is a genius IMO

 

 

[DaveW]

I have often wondered and mused about this idea of the “foreknowledge” of God.

Rom 8:(29)  For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

You see, I read this as saying that God knew in times past who would be saved, and as a result of that knowledge, He chose those whom He knew would believe, to conform them into the image of His Son.

I relate that to:

Php 1:(6)  Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

 The conforming into the image of His Son, being the actual work that the Holy Ghost does in the lives of a saved man, throughout that man’s saved life, to make Him more like Christ. This work is a continuing work that will not be completed until the day of Jesus Christ, which I take to be the day of His Return, (When all saints will be changed), or the day that a saint leaves this earth and body to be with the Lord for ever.

I think someone else pointed out that the order of things in Romans 8:29 is fairly plain – that foreknowledge comes first, then this predestination follows, based on that foreknowledge.

I know that there are some who say that the foreknowledge is not the cause of predestination, but the result of it – that God chose certain people to be saved, and therefore He knows that they will be saved, because He has ordained it.

 

But that understanding brings me to a slight problem.

You see, the first way makes “Foreknowledge” the basis upon which one is predestinated, while the second way makes predestination the cause of the Foreknowledge.

I am pretty sure that this is the difference of understanding in interpreting this verse – the “cause and effect” is reversed, depending upon which view you hold.

I would say that foreknowledge causes predestination, whilst a Calvinist would say that predestination causes foreknowledge.

I would say that God knew who would believe, and because of that knowledge, he chose those whom He knew would believe.

A Calvinist would say that God chose (predestined) who would believe, and as a result of His choosing, He knew that those would believe.

Cause and effect are reversed from one understanding to the other.

Now, here is where I become confused:

 

1Pe 1:18-21

(18)  Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

(19)  But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

(20)  Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

(21)  Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

 

The word “Foreordained” in this passage is the same word as “foreknow” in Rom 8:29.

Same Greek word.

 

G4267 προγινώσκω proginōskō prog-in-oce'-ko

From G4253 and G1097; to know beforehand, that is, foresee: - foreknow (ordain), know (before).

 

Now, in 1 Peter 1:20, it says that Jesus was “Foreordained” before the foundation of the world.

To take the Calvinist’s view of this word, the foreknowledge is the result of God’s choice.

 Does this mean that Jesus Christ was Messiah because God CHOSE Him to be the Messiah, or was He the Messiah from the start, and therefore God chose Him based upon that pre-known truth?

 

Which understanding of the word “Foreknow” is consistently applicable to BOTH these verses?

 

I know there have been people over the centuries that have taught that Jesus BECAME the Messiah, but I am pretty sure that view would be universally rejected by anyone coming near to this site.

 

 

[No Nicolaitans]

24 minutes ago, DaveW said:

Now, in 1 Peter 1:20, it says that Jesus was “Foreordained” before the foundation of the world.

To take the Calvinist’s view of this word, the foreknowledge is the result of God’s choice.

 Does this mean that Jesus Christ was Messiah because God CHOSE Him to be the Messiah, or was He the Messiah from the start, and therefore God chose Him based upon that pre-known truth?

I'm not saying that I'm right, but I've always interpreted those verses in 1 Peter to refer to Christ being foreordained as the sacrifice for our sin...not necessarily pertaining to his Messiahship (if that's a word). 

...or is that what you're also referring to?

[DaveW]

4 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

I'm not saying that I'm right, but I've always interpreted those verses in 1 Peter to refer to Christ being foreordained as the sacrifice for our sin...not necessarily pertaining to his Messiahship (if that's a word). 

...or is that what you're also referring to?

Yeah, I wasn't entirely happy with my wording, but it is referring to Him being the Christ and all that entails. 

 

 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

8 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

I'm not saying that I'm right, but I've always interpreted those verses in 1 Peter to refer to Christ being foreordained as the sacrifice for our sin...not necessarily pertaining to his Messiahship (if that's a word). 

...or is that what you're also referring to?

8 hours ago, DaveW said:

Yeah, I wasn't entirely happy with my wording, but it is referring to Him being the Christ and all that entails. 

As for myself, seeking to remain as close to the grammatical wording of the passage itself, I would say that it refers unto our Lord Jesus Christ as - The Christ (the Messiah), the Lamb of God (as per the grammatical construction between 1 Peter 1:19 and 1 Peter 1:20.

 

[heartstrings]

Verse 20 says "who"

20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

 That means "the Word", the Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, the Eternal Father, the Prince of Peace, the King of Glory, the Way the Truth and the Life and the "Immanuel" was foreordained. But the Bible also says that Christ is God's "Elect". Does that mean God picked Christ out of a list of candidates? No. It means Christ had and has a purpose: a "job".. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/election

election  noun [ C/U ]

 US  /ɪˈlek·ʃən/

 

politics & government the act or occasion of being chosen for a particular job, esp. by voting:

 

elect verb

 US  /ɪˈlekt/

 

to decide on or choose, esp. to choose a person for a particular job by voting:

[ T ] We elect representatives every two years.

[ T ] She was elected to the board of directors.

[ + to infinitive ] He was invited to join them at the concert, but he elected to stay home and watch the ballgame.

 

Of course God did not "take a vote" either but "chosen for a job is what "election" is. And likewise God foreordained that his "elect" people would serve a purpose and that purpose is to live holy lives, fellowship with Him, love one another, love sinners,  tell others about Him and thereby glorify Him. And "predestination" simply means that AFTER you get BORN AGAIN, you WILL BY GOD's DESIGN and PLAN, be eventually conformed to the image of Christ through progressive sanctification AND chastisement. I'm just a simple countryboy and not very educated or smart: but why does this have to be hard?

 

[No Nicolaitans]

Perhaps I haven't studied it enough, but those verses in 1 Peter tell me that...

The second person of the Godhead was foreordained to...

• be the Christ/Messiah
• be the lamb of God; whereby, he (the second person of the Godhead) would "taste death for every man" and be the sacrifice for man's sins.

Considering that 1 Peter 1:17-21 is actually one sentence, it "appears" that the main thrust of the "sentence" seems to focus upon his salvific work...at least at this point, that's how it appears to me. :)

So, to answer the question...

11 hours ago, DaveW said:

 Does this mean that Jesus Christ was Messiah because God CHOSE Him to be the Messiah, or was He the Messiah from the start, and therefore God chose Him based upon that pre-known truth?

As I read over the question...I find myself reading back over it...and re-reading it...and going back over it...and it's giving me a brain-meltdown. Perhaps this is where a lot of those nifty Calvinist words come from? When you have a brain-meltdown, create a word for it. LOLOLOL!

...and all I can offer is this based on my own understanding...

The second person of the Godhead was foreordained to be the Christ and lamb of God (and all that those two titles entail).

...and I'm sticking with that answer.

Edited April 11, 2017 by No Nicolaitans
removed a repeated word

[winca\m]

It certainly cannot be denied that John MacArthur studies his scriptures  - wincam

[Invicta]

15  For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16  So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17  For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18  Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19  Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20  Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21  Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Calvin didn't invent predestination, Neither did Luther who taught something similar in his Bondage of the Will. In this he said that "Adam was given free will and used it to sin."  As Adam's offspring, we are only able to sin. Adam begat a son in his own image. The fall was total.

Both Calvin and Luther refer back to Augustine.   I did read that Augustine was the first who taught predestination after the apostles. I believe that Clement in his epistle to the Corinthians, taught something similar.  Php 4:3  And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

In England in the early 1600s in England the first Baptists were Particular Baptists.  The General Baptists came later.

 

 

 

 

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

11 minutes ago, Invicta said:

15  For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16  So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17  For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18  Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19  Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20  Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21  Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Calvin didn't invent predestination, Neither did Luther who taught something similar in his Bondage of the Will. In this he said that "Adam was given free will and used it to sin."  As Adam's offspring, we are only able to sin. Adam begat a son in his own image. The fall was total.

Both Calvin and Luther refer back to Augustine.   I did read that Augustine was the first who taught predestination after the apostles. I believe that Clement in his epistle to the Corinthians, taught something similar.  Php 4:3  And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.

In England in the early 1600s in England the first Baptists were Particular Baptists.  The General Baptists came later.

 

 

 

 

 

what is the context of Romans 9,10,and 11?

Hint: It's not talking about the salvation of individuals.

[Invicta]

2 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

what is the context of Romans 9,10,and 11?

Hint: It's not talking about the salvation of individuals.

Did God choose the Jews?

[Jordan Kurecki]

14 minutes ago, Invicta said:

Did God choose the Jews?

Yes, but not for personal salvation, but unto national honor and a special place in God's program of revealing the scriptures and bringing the Messiah into the world.

the argument in Romans 9 would be equivalent to an African who is mad at God or laying a charge at God that he is unjust because God chose for me to be born in America over him, in America there are certain blessings and privileges that Africans do not have, Just because God chose for me to have the privilege of being born in America does not mean that God chose and ordained for me to be saved over the African. However God did in his sovereignty and wisdom choose for me to be born as an American. The argument made in Romans 9 is not about God choosing salvation for specific people over others. but one of choosing certain privileges and gifts to bestow on one group over another. You will not get a Calvinistic doctrine of predestination from looking at Romans 9,10, and 11 as a whole.

If Romans 9 was in fact teaching that God chooses certain people for salvation, Why then is not all of Israel saved? After all aren't you the one implying that God chose the Jews and somehow trying to equate that to meaning that God chooses individuals for salvation to the exclusion of others? Come on now...

Edited April 11, 2017 by Jordan Kurecki

[DaveW]

43 minutes ago, Invicta said:

 

In England in the early 1600s in England the first Baptists were Particular Baptists.  The General Baptists came later.

Once again you rewrite history to suit yourself.

There was a division into "particular" and "general" baptists, but neither of them were "original Baptists " in England. 

Indeed, the only reason there are these two separate designations is show that there were two opposing views - in other words, there would be no reason for the designation "particular" if there was nothing to distinguish from, ie. those who were "general". Prior to this separation there were just "Baptists".

As far as predestination is concerned, once again you try to rewrite history by saying Augustine was the first since the apostles to teach it.

Predestination is a Bible doctrine, but not the way Augustine redefined it, and not the way Calvin taught it.

After all, Augustine was a mystic and philosopher, upon whom Calvin, a Catholic philosopher, based his works.

Why would anyone want to follow the writings of a murderer who started a copy of the catholic church, and who based his theories on the writings of a mystic philosopher, who redefines terms as he wishes, for the purposes of promoting his own ideas?

[Invicta]

If you read what I actually said that I had read that Augustine was the first, then said that Clemment taight it.  Stop twisting my words.

 

 

11 minutes ago, DaveW said:

Why would anyone want to follow the writings of a murderer who started a copy of the catholic church, and who based his theories on the writings of a mystic philosopher, who redefines terms as he wishes, for the purposes of promoting his own ideas?

Yes, Paul was a murderer but I follow him.