Evidence for God from Science

puritan lad wrote:

FFC wrote:It really was scary because I didn't know what He was going to require of me, but it didn't take long for me to see that anything He asked me to do He gave me the strength and grace to accomplish.

I still sin and I still have doubts at times, but when I do I go back to the bible and read his promises and see that it's not about anything I could ever do or accomplish, it's about what He, God through Jesus, already did and accomplished at Calvary.

It's good to see that FFC has become a Calvinist. Now I need to work on Jac.

I know you are being sarcastic, PL, and that's ok, but I really am searching. I don't want to be labeled...I just want the truth.

No problem.

If I may, I would like to recommend John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. It's not the easiest read in the world, but what I like about Owen is that he thoroughly exhausts a subject. To date, no one has ever refuted Owen's work because they can't. Any objection that might be raised, he has already dealt with.

God Bless,

PL

puritan lad wrote:No problem.

If I may, I would like to recommend John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. It's not the easiest read in the world, but what I like about Owen is that he thoroughly exhausts a subject. To date, no one has ever refuted Owen's work because they can't. Any objection that might be raised, he has already dealt with.

God Bless,

PL

Thanks, I'll check it out.

FFC wrote:

but I really am searching. I don't want to be labeled...I just want the truth.

Amen brother, I completely agree with this line of thought.

Unfortunately, most people who inhabit this planet we call Earth love to follow men and movements. Whether it be Gautama Buddha and Buddhism, or Thales of Miletus and Grecian thought, or Chiu and Confucianism, or Mohammed and Islam, or Joseph Smith and Mormonism, or Karl Marx and Socialism, or Helena Petrovna Blavatsky and the New Age Movement, or even Charles Taze Russell and Jehovah Witnesses, people seem to enjoy lifting up other men and their movements. Sadly, Christians appear to be no different when it comes to following men and movements within Christendom. Whether it is Luther and Lutheranism, or Wesley and Methodism, or Independents and Fundamentalism, Christians seem to be more interested in following a man and his movement than the MASTER and His message. John Calvin and Calvinism is a perfect example of just that. For example,

Whereas CHRIST taught his followers to baptize only those who had a clear understanding of the Gospel, John Calvin taught people to baptize infants (a practice carried over by his Catholic background).

Whereas CHRIST spared the life of an adulteress woman caught in the very act, history clearly records that John Calvin had adulterers burned at the stake.

Whereas CHRIST clearly instructed his followers “to put up their swords” against other people who may disagree with them, it is a known fact that John Calvin directly and indirectly had both men and women imprisoned, tortured and executed for disagreeing with him.

And still Christians ardently follow the man and the movement. And realizing that his actions are not reason alone to deny or accept his teachings, they should be considered. And I also understand that most of what he wrote he derived from Augustine. Which is still yet another "ISM".

I just prefer not to follow any "ISM"'s and seek only truth. But of course I am only a man and could be just as wrong as Calvin or Wesley or PL or JAC or my next door neighbor if I am following my own "ISM" and not following the word of God as it was intended for men to understand.

I hear Calvinists say that if you are not a Calvinist, then you are Arminian, its either one or the other. But to quote friend of mine from church: "There is too much evidence on both sides of the issue to adamantly say it is one or the other."

I know, to the Calvinist, it sounds like I am on the fence. But that is absolutely not the case. I just do not want to follow men in movements, though I am sure there is a tendency to do so for all men.

PL,
I think understand the Calvinists meaning behind why someone could interpret the verses that say "whole world" or "All men" to mean just the elect. But none of the scriptures in context seem to support this idea.

First, but not necessarily most important. Just because I am speaking to a limited group of people does not mean that my reference to "all" people only means the ones I am speaking to. It can but it does not have to.

Secondly, in the context of the Bible, since God did create the "whole world" and "All men", then these terms can very easily mean exactly what it says they mean. Remember this is scripture, devinely inspired down to every letter. Or if in Hebrew, every "jot and tittle". In other words it IS the Word of God.And if God inspired the write to write "ALL MEN" then I am sure there was a purpose for that.

Thirdly, In the context of the scriptures that use the terms "All men" that Calvinists say refers to the elect, why would in the same paragraph or sometimes the same sentence the writer use the word "us" to refer to Christians and then say "all" or "All men" to only refer to "us" or the "elect".
(I Jn 2:2 & II Cor 5:14,15,19 & I Tim 2:6 & 4:10 & Titus 2:11 & II Pet 3:9)

Fourthly, Sometimes it just seems wrong to limit the phrase "all men" to just the elect.
I Tim 2:1 uses "all men" as as to whom we should pray for. Does that mean we only pray for the elect? no of course not.

And mostly importantly, in Pauls letters to Timothy. Of course they were only to Timothy. In I Tim 2:5,6 it uses the word all. Referring to all people

5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

and 4:10

10For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

This verse even compares those that believe with the rest of men. I suppose if this verse had ended with "SPECIFICALLY of those that believe." then it would mean what you say. But it does not say that. If there is an idiomatic phrase here from the greek that causes this meaning, then please show me and explain your source. That greek word translates as especially, most of all, chiefly, above all.

In Pauls style of writing if he wanted to explain that by "all men" he meant only believers, he would not have used the greek word malistah.
He would have used no word at all as he did in romans 8:23 where he identifies the adoption of Sons as the same as the Redemption of our body. the KJV stick the phrase "to wit" in there which means "the same as". But he did not use those words here.

How can you say that these references to "all" or "all men" mean only the elect unless you assume the Calvinist teaching to begin with. If Paul is writing to Timothy he would not use the word "all" to only include the people he was speaking to, this seems to be the argument which Calvinists use in other verses to explain away the word(s) "All" or "All men". And I also agree that in some cases the phrase "whole world" may refer to "a limited group of people". But just because it is in one place does not mean it is in all others. (And I do mean "ALL" others )

Whereas it is true that all men are in complete rebellion to God (See - Rom 3:10-12), it is not true that men cannot respond positively to the Gospel when it is presented to them. According to John 12:32, every man is drawn by the power of the Gospel and can be saved if he so chooses. That is why salvation is a “whosoever will” salvation

(See - Rev 22:17 & Jn 3:14-16 & 4:14 & 11:25,26 & 12:46 & Acts 2:21 & 10:42,43 & 13:26 & Rom 9:33 & 10:9-11,13 & I Jn 5:1)

Additionally:
Titus 2:11
For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men.

In Titus, grace has appeared to all men and all we have to do is find it. The grace that Christians receive is not something we do. But it is something we realize. And although we found it, we never sought for it. It was shown to us by God in a conbination of many possible ways. Today the most important and significant way is done by sharing the Gospel. Several times in the old testament it is shown where people realize or find the grace of God that has always been available to them.

Genesis 6:8
But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

Genesis 39:4
And Joseph found grace in his sight, and he served him: and he made him overseer over his house, and all that he had he put into his hand.

Exodus 33:17
And the LORD said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name.

It is our recognition of His Grace and Love that causes us, in appreciation, to obey him out of Love. We may not always obey him, but when we do not obey Him, we lose fellowship with Him. But now we are getting into a new subject so I'll close.

Just to be sure you understand my focus, I absolutely do not present these verses to support Arminianism. I believe that Arminianism is just as wrong as Calvinism. I only do this to show that there are parts on Calvinism that are questionable and in my opinion seem to be unscriptural. I think the Calvinists and Arminians both try to reconcile the temporal with the atemporal which is completely impossible. Those things that they argue happened before in the atemporal are just as easily argued to have happened after in the atemporal . But there is no before or after in the atemporal. There only IS. Compared to the temporal, the atemporal is both before and after and neither before or after. That's why God says "I AM". (not "I have been" or "will always be". There is no future or past in the atemporal. It just "IS") I am sure a Calvinist will take some of these arguments and show how it supports Arminianism. But then we would have to go into an entirely new discussion, which I am not prepared to do at the time. Maybe Jac could do that; he mentioned that he might do that a while back. Maybe he did and I missed it.

YLTYLT,

Just to clarify, Calvinists do not follow a man named Calvin. I prefer to call my theology "The Doctrine of Sovereign Grace". I don't adopt the teachings because I have any special regard for men such as Calvin, Luther, Augustine, Edwards, Spurgeon, etc. I hold this teaching because it is biblical. If it be labeled "Calvinism" for clearer understanding, so be it. As Spurgeon said, "It is a nickname to call it Calvinism. Calvinism is the gospel and nothing else". Calvin is just one in a long line of men who held these truths. There is no effort on my part to glory man in any way.

That said, I'm also not so arrogant as to suggest that the learned men of the past, laboring in the Word for 1,900 years, have nothing to offer me. All theology that we learn comes from somebody. It is necessary, to "search the scriptures daily, to see if these things be so. Calvinism alone passes the test, as I will continue to point out. There really is nothing new under the sun.

In regard to your post concerning "finding grace", it does not mean that the finder was actually looking for it. My wife "found love" in my eyes a year before I even asked her out. Did she actually do anything to earn that? While we are commanded to "seek God", the fact is that no one, apart from the work of the Holy Spirit, seeks God (Romans 3:11). Jesus was very clear on this fact. "...no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.” (John 6:65). To summarize what the Bible teaches about human ability...

1.) All men must come...
2.) All men should come...
3.) All men are commanded to come...
4.) No man can come...

This is the problem. This is why we must be born again. Unless we are, we cannot see the kingdom of God.

As far as the context of "all men" and "whole world", they must be taken in the context of either their original audience, or speaking of "all types of men". This is illustrated in the fact Jesus does not pray for all men. Consider the intercessory work of Our Savior.

John 17:6-9
“I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You. For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me. “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them."

Christ makes intercession for those whom the Father has given Him, and all that the Father has given Him will come to Him (John 6:37). The idea of "free will" salvation makes it possible for Christ's prayers to go unanswered.

In the end, the fundamental difference, as you pointed to in an earlier post, is the nature of the atonement itself. If Christ's work, as given in the Scriptures, was to "pay the ransom" and to "secure eternal redemption", then it cannot be for everyone. If so, then either Christ's work was a miserable failure, or you're stuck with universalism, both being unscriptural. Therefore, the universal atonement view makes the atonement really no atonement at all. The purchasing power of the blood has become lost, and the atonement becomes merely an "ointment in a box". Those who have enough inherent goodness to "find" this ointment, and through their own self-generated faith are able to apply it, can be saved. But woe be to those who aren't so naturally inclined to do such. For there seems to be no way for God to further his grace in these poor souls, despite all the means of Grace at His disposal. The Father becomes a bystander, the Son a cheerleader rather than a Savior, and the Holy Spirit a weakened entity bound by the almighty "free will" of man. Therefore, the blood of Christ is hardly precious, but absolutely worthless to the vast majority of those for which it was intended.

There are no two ways about it. Either salvation is of man (Pelagianism), of both God and man (Arminianism/Semi-Pelagianism), or "Salvation is of the Lord" (Jonah 2:9 - Biblical/Calvinism). Either Christ paid the ransom, or else "the check is in the mail" and will become effective as soon as we cash it. Either Christ saves, or he gives us the ability to save ourselves. The Redeemed either have eternal life and will never perish, or they can perish and be lost forever. These lines in the sand are pretty clear, and seeking a common ground is futile.

Again, I must reiterate that I recognize Arminians as brothers in Christ. But I also find it necessary to get the gospel correct.

God Bless,

PL

puritan lad wrote:YLTYLT,

Just to clarify, Calvinists do not follow a man named Calvin. I prefer to call my theology "The Doctrine of Sovereign Grace". I don't adopt the teachings because I have any special regard for men such as Calvin, Luther, Augustine, Edwards, Spurgeon, etc. I hold this teaching because it is biblical. If it be labeled "Calvinism" for clearer understanding, so be it. As Spurgeon said, "It is a nickname to call it Calvinism. Calvinism is the gospel and nothing else". Calvin is just one in a long line of men who held these truths. There is no effort on my part to glory man in any way.

That said, I'm also not so arrogant as to suggest that the learned men of the past, laboring in the Word for 1,900 years, have nothing to offer me. All theology that we learn comes from somebody. It is necessary, to "search the scriptures daily, to see if these things be so. Calvinism alone passes the test, as I will continue to point out. There really is nothing new under the sun.

In regard to your post concerning "finding grace", it does not mean that the finder was actually looking for it. My wife "found love" in my eyes a year before I even asked her out. Did she actually do anything to earn that? While we are commanded to "seek God", the fact is that no one, apart from the work of the Holy Spirit, seeks God (Romans 3:11). Jesus was very clear on this fact. "...no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.” (John 6:65). To summarize what the Bible teaches about human ability...

1.) All men must come...
2.) All men should come...
3.) All men are commanded to come...
4.) No man can come...

This is the problem. This is why we must be born again. Unless we are, we cannot see the kingdom of God.

As far as the context of "all men" and "whole world", they must be taken in the context of either their original audience, or speaking of "all types of men". This is illustrated in the fact Jesus does not pray for all men. Consider the intercessory work of Our Savior.

John 17:6-9
“I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You. For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me. “I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them."

Christ makes intercession for those whom the Father has given Him, and all that the Father has given Him will come to Him (John 6:37). The idea of "free will" salvation makes it possible for Christ's prayers to go unanswered.

In the end, the fundamental difference, as you pointed to in an earlier post, is the nature of the atonement itself. If Christ's work, as given in the Scriptures, was to "pay the ransom" and to "secure eternal redemption", then it cannot be for everyone. If so, then either Christ's work was a miserable failure, or you're stuck with universalism, both being unscriptural. Therefore, the universal atonement view makes the atonement really no atonement at all. The purchasing power of the blood has become lost, and the atonement becomes merely an "ointment in a box". Those who have enough inherent goodness to "find" this ointment, and through their own self-generated faith are able to apply it, can be saved. But woe be to those who aren't so naturally inclined to do such. For there seems to be no way for God to further his grace in these poor souls, despite all the means of Grace at His disposal. The Father becomes a bystander, the Son a cheerleader rather than a Savior, and the Holy Spirit a weakened entity bound by the almighty "free will" of man. Therefore, the blood of Christ is hardly precious, but absolutely worthless to the vast majority of those for which it was intended.

There are no two ways about it. Either salvation is of man (Pelagianism), of both God and man (Arminianism/Semi-Pelagianism), or "Salvation is of the Lord" (Jonah 2:9 - Biblical/Calvinism). Either Christ paid the ransom, or else "the check is in the mail" and will become effective as soon as we cash it. Either Christ saves, or he gives us the ability to save ourselves. The Redeemed either have eternal life and will never perish, or they can perish and be lost forever. These lines in the sand are pretty clear, and seeking a common ground is futile.

Again, I must reiterate that I recognize Arminians as brothers in Christ. But I also find it necessary to get the gospel correct.

God Bless,

PL

PL, couldn't there be some middle ground between God's soveriegnty and man's choice? These men of God from Augustine to Edwards were certainly not perfect or their words inspired regardless of how they handled the scriptures. I'm sure they have been beneficial in imparting some great truths of God to the world, but there are just as many great men of God who present some pretty good evidence to the contrary.

BTW, I did order the book by Owens that you suggested. Please pray that my head doesn't explode when I read it.

Just to clarify, Calvinists do not follow a man named Calvin

I realize you do not intend to follow Calvin. But I wonder if your theology would have been different if Calvin or Augustine's works had not existed. I have not seen you personally do this, but I know many Calvinists look toward documents like the Westminster Confession in support of their belief. And books by Pink and other Calvinists. I am not saying it is not helpful to read the words of others, but when it comes down to it commentaries are by men that are fallible. John Calvin even realized he may have been wrong on some things.

From a soon to be published work of a friend of mine pastor Brad Strand:

About sixty years after his death, followers of John Calvin started, what we term today as, Calvinism. John Calvin (a protestant reformer from France during the 1500's) began his search for God under the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. By the age of twenty-one he had mastered the Greek language as well as law. Then three and one half years later at the age of twenty-four he was presented the Gospel of CHRIST and was saved. Two years later, while still a babe in CHRIST, he sat down and wrote one of the most influential works of the Protestant Reformation, called 'Institutes of the Christian Religion.' It was this work that fueled Calvinism as we know it today. Though his first work (i.e., 'Institutes of the Christian Religion.'), written just two years after he was saved, appeared to emphasize much of what Calvinists believe today concerning foreknowledge, election, and predestination (See footnote on I Pet 1:2a & I Thes 1:4), his later commentaries proved he had had a change of mind. An example of this is seen in his comments on I John 2:2,

“Christ suffered for the sins of the WHOLE (emphasis added) world, and in the goodness of God is offered unto ALL (emphasis added) men without distinction, His blood being shed, not for a part of the world openly, but for the WHOLE (emphasis added) human race; for although in the world nothing is found worthy of the favor of God, yet He holds out the propitiation to the WHOLE (emphasis added) world, since without exception He summons ALL (emphasis added) to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than the door unto hope.”

Although Calvin changed what he believed about predestination near the end of his life, his followers did not. To this day many Calvinists adhere to all five points of their acrostic 'TULIP:'

In regard to your post concerning "finding grace", it does not mean that the finder was actually looking for it.

You've basically repeated exactly what I said:

In Titus, grace has appeared to all men and all we have to do is find it. The grace that Christians receive is not something we do. But it is something we realize. And although we found it, we never sought for it. It was shown to us by God in a conbination of many possible ways.

What we do to come to God is because God Draws all men.

Titus 2:11
For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men.
John 12:32
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

As far as the context of "all men" and "whole world", they must be taken in the context of either their original audience, or speaking of "all types of men". This is illustrated in the fact Jesus does not pray for all men. Consider the intercessory work of Our Savior.

Although in this prayer he was only praying for the believers, this does not mean he never prays for non-believers.

In Luke 23:34 he prayed for those that persecuted Him on the cross.

Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

And it does not seem to me that 17:6-9 is in the same context as 12:32.

I am sure you have already handled verses John 12:32 and Titus 2:11 somewhere so I will not ask you to repeat yourself here unless you wish to. But could you provide a link to it? I am mostly interested in why or how you explain away the meanings of the words "any", "all" , "Whole world", etc... I am sure you've heard them all before. And is this possible to do with out the assumption of the Calvinist doctrine to begin with. That would be most helpful to me to understand how you come to that conclusion.

I am also wondering how you define Arminianism. I find there are as many versions of Arminianism as there are of Calvinism. Am I right on that? If you say that it is anything that is not Calvinism, then which version of Calvinism? Now I have to agree that if Calvinism if true it must be a full 5 point double predestination. And that is the main reason I do not agree with it. Because it makes God the author of sin unless you can logically show me how it does not. I know scripture says He's not, but in the framework of 5 point double predestination logically He must be. Right?


In Christ

FFC wrote:

PL, couldn't there be some middle ground between God's soveriegnty and man's choice?

I would think Proverbs 16:1,9 would seem to indicate this some middle ground.

1The plans of the heart belong to man,
but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD.

9The heart of man plans his way,
but the LORD establishes his steps

YLTYLT wrote:FFC wrote:

PL, couldn't there be some middle ground between God's soveriegnty and man's choice?

I would think Proverbs 16:1,9 would seem to indicate this some middle ground.

1The plans of the heart belong to man,
but the answer of the tongue is from the LORD.

9The heart of man plans his way,
but the LORD establishes his steps

Not so. While the things of the heart belong to man, they are under the control of a Sovereign God.

Proverbs 21:1
"The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD; Like the rivers of water, he turns it wherever he will."

Ezekiel 36:26-27
"And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules."

Jeremiah 24:7
"And I will give them a heart to know me, that I am Jehovah: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God; for they shall return unto me with their whole heart."

Jeremiah 31:33
"But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people."

Psalm 65:4
"Blessed is the man whom you choose, and cause to approach you, that he may dwell in thy courts..."

In the end, God says, "I will do it...". Salvation is 100% God and 0% man. This is what I call Calvinism, and or Sovereign Grace (which did not start with Calvin). It can be defined quickly with God's own word, "So then he has mercy on whom he wills, and whom he will he hardens." (Romans 9:18). This scripture alone refutes no less than 3 of the "5 points" of Arminianism. It tells us that God's Grace is at His own disposal, according to His Sovereign will, (hence the term "Sovereign Grace"). It totally strips man of every good thing from an eternal perspective, and places all in the hands of a sovereign God. Therefore, He alone gets all the glory for the Salvation of sinners. We have absolutely nothing to boast of, which, if the slightest bit of Arminianism were true, we could have grounds to boast. We could say that the reason we are saved and our unsaved neighbor isn't is because we made a better choice. We were either smarter, better, or somehow made better use of God's grace than he did. Thus our faith, in contrast to the scriptures, is of ourselves (See Eph. 2:8). We must then exercise our own self generated faith in order to "accept Christ". Of course, since not all have faith (2 Thess. 3:2), they are in big trouble from the outset.

Thankfully, God did not leave me to my free-will, but rather changed my will, "causing me to approach Him, that I may dwell in His courts". He gave me the faith I needed to come to Him. This, obviously, He does not do for everyone.

By the way, it was the Arminians that presented "5 points". The so-called "Five Points of Calvinism" were given as a response to the Remonstrance at the Synod of Dort in 1618. Somehow, it has become that Calvinism is now recognized by "5 points", instead of Arminianism.

In any case, we can debate the history of each set of doctrine until we are blue in the face. The real question that we must deal with, however, isn't whether or not the doctrine is historical, but whether or not it is biblical. In the end, Christ's work on the cross becomes the dividing issue. As Calvinists, we do not see Calvary as a blind sacrifice given in the hope that someone might get saved. We see the sacrifice of Christ as a purposeful means to a purposeful end, that end being the actual redemption of those whom "he chose ... in him before the foundation of the world, that [they] should be holy and without blemish before him in love: having foreordained ... unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will," (Ephesians 1:4-5).

FFC, Take your time on that book. It is a difficult read, but it will be most profitable to you in explaining the finished work of Jesus Christ at Calvary. In short, Christ's work accomplished all that it intended to accomplish, and saves all the He intended to save. He saw the labor of His soul, and was satisfied (Isaiah 53:11). Owen really exhausts all arguments, including many which are being made now.

God Bless,

PL

Proverbs 21:1
"The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD; Like the rivers of water, he turns it wherever he will."

Ezekiel 36:26-27
"And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules."

Jeremiah 24:7
"And I will give them a heart to know me, that I am Jehovah: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God; for they shall return unto me with their whole heart."

Jeremiah 31:33
"But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people."

Psalm 65:4
"Blessed is the man whom you choose, and cause to approach you, that he may dwell in thy courts..."

These are wonderful verses and we should praise our soveriegn and wonderful God for all He does...but can't we apply these promises to any sinner who approaches God with a contrite heart and cries out for His mercy? You know, like the publican in Luke 18:13 who beat his chest in the temple and said "God have mercy on me a sinner"? Jesus said he went away justified. He prayed. He confessed his sinful status. He went away justified.

Yes. And here is where I want to clarify something that may help in this debate which I, as a former Arminian, can appreciate.

No one who has approached Christ out of genuine repentance and a contrite heart has ever been turned away because of "election". That is a point that Calvinists have failed to make clear. Election should not be considered a negative. It is a positive. It is election that enables one to come to Christ with the contrite heart.

Hope this clears up a big misunderstanding.

God Bless,

PL

PL,

Proverbs 21:1
"The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD; Like the rivers of water, he turns it wherever he will."

We are not all kings.

Ezekiel 36:26-27
"And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules."

Jeremiah 24:7
"And I will give them a heart to know me, that I am Jehovah: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God; for they shall return unto me with their whole heart."

Jeremiah 31:33
"But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people."

These were only written to the nation of Israel. And it is about the future promise. Not how God interacts with all men all the time.

Not so. While the things of the heart belong to man, they are under the control of a Sovereign God.

Psalm 65:4
"Blessed is the man whom you choose, and cause to approach you, that he may dwell in thy courts..."
This scripture along with the one I referenced:

9The heart of man plans his way,
but the LORD establishes his steps

Together these verses would indicate that the plans are of the heart of man but the STEPS man takes to accomplish his plan are under the control of a Sovereign God.

This allows men to choose a path, which does not make god the author of sin. But then God can control man's steps to carry out His plan.

Psalm 33:10-12
"The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; He makes the plans of the peoples of no effect. The counsel of the LORD stands forever, The plans of His heart to all generations. Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, The people He has chosen as His own inheritance."

Also, I disagree with your most basic assumption concerning Israel, but that is for another thread.

God Bless,

PL

puritan lad wrote:Yes. And here is where I want to clarify something that may help in this debate which I, as a former Arminian, can appreciate.

No one who has approached Christ out of genuine repentance and a contrite heart has ever been turned away because of "election". That is a point that Calvinists have failed to make clear. Election should not be considered a negative. It is a positive. It is election that enables one to come to Christ with the contrite heart.

Hope this clears up a big misunderstanding.

God Bless,

PL

It does as long as I stop there and don't think beyond it.