Canaletto, Warwick Castle East Front 1752
http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/06/birthday-partybad.html
Limited atonement is also known as particular redemption according to the Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 72). The view is Jesus’ death secured salvation for only a limited number of persons, which are the elect. This is contrasted with the idea that the atoning work is intended for all of humanity, as in unlimited atonement. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 72). The understanding with limited atonement is that since not all are elected and saved, God did not have Christ die for all. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 72). Walter A. Elwell describes this as maintaining Christ’s atoning work was sufficient for all, but only efficient for the elect. Elwell (1996: 99). Erickson writes that most Calvinists reason that the purpose of Christ’s coming was not to make salvation possible for all persons, but to provide salvation for the elect. Erickson (1994: 826).
Erickson provides the view that Biblical verses stating that Christ died for the world and for all men must be understood in context. Romans 8: 32, which states God gave his Son for us all, is in the context of 8: 28, where those called according to his purposes are predestined. Erickson (1994: 833). Also in the context of John 3: 16, it states that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but will have everlasting life. Erickson (1994: 833). A person trusts as God guides him/her to believe and this does not mean that one can believe in the gospel by human means. Erickson notes that verses such as 1 John 2: 2 cannot be ignored where Christ is noted as giving himself for the sins of those in Christ and for the sins of the whole world. Erickson (1994: 834). He provides the view that limited atonement is sufficient to cover the sins of the nonelect, but Christ did not die for them. The idea being that salvation is entirely based on the choice of God and not on an Arminian perspective that in part God has foreknowledge of who will believe with faith and merit. Erickson (1994: 835).
In a sense, Christ universally died for all and his atoning work is sufficient for all, but it is limited in application, and therefore I hold to a form of limited atonement.
Elwell mentions that even with a Calvinistic view of limited atonement, with Christ’s work there is room for all human beings to be saved if they come in. Elwell (1996: 99). I can grant this idea although persons cannot come to Christ on their own, and God must make the choice to regenerate a person. However, the elect at least are restorable by God. This could be stated as human openness, but absolutely not in the sense of a human being with libertarian freedom deciding whether or not to follow Christ, which is often incorrectly taught within evangelical theology. It must be understood that the openness/potential to salvation is insufficient to be saved and that God must by his choice alone regenerate and guide a person to have openness in salvation. This would be a proper understanding of human openness to salvation. It is possible that only the elect are restorable and have a potential openness to salvation, which God exploits to save a person. However, my view is that likely all persons are restorable and have a potential openness to salvation, and God uses this human aspect to regenerate a person, and that God simply and rightly only prefers to save some. I must make it clear that when I mention the concepts of a person being restorable or having openness to God, I am not approaching this from a libertarian free will, or Arminian perspective. The potential restorability or openness of a human being does not change the fact that each person rejects God via a corrupt nature and sinful choices and is unworthy of the Kingdom of God having no merit in order to please God.
The potentiality of human beings to freely believe, if God chooses to regenerate and guide a person to salvation takes philosophical hard determinism out of the process. Human beings would not be forced or coerced to believe, but would be regenerated by God and freely believe in this irresistible, persuasive process with soft determinism/compatibilism.
In philosophical terms this makes God the primary cause of the human action and the human being the secondary cause. Make no mistake, the person’s free acceptance of the gospel truth is not a human work of salvation in any theological sense, as there is no human merit whatsoever in New Testament salvation. It states in Ephesians 2 :8-10, one is saved in grace through faith, and good works should be a result of that process. God does not force or coerce human belief, but guides one to freely believe.
ELWELL, WALTER A. (1996) ‘Atonement, Extent of the’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI and CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.
The big unanswerable question is of course, "Why does God choose some and not others? How does God determine whom to choose?" It is a hard truth that we cannot know these things, but must submit to God's sovereign will, and trust in His goodness.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Sir Chuckles. The trillion dollar question...ding ding ding ding ding (The Price is Right).
ReplyDeleteI do not have the answer. But I reason that even though all persons have a corrupt nature, make sinful choices, and commit sinful actions, all persons are not the same to God. This means potentially, although I reason none would choose God on their own, and God likely could restore all persons, each person would not necessarily please God if elected/regenerated.
Although all are worthy of condemnation outside of Christ, each person will not turn out the same if regenerated by God. Since God does not use hard determinism and we are not identical clones of each other, God knows that some persons will please him in the everlasting Kingdom and some will not. This is completely just as no one is worthy of salvation and so the elect are saved by grace through faith and the rest are left alone to freely reject God everlastingly and face punishment simultaneously as sin must be punished or paid for by Christ.
As a human being, I do not like the doctrine, but as a Christian theologian it makes Biblical, theological, and philosophical sense. It makes more sense than any counter assertions or arguments I have come across.
Hi Russ,
ReplyDeleteWhere Paul says about christ dying for all, I think its quite obvious that he is saying that under the New Covenant, the free offer of the Gospel is offered to both Jews and Gentiles alike.
But if we say that Christ died for all men, in the vein of Universalism or Amrinianism, since not all men are saved, then we are also saying Christ didn't do enough, or indeed, ALL men would be saved. Hiw work of redemption, is no longer perfect under that critera.
Christ's atoning work was enough to save all persons. Elwell writes that Christ’s atoning work was sufficient for all, but only efficient for the elect. Elwell (1996: 99).
ReplyDeleteCheers, Deejay.
I posted a link to this page on the Christian Forums site that I belong to, in an 'Election vs. Free Will' debate area.
ReplyDeleteExcellent article.
ReplyDeleteFunny and very appropriate cartoon!
In philosophical terms this makes God the primary cause of the human action and the human being the secondary cause.
You said that so well! Love it!
None of us deserves to be saved...none of us. Therefore, the fact that God saves any of us, is more than we deserve.
ReplyDeleteSo, how can we call God 'unfair' because He chooses some to save? 'Who are you, o man, to judge God?' How can a sinner judge the Holy One? How can a creature, whose knowledge is nothing compared to the all-wise, all-knowing, infinite
God, claim to be able to judge God's intentions? How can we, who are finite creatures, even attempt to judge One Who is infinite, and Who has existed before time ever began?
Did God save the angels? When 1/3 of all the angels rebelled against God, did Jesus die for them? Yet, I don't hear the demons complaining that God never offered salvation to them. That's because the demons, as wicked and rebellious as they are (and there are certainly none more wicked), know better. They dare not raise such a challenge to God, because they know what they deserve. And yet man, who is lower than the angels, has the audacity to challenge God for His choosing to save a remnant.
God is sovereign. He does as He pleases. And He is right in doing so.
We all deserve to go to Hell. Anything God does beyond that, to save even one of us, is mercy. Yes, even if He only chose to save one of us, and leave the rest to burn in Hell, then He would be doing more than anyone deserved.
"What a vain pretense it is to profess to honor God by a doctrine that makes salvation depend on the will of man! If it were true, you might say to God, "We thank thee, O Lord, for what thou hast done; thou hast given us a great many things, and we offer thee thy meed of praise, which is justly due to thy name; but we think we deserve more, for the deciding point was in our free will." Beloved, do not any of you swerve from the free grace of God, for the babblings about man's free agency are neither more nor less than lies, right contrary to the truth of Christ, and the teachings of the Spirit.
How certain, then, is the salvation of every elect soul! It does not depend on the will of man; he is 'made willing' in the day of God's power. He shall be called at the set time, and his heart shall be effectually changed, that he may become a trophy of the Redeemer's power. That he was unwilling before, is no hindrance; for God giveth him the will, so that he is then of a willing mind. Thus, every heir of heaven must be saved, because the Spirit is put within him, and thereby his disposition and affections are molded according to the will of God."
(Charles Spurgeon, from his sermon, "The Holy Spirit in the Covenant," preached on a Lord's Day morning, 1856)
I believe someone on the Christian Forum I belong to posted this (these are excerpts):
ReplyDeleteIf free will were in place, it supposes a God the Father who waits on Man. But we are told to wait on the Lord.
If free will were in place, Jesus' sacrifice would be imperfect, because there inevitably were some who would have chosen Christ, but did not get the chance, and it was insufficient for the salvation of the world (a requirement from man is necessary).
If we have free will, then in order to be fair, wouldn't God have to give everyone the same chance to be saved?
Otherwise a 21 year old kid who dies in an Auto accident by the hand of a drunk driver can cry out that he didn't get the same chance as an 80 year old man who put his faith in Christ only in his dying moments. He would declare that God's temporary grace was insufficient to provide time to choose. If someone get's a longer life, that is a significant advantage over someone who dies young.
Ephesians 1:4– He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be Holy and without blame before him in love.
ReplyDelete* Chosen–Greek: eklegomai - to select, make choice, from:
* Ek–(ex)- origin, from,
* Lego — to lay forth; relate in words; a systematic discourse (an orderly arranged speech or writing); lego declares what is said (the word or logos);
Before the world began, God has chosen (spoken out of his mouth) and prearranged the salvation and holy living of only those that belong to him. John 3:16– For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
* World–Greek: kosmos - “orderly arrangement” adorn or decoration
* From: Komeo (cosmetic); to tend or provide; to carry away from harm
Jeremiah 4:28 — because I have spoken it, I have purposed it.
* Spoken — Hebrew: dabar - “to arrange” by command; determine; appoint
God says, “Let there be” — And it is so. He has chosen (predetermined) his people, whom he foreknew, that they should live holy. This holiness is in obedience to God’s word (orderly arrangement). Jesus learned obedience through suffering (Heb. 5:8). He is our example (I Peter 2:21). The word (logos) of God has prearranged that we will follow in his steps (II Tim. 3:12; Heb. 12:10). God did not love all the world (Kosmos). He “so” loved the orderly arrangement (world). “So” is an adverb telling how or in what fashion he loved the world. Who are these “whosoevers” that will believe in him? After Paul preached at Antioch, the scripture says, “As many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” (Acts 13:4 8) (no more no less). We have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will (Eph. 1:11). It is God that worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure (Phil. 2:13). God has spoken all things, “Declaring (dabar) the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, my counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure (Isa. 46:10).” “Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world” (Acts 15:18).
from:
http://covenantbride.wordpress.com/tag/jim-brown/
"The system of truth revealed in the Scriptures is not simply one straight line, but two; and no man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once. For instance, I read in one Book of the Bible, "The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." Yet I am taught, in another part of the same inspired Word, that "it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." I see, in one place, God in providence presiding over all, and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions, in a great measure, to his own free-will. Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act that there was no control of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to atheism; and if, on the other hand, I should declare that God so over-rules all things that man is not free enough to be responsible, I should be driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism. That God predestines, and yet that man is responsible, are two facts that few can see clearly. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one part of the Bible that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find, in another Scripture, that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is only my folly that leads me to imagine that these two truths can ever contradict each other. I do not believe they can ever be welded into one upon any earthly anvil, but they certainly shall be one in eternity. They are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the human mind which pursues them farthest will never discover that they converge, but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring."
ReplyDelete(Charles Spurgeon, Defense of Calvinism)
"For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
ReplyDeleteIt is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring. For this was how the promise was stated: "At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son."
Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."
Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory — even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? As he says in Hosea:
"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one," and,
"It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,'
they will be called 'sons of the living God.' "
Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:
"Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved.
For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality."
(Romans 9:3-28)
Jeff, thanks for promoting my blogs and commenting.
ReplyDeleteExcellent article.
Funny and very appropriate cartoon!
In philosophical terms this makes God the primary cause of the human action and the human being the secondary cause.
You said that so well! Love it!
I had to work through hard determinism and soft determinism with my MPhil to come to a clearer understanding with my PhD.
So, how can we call God 'unfair' because He chooses some to save? 'Who are you, o man, to judge God?' How can a sinner judge the Holy One? How can a creature, whose knowledge is nothing compared to the all-wise, all-knowing, infinite
God, claim to be able to judge God's intentions?
Agreed. God is often difficult to deal with in many ways, but he is still God, and we are not, and never will be.
That God predestines, and yet that man is responsible, are two facts that few can see clearly.
Yes.
Dear very appreciated readers...and intelligent readers you are as you realize that comments are key in my blogs. I at times withhold concepts from the main articles in order that they will perhaps be discussed in comments.
ReplyDeleteThis email arrived quite recently.
Thanks, Mr. Ling!!! He even provided a 'Lingline hotline'.
Dear Sir:
We mainly focus on machining jobs with the lot size ranging from 100 to 2000 pieces on monthly basis. Please be advised with the basic information of our
shop below:
A. Facility & Machinery
-Employers: 120; Space: 10000 Sq. feet; Certificate: ISP9000 ongoing;
-CNC lathe: 10; CNC mill: 8; Grinders: 3; Auxiliary machine: 35; Wire cut: 8;
-Tolerance: 0.01 mm and maximum capability: 800mmx600mm.
B. Materials & Finishing
-Aluminum, bronze, brass, stainless steel
-Power coating, anodizing and plating
* Remarks: colors by Pantone
C. Typical Products & Industry Served
- Housing, heat sink, fixture, machine parts,
- Automation, robots, instruments, equipment & machine making, engine & motors,
dentists, product design & engineering, etc.
E.CAD files Accepted
Hand draft, IGS, STEP, AutoCAD 2007, Solidworks, AutoDesk, UGNX and ProE
F. Delivery Cycle
- Emergency: 3 days
- Fast delivery: 10 days
- Normal delivery: 2 weeks or monthly basis
Serious buyers please send us drawings for a quotation and details.
* No casting,stamping,injection,screw machine parts please.
Contact: Mr. Ling (Hotline: 86 755 88832548)
Email: m1055@tom.com
Deejay (Crazy Calvinist in links), I could not get past your anti-spam error on either Internet Explorer or Firefox and so here is my latest reply in regard to your blog article, Evil Reports.
ReplyDeleteSure, we want to keep 'baddies' out, but the Western mentality is often that if something is too hard to do, too time consuming, or a hassle...forget it. This would be the case with commenting on blogs. I have watched persons comment on my blogs via my computer and every little barrier to leaving a comment usually builds the level of frustration. This would include problems with sign in to leave a comment, and with leaving links in comments and cutting and pasting to comments. If we want blog growth we should put ourselves in the place of the stranger that likes or dislikes our blog/article and wants to comment, but will not put up with a bunch of garbage, as they see it, as they do not know us, or care about us much, if at all. So, from a marketing perspective we want to make commenting on blogs as user friendly as possible, even though we moderate comments and the blog provider has bugs at times.
A friendly, easy to use blog for commenters has a better chance to grow.
Russ:)
KingPin,
ReplyDeletePlease tolerate my desire to not do the research to look up scripture references. I just finished a ten hour day in the Virginia sun and heat. Some of the plumbing I do is for new building and commercial installations. So, I'm wiped out. But, I just wanted to say hey and be part of the conversation.
I have to say that I am surprised that you believe in Predetermined election. Though, I am relieved to understand you do not like the concept.
I have argued and reasoned. This is what caused me to write my manuscript which, as you know I posted in my first blog, "Love One Another".
I feel I understand 'predestination as it is used in the Bible. However, to not understand it is due to the many references in the Bible that promote God's family. God wills that noone should parish. He even promises that all of Israel will be saved (something like, "for their work"). I understand the work they did as well. Their faith in God allowed them to pursist in being available to bring the Messiah. However, they still reject him.
Even still, what is more confounding with election, is there is not edification. It is free will to accept Jesus and have love for the human family that edifies God. Does a father take pleasure in his house hold when there is anymosity, anger, back biting, strife, etc...All of the things that are opposite the fruit of the Spirit.
Thanks, Jim. I appreciate your comments.
ReplyDeleteIn my humble opinion, the Reformed view on predestination is Biblically, theologically, and philosophically more reasonable than free will views, and by far. I realize many fine Mennonite (I attended a Mennonite Bible school for my BA), Catholic and charismatic (I attended a charismatic church for two years, and have had three charismatic theses advisors) scholars will disagree with me and I have studied the subject for ten years. There are simply far more intellectual problems with free will perspectives than sovereignty ones in regard to theodicy and free will and determinism issues.
This article will explain a lot of my findings:
Edwards and free will
God will have a family yes, the family he chooses. Sinful corrupt human creatures described in Romans 3 will not choose God on their own. To simply receive a divine offer of salvation will not save anyone. As God regenerates he does not annihilate the human will, and therefore we still sin in this life, but God enables us to follow Christ in a way that would be impossible to do with libertarian free will. The choice to regenerate is God's alone, and the saving power to believe in Christ is God's alone.
Please see:
God and two wills
Erickson states 2 Peter 3: 9 appears to have God expressing the desire that none should perish, but this is God's perfect and not permissible will.
Erickson writes that God’s perfect will, will 1 as he calls it, is God’s general intention and what pleases him most. Erickson (1994: 361). God’s will 2, is God’s specific intention in every given situation and what God actually decides will occur. Erickson (1994: 361). This is permissible will. Erickson explains that there are many times when evil and sin occur that God, in his perfect will, does not wish these events to take place, but permits them. Erickson (1994: 361). Erickson explains that with will 2, since God does not intervene to prevent particular evil and sin, he permissibly wills it. Erickson (1994: 361).
As well, although I am not a scholar on Peter's Biblical texts, looking at Strong's, perish is apollumi which is to destroy, fully or perish, and it can be used in a literal or figurative sense. Strong (1986: 16). There is a possibility this verse is not discussing everlasting punishment for non-believers but a lack of repentance for believers who will perish, and therefore physically die, without repenting. This does not mean they lose salvation. In 2 Peter 3: 9, Peter discusses God's patients towards the readers and then makes the statement concerning those that perish. This idea of perishing could be in regard to Christians who perish in belief, but yet have not repented of all sins. David Payne mentions that God is graciously giving rebellious men time to repent. Payne (1986: 1569). I cannot see anything conclusive in the verse that is discussing everlasting punishment for persons that do not believe in Christ, but it is discussing those readers called you that have not repented...curious. Now, Barclay in his commentary views 2 Peter 3: 9 as having God desiring all men to be saved. (Barclay 1976: 343). This could be answered by Erickson's explanation, but I am not convinced by looking at the Greek word for perish and the context of 'you' as in the readers of the church, that a lack of repentance is being discussed in the context of salvation.
BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, Westminster Press.
ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
PAYNE, DAVID F. (1986) ‘2 Peter’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.
STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.
I will further comment with a clarification for the second possible interpretation. Since all New Testament era believers obviously physically would eventually die, if the second interpretation is correct, the verse may be stating that God wishes that none of you (Christians) will be destroyed (in body) out of repentance, but that you will come to repentance. Verse 7 prior is discussing the physical destruction of the earth, as is verse 10 following. A discussion concerning the physical destruction of disobedient Christians that are outside of repentance would not be far-fetched here. In verse 11, Peter tells the reader to be holy in godliness and then goes back to the concept of the physical destruction of the earth in verse 12 and newness in 13.
ReplyDeleteKing Pin,
ReplyDeleteYes, but, according to the Law, "Salvation" is what the Jews were after. They were striving, year after year to reach the Day of Atonement. That annual reminder of Sin having kept them from The Father. And then turn around and do it all over again.
With a Messiah, they have life more abundantly. They can walk beyond a "Sabbath Day's Journey" if they want. Because the law has been crucified with Christ as christ is an atonment for all.
And here is where "election" must turn a corner. The Jews reject Christ. So, all of there hard work falls to the Gentile's benefit. So, now the Gentiles will have the opportunity to have "salvation" which is the fact of having the relationship with God made available.
This "salvation" thing does not mean men will go to Heaven when they die because they accepted Christ as an atonement and incidentally were chosen in the Heavenly lottery.
Personally, I find Righteousness unto Holiness bringing everlasting life as the opportunity for all men.
In fact,Isaiah prophets a change in plans:
“Sing, O Barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child. For more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord. Enlarge the place of they tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations. Spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes. For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left, and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited.” (Isaiah 54:1-3 KJV)
I will just say, I have more trouble with the "election" schema than that of Free will, acceptance of Christ and relationship which opens Heaven to us. Honestly, it does not look as if Heaven will have difficulty in having space, any way.
The American Family Association published a statistic that says "Only six percent of all people who call them selves Christians truly understand the core message of the Bible".
From Calvanist or Arminian point of view,I don't know.
Talk to later.
I enjoy the challenge. Too bad I've been so wiped out with work, lately.
I will just say, I have more trouble with the "election" schema than that of Free will, acceptance of Christ and relationship which opens Heaven to us. Honestly, it does not look as if Heaven will have difficulty in having space, any way.
ReplyDeleteFair enough, Jim. Predestination and the concept of election is found in Ephesians 1 and Romans 8, for example. Heaven has plenty of space for God to guide persons to be part of the Kingdom
Thanks very much.:)
Russ
Fair enough, Russ.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I want to add, I wrote a chapter on God's desire for us to seek Him. It is chapter five, "Why Didn't Jesus Say It?" on my main blog page, "Love One Another".
It is true that God desires a relationship with man. So, he pursued us. But, Jesus says that we should reciprocate by "Asking, Seeking and Knocking".
Jim
The Reformed understanding accepts that Biblically, God does tell one to repent. This makes sense as God uses human means such as Scripture and preaching in the divine process of predestination/election. The fact that human beings are asked to reciprocate would still mean that God makes the first move and so this fits in with the Reformed view. The elect believe as they are moulded to do so, but since this is not done by force, those in Christ freely accept it.
ReplyDeleteCheers, Jim.