Free Will challenge

[Gup20]

What makes you think Mark would disagree with your post? Yet you'd have us believe he disagrees when you have no proof with your purpose being a false accusation (of the enemy).

Does your disagreement (Free Will Challenge) have something to do with Calvinism theology vs Arminianism theology? Christian theology has probably done more harm than good causing congregations to split with the result being all of todays Christian denominations. Each one thinking they have the right understanding of mans' relatioship with GOD and HIS relationship to man (interpretation of scripture).

Question To Both: Do you think it impossible for GOD in HIS OWN WAY to bridge the gap? Why does it have to be one or the other (Calvinism vs Arminianism)? If it isn't this theology than what [Free Will] theology do you find such reason to differ as if it's a matter of Life & Death ?

Have you ever considered the possibility that religious differences in Christian theology are more man's doing than the LORD'S doing? Maybe you both are right. With GOD all things are possible. Used to get asked what denomination i belonged to and i would say "Christian" and get a response like "Oh Really". So now i say "Messianic Christian" which results in a variety of responses with some saying "That's not a denomination" and so be it.

NOTE: You don't need to answer because you both want to disagree instead of finding common ground .... the possibility that you both are right in your own way.

The crux of the disagreement is whether God chooses whom are saved on his own without man (monergistic) or whether man has a role to play in his salvation (synergistic). I think both Calvin and Arminius are wrong and for the same reason - both ignore steps in salvation and assume that faith and righteousness have a direct relationship. In fact, faith first qualifies man for adoption under Abraham whom was given the righteousness of Christ by grace. Once adopted, we inherit God's promise that Abraham's descendants would inherit that righteousness.

The Bible says God commands man to make the choice between life and death, blessing and cursing (salvation) and Calvinism seeks to undermine the command of God and remove that choice from man.

[Deu 30:19 NASB95] 19 "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,​

By removing man's volition to choose, not only does it damage the gospel, but it makes God ultimately responsible for sin and death. If sinning wasn't a choice of man's but an act of God's sovereign will, then none can truly be guilty of sin as they were simply obeying God's perfect will. It makes God a liar in either circumstance.

I agree with Calvinists that God is the one who performs the act of saving (as man is powerless to do so), but God does give man a choice and commands him to choose whether he will be in the chosen group or not.

 

[Mark Quayle]

​

Thank you for your "Like" on my previous post. I don't think Gup20 really disagrees with your post ... other than to disagree for the sake of disagreeing.

​

What makes you think Mark would disagree with your post? Yet you'd have us believe he disagrees when you have no proof with your purpose being a false accusation (of the enemy).

Does your disagreement (Free Will Challenge) have something to do with Calvinism theology vs Arminianism theology? Christian theology has probably done more harm than good causing congregations to split with the result being all of todays Christian denominations. Each one thinking they have the right understanding of mans' relatioship with GOD and HIS relationship to man (interpretation of scripture).

Question To Both: Do you think it impossible for GOD in HIS OWN WAY to bridge the gap? Why does it have to be one or the other (Calvinism vs Arminianism)? If it isn't this theology than what [Free Will] theology do you find such reason to differ as if it's a matter of Life & Death ?

Have you ever considered the possibility that religious differences in Christian theology are more man's doing than the LORD'S doing? Maybe you both are right. With GOD all things are possible. Used to get asked what denomination i belonged to and i would say "Christian" and get a response like "Oh Really". So now i say "Messianic Christian" which results in a variety of responses with some saying "That's not a denomination" and so be it.

NOTE: You don't need to answer because you both want to disagree instead of finding common ground .... the possibility that you both are right in your own way.

Have you ever considered the possibility that religious differences in Christian theology are more man's doing than the LORD'S doing? Maybe you both are right. With GOD all things are possible. Used to get asked what denomination i belonged to and i would say "Christian" and get a response like "Oh Really". So now i say "Messianic Christian" which results in a variety of responses with some saying "That's not a denomination" and so be it.

No, truth is we are both (I assume) trying to approach the truth —that is, neither of us has anything altogether right. (Even when our words are precisely God's words, we don't understand them altogether completely nor without presumption and bias.) The heart of the Arminian may leap for joy at thoughts of God's sovereignty and wisdom, as does the Reformed, but the Reformed feels the need to interrupt, when the Arminian credits mere chance with Power that God denies himself from using. Likewise, the Arminian will have similar feelings about the notion that God is doing puppetry.

In this discussion with @Gup20 , though, he is not merely Arminian, but claims what I suppose is his own soteriology, that attempts to explain that there is a step we are missing in the progression from lost to found, that, (to him), needs neither Calvinism nor Arminianism, by way of being included into Abraham, prior to regeneration.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I’ve already unpacked your flawed notion that faith is a gift.

Ephesians 2:8 (NASB20) For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;​

In this passage, “you” is the subject and “have been saved” is the predicate. Both “by grace” and “through faith” are prepositions and in Greek are feminine. The term “gift of God” is neuter. In Greek the form follows a thought throughout the whole verse, so a gender change indicates a new thought or a separate thought. “You have been saved” is masculine. So by changing to neuter, “it is the gift of God” refers to the whole process of being saved through faith by grace. In English the pronoun “it” should refer to the Subject & its predicate, not to a proposition. So both languages tell us that the interpretation that faith is the gift is an utterly wrong interpretation.

Perhaps you meant 'prepositional phrase'. Neither grace nor faith is a preposition. The Greek construction translated "by grace" (χάριτί) is a noun in which the preposition "by" is implied. A noun isn't a preposition. And "through faith" is expressed in the Greek as two separate words, only one being the preposition.

This argument about feminine vs neuter is also the use Arminians have made over and over. The fact is implied that the whole thing is the gift. Or are you going to teach the writer Greek and language, by claiming that if that was so, he should have said the word 'gift' as feminine, and add it in again as neuter?

Anyway, I find myself stating your POV better than you did, in order to argue against it. After all, even you said, that the neuter "gift of God" refers to the whole process of being saved by grace through faith. That's the same thing I said. And if the whole process is the gift, then faith is a gift.

Furthermore, to claim that faith is not a gift, but is a work of man, or an extraction from man's will, is tacit denial of what the passage teaches —that it is not of ourselves, even that it is not by man's work but of God.

 

[Gup20]

In this discussion with @Gup20 , though, he is not merely Arminian, but claims what I suppose is his own soteriology, that attempts to explain that there is a step we are missing in the progression from lost to found, that, (to him), needs neither Calvinism nor Arminianism, by way of being included into Abraham, prior to regeneration.

I'd agree with your description here of my 'soteriology' but I would say I am echoing Paul's soteriology moreso than something that is my own. It is only 'my own' in the sense that I don't know of any denominations which espouse this view by-and-large.

The thing is... I have an extremely open mind to the scripture and am willing to go (literally) anywhere it leads. I have a closed mind to man's systems and denominational dogmas. Debate forces me to either defend what I believe or accept what I'm being confronted with, so it is a 'sharpening tool' for me that causes me to not only challenge my own assumptions, but dig more deeply and either confirm what I believe or change what I believe. Without that confrontation, I would not dig as deeply for the truth or be forced to deal with my own assumptions or framework.

I most enjoy debating Calvinists (and reformed) because at the very least we agree on the supremacy of scripture and the importance of using exegetic arguments which are the only kinds of arguments which mean anything to me. @AbbaLove you may see our argument as a lack of unity, but I see it as an affirmation of our unified, foundational love for truth. I do not fear confrontation. It does not harm me or cause me to not love the confronter (just ask my wife ). In fact, I value it. It motivates me to grow, push farther than I otherwise would, and learn more about the Truth which is the Spirit of God.

 

[Gup20]

Perhaps you meant 'prepositional phrase'.

Indeed.

Neither grace nor faith is a preposition. The Greek construction translated "by grace" (χάριτί) is a noun in which the preposition "by" is implied. A noun isn't a preposition. And "through faith" is expressed in the Greek as two separate words, only one being the preposition.

This argument about feminine vs neuter is also the use Arminians have made over and over. The fact is implied that the whole thing is the gift. Or are you going to teach the writer Greek and language, by claiming that if that was so, he should have said the word 'gift' as feminine, and add it in again as neuter?

Anyway, I find myself stating your POV better than you did, in order to argue against it. After all, even you said, that the neuter "gift of God" refers to the whole process of being saved by grace through faith. That's the same thing I said. And if the whole process is the gift, then faith is a gift.

Furthermore, to claim that faith is not a gift, but is a work of man, or an extraction from man's will, is tacit denial of what the passage teaches —that it is not of ourselves, even that it is not by man's work but of God.

The danger of not separating faith/grace from gift (as is warranted by the Greek forms) is evident. You being saved is the gift, but it doesn't mean each individual component of that comes from God. Because the form changes from masculine & feminine to neuter, we can say that "by grace" may be from God and "through faith" may be from man but that the process of them both working together is a gift. Without the gender changes, we couldn't interpret it this way, so the very fact that the gender changes exist means that is most likely the intended meaning.

God made the way, and all you have to do is choose to believe and let God do the rest. There is no works of the law which must be performed, only faith.

The synergistic nature of the gospel is apparent:

[Deu 30:19 NASB95] 19 "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,​

[Rom 8:16 NASB95] 16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,​

 

[Mark Quayle]

Indeed.


The danger of not separating faith/grace from gift (as is warranted by the Greek forms) is evident. You being saved is the gift, but it doesn't mean each individual component of that comes from God. Because the form changes from masculine & feminine to neuter, we can say that "by grace" may be from God and "through faith" may be from man but that the process of them both working together is a gift. Without the gender changes, we couldn't interpret it this way, so the very fact that the gender changes exist means that is most likely the intended meaning.

God made the way, and all you have to do is choose to believe and let God do the rest. There is no works of the law which must be performed, only faith.

The synergistic nature of the gospel is apparent:

[Deu 30:19 NASB95] 19 "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,​

[Rom 8:16 NASB95] 16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,​

Even if I accepted your use of the masculine, feminine, neuter, relationship between gift and grace and faith: You have not shown how faith engendered by man, even in your construction of "through Abraham" or "in Abraham", is possible to be effective faith, or real, but by the Spirit of God within. "Apart from ME (Christ) you can do nothing" is not hyperbole.

God made the way, and all you have to do is choose to believe and let God do the rest. There is no works of the law which must be performed, only faith.

Now there you go with a purely Arminian description. "All you have to do..." implies that God can't do this on his own. It leaves you along-side those who have said, that in the end, "it is 100% up to you".

 

[Mark Quayle]

The danger of not separating faith/grace from gift (as is warranted by the Greek forms) is evident. You being saved is the gift, but it doesn't mean each individual component of that comes from God. Because the form changes from masculine & feminine to neuter, we can say that "by grace" may be from God and "through faith" may be from man but that the process of them both working together is a gift. Without the gender changes, we couldn't interpret it this way, so the very fact that the gender changes exist means that is most likely the intended meaning.

God made the way, and all you have to do is choose to believe and let God do the rest. There is no works of the law which must be performed, only faith.

The synergistic nature of the gospel is apparent:

[Deu 30:19 NASB95] 19 "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,
[Rom 8:16 NASB95] 16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,

The need to choose is obvious, and isn't discounted by the Reformed nor Calvinists, except for by a self-identifying few, perhaps. But the effective choice for Christ is not possible, until God has changed the heart. Listen to the chapter up to our verse of debate (Eph 2:8 (and 9)):

Eph 2: "1 Also you—being dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the age of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom we also all walked once in the desires of our flesh, doing the wishes of the flesh and of the thoughts, and were by nature children of wrath—as also the others, 4 but God, being rich in kindness, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even being dead in the trespasses, made us alive together with the Christ (by grace you are saved), 6 and raised [us] up together, and sat [us] together in the heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus, 7 that He might show, in the ages that are coming, the exceeding riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus," What I emphasized above which is supported throughout, and is repeated here by Paul, gives definition to the grace by which we are saved —that we, being dead, (may I not say "unable"?), GOD has made alive! (And no, I am not saying that we don't choose him. Indeed, we MUST choose him, or we have not been regenerated.)

I don't see a valid way to explain away the raw fact that we are unable to do anything to produce salvific faith, but by the Spirit of God producing that in us.

You quote Deuteronomy 30:19 and Romans 8:16 as if that proves that our choice while yet fallen and dead and slaves to the flesh, demonstrates salvific faith. I could quote many more that no doubt sound to you and others equally committed to the notion that the unregenerate can produce valid faith, like those two, but it makes no difference. NOTHING in those verses shows that the command is capable of being obeyed apart from the change from death to life. In fact, I have found, most verses used by Arminians to make their point are, either contextually or within the verses themselves, strong support for the fact that GOD is the one who changes us to have faith. We are not capable of that. In fact, Romans 8:16 which you quoted says nothing, as far as I can tell, to support the Arminian view of faith —that it is of human derivation— but it does fit the notion of faith being only the gift of God, because it says that the Spirit testifies with ours, that we are the children of God. Where is the implication that the Spirit of God testifies to ours, so that we respond with self-generated faith? They won't even go so far as to say that the Spirit of God testifying to ours IS his generating of salvific faith.

Now as for Eph 2:8,9: "Grace" and "Faith" both being feminine nouns does not mean that the pronoun "this" (not of yourselves) and the noun "gift" must agree with them in gender if referring back to them, as these both ("this" and "gift") are referring mainly to the verb "saved". It is therefore ALL of it, as I take you to say, the gift of God, the salvation specifically, but therefore by default, the grace and faith, by which we are saved. There is no call to reinvent that the faith is the action of man apart from the Spirit of God making them alive —the passage makes no such claim, nor can I find where the context allows for such a notion; indeed the context seems to me to disallow it. Salvific faith is generated by the Spirit of God alone. Monergism.

And again, that God calls for the unregenerate to submit, to obey, to repent, or to even choose to do these things (whether successful or not), does not imply their ability to do so.

WAY too many places show that man's inclinations are what he chooses by, and that unregenerated man is always going to choose against God. Even when he thinks he is doing otherwise!

I must mention also, that there is no way humanly possible to know the extent of what is being committed to in making such a choice, nor in having the integrity to keep what one has committed. God doesn't take a small faith and buttress it up. He utterly changes the heart, so that it follows Christ. No matter how small the faith, if it generated by the Spirit of God, it is utterly capable and pure, wise and sufficient to the task.

 

[Gup20]

Even if I accepted your use of the masculine, feminine, neuter, relationship between gift and grace and faith: You have not shown how faith engendered by man, even in your construction of "through Abraham" or "in Abraham", is possible to be effective faith, or real, but by the Spirit of God within. "Apart from ME (Christ) you can do nothing" is not hyperbole.

Now there you go with a purely Arminian description. "All you have to do..." implies that God can't do this on his own. It leaves you along-side those who have said, that in the end, "it is 100% up to you".

There is no example in scripture where mere belief was insufficient to qualify a person for justification. Further, we have a myriad of examples where mere belief without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit or regeneration or circumcision of the heart was enough to qualify a person (the chief of which is Abraham). Hebrews 11 has a number of examples from the Old Testament from before the Holy Spirit was given to indwell man. Without Jesus coming to earth, living a sinless life, and dying (physically & spiritually) to atone for sin, there would be no righteousness available to give to Abraham in response to his unregenerate faith. Therefore, "apart from me you can do nothing" is absolutely sustained and true within a synergistic model. The Abrahamic covenant, then, is a distribution method for dispersing Christ's righteousness to those with the same unregenerate faith in the gospel as Abraham who qualify as his descendants and thereby stand to inherit Christ's righteousness which was given to Abraham and promised to his descendants - those with the same unregenerate faith as Abraham.

This is where both Calvin and Arminius got it wrong. They both viewed faith as the qualification for righteousness itself, rather than as a qualification for a promised inheritance. It was GRACE to promise righteousness to Abraham's descendants (Rom 4:16) -- they didn't deserve it because they were so good. They didn't earn it by being righteous according to the law (for the law didn't exist when the promise was made). They didn't earn the inheritance, but they obtained an inheritance by the graceful choice of God to choose Abraham and promise it, without regard to individuals, to his descendants. God didn't have to make this promise... it was His graceful choice to make that promise, and God cannot lie. Without the promise, Abraham's descendants would be just as 'lost' and dead in their sin as anyone else (regardless of faith). Because of the promise, any descendant of Abraham can inherit the promise.

[Neh 9:7-8 NASB95] 7 "You are the LORD God, Who chose Abram And brought him out from Ur of the Chaldees, And gave him the name Abraham. 8 "You found his heart faithful before You, And made a covenant with him To give [him] the land of the Canaanite, Of the Hittite and the Amorite, Of the Perizzite, the Jebusite and the Girgashite To give [it] to his descendants. And You have fulfilled Your promise, For You are righteous.

[Deu 7:6-8 NASB95] 6 "For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. 7 "The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples, 8 but because the LORD loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers, the LORD brought you out by a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.​

God 'found' Abraham's heart faithful, He didn't cause Abraham's heart to become faithful. The list (Cannanite, Hittite, Amorite, Perizzite, Jebusite, Girgashite) comes from Gen 15:18-21, the same chapter where God gives Abraham the credit of righteousness for believing the gospel regarding his "seed" Jesus Christ after ratifying the covenant with him by passing between the split animals as a pillar of fire. No Calvinist or Reformed disputes that the people within the nation of Israel were God's chosen people because they were born as physical descendants of Abraham and that each member of the nation was not specifically chosen as an individual, but were chosen as a group by being a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Why then is it too difficult to believe the same is true of Abraham's spiritual descendants as Christ defined it in John 8 and Paul defined it in Galatians 3-4 and Romans 4?

[Gal 3:6-9 NASB95] 6 Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. 7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, [saying,] "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU." 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.​

[Rom 4:9-18 NASB95] 9 Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; 11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised. 13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; 15 for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation. 16 For this reason [it is] by faith, in order that [it may be] in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, 17 (as it is written, "A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE YOU") in the presence of Him whom he believed, [even] God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist. 18 In hope against hope he believed, so that he might become a father of many nations according to that which had been spoken, "SO SHALL YOUR DESCENDANTS BE."

[Gal 4:21-31 NASB95] 21 Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. 23 But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. 24 This is allegorically speaking, for these [women] are two covenants: one [proceeding] from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. 25 Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. 27 For it is written, "REJOICE, BARREN WOMAN WHO DOES NOT BEAR; BREAK FORTH AND SHOUT, YOU WHO ARE NOT IN LABOR; FOR MORE NUMEROUS ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE DESOLATE THAN OF THE ONE WHO HAS A HUSBAND." 28 And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him [who was born] according to the Spirit, so it is now also. 30 But what does the Scripture say? "CAST OUT THE BONDWOMAN AND HER SON, FOR THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN SHALL NOT BE AN HEIR WITH THE SON OF THE FREE WOMAN." 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.

[Isa 54:1 NASB95] 1 "Shout for joy, O barren one, you who have borne no [child;] Break forth into joyful shouting and cry aloud, you who have not travailed; For the sons of the desolate one [will be] more numerous Than the sons of the married woman," says the LORD.​

So the adopted descendants of "the father of many nations" are more numerous than the physical descendants. Just as the physical descendants were not "chosen" as individuals, but were 'chosen' because of their kinship with Abraham due to God's promise, so too are the adopted descendants. This is GRACE because God didn't have to choose Abraham nor make a promise to his descendants, but He did... and therefore they are chosen when they are qualified as heirs.

[Rom 8:15-17 NASB95] 15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!" 16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with [Him] so that we may also be glorified with [Him.]​

Fellow heirs, in fact, with Christ who was also counted as a descendent of Abraham (which is how He was resurrected back to life/righteousness after becoming sin and having the sin of the whole world laid upon Him). The Law was unable to impart life (Gal 3:21), so Christ's resurrection had to come through another covenant. This was Abraham's eternal covenant (Gen 17:7).

[Heb 13:20 NASB95] 20 Now the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, [even] Jesus our Lord,

[Act 2:33 NASB95] 33 "Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear.

[Gen 17:7 NASB95] 7 "I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you.​

As you can see, I'm not making any of this up or inventing it. I'm following the scripture and trusting only in the truth it gives. I don't trust man's flawed systems or denominations. Not one of them has the whole truth. I trust the Truth I read for myself in scripture. My theology comes directly from scripture. I'm unconcerned with "how many" people believe it, but only with whether it is what scripture says. I think it's good news, so I brings me joy to tell people this good news. It even unifies the descendants (Jews and Christians) and demonstrates we are truly brethren. Whereas the law divides and brings death (for all have sinned), we can both celebrate who we are in the Abrahamic covenant having been brought together into oneness with Christ.

 

[Mark Quayle]

There is no example in scripture where mere belief was insufficient to qualify a person for justification.

"The devils also believe —and tremble."

 

[Gup20]

"The devils also believe —and tremble."

We are a different species. Angels & demons were never given a savior who came as one of their kind & redeemed them. We’d be in the same boat but for Gods grace toward Abraham & his descendants. We were less deserving than the devils, actually. God created the Lake of Fire for them, not for man. No angels/demons are descended from man, so they can’t be redeemed through Christ.

But look again at what they believe; they believe that there is one God… they do not believe the gospel.

1 John 4:2-3 (NASB20) 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming, and now it is already in the world.

Romans 10:8-9 (NASB20) 8 But what does it say? “THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART”--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;​

 

[Gup20]

I've been studying the Abrahamic covenant due to some of your questions, and I've been reminded of some interesting things about it. For example, this is an oft-repeated sentiment among Bible teachers about the Abrahamic covenant:

The Abrahamic covenant is a unilateral covenant that God made with Abraham. A unilateral covenant is an agreement made between two parties, in which only one of the parties has responsibility to act. In the case of the agreement between God and Abraham, God was the only one who was required to act, making it a unilateral (or unconditional) covenant. (credit)

Normally, when a covenant was made in the ancient Near East, they would talk about the covenant being cut. The cutting of the covenant involved the sacrificing of animals. Animals would be literally cut in two. The person who had to keep the promises would walk through those animals, basically saying, "If I don't keep my end of the bargain, may be done to me what has been done to these animals." Typically, in a covenant, the great king would force the lesser party in the covenant to walk through those animals. It was up to the junior member of the party to keep the terms of the covenant.
What's so amazing in the Abrahamic Covenant is that God Himself takes the threatened curses upon Himself, guaranteeing, as He walks through those animals that are cut in two, that He will certainly bring this promise to pass. (credit)

The Abrahamic Covenant included the promise of land (Genesis 12:1). It was a specific land, an actual property, with dimensions specified in Genesis 15:18–21. In Genesis 13:15, God gives Abraham all the land that he can see, and the gift is declared to be “forever.” God was not going to renege on His promise. The territory given as part of the Abrahamic Covenant is expanded in Deuteronomy 30:1–10, often called the Palestinian Covenant. (credit)​

This got me thinking along several parallel lines of thought. First, that Deuteronomy 30 brings up several components of the Abrahamic covenant - the land promises and circumcision for example. Deu 29:13 even harkens back to the oath God made with Abraham and affirmed with Isaac and Jacob.

But also the notion of the covenant God cut with Abraham being a unilateral, unconditional covenant. This means God was accepting upon Himself all the curses and all the responsibility to making sure the covenant was fulfilled. That's practically Calvinistic

Just because God provided a way for Gentiles to join the Abrahamic covenant by their choice (Deu 30) doesn't mean that God isn't one upholding it all or fulfilling is oath to Abraham. In fact, we know from Rom 4:16-17 that it was part of the Grace of God to allow others to choose be adopted into the family of the Father of Many Nations to be partakers of His grace - that through Abraham all the nations of the earth would be blessed (Gen 12:3)

 

[Mark Quayle]

We are a different species. Angels & demons were never given a savior who came as one of their kind & redeemed them. We’d be in the same boat but for Gods grace toward Abraham & his descendants. We were less deserving than the devils, actually. God created the Lake of Fire for them, not for man. No angels/demons are descended from man, so they can’t be redeemed through Christ.

But look again at what they believe; they believe that there is one God… they do not believe the gospel.

1 John 4:2-3 (NASB20) 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming, and now it is already in the world.

Romans 10:8-9 (NASB20) 8 But what does it say? “THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART”--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;​

Oh, they believe the gospel, alright. They just don't believe in it. And I agree that, as you say, it is not applicable to them —we have no indication from Scripture that they were ever given the option, the ability, nor even the command, to repent.

I don't remember if it was you I was talking to when I mentioned that the words, "Jesus is Lord", do not indicate that the one saying it means it. I mentioned someone saying it on this site, mocking, so that obviously he did not mean that he believes it.

But here we go further: If a spirit says it, as in the end every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord, is that submission? Or just acknowledgment dragged out of them? Consider the spirit possessing the girl that followed Paul about, proclaiming, "These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved." Was that spirit 'of God' or was it evil? Was she saying it by the Holy Spirit?

 

[AbbaLove]

Consider the spirit possessing the girl that followed Paul about, proclaiming, "These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved." Was that spirit 'of God' or was it evil? Was she saying it by the Holy Spirit?

It reminds me of once attending a "Holiness Church" with the Pastor saying the same 'tongue word" about every 3-5 minutes during his sermon. To me it was distracting. Also several women getting up and marching onto the platform behind and around the pastor praising the Lord that i presumed was intended as a hedge of protection.

Another example was during a street ministry when a zealous missionary (first time with the group) felt the need to interrupt the leader and takeover. The result being our small group walked away.

According to Derek Prince Christians can be demonized. Is it not possible that the woman was a demonized Christian. Find it hard to believe that demons would be saying: "These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved." Perhaps she was saying it in a subtle way that it could've also been taken as borderline mocking by the men (policemen like) of the city.

 

[Mark Quayle]

​

It reminds me of once attending a "Holiness Church" with the Pastor saying the same 'tongue word" about every 3-5 minutes during his sermon. To me it was distracting. Also several women getting up and marching onto the platform behind and around the pastor praising the Lord that i presumed was intended as a hedge of protection.

Another example was during a street ministry when a zealous missionary (first time with the group) felt the need to interrupt the leader and takeover. The result being our small group walked away.

According to Derek Prince Christians can be demonized. Is it not possible that the woman was a demonized Christian. Find it hard to believe that demons would be saying: "These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved." Perhaps she was saying it in a subtle way that it could've also been taken as borderline mocking by the men (policemen like) of the city.

I think it was "village idiot"-like, just minimizing the truth, by mindless loud repetition, and an attempt by the demon to run the show, so that people wouldn't carefully listen to what Paul was going to say.

I remember a guy at one Christian music concert, who got up on stage and started dancing, acting like a cheerleader, and shouting for everyone to get up and dance, and wouldn't leave. It was ridiculous, a distraction and finally he was forced to leave.

 

[AbbaLove]

I think it was "village idiot"-like, just minimizing the truth, by mindless loud repetition, and an attempt by the demon to run the show, so that people wouldn't carefully listen to what Paul was going to say.

Instead of my or your specuation as to what led up to her persistent action it's apparent from various translations that this slave girl [in bondage] had a "spirit of divination". A few translations refer to this spirit as snake-like.

Paul having become greatly aggravated after several days turned to the spirit in the slave girl saying: "I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her!” And it came out that very hour." No longer a fortune teller she was no longer of financial gain to her slave master or others.

The result being Paul and Silas were severely beaten, dragged to an inner prison and further locked in stocks. Then at midnight miraculously freed and later escorted by police from the city.

Preceeding verse 16 about the slave girl with the spirit of fortune telling are verses 14-15 ...

14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, one that worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened to give heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul. 15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.​

Do you believe it was Lydia's "free will" and that of the gentile Roman Centurion's "free will" (who's Faith amazed Jesus) or was both she and the Centurion's "Faith" predestined by GOD ...

Was the "Faith" of Lydia and the Centurion (gentiles) their of own "free will" or predestined?
Is the principle law of faith predestined then why not "free wiill" also predestined?
Thereby Calvinist and Arminian theology actually coexist
(even if our finite minds can't compute)

With GOD All Things Are Possible
​

 

[Mark Quayle]

Instead of my or your specuation as to what led up to her persistent action it's apparent from various translations that this slave girl [in bondage] had a "spirit of divination". A few translations refer to this spirit as snake-like.

Paul having become greatly aggravated after several days turned to the spirit in the slave girl saying: "I command you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her!” And it came out that very hour." No longer a fortune teller she was no longer of financial gain to her slave master or others.

The result being Paul and Silas were severely beaten, dragged to an inner prison and further locked in stocks. Then at midnight miraculously freed and later escorted by police from the city.

Preceeding verse 16 about the slave girl with the spirit of fortune telling are verses 14-15 ...

14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, one that worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened to give heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul. 15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.​

Do you believe it was Lydia's "free will" and that of the gentile Roman Centurion's "free will" (who's Faith amazed Jesus) or was both she and the Centurion's "Faith" predestined by GOD ...

Was the "Faith" of Lydia and the Centurion (gentiles) their of own "free will" or predestined?
Is the principle law of faith predestined then why not "free wiill" also predestined?
Thereby Calvinist and Arminian theology actually coexist
(even if our finite minds can't compute)

With GOD All Things Are Possible
​

Of course it was predestined by God. Can you (or anyone else, for that matter) show me how not?

 

[AbbaLove]

Of course it was predestined by God. Can you (or anyone else, for that matter) show me how not?

Only if preknown and not predestined. You apparently define predestined to fit your own theology ... which is actually man's religious theology

So you believe Lydia's faith as well as that of the gentile Roman Centurion (who's Faith amazed even Jesus) had nothing to do with their own choices. You believe both Lydia's and the Centurion's "Faith" was already predetermined in advance by GOD ... with them having done nothing on their own accord to merit their faith? If so then your "predestined" theology is flawed. You've not only made your bed in a flawed theology, but furthermore believe it was predestined by GOD.

Proverbs 3:5 ... trusting in the Lord with all one's heart is up to the individual ... not predestined ... their own choices does make a difference.

Mark 12:30-31
30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’
31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”​

You believe it's not possible for Calvinist and Arminian theology to actually coexist ?
(a theological mindset is not a blessing ... if it were every born again Believer would agree)

With GOD All Things Are Possible​

 

[Mark Quayle]

So you believe Lydia's faith as well as that of the gentile Roman Centurion (who's Faith amazed even Jesus) had nothing to do with their own choices. You believe both Lydia's and the Centurion's "Faith" was already predetermined in advance by GOD ... with them having done nothing on their own accord to merit their faith? If so then your "predestined" theology is flawed. You've not only made your bed in a flawed theology, but furthermore believe it was predestined by GOD.

Where do you get that? I have said repeatedly that our choices are real, effective, with real, even eternal consequences. That is just about as free as it gets. But that does not imply that they are uncaused. This is not something in which you can play both sides of the fence. Either God causes, and we cause as a result; or we cause, and God chooses as a result. There is not random or chance operation going on here. God is the only first cause. We are not entirely spontaneous in anything we do or decide.

Yes, Lydia's and the Centurion's and several others' faith was predestined and caused by God, whether that fits the notion of deserving some credit for one's own faith or not. Did they choose right? Undoubtedly. Who says otherwise? But God is to be praised. When he says, "Well done, good and faithful servant!" do you think he is raising us to his level of being? We will be IN HIM. We will not be another being like him, a fourth person of the Trinity or something. Do you think God created the Holy Spirit?

But go ahead and ask why Jesus was amazed at their faith. I have an answer for you.

QUOTE="AbbaLove, post: 76986672, member: 376778"]Proverbs 3:5 ... trusting in the Lord with all one's heart is up to the individual ... not predestined ... their own choices does make a difference.


Mark 12:30-31
30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’
31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”[/QUOTE]

It IS up to God who trusts and loves him with their whole heart. None of us even has a whole heart until God does his work on us. Has it not occurred to you that we are not even complete creations until we see him as he is? Are we not different from all other creation? We will become IN HIM. Not a separate, worthy, entity. We are the BODY OF CHRIST. The BRIDE OF CHRIST, bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. The DWELLING PLACE of God. Do you think we can do something to attain that, that God has to respect our efforts as separate from HIS ???

You believe it's not possible for Calvinist and Arminian theology to actually coexist ?

Obviously they co-exist. I guess you mean, compatible. No, they are not compatible. But thank God neither camp knows quite what they mean, nevermind what they are talking about. All we really know, is what Scripture says, and what makes sense. To me, only God was around in the Beginning, and only what God decided to do, will happen. What we decide is "within" that. Under that. We don't cause God to do anything he hasn't decided already.

 

[Don Maurer]

The issue should not be free-will vs predestination, but how free will and predestination are compatable. The position is called "compatablism." It is a very common Calvinist or Reformed position. It is very rare that arminians or non-Calvinists recognize that most Calvinists believe in compatiblism. Thus the common "robot" caricature hurled at Calvinists. Arminians make great assumptions that one must only show that the scriptures reveal that there were people who believe and it is assumed that this demonstrates that a person thus had "free-will."

Rarely in such discussion is the term "free-will" even defined. A compatibilistic definition would define the term "free-will" in light of the doctrine of original sin, but this brings up another definition issue.... What is "original sin" and how does original sin related to free-will.

Terms like "dead" must be discussed. "And you were dead in your trespasses and sins." (Eph 2:1) One must answer questions concerning the relationship between "death" and "one man." (Refers to Adam cf Romans 5:12). How does this "death reigned" in Romans 5:17 and what is the nature of the "condemnation to all men" in Romans 5:18? The effects of this death are seen in passages like John 6:44 "No man can come to me...." This death is seen in 1 Cor 2:14 "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God..." Original sin can also be seen in 2 Cor 4:3 "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing." It is this original sin that allows Satan to "blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of glory of Christ..." (2 Cor 4:4)

If a definition of free-will denies that we are spiritually dead in Adam, assumes that we have the ability to overcome Satan... If the term "ree will refused to recognize that our own minds are veiled and assumes that we can overcome our own inability to accept the things of the Spirit of God... If free will assumes that we have the righteous and holiness to over come our own flesh (Romans 8:7-8) and trust Christ, then I will pass on agreeing with "free will."

I have always enjoyed the way John Macarthur put it in his definition of "Free will." "We have the free will to pursue any path of sin we desire."

 

[Mark Quayle]

I have always enjoyed the way John Macarthur put it in his definition of "Free will." "We have the free will to pursue any path of sin we desire."

Actually, even that is not quite descriptive of the way God runs the Universe. We are indeed free to choose, but we will only choose the path(s) we choose, and none of the others. Freely we choose, yes, and that, according to our desires and proclivities; but that 'freely' is still not random, but predetermined. It does not mean robotic, but, as MacBeth found out, what will happen will happen, and that includes, what happens because of our choices.