A troublesome verse for the Calvinist

[BNR32FAN]

Which part is which in your translation, that God choosing according to his foreknowledge = "God looking forward to what he will do"? Which, in your mind, does Calvinism say is God's choosing, and which is God's foreknowledge? But once you've ironed all that out, ironically, is the fact that how you interpret it is irrelevant, because of the use of the term, "according to". It means "in keeping with", not even "as a result of". And so we are back to square one: Is biblical 'foreknowledge' about "looking down the corridors of time", or about what God has decreed and indeed will bring to pass?

It doesn’t have to mean as a result of in order for it to pertain to His foreknowledge of what we will do. The term in keeping with or in alignment with still supports the same interpretation.

The same word is used in these passages as well.

“Then when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged, and sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and all its vicinity, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the magi.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭2‬:‭16‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“Then He touched their eyes, saying, “It shall be done to you according to your faith.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭9‬:‭29‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭16‬:‭27‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

According to the prophecy, according to our faith, according to our deeds which basically means in alignment with.

 

[Mark Quayle]

God looking forward to what He will do is circular. The only difference is that He hasn’t instigated it yet. So God choosing people according to the foreknowledge of what He will do means nothing more than God chose people according to His choosing people because what He would do in the future is based on His choice before creation. The election took place before creation not after, so God didn’t have to look forward to see what He would do in order to make His decision on whom He would choose because the choice was already made before creation. That’s like me saying that I’m going to build a house next week so I’ll decide now to build a house next week. This would be an example of me choosing to do something based on what I’m going to do in the future.

And no that’s not my position at all. God’s election is based on His foreknowledge of who will repent and abide in Christ. That’s not circular, it’s linear.

You are contradicting yourself. You are saying (my paraphrase, here) that God's election of a man is based on what that man does; that God decides to predestine what we will do, by looking to see what we do.

It doesn’t have to mean as a result of in order for it to pertain to His foreknowledge of what we will do. The term in keeping with or in alignment with still supports the same interpretation.

The same word is used in these passages as well.

“Then when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged, and sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and all its vicinity, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the magi.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭2‬:‭16‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“Then He touched their eyes, saying, “It shall be done to you according to your faith.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭9‬:‭29‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭16‬:‭27‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

According to the prophecy, according to our faith, according to our deeds which basically means in alignment with.

I think we are arguing past each other. I am trying to say that 'God's election according to his foreknowledge' is NOT his choosing whom he chooses by looking ahead to see what we will do. It is his choosing whom he chooses for the purpose of his accomplishing his plans (not even our accomplishing his plans.)

 

[BNR32FAN]

You are contradicting yourself. You are saying (my paraphrase, here) that God's election of a man is based on what that man does; that God decides to predestine what we will do, by looking to see what we do.

Where did I say that “God decides to predestine what we will do”? That’s a Calvinist statement, I never said anything to that effect.

I think we are arguing past each other. I am trying to say that 'God's election according to his foreknowledge' is NOT his choosing whom he chooses by looking ahead to see what we will do. It is his choosing whom he chooses for the purpose of his accomplishing his plans (not even our accomplishing his plans.)

So if God is choosing according to His foreknowledge of what He will do then how do these verses line up with that?

“But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, and she does not want to repent of her immorality.”
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭2‬:‭20‬-‭21‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Jesus gave Jezebel time to repent yet God did not enable her to do so?

“Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭2‬:‭4‬-‭5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Here Paul clearly states that God has allowed these people to repent and they still refuse to comply.

God’s kindness and patience towards the unrepentant is emphasized repeatedly throughout the scriptures, how would this kindness and patience be plausible or even genuine if He has predestined them to condemnation? If we are chosen according to His foreknowledge of what He would do then how would it even be possible that He is showing kindness and patience towards the unrepentant and why would He even do so if it was His plan to condemn them in the first place?

God chose to condemn them according to His foreknowledge of Him refusing to allow them to repent, then showed patience giving them time to repent knowing that they would be incapable of complying? That’s not showing kindness or patience towards the unrepentant by predestining them to condemnation. That’s refuted by Paul’s statements in Romans 2:4-5 and Jesus’ statements in Revelation 2:20-21. Paul said that God’s patience and kindness is leading them to repentance not preventing them from repentance. You’re saying that God’s foreknowledge of what He would do completely ignores these people by not lifting a finger to help them which is partly true because they are not seeking Him. They’ve hardened their hearts against Him and have chosen to indulge in sin rather than accepting His offer to repent and be saved but that isn’t God’s fault or His doing that has caused this. One question Calvinists have yet to and is why God would choose to bestow grace on some and not all? Why Jesus died for the sins of all yet God has only bestowed His grace upon so few? If we are all as unworthy as the rest then why only bestow grace on some and not all? I’ve never seen a Calvinist that could provide any sort of reasonable response to this question.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Where did I say that “God decides to predestine what we will do”? That’s a Calvinist statement, I never said anything to that effect.

It's not a Calvinist statement either. God needn't decide to predestine anything. He is not like us, needing to gather information to make a decision. Not only that, when he predestines, that is what he does. He doesn't consider this and weigh that option against this other one here, etc etc. God speaks all things into fact. When God predestines something he speaks it into fact, he decrees it, he intimately foreknows it. When God foreknows something, it is in every way an active, not a passive, verb.

Why Jesus died for the sins of all yet God has only bestowed His grace upon so few?

I decided to quote that from the near the bottom of your post, because it keeps popping up in our arguments. God did not "died for the sins of all" in your use of (i.e. your meaning for) that phrase. Get me? The question is then bogus. If I can't accept the premise, why ask for my answer?

So if God is choosing according to His foreknowledge of what He will do then how do these verses line up with that?

“But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, and she does not want to repent of her immorality.”
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭2‬:‭20‬-‭21‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Jesus gave Jezebel time to repent yet God did not enable her to do so?

“Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭2‬:‭4‬-‭5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Here Paul clearly states that God has allowed these people to repent and they still refuse to comply.

God’s kindness and patience towards the unrepentant is emphasized repeatedly throughout the scriptures, how would this kindness and patience be plausible or even genuine if He has predestined them to condemnation? If we are chosen according to His foreknowledge of what He would do then how would it even be possible that He is showing kindness and patience towards the unrepentant and why would He even do so if it was His plan to condemn them in the first place?

You keep doing this too, as if it brings a new thought to light. The fact you cannot see how something is so does not mean it is not so, particularly when Scripture says it is so. Try to get this: God is not only intimately involved in all fact, but above it and outside it; if you must, think of this whole temporal existence as an envelope within the larger will of God, or of a play he wrote that in which we are willing players. Obviously, that is not the whole fact of the matter, but hopefully it helps you adjust to the fact that God is not like us. That what we consider reality is but a vapor.

It's hard enough for me to understand how anything besides God even CAN exist, but that what God has created is able to turn against the Creator is outrageous! It is enormous! And God has already dealt with it. But even within this temporal realm which God holds in the palm of his hand, there is pain and suffering on God's part, all focused on SIN and Calvary. The transgression against God is real. Yet God doesn't just stop there, passing judgement and doing away with it on the spot. We perhaps do not see it dealt with yet, because God puts up with it temporally, using it for his purposes to accomplish during this temporal passage what he intends for the end of man. In such cases as you brought up, he gives them every opportunity to repent, and they refused, continuing to indulge in their sin. He puts up with it for a while, though it builds up pain upon pain, because it is a testimony to his power that he is able to do so, and a testimony to his justice against the noise of all who by their own measure claim unfairness on his part.

Calvinism doesn't say anything is done automatically, woodenly, mechanically, "stimulus - response". That is someone else's 'takeaway' from what Calvinism does say.

God chose to condemn them according to His foreknowledge of Him refusing to allow them to repent, then showed patience giving them time to repent knowing that they would be incapable of complying? That’s not showing kindness or patience towards the unrepentant by predestining them to condemnation. That’s refuted by Paul’s statements in Romans 2:4-5 and Jesus’ statements in Revelation 2:20-21. Paul said that God’s patience and kindness is leading them to repentance not preventing them from repentance. You’re saying that God’s foreknowledge of what He would do completely ignores these people by not lifting a finger to help them which is partly true because they are not seeking Him. They’ve hardened their hearts against Him and have chosen to indulge in sin rather than accepting His offer to repent and be saved but that isn’t God’s fault or His doing that has caused this. One question Calvinists have yet to and is why God would choose to bestow grace on some and not all? Why Jesus died for the sins of all yet God has only bestowed His grace upon so few? If we are all as unworthy as the rest then why only bestow grace on some and not all? I’ve never seen a Calvinist that could provide any sort of reasonable response to this question.

You say, "One question Calvinists have yet to and is why God would choose to bestow grace on some and not all?" I assume there you mean "...yet to answer is why God..." I don't know if you have failed to see the many times this has been answered or if you are just unsatisfied with the answers you see. Romans 9 describes it well enough, and you refuse it, shrugging it off like water off a duck's back. I described it above, in why God puts up with those to whom he has not given them the will to love him. You may as well ask why he created them at all. And while you are at it, ask why God created at all. This is no experiment to see what will happen. God is not subject to chance. God causes all things.

Also, the answer has been repeatedly given you, that God has a "particular creation", the Body of Christ, The Bride of Christ, The Dwelling Place of God, The Sons of God that will be revealed when we see him as he is. And for this all creation groans. This is no haphazard aggregation of random parts. And what God takes the members through during their temporal life is what God does to conform them into the image of his son. You should THANK him that he does what he does to the rest, out whom you have been saved, because it changes you to know and to see that he does this.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It's not a Calvinist statement either. God needn't decide to predestine anything. He is not like us, needing to gather information to make a decision. Not only that, when he predestines, that is what he does. He doesn't consider this and weigh that option against this other one here, etc etc. God speaks all things into fact. When God predestines something he speaks it into fact, he decrees it, he intimately foreknows it. When God foreknows something, it is in every way an active, not a passive, verb.

I decided to quote that from the near the bottom of your post, because it keeps popping up in our arguments. God did not "died for the sins of all" in your use of (i.e. your meaning for) that phrase. Get me? The question is then bogus. If I can't accept the premise, why ask for my answer?

You keep doing this too, as if it brings a new thought to light. The fact you cannot see how something is so does not mean it is not so, particularly when Scripture says it is so. Try to get this: God is not only intimately involved in all fact, but above it and outside it; if you must, think of this whole temporal existence as an envelope within the larger will of God, or of a play he wrote that in which we are willing players. Obviously, that is not the whole fact of the matter, but hopefully it helps you adjust to the fact that God is not like us. That what we consider reality is but a vapor.

It's hard enough for me to understand how anything besides God even CAN exist, but that what God has created is able to turn against the Creator is outrageous! It is enormous! And God has already dealt with it. But even within this temporal realm which God holds in the palm of his hand, there is pain and suffering on God's part, all focused on SIN and Calvary. The transgression against God is real. Yet God doesn't just stop there, passing judgement and doing away with it on the spot. We perhaps do not see it dealt with yet, because God puts up with it temporally, using it for his purposes to accomplish during this temporal passage what he intends for the end of man. In such cases as you brought up, he gives them every opportunity to repent, and they refused, continuing to indulge in their sin. He puts up with it for a while, though it builds up pain upon pain, because it is a testimony to his power that he is able to do so, and a testimony to his justice against the noise of all who by their own measure claim unfairness on his part.

Calvinism doesn't say anything is done automatically, woodenly, mechanically, "stimulus - response". That is someone else's 'takeaway' from what Calvinism does say.

You say, "One question Calvinists have yet to and is why God would choose to bestow grace on some and not all?" I assume there you mean "...yet to answer is why God..." I don't know if you have failed to see the many times this has been answered or if you are just unsatisfied with the answers you see. Romans 9 describes it well enough, and you refuse it, shrugging it off like water off a duck's back. I described it above, in why God puts up with those to whom he has not given them the will to love him. You may as well ask why he created them at all. And while you are at it, ask why God created at all. This is no experiment to see what will happen. God is not subject to chance. God causes all things.

Also, the answer has been repeatedly given you, that God has a "particular creation", the Body of Christ, The Bride of Christ, The Dwelling Place of God, The Sons of God that will be revealed when we see him as he is. And for this all creation groans. This is no haphazard aggregation of random parts. And what God takes the members through during their temporal life is what God does to conform them into the image of his son. You should THANK him that he does what he does to the rest, out whom you have been saved, because it changes you to know and to see that he does this.

The problem with Calvinist interpretations of Romans 9 is they don’t line up with all scripture. Calvinists see a particular passage of scripture and interpret it in complete isolation of the rest of scripture. You can’t do that, you’ll never arrive at the true message if your interpretation doesn’t line up with all scripture.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The problem with Calvinist interpretations of Romans 9 is they don’t line up with all scripture. Calvinists see a particular passage of scripture and interpret it in complete isolation of the rest of scripture. You can’t do that, you’ll never arrive at the true message if your interpretation doesn’t line up with all scripture.

Another door that swings both ways.

 

[BibleBeliever1611]

Of course I read (and understood) what I posted


LEST AT ANY TIME = AT NO TIME


This is not hard


Why do you hate Calvinists SO MUCH that you feel a NEED to comment on them to me...
who is NOT a Calvinist?

It is strange.

/

I have hard time understanding why anyone would not hate Calvinism. It is an evil and twisted doctrine.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I have hard time understanding why anyone would not hate Calvinism. It is an evil and twisted doctrine.

Explain

 

[Bobber]

Who made that rule?
You're kidding, right?
An abundance of evidence is really no evidence at all?
In addition to divine foreknowledge, do you also not understand what absurdity is?
Methinks because the evidence overcomes your objections, and you have no way to unseat it, you create a pathetic absurdity to try to invalidate it.

Translate: The testimony of multiple Scriptures is proof of error, for truth can be testifed to by only one statement.
Who made that rule?

Where did you learn that Biblical testimony to a doctrine must be limited to one statement?

Pick one about which you have a question, and we'll look at other Scriptures which corroborate or explain it.

No I agree with that other poster. Yes having multiple scriptures' can back up a case but it's in bad form to roll them all out on discussion boards giving the effect of seeking to bury them with never ending work of trying to answer every one. It also can give a false impression that you're more knowledge then you are. People in cult likewise do that.....they slap down 25 verses which all them can be taken out of context.

 

[Bobber]

I find a logical contradiction in the bald notion that anything can happen apart from God having —in one way or another— caused it. I could live with that contradiction if Scripture claimed that something can happen apart from God's causation, but I can't find any Scripture claiming that anything can happen apart from God's causation, and in fact, quite a lot of it claiming just the opposite.

Sorry Mark but that's because every verse of scripture you use you twist them to fit your paradigm.

Let me ask you something here. On a Calvinists web site a well known Calvinists wrote an article where he relates an email that was sent him from a dear lady who says she was raped and had a child that was conceived because of it. In order to comfort her he stated it was very wrong what happened to her and the person would be judged at the judgement.

I agree with his statement it was very wrong but it seems to me he had forgot what he was. A Calvinist and a well known one at that. As a Calvinists you've said it yourself. God caused it, which most certainly is error but that's what you believe. So it's safe to say then you wouldn't have said what this well known Calvinists stated then right? If you believe God caused it then it must not have been wrong.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Sorry Mark but that's because every verse of scripture you use you twist them to fit your paradigm.

Let me ask you something here. On a Calvinists web site a well known Calvinists wrote an article where he relates an email that was sent him from a dear lady who says she was raped and had a child that was conceived because of it. In order to comfort her he stated it was very wrong what happened to her and the person would be judged at the judgement.

I agree with his statement it was very wrong but it seems to me he had forgot what he was. A Calvinist and a well known one at that. As a Calvinists you've said it yourself. God caused it, which most certainly is error but that's what you believe. So it's safe to say then you wouldn't have said what this well known Calvinists stated then right? If you believe God caused it then it must not have been wrong.

You said, "If you believe God caused it then it must not have been wrong."

If God caused it, it wasn't wrong??? WHAT???? God caused SATAN, for crying out loud!!!

But God did not do wrong in causing that Satan become what he is. SATAN did wrong. Or do you think, if God caused it, that Satan was merely being obedient? Have you missed the places in Scriptures where God is plainly stated to have caused somebody to do some evil, and then punished them for doing so?

But you must have missed my several comments and posts I've made concerning this. Why stop at rape in making your argument against the notion that God causes 'whatsoever comes to pass'? I don't understand why people do this. Do they think they are being kind by not going all the way into their argument? SAY IT!

And he doesn't just cause more horrific things than we can imagine. God even causes sin, which is the very worst thing, whether we think so or not. That doesn't mean that he is the author of sin, nor that he tempts anyone, nor that he sins in causing that sin be. Sin is sin because it is against God. Thus, in causing that there be sin, God hurts himself, and we want to call him unjust against mere humanity???

A note: (In this, by the way, is shown that the conception of a duality between good vs evil, is false. There is no yin-yang going on. Jesus and Satan are not brothers. It is false to say that good is good only because evil is evil.)

 

[Clare73]

No I agree with that other poster. Yes having multiple scriptures' can back up a case but it's in bad form to roll them all out on discussion boards

Nice dodge. . .

Making someone else responsible for there being so many Biblical texts contradicting their assertion.

giving the effect of seeking to bury them with never ending work of trying to answer every one.

That would be an assumption on their part, based on their own personal MO.

It also can give a false impression that you're more knowledge then you are.

That being, until they demonstrate it to be true, simply another assumption on their part, based on their own personal MO.

People in cult likewise do that.....they slap down 25 verses which all them can be taken out of context.

Guilt by association?

That's an astounding amount of illogic for just one post.

 

[Bobber]

You said, "If you believe God caused it then it must not have been wrong."

If God caused it, it wasn't wrong??? WHAT???? God caused SATAN, for crying out loud!!!

Now come on Mark, spare us your feigned exasperations that what you're posturing with your words makes any sense. For crying out loud here's what you said in a few posts before and you said it very matter of factly with no emotion. You stated the following,

I find a logical contradiction in the bald notion that anything can happen apart from God having —in one way or another— caused it. I could live with that contradiction if Scripture claimed that something can happen apart from God's causation, but I can't find any Scripture claiming that anything can happen apart from God's causation, and in fact, quite a lot of it claiming just the opposite.

Now you jump back and say with MUCH emotion that Satan caused it (that is the insidious sin of a lady being raped) in other words God wasn't the causation of all things! I just hope that people who read this can see how disingenuous the Calvinist position is. Sorry but you go from one look in your theology to something else entirely much like a chameleon.

 

[Bobber]

But God did not do wrong in causing that Satan become what he is. SATAN did wrong.

Again this is so disingenuous. You say that God caused Satan to become what he is. That's a pretty strong way of saying because God gave him free will to choose that God caused him to be evil. God did not however CAUSE him to become evil. But your doctrines still claim God ordained it to be that way which is a step up from saying he merely allowed it.

Or do you think, if God caused it, that Satan was merely being obedient?

That's what you Calvinists say whether you admit it or not. You claim EVERYTHING is ordained and you said yourself said God is the causation.

And he doesn't just cause more horrific things than we can imagine. God even causes sin, which is the very worst thing, whether we think so or not. That doesn't mean that he is the author of sin, nor that he tempts anyone, nor that he sins in causing that sin be.

Sorry Mark but you'd never ever win that argument in any rational court of law. The one who caused it to happen behind the scenes and the one who committed it would BOTH go to jail. You know that and I know that and EVERYONE knows that.

 

[Bobber]

Nice dodge. . .

Making someone else responsible for there being so many Biblical texts contradicting their assertion.

Nope sorry I'm not buying that. You know as well as I people can cut and paste 20 verses to look like they're proving anything. The other poster was right and made a valid point. Go through things one at a time. Cults also slap down 30 verses to support their position or do you want me to cut and paste a whole section where they do?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Now come on Mark, spare us your feigned exasperations that what you're posturing with your words makes any sense. For crying out loud here's what you said in a few posts before and you said it very matter of factly with no emotion. You stated the following,

I find a logical contradiction in the bald notion that anything can happen apart from God having —in one way or another— caused it. I could live with that contradiction if Scripture claimed that something can happen apart from God's causation, but I can't find any Scripture claiming that anything can happen apart from God's causation, and in fact, quite a lot of it claiming just the opposite.

Now you jump back and say with MUCH emotion that Satan caused it (that is the insidious sin of a lady being raped) in other words God wasn't the causation of all things! I just hope that people who read this can see how disingenuous the Calvinist position is. Sorry but you go from one look in your theology to something else entirely much like a chameleon.

Now, come on, Bobber. How does God causing something imply that others did not also cause it? In fact, they more directly caused it! His causation being by long chain of means of further causation. (—i.e. he caused what he caused, if no other way, by "secondary causes" and tertiary etc. All of them EFFECTS of whatever causes came before them.)

But that is all deflection. You haven't dealt with the question: How is fulfilling what God has predestined —something that all creation, (including Satan), does, precisely and in every detail— equal obedience? His decree is not the same thing as his command.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Again this is so disingenuous. You say that God caused Satan to become what he is. That's a pretty strong way of saying because God gave him free will to choose that God caused him to be evil. God did not however CAUSE him to become evil. But your doctrines still claim God ordained it to be that way which is a step up from saying he merely allowed it.

Who said God gave him free will? God gave him will. But free? —not by your definition of freewill. You'll have to rephrase your statement there, if you want to represent what I am saying.

That's what you Calvinists say whether you admit it or not. You claim EVERYTHING is ordained and you said yourself said God is the causation.

God is the first cause. Not the only cause.

Sorry Mark but you'd never ever win that argument in any rational court of law. The one who caused it to happen behind the scenes and the one who committed it would BOTH go to jail. You know that and I know that and EVERYONE knows that.

I just came from a trial where the defendant was deemed guilty, although he was obviously crazy. He did what he did, against the law, and he knew it when he did it. His mental state is not at issue, even though his mental state contributed to why he did it.

 

[Clare73]

Nope sorry I'm not buying that. You know as well as I people can cut and paste 20 verses to look like they're proving anything.

1) Nevertheless, whether you want to change them or not for your advantage, these are the rules for argument.

2) Until demonstrated otherwise, the post above is an assumption on one's part based on their own MO.
Who pastes 20 verses on salvation when the subject is the virgin birth?

The other poster was right and made a valid point. Go through things one at a time.

Let the other poster be X, and I am Y.

X's argument is considered right until proven wrong.
Y submitted multiple verses to demonstrate that X's argument is wrong, whereby
Y is now right until X demonstrates that Y's argument is wrong.

And this is where we stand.

Cults also slap down 30 verses to support their position or do you want me to cut and paste a whole section where they do?

Previously addressed. . .

 

[Dah'veed]

Actually, Calvinism affirms this. God did not choose people based on anything in reference to themselves

Even when you were Totally depraved, because of Unconditional love, God elected to save you in Christ;
Limited atonement - Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, John 15:4
When He accomplished purification from sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high [revealing His glory]. Heb 1:3
Irresistible grace - The good news has been bearing fruit in this same way among you, ever since the day you understood the grace of God in truth. Col 1:6
Perseverance - For this reason I patiently endure all things for the sake of the elect, so that they too may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. 2 Tim 2:10

 

[zoidar]

Even when you were Totally depraved, because of Unconditional love, God elected to save you in Christ;
Limited atonement - Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, John 15:4
When He accomplished purification from sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high [revealing His glory]. Heb 1:3
Irresistible grace - The good news has been bearing fruit in this same way among you, ever since the day you understood the grace of God in truth. Col 1:6
Perseverance - For this reason I patiently endure all things for the sake of the elect, so that they too may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. 2 Tim 2:10

Thanks for the song!