SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Open Questions for John MacArthur

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 Next Page )
PosterThread
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
St. Joseph, Missouri

 Re:

I don't want to jump the gun here, but I wish to show what the 'will and purpose of God is [u]not[/u].

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.(II Peter 3)

It is not God's [i]boulomai[/i] (will, purpose or desire) that any should perish. when we deal with God's purpose we know here what that purpose is [u]not[/u]. When we speak of the counsel of His will (Ephesians 1) we know what that will is [u]not[/u]. I think this passage has to be tha anchor that keeps us from error.


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2006/10/24 10:39Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
I don't want to jump the gun here...


I know there are folks in some parts of the world who are just waking up and smelling the coffee, so I hope we can move at a fairly leisurely pace to give everyone a chance to contribute.

The 'purpose' that some of the reformed persuasion would give is 'for the glory of God'. That is they do believe that God has elected some to eternal life and not others but that such must be explained by reference to the fact that God's glory is best served by His choices. For many of us, like Krispy, these things make our 'head ache'. In fairness to John Piper he admits that these these issues have their areas of struggle for him too. We must not think that Reformed Christians are 'comfortable' with what they believe the Bible reveals, but they believe it does reveal such things and so in honesty try to give an answer for their convictions.

Some of our older readers here will recall my struggles with the concept of 'the will' which obviously affects the way I synthesise my understanding of scripture. I must admit that I don't recall anyone expressing 'Total Depravity' quite so 'totally' as John Piper in his 'only free to choose our poison' quote. But I believe this is an honest and godly man so I would love to talk to him or others who share his views.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/10/24 10:54Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
So, if I may ask, what is your understanding of the what the Bible describes as 'Election'?


[color=0000ff]Is. 42:1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

Is. 45:4 For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.[/color]

I like to trace things back to their beginnings. The Hebrew word for 'elect' as a noun is [color=0000ff]Strongs 972. בָּחִיר bachiyr[/color], and is used in these scriptures: 2Sam 21:6; 1Chr 16:13; Psa 89:3; 105:6,43; 106:5,23; Is 42:1; 43:20; 45:4; 65:9,15,22

If folk have Bible programmes, I suggest you highlight and copy the above references and put them into your Bible software. (I could do it for you if you don't have the facilities.) The point I would want to make is that if these are the 'beginnings' of the Bible idea it is surprising that none of these references seems to have anything to do with salvation/eternal life. They all seem to have to do with 'role' or 'calling'.

If we pick up some NT verses we see the pattern continuing. We have a reference to the 'elect angels' [color=0000ff]“I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and [u]the elect angels[/u], that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.” (1Tim 5:21 KJVS)[/color] In the usual association of 'election' with 'salvation' and 'eternal life'... what might that mean?!? :-? and how did they become the 'elect'? Do angels suffer from 'total depravity' and do they only have the freedom to 'choose their poison'? (I am not mocking John Piper here, but struggling to see where these ideas come from and where they will end up.)

My thinking about 'election' has to do with 'role', 'calling' rather than personal salvation. I see that Paul's meeting with the risen Christ on the Damascus Road may be an example of what happens to all of us, although we don't usually hear voices. What I mean is that the 'election' comes with the 'salvation' rather than the other way around. Paul's 'calling' or 'role' was spelled out to him at the point of his conversion. I think it may be so for all of us. That is, to be saved is to be restored to the will of God and to begin to live the life of the 'called ones'. Personal salvation comes with a calling to be God's chosen ones and to live so. There are 'good works' that God has foreordained that we should walk in, but for us to do the will of God the answer to 'how' lies in the gospel record [color=0000ff]“Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”” (John 6:28-29 NKJV)[/color] Our destiny must begin with the first step of abandonment to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/10/24 11:22Profile
JaySaved
Member



Joined: 2005/7/11
Posts: 1132
Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
My thinking about 'election' has to do with 'role', 'calling' rather than personal salvation.



You are saying that Election comes with the Salvation rather than the Salvation resulting in Election. You understand election having to do with 'role' and/or 'calling' rather than personal salvation.

Scripture tells us that election happens not at the point of salvation but is done before someone is even born. For example (can't have a discussion on election without bringing up Romans 9)
Romans 9:10-12, "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."

So, we must understand that election preceeds any works and even preceeds any person. It is 'not by works but by him who calls'.

You are making the case for election to begin when someone becomes a Christian. But this goes against the scriptural definition of election. Election has nothing to do with what a person does. But in your understanding (if I read it correctly...please correct me if I misunderstood) is that election is dependant on salvation, in that one must believe first, then election can occur.

The fact is, before Jacob was born God had a role for him. Jacob did not earn this role, Jacob did not have to believe first in order for this role to occur. Jacob simply received it because God had called him for it.

Quote:
I see that Paul's meeting with the risen Christ on the Damascus Road may be an example of what happens to all of us, although we don't usually hear voices. What I mean is that the 'election' comes with the 'salvation' rather than the other way around. Paul's 'calling' or 'role' was spelled out to him at the point of his conversion. I think it may be so for all of us.



I also submit to you that Paul did receive a commission during his encounter with Christ. But why did God open Paul's eyes to begin with? Is it not possible that God before the foundation of the world chose Paul for personal salvation?

If so, then God elected Paul to be saved before Paul was born but then did not choose to reveal that election until the Damascus encounter.

The election is not the 'role', it is the Salvation. Salvation must come before the role but election comes before the Salvation.

What I mean by that is that God did not give Paul the task of being the apostle to the Gentiles until after he was converted. Election is the fact that God chose Paul to become converted before Paul was born.

 2006/10/24 12:26Profile
JaySaved
Member



Joined: 2005/7/11
Posts: 1132
Missouri

 Re:

Quote:
If we pick up some NT verses we see the pattern continuing. We have a reference to the 'elect angels' “I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.” (1Tim 5:21 KJVS) In the usual association of 'election' with 'salvation' and 'eternal life'... what might that mean?!? and how did they become the 'elect'? Do angels suffer from 'total depravity' and do they only have the freedom to 'choose their poison'? (I am not mocking John Piper here, but struggling to see where these ideas come from and where they will end up.)



2 Peter 2:4, "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment;"
Jude 1:6, "And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day."

It does appear that some angels sinned. Is it not possible that there are elect and non-elect angels?

You seem to be saying that God gives 'roles' and 'callings' to people when they believe and that this is their 'election'. But what about God giving a non-believer a 'role' and a 'calling'? Is this referred to as election?

Would you go so far as to say that Pharaoh was of the elect? Was Judas of the elect? Judas clearly was used by God to betray Jesus. It was prophesied in Psalms that one would betray Jesus and Jesus made it known that he knew Judas was the one who would fulfill that role. Peter said in Acts 1:16, "...Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus—"

So, in this logic if election has nothing to do with personal salvation and is simply a calling or role that one may fulfill--as in the case of Judas:
- Why then does Jesus say in Matthew 24:24 that, "For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible.?

- Why does Jesus say in Mark 13:27 that the Son of Man '...will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens."?

- Why does Paul write in Romans 11:5-8, "So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day."

- Why does Paul write in Romans 11:25-29 conerning the Israel, "I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins." As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable." Call to what? Salvation? or a role?


EDIT: [Removed copy of philologos post that was copied by accident.]

 2006/10/24 12:44Profile









 Re: Open Questions for John Piper

Ron,
you asked:

Quote:
Where does it say that 'Israel' was elected to 'salvation'?



Romans 11:25-29

"I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited.

Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of Gentiles has come in.

And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

'The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
And this is my covenant with them,
when I take away their sins'.

As far as the Gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account, but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and His call is irrevocable".

Now Ron, I don't understand, NOR do I have any real desire to divine the differences between a "calvinist" , an "arminian', 'pelagian' or any of the other "ism's" and "ists" in this faith.

All I know is that "irrevocable" means "irrevocable".

I just got done reading an article a secular journalist friend sent me on what is happening in the mosques, colleges and madra's of the kingdom of Jordan, and within the body of Islam is three different strains of religion, sunni, shia, and salafi(wa habbi) and I'm not going to get into the article (for brevity sake) but the horrifying thing I felt was that WE do the same kind of thing in our faith, except we don't kill each other...yet.

They are united on one thing, they hate the Jews, they hate Israel, and heaven forbid a college girl nears a Islamic study center in jeans...oh my, they call her all sorts of names, I won't mention them here, and they proclaim that she will "burn in hellfire".

isn't religion fun?

you get to rain down verbal hellfire on either the "infidels" or the "lost", or the "sinner". You get to be "righteous", and you possess the "truth".

and meanwhile you have "clerics" or "theologians" pouring over every dot or dash of their various "doctrines", or Scripture, whther it be the Koran, the Bible, or the Torah (and the Talmud) and in each of these faiths, they bear one INTERNAL commonality, each of these faiths are TOTALLY divided within....

Jesus dealt with this in His "High Priestly" prayer of John 17....'that they may all be one, as We are One...echad.


But, here comes mankind, seeing thru a glass darkly, arguing and fussing and killing over religion.

this obscure Rabbi, the Son Of God, Jesus Messiah came to change all that, now, not yet......

I know you how you regard the modern state of Israel and what you term "zionism", I'm not posting this to fuss with you about that. You can labour on whatever you believe is true, there are a lot of orthodox rabbi's who would agree with you that Israel is a counterfeit, but let me close by saying that "irrevocable" means "irrevocable".

bartle

 2006/10/24 13:05
OverSeer
Member



Joined: 2006/7/15
Posts: 153
Geneva, Alabama

 Re: Open Questions for John Piper

Philologos wrote:

Quote:
The introduction suggests that the whole question revolved around the issue of who takes the initiative in salvation. The suggestion is that Calvin and many another including John Piper and the apostles believe that God takes the initiative but that Pelagians, Semi-Pelagians, Arminians and fellow travellers believe that man takes the initiative. As the programme would conclude that I am among the fellow travellers I feel I need to say that this is a mistaken oversimplification. I also believe that God takes the initiative. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Faith cannot precede God's initiative. If there is no 'word' there can be no faith. Some people with a reformed position use the language of synergism or monergism. Does God do the whole thing 'alone' ie monergism or does God do the thing in cooperation with the believers faith? Does synergism really demean the sovereign authority of God?

God does take the initiative in salvation – He has to because before regeneration we are dead in trespasses and sin. As to the truth of total depravity, it is a truth taught in the Bible – “There is none good, not even one” – and it is the experience of all mankind – “For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” But the question remains: does God effect salvation monergistically or synergistically? If monergistically, then God “forces” some to be saved; if synergistically, then God woos (draws by attraction or inner desire) some to be saved. Just as sin holds a great attraction to sinners and woos them without forcing them – “But each one is tempted when he is carried away (exelkomenos – to be [b]drawn[/b] by inward power, to be led, to be impelled) and enticed by his own lust” (James 1:14) – so God effects salvation by wooing and winning through great attraction – “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will [b]draw[/b] (same root word used by James) all men to Myself” (John 12:32). God attracts people to salvation not by force but by His grace and love as seen in His glory. Love woos, love wins; it never forces anybody to follow it. “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me [b]draws[/b] (same root word used by James) him; and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:44).

So God takes the initiative because man who loves his sin does not seek for God - "There is none who seeks for God" (Romans 3:11). In so doing, God reveals the ugliness of sin and the beauty of His Son, our Savior. After revealing His glory and His worth, and sin's folly, God calls for a decision - turn from loving sin to loving the Savior. It is the hearing of God's Word that effects the ability to turn from sin to God. Man does not have the ability to turn from sin to God without being drawn by God through the Gospel. God even takes the initiative in the truth that He sends His preachers to preach the gospel - "How will they preach unless they are sent?" (Romans 10:15).

RobertW wrote:
Quote:
Error begets error. Soon a doctrine develops that man has to be regenerated before he/she can respond rightly to God.

How true! Actually no man is regenerated until he/she has first properly responded to God through the Gospel - "In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth..." (James 1:18). But the other end of this error that you have mentioned is another error - sanctification precedes regeneration/justification - and then you have salvation by works - [b]and it won't work[/b]!

Grace and peace
Olan


_________________
Olan Strickland

 2006/10/24 13:20Profile









 JaySaved: neo-pharisees

Jay, do you really believe the Pharisees went bye bye?

brother, talk a look around you, they are alive and well, and deeply burrowed into the Church, "white washed tombs" "heaping loads upon men's back that they cannot bear".

Gentile children of Abraham should be careful, you are "wild olive shoots" grafted into the Root, taking this Nourishment....and some of these children have become arrogant, and in the past murderous. Many many Jews have died at the hands of "christians" who considered them "sons of the Devil".

I know thats NOT what you are saying, but be careful, Grace is Grace, and irrevocable means irrevocable.

God has a plan for the Jewish people, would to God the Gentile children of Abraham get out of the way, and Let Him do His work, He's going to do what He's PROMISED to do, irrevocably, an irrevocable Covenant.

bartle

 2006/10/24 13:26
TrueWitness
Member



Joined: 2006/8/10
Posts: 661


 Re:

Quote:
The introduction suggests that the whole question revolved around the issue of who takes the initiative in salvation. The suggestion is that Calvin and many another including John Piper and the apostles believe that God takes the initiative but that Pelagians, Semi-Pelagians, Arminians and fellow travellers believe that man takes the initiative. As the programme would conclude that I am among the fellow travellers I feel I need to say that this is a mistaken oversimplification. I also believe that God takes the initiative. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Faith cannot precede God's initiative. If there is no 'word' there can be no faith. Some people with a reformed position use the language of synergism or monergism. Does God do the whole thing 'alone' ie monergism or does God do the thing in cooperation with the believers faith? Does synergism really demean the sovereign authority of God?



What is the first thing that God must do to save a person?

2Co 4:4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Therefore God must reveal the truth of the gospel to the unbeliever by the Spirit using the Word. Once the unbeliever has the truth revealed to them, choosing salvation through Christ is a "no-brainer". This is where Calvinism and Arminianism come together. God does the revealing and man chooses to accept the truth. I call it Calvarmianism(TM). ;-)

 2006/10/24 13:39Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re:

Quote:
“And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.”


You are right, ultimately we can't have a discussion about election without referring to Romans but we might need to establish some broad understanding of the concept before we import it into Romans.

These are vital verses, but just what is 'the purpose of God', referred to in these verses, with reference to 'election'? In other words what is 'election' referring to? Is there any indication in the story of Esau and Jacob that we are talking about 'salvation' or 'eternal life'? And while we are on the topic we can include the reference in Hebrews [color=0000ff]“Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.” (Heb 12:15-17 KJVS)[/color]

Did Esau lose 'salvation' or the 'birthright'? Did he lose 'eternal life' or 'the blessing'? Is 'the purpose of God' my personal salvation or is it something much larger than that of which my personal salvation is but a part? The 'purpose of God' must go on and if Esau rejected it, God must establish another 'carrier'. God, of course, knew this before the event and predicted that 'the elder would serve the younger'. Again, this would not seem to have reference to personal salvation but to the ongoing purpose of God.

[color=0000ff]“It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” (Rom 9:12-13 KJVS)[/color] It is important to remember that this quotation from Malachi was a word spoken by God 1300 years after both Esau and Jacob were resting in their graves. The passage in Malachi seems to be clearly speaking of 'nations' rather than individuals.

On another level, of course, Jacob was Israel so we are back to needing a definition of 'Israel'.;-) Back later, just off to the prayer meeting...


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2006/10/24 14:18Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy