Who will choose God?

[tabcom]

If no one chooses God, and God chooses some and not all of us, then what do we make of 1 Timothy 2:4: [God] will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth? What does “παντας” (pantas) mean in this case?

**This verse does not mean that God has willed that everyone should come to salvation, for elsewhere Paul clearly teaches that only those who believe in Christ will receive salvation (Rom 1:16, 17, 3:21-26; 5:17). Thus, universal salvation is not the determinative will of God, by which He sovereignly rules the world. Instead what Paul might be saying here is that the Savior God extends the offer of salvation to all (Jew or Gentile). Christ died for the sins of all, but only those who believe receive the benefits of that sacrifice (2 Cor. 5:14, 15).

I have to keep reminding myself that up until Christ, God only revealed Himself to the Jews. Paul, a Jew, preached to Gentiles. That is ‘the all’ that Paul is referring to. Not every man, woman, child that lived or was to live in the future.

Also, for what is good and acceptable in the sight of God?
1 Tim 2:2 tells us what is good, ‘so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.’

If a believer has tranquility, then the knowledge of the Truth has come to him.

With regards to PANTOS . . . .

When Ananias tells Paul “You will be his witness to all (pantas) men of what you have seen and heard”(Acts 22:15), was it Paul’s duty to speak personally to each and every human being? The idea being expressed is that the gentiles shall share in the Spirit along side the jews. The all (pantas) is clearified in Acts 22:21 and 1 Tim 2:7.

Acts 22:21
“Then the Lord said to me, 'Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles.”

1 Tim 2:7
And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles.

**

 

[tabcom]

how is it we can be “saved” if we have been predestined? We are either predestined for heaven or hell right?

**The elect are not predestinated for Heaven. As Paul says,

Romans 8:29 - For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined {to become} conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren

It does not say that those that are prebound for the light are free to do as they please. It says that those that are prebound for the light are to be shaped (conformed) to the likeness (image) of Christ inorder to set an example as to how christians are to be amongst other baby believers.

Mark 3:33,35-- (Jesus speaking)-- Who is my mother or my brethren? For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother and my sister and mother.

• will-Greek: thelema- determination; purpose; pleasure. God has purposed that his people should live holy (Eph. 1:4)

**

 

[zemi]

tabcom,

sorry, but I’m also good at pasting and unless we proceed in small steps… it’s not worth it I think…

 

[storm807]

wow!!! something so simple made so complex.
My thoughts;
Accepting Jesus equals Salvation
through Jesus equals righteouness (Jesus is all righteous)

No one is condemned who accepts Jesus.

Only my thoughts

 

[tabcom]

1. God created everyone

Yes.

1. God gave everyone free will

The Bible does not teach this – that is your opinon.

1. God loves everyone

The Bible does not teach this – that is your opinon.

1. God wishes everyone to be saved

No . . . God has an Elect Family that He has choosen. He has vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, for which Hell is reserved for them.

1. God chooses only some, others are damned. Their free will is irrelevant.

Your getting close . . . God chooses few, the rest are damned

You don’t need a Bible to see that 5) is conflicting with 1) 2) 3) 4). Please explain that.

Without a Bible you can make up any doctrine you want.

 

[tabcom]

Sir. 15:11-20 - salvation, a free gift, is ours to accept or reject. God’s sovereignty includes our freewill. Our fate is predestined, but not predetermined.

**
Fidelis . . . thank you for citing 24 verses! Time permitting, I would like to address as many as possible.

I’ll start with the Book of Sirach:

15:11 Say not: “It was God’s doing that I fell away”; for what he hates he does not do.
12 Say not: “It was he who set me astray”; for he has no need of wicked man.
13 Abominable wickedness the LORD hates, he does not let it befall those who fear him.

The context of verses 11, 12, 13 are made clearer when Sirach 15:1 is added:

Sirach 15:1
He who fears the LORD will do this; he who is practiced in the law will come to wisdom.

Fear of God = Practicing the Law = Wisdom.
He who blames God for his sin is ignorate and is not practicing the Law.

When we sin, and if we blame God for our sin, we are ignorate of the Law. All sinners break the Law and are held accountable for their transgressions.

1 John 1:8 -
If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.

1Jo 3:4 -
Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

Rev 20:13 -
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one {of them} according to their deeds.

Sirach 1514 When God, in the beginning, created man, he made him subject to his own free choice.
15 If you choose you can keep the commandments; it is loyalty to do his will.
16 There are set before you fire and water; to whichever you choose, stretch forth your hand.

This verse supports:

Genesis 2:16 The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;

Adam’s ability to choose was subject to only the trees that God had predestinated Adam to eat from. In other words, God pre-bound Adam within the Light (see Rom 8:29) or garden, and told him he was free to eat of any tree within the garden.

17 Before man are life and death, whichever he chooses shall be given him

Eve could not make the choice by herself. It was the serpent that sudduced her when he put God’s law into doubt when the serpent asked Eve, 'Indeed, has God said . . " (Gen 3:1)

2 Cor 11:3 But I (Paul) am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity {of devotion} to Christ.

And what did Eve do when God confronted her about what she did? She tried to blame it on the serpent.

Ge 3:13 -
Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

OK, let’s connect the dots.

Fear of God = Practicing the Law = Wisdom

Did Eve fear God when she looked at the tree? No.

Did Eve break the Law when she ate of it? Yes.

Did Eve think she was gaining wisdom when she ate of it? Yes.

Gen 3:6 -
The woman saw that the tree was . . . desirable for gaining wisdom.

Did Eve fear God when she heard Him coming? Yes.
Did Eve return to the Law? Yes.

Gen 3:8 -
When they heard the sound of the LORD God moving about in the garden at the breezy time of the day, the man and his wife hid themselves from the LORD God among the trees of the garden.

Sirach 15:18 Immense is the wisdom of the LORD; he is mighty in power, and all-seeing.
19 The eyes of God see all he has made; he understands man’s every deed.
20 No man does he command to sin, to none does he give strength for lies.

**

 

[tabcom]

1 John 2:2 - Christ is the expiation for the sins of the whole world (not just the elect). But not all are predestined to glory because of their own choosing.

1 John 4:14 - again, Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world (not just the Savior of the elect).

**Your citation is an excellent example of how the English translation is not the inspired word of God. The original greek word in 1 John 2:2 that was mistakenly translated into world, and later interpeted as humanity is kosmos. Kosmos means orderly arrangement.

For those interested, you can read the original text at:
scripture4all.org/

“A TIPTOE THROUGH TULIP” By JAMES AKIN posted on catholic.com.

"Aquinas stated, “Christ’s passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race; according to 1 John 2:2, ‘He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.’” [ST III:48:2].

This is not to say there is no sense in which limitation may be ascribed to the atonement. While the grace it provided is sufficient to pay for the sins of all men, this grace is not made efficacious (put into effect) in the case of everyone. One may say that although the sufficiency of the atonement is not limited, its efficiency is limited. This is something everyone who believes in hell must acknowledge because, if the atonement was made efficacious for everyone, then no one would end up in hell."
Sufficient -
Being as much as is needed.

Efficacious -
Producing or capable of producing a desired effect.

Lets examine this notion of what is sufficient with what is efficacious. Isn’t the life\death\resurrection of Jesus known by all men? Yes. In other words, Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient for all men to know who Jesus was. However, not all men are going to come to a knowledge of Christ. The bible teachs that only a few are. Jesus’ resurrection produced the desired effect within His elect family, i.e. conforming to the image of Christ.

**

 

[tabcom]

2 Cor. 5:14-15 - Christ has died for all (not just the elect), that those who live might live for Him.

1 Tim. 2:6 - Jesus Christ gave Himself as a ransom for all (not just for the elect). But only those predestined to glory will be saved.

1 Tim. 4:10 - our hope is on the living God who is the Savior of all men (not just the elect).

Titus 2:11 - for the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men (not just the elect).

**
I’m going to present one example that I hope makes my point that we, being twenty-first century English speaking people, really don’t know what the original intent of a word is.

I’m going to use the English translation from the original Greek text. Available at: scripture4all.org/

1 Tim 2:1-4

I exhort therefore, that, first of ALL, supplications, prayers, intercessions, (and) giving of thanks, be made for ALL men;

For kings, and {for} ALL that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in ALL godliness and honesty.

For this {is} good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior:

Who will have ALL men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Using a parsing guide:

1st All: Genitive, Plural, Neuter Gender
2nd All: Genitive, Plural, Masc. Gender
3rd All: Genitive, Plural, Masc. Gender
4th All: Dative, Singular, Fem. Gender
5th All: Accusative, Plural, Masc. Gender

Neuter Gender:
Neither masculine nor feminine in gender.

Genitive Case:
Of, relating to, or being the grammatical case expressing possession, measurement, or source.

Dative Case:
Of, relating to, or being the grammatical case that marks the recipient of action, that often indicates the indirect object of the verb, and that can be used with prepositions or other function words corresponding in meaning to English to and for.

Accusative Case:
Of, relating to, or being the grammatical case that is the direct object of a verb or the object of certain prepositions.

Within these four verses, there are four different Greek words that have been ambiguously translated into the English word ‘all’.

How is anyone going to know the context of Paul’s writings to TImothy – who was pastoring a gentile church – without defining the words

**

 

[mikeledes]

All Catholics - and Protestants as well - should read the following links on the Catholic view of predestination:

thecatholicfaith.com/Teachings/predestination.htm

thesumma.info/predestination/predestination4.php

Here is a quote from the second link:

We shall return to this point. But in any case, from this minimum admitted by all we get three propositions to which all Catholic theologians subscribe. They are: (1) Predestination to the first grace is not because God foresaw our naturally good works, nor is the beginning of salutary acts due to natural causes; (2) predestination to glory is not because God foresaw we would continue in the performance of supernaturally meritorious acts apart from the special gift of final perseverance; (3) complete predestination, in so far as it comprises the whole series of graces from the first up to glorification, is gratuitous or previous to foreseen merits. These three propositions are admitted by all Catholic theologians. But Thomists and Augustinians on the one hand, and Molinists and congruists on the other, differ in their interpretation of them.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[tabcom]

2 Pet. 3:9 - the Lord doesn’t wish that any should perish, but come to full repentance.

**
2 Peter 3:9 - The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

To put the verse in context, the scoffers of verse 3 asked ‘Where is the promise of His coming?’ Peter is refuting them by saying, ‘the Lord is not slow to His promise towards us.’ – the believing gentile church.**

 

[Fidelis]

Fidelis . . . thank you for citing 24 verses! Time permitting, I would like to address as many as possible.

I’ll start with the Book of Sirach:

15:11 Say not: “It was God’s doing that I fell away”; for what he hates he does not do.
12 Say not: “It was he who set me astray”; for he has no need of wicked man.
13 Abominable wickedness the LORD hates, he does not let it befall those who fear him.

The context of verses 11, 12, 13 are made clearer when Sirach 15:1 is added:

Sirach 15:1
He who fears the LORD will do this; he who is practiced in the law will come to wisdom.

Fear of God = Practicing the Law = Wisdom.
He who blames God for his sin is ignorate and is not practicing the Law.

When we sin, and if we blame God for our sin, we are ignorate of the Law. All sinners break the Law and are held accountable for their transgressions.

Sorry, but you are not placing the passage in context, as you believe you are, but simply emphasizing one passage at the expense of another. Thus your answer is fatally flawed from the beginning.

Adam’s ability to choose was subject to only the trees that God had predestinated Adam to eat from. In other words, God pre-bound Adam within the Light (see Rom 8:29) or garden, and told him he was free to eat of any tree within the garden.

Adam had an ability to choose period, whether it was two trees or a hundred. And choose he did.

Romans 8:29 has nothing to do with Adam’s choice. Even though the chapter starts with a discussion about Adam, by that time in Paul’s argument, he was speaaking in general terms.

17 Before man are life and death, whichever he chooses shall be given him

Eve could not make the choice by herself. It was the serpent that sudduced her when he put God’s law into doubt when the serpent asked Eve, 'Indeed, has God said . . " (Gen 3:1)

Eve made the choice herself, whether she was tempted or not. Just because one is seduced or tempted, one’s free choice is not removed.

OK, let’s connect the dots.

Fear of God = Practicing the Law = Wisdom

Did Eve fear God when she looked at the tree? No.

Did Eve break the Law when she ate of it? Yes.

Did Eve think she was gaining wisdom when she ate of it? Yes.

Did Eve fear God when she heard Him coming? Yes.
Did Eve return to the Law? Yes.

You are basing this deduction from a faulty premise – that Eve was under the Law. The Law was not even revealed by God until Moses.

 

[Fidelis]

Your citation is an excellent example of how the English translation is not the inspired word of God. The original greek word in 1 John 2:2 that was mistakenly translated into world, and later interpeted as humanity is kosmos. Kosmos means orderly arrangement.

Please, tabcom–how simple do you think we are? Here is the definition of Kosmos as found in Strongs:

Definition **
an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, ‘the heavenly hosts’, as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3: the world, the universe the circle of the earth, the earth the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ world affairs, **the aggregate of things earthly the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc) of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19

So, it can mean “an apt and harmonious arrangement” OR “the world, the universe the circle of the earth, the earth the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ world affairs,” depending on the context in which it is used.

Let’s try plugging your use of *Kosmos *into 1 John 2:2:

1 John 2:2 - Christ is the expiation for the sins of the whole apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, (not just the elect). But not all are predestined to glory because of their own choosing.

As you can see it is utter nonsense.

Please refrain from teaching us Greek to shore up your points until you yourself have mastered it. Thanks.

 

[tabcom]

You are basing this deduction from a faulty premise – that Eve was under the Law. The Law was not even revealed by God until Moses.

** If I understand you correctly, you are saying my understanding of Sirach 15 is incorrect because Eve did not have to obey any Laws?

Was not the first Law that God gave Adam . . .

Ge 2:16
The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;

commanded - Tsavah (tsaw-vaw’)

This word Tsavah is used 348 times in the Hebrew Bible . I’ll present one of them here to illustrate that its use is linked with God making a Law that man must obey.

Jos 8:31
just as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded the sons of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of uncut stones on which no man had wielded an iron tool; and they offered burnt offerings on it to the LORD, and sacrificed peace offerings.

Please explain to me how God’s comandment of which trees Adam could eat from not a Law?

**

 

[tabcom]

Fidelis . . . your need to post a Strong’s Definition of the word kosmos and to somehow discredit my assertion that it means an orderly arrangement notwithstanding, what exactly was your intent by citing 1 John 2:22 in the first place?

 

[Fidelis]

** If I understand you correctly, you are saying my understanding of Sirach 15 is incorrect because Eve did not have to obey any Laws?

Was not the first Law that God gave Adam . . .

Ge 2:16
The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;

commanded - Tsavah (tsaw-vaw’)

This word Tsavah is used 348 times in the Hebrew Bible . I’ll present one of them here to illustrate that its use is linked with God making a Law that man must obey.

Jos 8:31
just as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded the sons of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of uncut stones on which no man had wielded an iron tool; and they offered burnt offerings on it to the LORD, and sacrificed peace offerings.

Please explain to me how God’s comandment of which trees Adam could eat from not a Law?

**

You err because the premise of the argument of yours that I cited was based on Sirach 15:1 which talks about the Mosaic Law. You, however are applying statements about the Mosaic Law, which did not exist at the time of Eve.

 

[Fidelis]

Fidelis . . . your need to post a Strong’s Definition of the word kosmos and to somehow discredit my assertion that it means an orderly arrangement notwithstanding, what exactly was your intent by citing 1 John 2:22 in the first place?

I only posted the citation from Strongs because you indicated that “world” as used in 1 John 2:22 was an incorrect translation.

I cited 1 John 2:22 in response to your request for scriptural support against your assertion denying free will in humans as regards salvation.

 

[tabcom]

I cited 1 John 2:22 in response to your request for scriptural support against your assertion denying free will in humans as regards salvation.

**
Ok…let’s work with that . . . .

1 John 2:2
He is expiation for our sins, and not for our sins only but for those of the whole world.

Please explain to me how this is a free-will verse?**

 

[Fidelis]

**
Ok…let’s work with that . . . .

1 John 2:2
He is expiation for our sins, and not for our sins only but for those of the whole world.

Please explain to me how this is a free-will verse?**

As I said, “he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world” indicates that since Christ’s sacrifice expiates the sins of, not just the elect, but everyone in the whole world, then everyone in the whole world has at least an opportunity (i.e. using their free will) to either accept or deny him. Why would Christ die to expiate the sins of those who are not “the elect” if they had no chance of ever being saved anyway?

 

[tabcom]

not just the elect, but everyone in the whole world,

OK…I’m going to suspend my sense of disbelief for a moment and ask…does ‘everyone in the whole world’ (using your definition of kosmos) get to go to heaven when they die?

 

[tabcom]

Why would Christ die to expiate the sins of those who are not “the elect” if they had no chance of ever being saved anyway?

**How about . . . because the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction (Ro. 9:23) have no chance for salvation, your question is moot.
**