Do we need Calvin-or salvation?

Johann

Active Member
SALVATION

GOD’S PROVISION, MAN’S NEED

God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. Jesus offered once and for all the one perfect sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. No other satisfaction is necessary; none other can atone. Salvation is received as a gift on the condition of genuine faith.





ELEMENTS OF INITIAL SALVATION

Justification– To justify in Scripture is an act of God, by which, according to His grace and for Christ’s sake, He pardons all of our sins and accepts us as righteous. The Bible tells us that God accepts the one who confesses himself to be guilty, and who repents and believes in Jesus Christ. Mark 1:14, 15; 16:16; Rom. 1:16,17; 4:3-7; 5:1; Gal. 2:16, 17. This can only be found through the work of Christ, and not the law. Every attempt in sinners to justify themselves by the law is vain. Psa. 140:3, 4; 143:2; Rom. 3: 20, 28; 7: 5-24.

Regeneration– Is the change of nature that is wrought within the believer simultaneously with the work of justification. Matt. 19:28; Tit. 3:5. It is commonly called the NEW BIRTH, John 3:3-8.

It is the initial stage of sanctification in which the Believers nature is born again and re-united with God. It is passing out of death into life, Eph 2:1, 4, 5; 1 John 3:14; a new creation, 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; a new heart and a new spirit, Ezek. 11:19; 18:31; 36:26.

Regeneration is necessary since in man’s fallen state he is unfit to inherit the Kingdom of God, 1 Cor. 15:50; Gal. 5:19-21. Also God is holy and heaven is a holy place, and sinful man must be changed in order to fellowship with God and enjoy heaven.

Adoption– An act of God by which we are accepted into the family of God as His own children. Rom. 8:15, 23; 9:4; Gal. 4:5; Eph. 1:5.

Adoption, Regeneration, and Justification– All happen simultaneously when a Believer passes from death into life. Justification is necessary to enable the reconciliation between God and Man. When this takes place, all our former sins are forgiven. But God has to go further to be able to accept us, He must reform our corrupt nature, this of course is the function of regeneration. Adoption, that is, being born into and accepted into God’s family occurs in the same moment that regeneration and justification take place.


ATONEMENT AND THE BIBLE

Atonement– means to make as one, to satisfy, to take away the barrier that separates. Concerning Christ, it stands for the provision that he acquired through His sufferings upon the cross on our behalf. This provision makes possible the uniting of two divided parties, God and man.

Many use the term REDEMPTION as a synonym for ATONEMENT. To redeem is to “buy back”, or to pay a ransom. On this account Jesus is called the Redeemer. Isa. 59:20; 60:16; Rom. 3:24-26; Gal. 3:13; Eph. 1:7; 1 Pet. 1:18, 19.

THE FACTS

Atonement is only through the death and resurrection of Christ.

Luke 22:19; John 14:6; Acts 4:12; Romans 5:6-11; 2 Cor. 5:18, 19; 1 Pet. 3:18; Gal. 1:4; Heb. 10:12; 1 Jn. 2:1-2.

We know the following: 1. Christ died for our sins. 2. It was necessary. 3. This is based in God’s love. 4. The death of Christ was not an accident.

The exact way in which this atonement works in the mind of God is a partial mystery to us.


THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS



THE MYSTERY OF THE ATONEMENT

God has revealed sufficient and accurate facts for our understanding. There is enough information about the atonement in the Bible to know what God deems as essential for our salvation, but we do not have full knowledge. Now this is not to say that we cannot have accurate knowledge. I will hopefully demonstrate the difficulty that we face.

ALL VIEWS OF THE ATONEMENT ARE ESSENTIALLY THEORIES

There is no Theory in existence that satisfactorily answers every verse about the atonement.

I believe that God has used several models to explain His saving work to mankind. What is essential is that we find salvation and reconciliation through the merits of Christ. It is extremely important is that we use accurate and Biblical models to shape our thinking. It is essential that you understand that your view of how the atonement works, is the foundation block of everything that you understand about the Bible!

Our conclusions about the Atonement will give us theological biases that lead us to understand the Scriptures only in a way that our Atonement view will allow. If we are wrong here, we will be wrong in how we understand everything in Scripture!

ADVANTAGES AND LIMITS OF MODELS

Three Models Of Understanding







Anthropomorphic– This is a great model to use to appeal to the heart. It stresses the personal relationship with God. It is limited in answering the question of “how” the death of Christ satisfies the account against us. These human images help us to relate to the fact that Jesus atoned for our sins, but rarely gives us the details of "how" Jesus atoned for our sins. Because of the previous reasons, the anthropomorphic image of the atonement should not be used as our primary base for doctrine, but as an augmentation to enhance our doctrinally based view of God’s love towards us.

Sacrificial– This is an excellent model that has the support of the entire Old Testament. The fact that God has spent so much time emphasizing this form of atonement renders it to be very appealing. In the New Testament, the book of Hebrews makes good use of this perspective. The fact that God will stand as our "Judge" for those sins that were un-atoned for, will work with the idea of sacrifice, but its judicial implications seem to be foreign to the Old Testament. Because the New testament reached beyond Jews to the Gentiles, it would make sense that an explanation would be made in terms that would not deny sacrifice, but would fit into the vocabulary and knowledge of those who did not know the concepts of Judaism. The Sacrificial theory of the atonement seems to fit better into the Jewish mind than that of the Greek mind. Because God has revealed to us the nature of sacrifice throughout the Old Testament in such precise detail, we can gain an understanding of how it foreshadows and reveals what Jesus accomplished for us on the cross. With the entire Old Testament for its support, this could, and should be one’s primary means of understanding atonement. He is the Lamb of God, who shed His blood as an atonement for sins.

Judicial– The Bible uses terminology that implies the idea of a judicial system. We will stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ. He is also our Advocate. God’s moral Government is emphasized by His use of the law. The fact that He is our Judge, and that our many violations of the law requires our personal day in court, we can only be found just before God because Jesus is the Advocate that pleas for us. It is only by the merit of Christ, and not our self-righteousness, that the Judge is willing, and just, in being and able to pardon us. Terms such as justification and pardon seem to fit the judicial model better than any other theory.
 
SALVATION

GOD’S PROVISION, MAN’S NEED

God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. Jesus offered once and for all the one perfect sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. No other satisfaction is necessary; none other can atone. Salvation is received as a gift on the condition of genuine faith.





ELEMENTS OF INITIAL SALVATION

Justification– To justify in Scripture is an act of God, by which, according to His grace and for Christ’s sake, He pardons all of our sins and accepts us as righteous. The Bible tells us that God accepts the one who confesses himself to be guilty, and who repents and believes in Jesus Christ. Mark 1:14, 15; 16:16; Rom. 1:16,17; 4:3-7; 5:1; Gal. 2:16, 17. This can only be found through the work of Christ, and not the law. Every attempt in sinners to justify themselves by the law is vain. Psa. 140:3, 4; 143:2; Rom. 3: 20, 28; 7: 5-24.

Regeneration– Is the change of nature that is wrought within the believer simultaneously with the work of justification. Matt. 19:28; Tit. 3:5. It is commonly called the NEW BIRTH, John 3:3-8.

It is the initial stage of sanctification in which the Believers nature is born again and re-united with God. It is passing out of death into life, Eph 2:1, 4, 5; 1 John 3:14; a new creation, 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; a new heart and a new spirit, Ezek. 11:19; 18:31; 36:26.

Regeneration is necessary since in man’s fallen state he is unfit to inherit the Kingdom of God, 1 Cor. 15:50; Gal. 5:19-21. Also God is holy and heaven is a holy place, and sinful man must be changed in order to fellowship with God and enjoy heaven.

Adoption– An act of God by which we are accepted into the family of God as His own children. Rom. 8:15, 23; 9:4; Gal. 4:5; Eph. 1:5.

Adoption, Regeneration, and Justification– All happen simultaneously when a Believer passes from death into life. Justification is necessary to enable the reconciliation between God and Man. When this takes place, all our former sins are forgiven. But God has to go further to be able to accept us, He must reform our corrupt nature, this of course is the function of regeneration. Adoption, that is, being born into and accepted into God’s family occurs in the same moment that regeneration and justification take place.


ATONEMENT AND THE BIBLE

Atonement– means to make as one, to satisfy, to take away the barrier that separates. Concerning Christ, it stands for the provision that he acquired through His sufferings upon the cross on our behalf. This provision makes possible the uniting of two divided parties, God and man.

Many use the term REDEMPTION as a synonym for ATONEMENT. To redeem is to “buy back”, or to pay a ransom. On this account Jesus is called the Redeemer. Isa. 59:20; 60:16; Rom. 3:24-26; Gal. 3:13; Eph. 1:7; 1 Pet. 1:18, 19.

THE FACTS

Atonement is only through the death and resurrection of Christ.

Luke 22:19; John 14:6; Acts 4:12; Romans 5:6-11; 2 Cor. 5:18, 19; 1 Pet. 3:18; Gal. 1:4; Heb. 10:12; 1 Jn. 2:1-2.

We know the following: 1. Christ died for our sins. 2. It was necessary. 3. This is based in God’s love. 4. The death of Christ was not an accident.

The exact way in which this atonement works in the mind of God is a partial mystery to us.


THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS



THE MYSTERY OF THE ATONEMENT

God has revealed sufficient and accurate facts for our understanding. There is enough information about the atonement in the Bible to know what God deems as essential for our salvation, but we do not have full knowledge. Now this is not to say that we cannot have accurate knowledge. I will hopefully demonstrate the difficulty that we face.

ALL VIEWS OF THE ATONEMENT ARE ESSENTIALLY THEORIES

There is no Theory in existence that satisfactorily answers every verse about the atonement.

I believe that God has used several models to explain His saving work to mankind. What is essential is that we find salvation and reconciliation through the merits of Christ. It is extremely important is that we use accurate and Biblical models to shape our thinking. It is essential that you understand that your view of how the atonement works, is the foundation block of everything that you understand about the Bible!

Our conclusions about the Atonement will give us theological biases that lead us to understand the Scriptures only in a way that our Atonement view will allow. If we are wrong here, we will be wrong in how we understand everything in Scripture!

ADVANTAGES AND LIMITS OF MODELS

Three Models Of Understanding







Anthropomorphic– This is a great model to use to appeal to the heart. It stresses the personal relationship with God. It is limited in answering the question of “how” the death of Christ satisfies the account against us. These human images help us to relate to the fact that Jesus atoned for our sins, but rarely gives us the details of "how" Jesus atoned for our sins. Because of the previous reasons, the anthropomorphic image of the atonement should not be used as our primary base for doctrine, but as an augmentation to enhance our doctrinally based view of God’s love towards us.

Sacrificial– This is an excellent model that has the support of the entire Old Testament. The fact that God has spent so much time emphasizing this form of atonement renders it to be very appealing. In the New Testament, the book of Hebrews makes good use of this perspective. The fact that God will stand as our "Judge" for those sins that were un-atoned for, will work with the idea of sacrifice, but its judicial implications seem to be foreign to the Old Testament. Because the New testament reached beyond Jews to the Gentiles, it would make sense that an explanation would be made in terms that would not deny sacrifice, but would fit into the vocabulary and knowledge of those who did not know the concepts of Judaism. The Sacrificial theory of the atonement seems to fit better into the Jewish mind than that of the Greek mind. Because God has revealed to us the nature of sacrifice throughout the Old Testament in such precise detail, we can gain an understanding of how it foreshadows and reveals what Jesus accomplished for us on the cross. With the entire Old Testament for its support, this could, and should be one’s primary means of understanding atonement. He is the Lamb of God, who shed His blood as an atonement for sins.

Judicial– The Bible uses terminology that implies the idea of a judicial system. We will stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ. He is also our Advocate. God’s moral Government is emphasized by His use of the law. The fact that He is our Judge, and that our many violations of the law requires our personal day in court, we can only be found just before God because Jesus is the Advocate that pleas for us. It is only by the merit of Christ, and not our self-righteousness, that the Judge is willing, and just, in being and able to pardon us. Terms such as justification and pardon seem to fit the judicial model better than any other theory.
Did you come up with all that yourself? That's quite impressive. A couple of comments I'd like to mention which I can flesh out later if desired.

1) Adoption is one of the blessings of our Predestination. As such it is a process, not an instantaneous occurrence.

2) The Atonement can also be viewed ontologically. Doing so actually brings in Christ's Incarnation as an act of redeeming man's nature. Also, Christ's Ascension brings in human nature into the very abode of the Father. There is much more that i can later can expound on if you wish.
 
Did you come up with all that yourself? That's quite impressive. A couple of comments I'd like to mention which I can flesh out later if desired.

1) Adoption is one of the blessings of our Predestination. As such it is a process, not an instantaneous occurrence.

2) The Atonement can also be viewed ontologically. Doing so actually brings in Christ's Incarnation as an act of redeeming man's nature. Also, Christ's Ascension brings in human nature into the very abode of the Father. There is much more that i can later can expound on if you wish.
I think it came from here : https://www.biblical-theology.net/salvation.htm#:~:text=SALVATION,PROVISION, MAN’S NEED
 
Did you come up with all that yourself? That's quite impressive. A couple of comments I'd like to mention which I can flesh out later if desired.

1) Adoption is one of the blessings of our Predestination. As such it is a process, not an instantaneous occurrence.

2) The Atonement can also be viewed ontologically. Doing so actually brings in Christ's Incarnation as an act of redeeming man's nature. Also, Christ's Ascension brings in human nature into the very abode of the Father. There is much more that i can later can expound on if you wish.
You missed the Link on Atonement-not my work-and no need for further expounding-ontologically speaking.

1Co 1:26 For you see your kri'ah (call), Achim b'Moshiach, what you were, that not many of you were chachamim (wise ones) by the standards of Bnei Adam, not many ba'alei hashpa'ah (people of influence), not many ba'alei zchus (privileged).
1Co 1:27 But Hashem in His bechirah (selection) chose the things of sichlut (foolishness), that He might bring the chachamim to bushah (shame); and Hashem in His bechirah (selection) chose the things of weakness that He might bring the strong to bushah (shame).
1Co 1:28 And those of the Olam Hazeh without mishpochah atzilah (noble birth) and those which are hanivzim (the despised, Isa 53:3) Hashem chose, choosing the things that are not, in order to bring to naught the things that are.

1Co 1:29 His tachlis (purpose) is that no basar (fallen humanity sold under the power of slave master Chet Kadmon, Original Sin, Rom. 7:14) may boast before Hashem.
OJB

A distinction can be made between ontologically objective phenomena such as physical objects and ontologically subjective phenomena such as emotions and thoughts.

Besides-I made it clear-no philosophizing without Scripture references.
Thanks
Johann.
 
1) Adoption is one of the blessings of our Predestination. As such it is a process, not an instantaneous occurrence.
Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Transliteration: proorisas
Morphology: V-APA-NMS
Verb - Aorist Participle Active - Nominative Masculine Singular
Strong's no.: G4309 (προορίζω)
Meaning: To foreordain, predetermine, mark out beforehand.
υἱοθεσία
uihothesia
hwee-oth-es-ee'-ah
From a presumed compound of G5207 and a derivative of G5087; the placing as a son, that is, adoption (figuratively Christian sonship in respect to God): - adoption (of children, of sons).

Thayer Definition:
1) adoption, adoption as sons
1a) that relationship which God was pleased to establish between himself and the Israelites in preference to all other nations
1b) the nature and condition of the true disciples in Christ, who by receiving the Spirit of God into their souls become sons of God
1c) the blessed state looked for in the future life after the visible return of Christ from heaven
Part of Speech: noun feminine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from a presumed compound of G5207 and a derivative of G5087

Eph_1:5. προορίσας ἡμᾶς: having foreordained us. Better, in that He foreordained us. Wycl. gives “hath bifore ordeyned us”; Tynd. and Cranmer, “ordeyned us”; and so the RV, “foreordained”. But the Genevan, the Rhemish and the AV, following the praedestinavit of the Vulg., give “did predestinate us,” “hath predestinated us,” “having predestinated us”. While in Romans and Ephesians the AV adopts “predestinated,” in 1Co_2:7 it has “foreordained”. It is best to adopt foreordain all through, as προορίζειν means to determine before.

The verb seems not to occur either in the LXX or in any Greek writer before Paul. It is found in Heliodorus, Ignatius, etc. In the NT it is always used of God as determining from eternity, sometimes with the further definition πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων (1Co_2:7)—decreeing to do something (Act_4:28); foreordaining things or persons (1Co_2:7; Rom_8:29 ff.); or, as here, appointing one beforehand to something.

The πρὸ in the compound verb expresses the fact that the decree is prior to the realisation of its object. The aor. part, may be taken as temporal (so the Syr.-Phil.), in which case the foreordination would be something prior (not in time, indeed, but in logical order) to the election, and the election would be defined as proceeding on the foreordination (Ell., Alf., etc.). But it may also be taken as modal, not prior to the election but coincident with it, and expressing the mode of its action or the form which it took—“in that He foreordained us” (Mey., etc.).

On this use of the aor. part, see Winer-Moul., Gram., p. 430. This is the more probable view, because no real distinction appears to be made between the ἐκλογή and the προορισμός beyond what may be suggested by the ἐκ in the one and the πρό in the other; the idea in the ἐκλογή being understood to be that of the mass from which the selection is made, and that of the προορισμός the priority of the decree (Ell.).

It is also to be noticed (cf. Mey.) that both in Romans (Rom_8:29) and in 1 Peter (1Pe_1:2) it is the πρόγνωσις, not the προορισμός, that is represented as antecedent to the election or as forming its ground. This Divine προορισμός, like the Divine ἐκλογή, has in the Pauline writings, in which it receives its loftiest, most complete, and most unqualified statement, not a speculative but an intensely practical interest, especially with regard to two things of most immediate personal concern—the believer’s incentive to live in newness and holiness of life (cf. Eph_2:10), and his encouragement to rest in the Divine salvation as for him an assured salvation.—εἰς υἱοθεσίαν: unto adoption. Or, as the RV gives it, following the adoptio filiorum of the Vulg., “unto adoption as sons”.

It is a Pauline term, and conveys an idea distinct from that of sonship and explanatory of it. The sonship of believers, the fact that they are children of God, with the privileges and responsibilities belonging to such, finds frequent expression in the NT writings. But it is only in the Pauline Epistles that the specific idea of υἱοθεσία occurs, and there in five instances (Rom_8:15; Rom_8:23; Rom_9:4; Gal_4:5; Eph_1:5). In one case it is applied to the special relation of Israel to God (Rom_9:4); thrice (Rom_8:15; Gal_4:5; Eph_1:5) it is used of the present position of believers in Christ; once (Rom_8:23) it refers to their future consummation, the resurrection of life that will be the full manifestation of their sonship. It is a term of relation, expressing our sonship in respect of standing. It appears to be taken from the Roman custom, with which Paul could not fail to be acquainted.

Among the Jews there were cases of informal adoption, as in the instance of Mordecai and Esther (Est_2:7). But adoption in the sense of the legal transference of a child to a family to which it did not belong by birth had no place in the Jewish law. In Roman law, on the other hand, provision was made for the transaction known as adoptio, the taking of a child who was not one’s child by birth to be his son, and arrogatio, the transference of a son who was independent, as by the death of his proper father, to another father by solemn public act of the people.

Thus among the Romans a citizen might receive a child who was not his own by birth into his family and give him his name, but he could do so only by a formal act, attested by witnesses, and the son thus adopted had in all its entirety the position of a child by birth, with all the rights and all the obligations pertaining to that. By “adoption,” therefore, Paul does not mean the bestowal of the full privileges of the family on those who are sons by nature, but the acceptance into the family of those who do not by nature belong to it, and the placing of those who are not sons originally and by right in the relation proper to those who are sons by birth.

Hence υἱοθεσία is never affirmed of Christ; for he alone is Son of God by nature. So Paul regards our sonship, not as lying in the natural relation in which men stand to God as His children, but as implying a new relation of grace, founded on a covenant relation of God and on the work of Christ (Gal_4:5 ff.).—διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ: through Jesus Christ; in this case not in Christ but through Him.

That is, it is through the mediation of Christ that our adoption as sons is realised; cf. Gal_3:26 to Gal_4:7. Elsewhere the ethical side of the sonship is expressed. For God not only brings us into the relation of sons, but makes us sons in inward reality and character, giving us the filial mind, leading us by His Spirit, translating us into the liberty of the glory of His children (Rom_8:12; Rom_8:14; Rom_8:21; Gal_4:6).—εἰς αὐτόν: unto Himself, that is, not unto Christ, as De Wette, V. Soden, etc., still think, but unto God. Here, as in Eph_1:4, we read αὐτοῦ, not αὐτοῦ (as Stephens, Mill, Griesbach, etc., put it), the writer giving it as from his own standpoint. How is this to be understood? It may mean simply that God Himself is the Father to whom we are brought into filial relation by adoption. In that case the point would be the glory of the adoption, inasmuch as it is God Himself and none less than He who becomes our Father by it and to whom the foreordination into the position of sons looks. Or it may be the deeper idea that God Himself is the end of the foreordination, as Christ is its medium or channel. The εἰς is not to be confused with ἐν, nor would the idea thus be reduced to that of simple possession.

Here the εἰς may rather have its most definite force, expressing the goal of all. The final object of God’s foreordination of us to the standing of sons is to bring us to Himself, into perfect fellowship with Him, into adoring, loving relation to Himself as the true End and Object of our being.—κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ: according to the good Pleasure of His will. Wycl. gives “by the purpose of His will”; Rhem., “according to the purpose of His will”; Tynd., “according to the pleasure of His will”; Cran., Gen., AV, “according to the good pleasure of His will”. The noun εὐδοκία (Vulg.-Clem., beneplacitum) is a biblical term. It is not current in profane Greek, but represents the øÈöåÉå of the OT (especially in the Psalms), and occurs a good many times in Sir. In the NT it is found thrice in the Gospels (Mat_11:26; Luk_2:14; Luk_10:21), and six times in the Pauline Epistles (Rom_10:1; Eph_1:5; Eph_1:9; Php_1:15; Php_2:13; 2Th_1:11), but nowhere else. It has the sense (a) of will (Mat_11:26; Luk_10:21), passing into that of desire (Rom_10:1); and (b) of good will (Luk_2:14; Eph_1:9; Php_1:15; Php_2:13), passing into that of delight or satisfaction (2Th_1:11). Here it is taken by most (Mey., De Wette, Stier., Alf., Ell., Abbott, etc.) in the sense of beneplacitum, purpose, sovereign counsel, as equivalent to κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ in Eph_1:11. Light., e.g., is of opinion that, while its central idea is “satisfaction,” it will “only then mean ‘benevolence’ when the context points to some person towards whom the satisfaction is felt”. He refers to ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα in Mat_3:17, and contends that without such indication of a personal object “the satisfaction is felt in the action itself, so that the word is used absolutely, and signifies ‘good pleasure,’ in the sense of ‘desire,’ ‘purpose,’ ‘design’ ” (Notes, ut sup., 314). But in the Pauline Epistles, when it is used of God, it is a term of grace, expressing “good pleasure” as kind intent, gracious will, and even when used of man it conveys the same idea of goodness (Rom_10:1; Php_1:15). Nor does the connotation appear to be different in the occurrences in the Gospels (Mat_11:26; Luk_2:14; Luk_10:21). In the present passage it is only in relation to the grace of His dealings with sinful men that reference is made to the will of God. The clause in question presents that grace in the particular aspect of its sovereign, unmerited action. It adds the last note to the statement of the wonders of the Divine election by expressing the fact that that election and God’s foreordination of us unto adoption are not due to any desert in us or anything outside God Himself, but are acts of His own pure goodness, originating only and wholly in the freedom of His own thoughts and loving counsel.
EX-Gr.
 
"to adoption as sons" This is Paul's familial metaphor (cf. Rom. 8:15,23; 9:4; Gal. 4:5). It is one of several metaphors Paul uses to describe salvation with emphasis on security. It was difficult and expensive to adopt a child in the Roman legal system, but once it was done, it was very binding. A Roman father had the legal right to disinherit or even kill natural children, but not adopted children. This reflects the believer's security in Christ (cf. Eph. 2:5,9; John 6:37,39; 10:28).

NASB"according to the kind intention of His will"
NKJV, NRSV "according to the good pleasure of His will"
TEV"this was his pleasure and purpose"
NJB"Such was his purpose and good pleasure"

God's choice is not based on foreknowledge of human performance, but on His gracious character (cf. Eph. 1:7, "according to the riches of His grace"; Eph. 1:9, "according to His kind intention"; Eph. 1:11, "according to His purpose"). He wishes that all (not just some special ones like the Gnostics or modern day ultra Calvinists) would be saved (cf. Ezek. 18:21-23, 32; John 3:16-17; 1 Tim. 2:4; 4:10; Titus 2:11; 2 Pet. 3:9; 1 John 2:2; 4:11). God's grace (God's character) is the theological key to this passage (cf. Eph. 1:6a; 7c; 9b), as God's mercy is the key to the other passage on predestination, Romans 9-11.

Fallen mankind's only hope is the grace and mercy of God (cf. Acts 15:11; Rom. 3:24; 5:15; Eph. 2:5,8) and His unchanging character (cf. Ps. 102:27; Mal. 3:6; James 1:17; 1 John 1:5).

www.freebiblecommentary.org.
Johann
 
Did you come up with all that yourself? That's quite impressive. A couple of comments I'd like to mention which I can flesh out later if desired.

1) Adoption is one of the blessings of our Predestination. As such it is a process, not an instantaneous occurrence.

2) The Atonement can also be viewed ontologically. Doing so actually brings in Christ's Incarnation as an act of redeeming man's nature. Also, Christ's Ascension brings in human nature into the very abode of the Father. There is much more that i can later can expound on if you wish.
How can adoption be a process? Either you are a son or you are not (John 1:12)
 
How can adoption be a process? Either you are a son or you are not (John 1:12)
Sorry that it took a while to respond back. I wanted to find a good bible-based and history-understanding video of Biblical adoption. We become sons of God immediately when we come to faith in Christ but the adoption is an ongoing process. Here is the video:
 
Sorry that it took a while to respond back. I wanted to find a good bible-based and history-understanding video of Biblical adoption. We become sons of God immediately when we come to faith in Christ but the adoption is an ongoing process. Here is the video:
Just like with salvation and sanctification there is a past, present and future aspect with adoption.
 
How can adoption be a process? Either you are a son or you are not (John 1:12)
Just like with salvation- we have been saved, we are being saved and we will be saved. The same is true with sanctification and adoption. There are past, present and future aspects. Our sanctification, salvation and adoption will be complete when we have been resurrected from the dead.
 
A dead guy :) I serve and follow Jesus who is alive, resurrected from the dead, who died for my sins and saved me. :)

Who would follow a dead mans uninspired doctrines instead of the resurrected living Savior ?
I do not follow Calvin and he was fallible. I follow Jesus and believe Calvin got many things right in his day and age. His followers came up with the doctrines of grace that are named after him. Calvinism embraces much more than T.U.L.I.P. like the 5 solas, covenant theology, sacraments, original sin, justification by faith alone, priesthood of all believers, predestination.
 
I do not follow Calvin and he was fallible. I follow Jesus and believe Calvin got many things right in his day and age. His followers came up with the doctrines of grace that are named after him. Calvinism embraces much more than T.U.L.I.P. like the 5 solas, covenant theology, sacraments, original sin, justification by faith alone, priesthood of all believers, predestination.
I would be in agreement but the division is with what he got right and what he got wrong. I was a Calvinist for several decades and now I believe the doctrines of grace are not correct and neither do I think he was right on predestination and covenant theology. I’m with you on the 5 solas :)
 
A dead guy :) I serve and follow Jesus who is alive, resurrected from the dead, who died for my sins and saved me. :)

Who would follow a dead mans uninspired doctrines instead of the resurrected living Savior ?
An old dead guy. ( edited )
 
Last edited by a moderator:
An old dead guy ( edited )
The jeering against a strawman is really ugly. I hear that the Calvinists are the nasty ones, but I see plenty of reason to think it is someone else.

I was invited to this site, and at first hoped it would be at least respectful, if not altogether honest, but I'm quickly losing interest.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The jeering against a strawman is really ugly. I hear that the Calvinists are the nasty ones, but I see plenty of reason to think it is someone else.

I was invited to this site, and at first hoped it would be at least respectful, if not altogether honest, but I'm quickly losing interest.
Yes I'm working on that brother.
 
Did you come up with all that yourself? That's quite impressive. A couple of comments I'd like to mention which I can flesh out later if desired.

1) Adoption is one of the blessings of our Predestination. As such it is a process, not an instantaneous occurrence.

2) The Atonement can also be viewed ontologically. Doing so actually brings in Christ's Incarnation as an act of redeeming man's nature. Also, Christ's Ascension brings in human nature into the very abode of the Father. There is much more that i can later can expound on if you wish.
Is predestination a process? How do you arrive at that conclusion? If predestination is not a process, then neither is adoption.
 
Back
Top Bottom