|
Author
|
Topic: God Is No Respecter Of Persons
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by oneinchrist:
Hi again Carol,
I just noticed that you had responded to my post above......sorry it took me this long to notice.
I apologized if I missed something that you were saying.
It appears that the most current view that you have on this topic is that God is a respecter of persons. You state that you agree with what I was saying about "God using those people as vessels", and you go on to say that that is proof of God being a respecter of persons.
Please bear with me on this one Carol. I do not believe that God is ever a respecter of persons. When the bible states that God has respect towards someone......I believe that that is the same as saying that God was pleased with them about something for a particular reason. I think that the real difference in our view on this subject goes back to how each of us look at what does it mean to be a respecter of persons. Due to the number of verses throughout scripture that state that God is no respecter of persons, I cannot agree that God is a respecter of persons. I am sorry.
With love in Christ, Daniel
"I think that the real difference in our view on this subject goes back to how each of us look at what does it mean to be a respecter of persons."
Thank you oneinChrist. I think so too. The expression 'respecter of persons' does not mean the person was admired or respected by God. (Before Christ and the new birth, all people were sinful in God's eyes). It means the person was chosen for a purpose. One was selected from among all others. Noah, Abraham, David and Mary are just a few examples. "Respecter of persons" is an expression that has a different meaning than we use the word "respect" in modern English.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
Bloodbought
Advanced Member
Member # 4365
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eden:
By illustration, let's say that I have an apple tree and all the fruit on the tree is rotten. The fruit tree represents the world, and the rotten fruit represents the people of the earth ("for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God").
If I do nothing, all the fruit will eventually drop to the ground (as in, "the penalty of sin is death").
But one day I want to make an apple pie and I go to the apple tree and take some, and it does not really matter which apples I take because they are all equally rotten.
When I have enough apples, I return to the house and over time the rest of the rotten apples fall in their natural destiny to the ground.
So in what way would I be exhibiting a character flaw when I allow the rest of the apples to fall naturally to the ground?
The problem is that you would be picking the ones that seem best to you, but God doesn’t do things the way we think He should.
In God’s eyes there is no good fruit in anyone, but if He comes and picks some and then walks away from all the others after saying He is not willing that any should perish, that would be a character flaw, but there is no character flaw in God. I believe God picks and chooses, but I do not believe He picks at random.
All are equally rotten with sin, but there are some that have become so soft that they are no longer clinging to the tree. They have already come down and it is these that He picks up and draws away, because He is not willing that any of these should perish. He will not force those that are on the tree, but if any become soft enough to come down according to His command, He will accompany them home.
Luke 19:1 And Jesus entered and passed through Jericho.
2 And, behold, there was a man named Zacchaeus, which was the chief among the publicans, and he was rich.
3 And he sought to see Jesus who he was; and could not for the press, because he was little of stature.
4 And he ran before, and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see him: for he was to pass that way.
5 And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up, and saw him, and said unto him, Zacchaeus, make haste, and come down; for to day I must abide at thy house.
6 And he made haste, and came down, and received him joyfully. 7 And when they saw it, they all murmured, saying, That he was gone to be guest with a man that is a sinner.
If Jesus had not commanded Zacchaeus to come down he would have stayed in the tree and missed the blessing.
He will pick those that are at rock bottom.
God bless.
Posts: 822 | From: Ireland | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
oneinchrist
Advanced Member
Member # 6532
|
posted
Hi again Carol,
I just noticed that you had responded to my post above......sorry it took me this long to notice.
I apologized if I missed something that you were saying.
It appears that the most current view that you have on this topic is that God is a respecter of persons. You state that you agree with what I was saying about "God using those people as vessels", and you go on to say that that is proof of God being a respecter of persons.
Please bear with me on this one Carol. I do not believe that God is ever a respecter of persons. When the bible states that God has respect towards someone......I believe that that is the same as saying that God was pleased with them about something for a particular reason. I think that the real difference in our view on this subject goes back to how each of us look at what does it mean to be a respecter of persons. Due to the number of verses throughout scripture that state that God is no respecter of persons, I cannot agree that God is a respecter of persons. I am sorry.
With love in Christ, Daniel
Posts: 1389 | From: Wind Lake, WI | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
I'm not a teacher, oneinChrist is not a victim, and you are not helping.
Attempting high-impact, manipulative words like "evil-speaking" does not strengthen the logic of your argument. I have a complaint, and like everyone else I have a right to state it.
oneinChrist can speak for himself. He is not weak or slow or whatever it is you are saying. I'd be embarrassed and insulted if someone treated me the way you're treating him, as if he were a child who needed protection. He's a grown man, an intelligent man, and a strong man. And if he wants to try to twist my statements, then he will hear about it!
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
Carol Swenson wrote quote:
I'll bet oneinChrist can speak for himself.
I'll bet oneinchrist appreciates the solidarity of one brother standing shoulder-to-shoulder with another brother, eschewing the evil-speaking of one Christian by another Christian, whether they are fast of wit on any given subject or slower of wit on any given subject. And some subjects are not easy to grasp and get a clear view of. Just because "you are all that", doesn't mean that someone else is "all that" on some of the difficult-to-grasph subjects in Christianity.
But when a teacher thinks she has a lot to teach, she should also possess the patience to present everything "line by line" until her "pupils" have grasped all that she wants them to know, no matter how long a particular subject may take to "get across" to her pupils. Patience mixed with kindness.
There are still some Christian subjects that I am still "vague" about, but I'm learning a lot from all these discussions. But I wouldn't want to be told that "I'm short of memory" or "obviously you haven't read my stuff" and "you imply that you have 'original' material", etc., that is NOT helpful, nor is it a loving presentation of all that belongs to Christ Jesus. So there.
love, Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
I'll bet oneinChrist can speak for himself.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
Carol Swenson wrote to oneinchrist quote:
Either you didn't read what I posted, or you have a very short memory, or you think that by restating the idea in your own words you can ignore all of my previous statements and imply that your thinking is original.
Dear sister Carol Swenson, please put a little love in your heart. oneinchrist is merely exploring the issues with this discussion (and a good discussion this has been), and is not in need of these semi-harsh statements that you are making to him, such as
short memory" and "implying" and "didn't read MY material", etc. No matter how "frustrated" your "brilliant self" may get at any given moment, you ought to be more patient and not speak so roughly to oneinchrist, for someething which is, after all, merely an exploration of ideas and learning new things in Christ. Sometimes you have surprised me with the semi-hardness of your heart. God bless.
love, Eden
"having come to teach, she assumed too often that there was nothing to learn"
IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
![[thumbsup2]](graemlins/thumbsup2.gif) Excellent article from freedomsring. Thank you for posting it!!!
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
becauseHElives
Advanced Member
Member # 87
|
posted
forgive my first response ...I was thinking with my head not my heart.....
The heart of every issue is the issue of the heart!
THE SACRIFICES OF CAIN AND ABEL
Cain and Abel, the firstborn of mankind, offered sacrifices in worship to God. Cain offered the fruit of his labors from the field while Abel offered the fruit of his labors from the flock. Abel and his worship were accepted by God while Cain and his offering were rejected. We read: "In the course of time Cain brought to the Lord an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel brought of the firstlings of the flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard" (Gen. 4:3-5). This brief account has greatly influenced our understanding of acceptable worship.
Why was one sacrifice accepted and the other rejected? Was it an arbitrary choice on God's part? Few of us would conclude that God acts in such partial and arbitrary ways.
Generally, it has been concluded that Cain's sacrifice was rejected because he did not, like his brother, offer a blood sacrifice in an effort to atone for his sins. But 1, and others who are smart like I am, have offered a different explanation which goes something like this: Abel offered by faith (Heb. l 1:4); faith comes by hearing the word of God (Rom. 10:17); so Abel did what God told him while Cain did not. Cain, according to my explanation, might have offered the wrong thing, the wrong amount, at the wrong time, in the wrong place, in the wrong way, with the wrong attitude, or for the wrong purpose. He had many possibilities for displeasing God! A sort of Russian roulette in reverse! What a fearful approach to worship!
However, more recently, while reading Hebrews 11:4 through my accustomed theological glasses, something happened. I don't know if my glasses slipped or if the truth just jumped from the page and knocked them off; but, without those tinted lenses, I saw the passage in a different light. Let me tell you what I saw.
Other persons in history have offered blood sacrifices in abundance and found their worship to be displeasing to God. To a sinful nation that had forsaken the Lord, God cried out through Isaiah, "What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the Lord; I have had enough burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls or of lambs or of hegoats" (Isa. 1:4, 11). A similar rejection of Israel's sacrifices was uttered through Jeremiah (Jer. 6:20). Hadn't God commanded those offerings? Yes, he had, and they were blood offerings.
The Lord was a witness against his evil people (Micah 1:2) by rejecting their offerings: "'With what shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?' He has showed you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" (Micah 6:68). They had forsaken righteousness of the heart justice, kindness, humility and were seeking to attain it through prescribed rituals of worship.
God bore witness of their righteousness or wickedness by accepting or rejecting their sacrifices. It was not the details of the offerings that were being inspected but the heart of the worshipper. It has always been true that "The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord, but the prayer of the upright is his delight" (Prov. 15:8). "The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination; how much more when he brings it with evil intent" (Prov. 21:27).
The man was being judged rather than his offering. "And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard" (Gen. 4:4f). Notice that it does not read: "The Lord had regard for Abel's offering. but for Cain's offering he had no regard." The emphasis is on the man: "The Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard."
Now, let us look at Hebrews 11:4 again: "By faith Abel offered a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he received approval as righteous, God bearing witness by accepting his gifts." God bore witness to Abel's righteousness by accepting his gift.
By his rejection of Cain and his offering, God bore witness, not to an improperly detailed ritual of worship, but to the wickedness of the man. Many centuries later, John, the apostle, recognized Cain's evil nature and urges "that we should love one another, and not be like Cain who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother's righteous"(l John 3:1 If). Cain was evil in heart, and the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination. John does not say that Cain was evil because he killed his brother, but that he killed his brother because he was evil already. John indicates that he did not love. Hatred toward his brother before he offered brought God's rejection and was the motivation for his murderous action.
Abel did not make an offering to achieve righteousness. He was righteous already because of his faith. God bore witness to that fact by accepting him and his offering.
Cain, on the other hand, evidently sought to achieve righteousness by rituals of worship when he was evil in heart.
That was a problem in Jesus' day also. Because of their obstinance, the Jews kept traditions which nullified laws, and then they had the audacity to worship. So, Jesus rebuked, "You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said, 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrine the precepts of men'" (Matt. 15:7f).
Jesus addressed the worshipper who might be angry or disrespectful of his brother: "So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift " ( Matt. 5: 23f). The frightening thought is that of worshipping God with an evil heart rather than slipping up on some ritualistic detail.
Unfortunately, we have followed Cain's philosophy in too many instances. We have endeavored to be righteous by scrupulously keeping holy details of ritualistic worship. Instead of worship being an expression from upright lives, we have made it an effort to please God through certain formal exercises. It is not, for example, a matter of refraining from singing during the Lord's Supper and from participating in it on weekdays, or from singing with instrumental accompaniment, but of worship flowing from clean hearts.
Although the Genesis account tells what each man offered, it does not indicate that acceptance or rejection was due to what was offered. Each man offered the fruit of his labors. That is in harmony with our responsibility toward our talents and of God's acceptance of what a man has and not what he has not. In certain cases, God has specified details of worship, but men have also worshipped acceptably through actions neither commanded or instructed by the Lord.
Because Abel acted "by faith" does not necessarily mean that he had been instructed concerning his offering. It is common to misapply Romans 10:17 here: "So belief cometh of hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ' (KJV). Paul is here defending the acceptance of Gentiles. The promise was that "everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved." How was it that they came to believe and be saved? They must have heard; so God had sent the preachers who had gone at the word, or command, of the Lord in the Great Commission, not on their own initiative. So, God was responsible for their belief. Exercises of worship are not under consideration in this passage.
At this time I do not recall an instance in the Bible record where God rejected the sincere expression of worship of any righteous person, even though his particular acts of devotion were not commanded of God.
Previously, the tint of my theological glasses allowed me to see in the story of Cain and Abel a severe warning that I not slip up on any ritualistic detail and thereby fall short of attaining righteousness and God's approval. Without those glasses, however, I can see that righteousness, which is graciously imputed because of faith, will bring forth loving rituals of adoration and spontaneous expressions of praise for what God has done for me. I trust that he will bear witness that I am already righteous because of his offering, for I cannot achieve it by my own worship.
--------------------
Strive to enter in at the strait gate:for many, I say unto you will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. ( Luke 13:24 )
Posts: 4578 | From: Southeast Texas | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
oneinChrist
quote:
You surely have the right to believe that God chose those people(Moses, Noah, etc.) because He respects persons.........and I respecfully have the right to believe that God chose those persons because He had a higher purpose in mind.......that being.....to utilize them as a vessel of His workings.
You seem to be saying that I mean something different than what I have bolded above in your statement. Yet I have made it clear throughout this topic that God is a respecter of persons BECAUSE " God chose those persons because He had a higher purpose in mind.......that being.....to utilize them as a vessel of His workings". Either you didn't read what I posted, or you have a very short memory, or you think that by restating the same idea in your own words you can ignore or deny all of my previous statements and pretend that your thinking is original and supportive of only your point of view.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
Eden had written quote:
So in what way would I be exhibiting a character flaw when I allow the rest of the apples to fall naturally to the ground?
And bloodbought had answered quote:
If you said you were not willing that any should perish.
Okay, here is the actual verse:
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but He is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Good point, bloodbought. Let's look at the "willing" word first:
Strong's Concordance
2 Peter 3:9 The Lord 2962 is 1019 0 not 3756 slack 1019 concerning his promise 1860, as 5613 some men 5100 count 2233 slackness 1022; but 235 is longsuffering 3114 to 1519 us-ward 2248, not 3361 willing 1014 that any 5100 should perish 622, but 235 that all 3956 should come 5562 to 1519 repentance 3341.
This word "willing 1014" also occurs in this verse:
Hebrews 6:17 Wherein 1722 3739 God 2316, willing 1014 more abundantly 4054 to show 1925 to the heirs 2818 of promise 1860 the immutability 276 of His 846 counsel 1012, confirmed 3315 [it] by an oath 3727.
Strong's Concordance
willing 1014, boulomai, middle voice of a primary verb; to "will," i.e. (reflexively) be willing:--be disposed, minded, intend, list, (be, of own) will (-ing). Compare 2309.
Let's look in the Englishman's Greek Concordance (this concordance shows into what other English words this "boulomai 1014" was translated. It occurs about 40 times in the New Testament, and seems to mean something "more than wanting/wishing but less than outright willing it to be so."
For instance, in my second verse quoted above, "willing 1014 boulomai" just about means "strong wanting":
Hebrews 6:17 Wherein God, willing 1014 more abundantly to show to the heirs of promise the immutability 276 of His 846 counsel 1012, confirmed 3315 [it] by an oath 3727.
So let's look again at:
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but He is longsuffering to us-ward, not "willing 1014 boulomai" that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
So, regarding this phrase, not "willing 1014 boulomai" that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, God clearly "strongly wants" that none SHOULD perish, but God knows that "that is not going to happen" (and therefore it says that "none SHOULD perish" perish and that "all SHOULD come to repentance").
So to get back to Eden's original quote: quote:
So in what way would I be exhibiting a character flaw when I allow the rest of the apples to fall naturally to the ground?
And bloodbought had answered quote:
If you said you were not willing that any should perish.
So now we know that "willing 1014 boulomai" means a "strong wanting" but that God does not mean that He WILLS that none perish and that all come to repentance.
The SHOULD means that God also knows that "none will perish" and that "all should come to repentance", but God knows it's not going to happen, because He also said,
Matthew 7
13 Enter in at the strait (tight, narrow) gate: for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many there be who go in thereat.
14 Because strait (tight) is the gate, and narrow is the way which leads to life, and few there be who find it.
So yes, God "strongly wishes that it could have been so", but God does not "will people to into believe in His Son by sovereign power", and clearly, God's words further declare that "few people will find the way to life".
So God DOES NOT WILL THAT NONE WILL PERISH; God only "strongly wishes" that none would have to end up perishing, but God knows that "more will perish than will be saved"...
love, Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
oneinchrist
Advanced Member
Member # 6532
|
posted
You surely have the right to believe that God chose those people(Moses, Noah, etc.) because He respects persons.........and I respecfully have the right to believe that God chose those persons because He had a higher purpose in mind.......that being.....to utilize them as a vessel of His workings.
If you think about it, every leader all the way up till the stage was set for the Commander of the Army (Jesus) had some role to play; either in a type of forshadowing of Christ or in the actual execution of Gods plan of salvation.
I believe that it is first and foremost Gods respect for His own word/character, that explains away His reasons for any display of pleasure/respect or displeasure/disrespect that He shows towards people.
With love in Christ, Daniel
Posts: 1389 | From: Wind Lake, WI | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
Like Noah, Abraham, Moses...? The same people I mean when I say He respects persons? It seems we agree about the fact that God chooses certain individuals for work, but salvation is freely given to all who repent and have faith in Christ. We just don't agree on semantics.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
oneinchrist
Advanced Member
Member # 6532
|
posted
I will try and explain it as simply as I can. I believe that God "elects" (chooses) those who choose Him.
I would like to clarify one thing though(not an exception to the rule per se).......that I do believe that God has in the past(as shown in biblical accounts) and will continue in the future to call some individuals to service in what could(I think) safely be classified as "dramatic" or "unusual" ways(even more directly by God/Jesus Himself.......as opposed to the usual "coming under the hearing of the Gospel and sharing of testimony. I think that some people(even Calvanist proponents) lean towards a tendency of confusing the "usual" mode of salvation with the "dramatic and unusual" modes that God has effected in calling those whom He has appointed to tasks of heavy burden.
With love in Christ, Daniel
Posts: 1389 | From: Wind Lake, WI | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
I am the same. But what do you mean when you say you believe in election? This is VERY confusing.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
oneinchrist
Advanced Member
Member # 6532
|
posted
Hi Carol,
My friend in the Lord, please understand that while I do believe in "election", I am not in agreement with the calvinist view that man is incapable of "repentance and turning to Jesus" due to what 5 point Calvanist proponents refer to as "the doctrine of the total depravity of man". While I do believe that man posesses a "sin nature" as do the Calvanists, I do not believe that that "sin nature" makes it impossible for man to repent of his/her sin and turn to God of his/her own will/accord................Where I do stand in agreement with the Calvinist view is that man cannot redeem himself or change his own nature by a power within himself/herself------I believe that we must turn to God for our redemption and for our spiritual transformation (to be born-again).
As I hope you can see, I do not camp on either side of the debate, but I look at the elements that are contained within each camp and try to compare them with truths that seem to run consistent throughout scripture.
With love in Christ, Daniel
Posts: 1389 | From: Wind Lake, WI | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
Hebrews 11:4 (NLT)
It was by faith that Abel brought a more acceptable offering to God than Cain did. Abel’s offering gave evidence that he was a righteous man, and God showed his approval of his gifts. Although Abel is long dead, he still speaks to us by his example of faith.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
becauseHElives
Advanced Member
Member # 87
|
posted
concerning Cain and Abel Yahweh gave the example of the only acceptable sacrifice when He showed Adam and Eve that their attempt with plant life was not acceptable to cover sin.... only the shedding of blood is acceptable...
Yahweh would be evil in His very nature if He could be proved to be a respecter of persons!
--------------------
Strive to enter in at the strait gate:for many, I say unto you will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. ( Luke 13:24 )
Posts: 4578 | From: Southeast Texas | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by oneinchrist:
Carol,
I agree that God chooses certain people to do His work...............but I disagree with the claim that USING CERTAIN PEOPLE TO DO HIS WORK = BEING A RESPECTER OF PERSONS. Respect of persons is sin. Perhaps there may be a better word description for "God choosing certain people to do His Work"......perhaps "divine election" may be more suitable.
With love in Christ, Daniel
You can use whatever word description you are comfortable with. However, "divine election" is a doctrine of Calvinism.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
oneinchrist
Advanced Member
Member # 6532
|
posted
Good Morning Eden,
Once again, Eden, the disagreement over this particular issue was not whether or not God has the right/power to choose which apples He desires to save and turn them into apple pies...lol.....
The disagreement was over the manner/method that God uses when He decides to choose. Does God only give certain apples the chance to be turned into apple pies? or do they all have that same opportunity?
Revelation 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: If any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and He with Me.
Eden, I completely 100% agree with you that we ought to be thankful for our redemption in Christ, but the point that I am trying to stress is that everyone who hears the knocking HAS THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO OPEN THE DOOR, as we all here have chosen to do. I do not believe that there are some who are not able to open the door.......they choose(of their own will) not to open the door. And also take notice, Jesus does not say that He only knocks on the doors of certain people(Being a respecter of persons). His knock, knock, knock......is for us all.
With love in Christ, Daniel
Posts: 1389 | From: Wind Lake, WI | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Bloodbought
Advanced Member
Member # 4365
|
posted
quote:
So in what way would I be exhibiting a character flaw when I allow the rest of the apples to fall naturally to the ground?
If you said you were not willing that any should perish.
Posts: 822 | From: Ireland | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
By illustration, let's say that I have an apple tree and all the fruit on the tree is rotten. The fruit tree represents the world, and the rotten fruit represents the people of the earth ("for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God").
If I do nothing, all the fruit will eventually drop to the ground (as in, "the penalty of sin is death").
But one day I want to make an apple pie and I go to the apple tree and take some, and it does not really matter which apples I take because they are all equally rotten.
When I have enough apples, I return to the house and over time the rest of the rotten apples fall in their natural destiny to the ground.
So in what way would I be exhibiting a character flaw when I allow the rest of the apples to fall naturally to the ground? If it were not for me plucking some apples from the tree for my apple pie, ALL the apples would have fallen to their natural destiny.
Why would my taking just enough apples to make an apple pie now suddenly make me morally responsible to take ALL the apples off the tree and turn them into apple pies too, eventhough I only need one apple pie because I live alone in the rural country and there is not another family for miles around?
Likewise God, who wishes to have more sons and daughters than just Jesus, is under no moral obligation to now "save all the sinners" when all God needs is "some sinners" to fill His courts. And the rest of the sinners simply continue on their natural path that they are already on, namely to fall to the ground and die.
It is true that, because they are all sinners, God cannot "prefer" or "respect" some sinners more than other sinners. But God can choose to take some sinners and MAKE THEM into something that they could never be without the interference from God.
But that does not mean that, just because God decided to "rescue some of them", that God now has to do that for ALL sinners.
But because God wants some sons and daughters and so He sovereignly PREVENTS SOME sinners from going to their natural end of death and He turns them into sons and daughters of God, while the rest continue to their natural end.
All that the sinners who ARE saved can say is, "WHAT A GREAT PRIVILEGE it is to have been saved from my natural destiny, oh THANK YOU LORD for picking me eventhough I was just as undeserving as the rest of the sinners".
love, Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
oneinchrist
Advanced Member
Member # 6532
|
posted
Good Morning Carol,
It doesn't have as special of a meaning "to me" as it does "to God".........because God possesses the fullness of that attribute, and I am still learning about it.
With love in Christ, Daniel
Posts: 1389 | From: Wind Lake, WI | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
The phrase "respecter of persons" seems to have some special meaning to you that others don't know about.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
oneinchrist
Advanced Member
Member # 6532
|
posted
Carol,
I agree that God chooses certain people to do His work...............but I disagree with the claim that USING CERTAIN PEOPLE TO DO HIS WORK = BEING A RESPECTER OF PERSONS. Respect of persons is sin. Perhaps there may be a better word description for "God choosing certain people to do His Work"......perhaps "divine election" may be more suitable.
With love in Christ, Daniel
Posts: 1389 | From: Wind Lake, WI | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
Daniel
quote:
I am sorry Carol, but I believe that the claim that God could be both of those attributes is as false as a claim that God could be both "Holy" and "unholy or "just" and "unjust".
quote:
Where confusion can come on this matter, is when we look at biblical accounts that show God to have performed dramatic acts to call people whom He desired to use for His purpose, and we misconstrue these accounts thinking that they somehow prove that God only enables certain individual to be able to come to Him and that man has absolutlely nothing at all to do with whether or not he will be saved. This view can take away from the aspect of truth that God desires us to freely love Him based on His attributes.
I am sorry Daniel, but we are not the ones who are confusing these issues...you are.
First of all, what do you think "respect of persons" means? It doesn't mean the same as it would in modern English.
Secondly, we've made it clear that "respect of persons" is not directly related to salvation by grace through faith.
Jesus CHOSE His twelve apostles. Were they the only ones SAVED? Of course not.
Jesus CHOSE Paul. How many were SAVED because of Paul's work? (Actually the Holy Spirit working through Paul).
From the time of Cain and Able, God CHOSE certain people to carry out His plan so that by the time Christ returns many millions will have been SAVED. Since Able was murdered, God raised up Seth to continue the bloodline that would lead to the Messiah.
The principle Greek word translated "respect of persons" is "prosopolempsia" meaning "partiality." That is, to be partial to, to prefer, or to CHOOSE.
This DOES NOT mean that only the "elect", or the chosen, are saved. It does mean that they were the chosen instruments through whom God could save many.
Today, God calls or CHOOSES certain individuals to be pastors or teachers or missionaries through whom He can save many who turn to Him in repentance and faith.
TB125 is correct to say that God is a respecter of persons; that is, God chooses certain people to do His work. This does not mean He only chooses certain people to be saved.
Also:
Psalm 138:6
Though the Lord be high, yet hath he respect for the lowly.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
hello, oneinchrist, while jogging I was thinking more about this thread, regarding God choosing, but how does is that choosing done, and what, if any, role do we play here on earth in terms of "accepting" how God did the choosing, since the Bible does say, as you pointed out, "whom He foreknew, them He also predistinated".
Foreknew in what sense?
And here is another verse in connection with this choosing:
Romans 11:32
For God has concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
Now, eventhough we are all concluded in unbelief, yet God and Jesus did decide that, in order to do away with boasting, that Jesus would pay for all the sins of the world:
1 John 2:2
And He {the Lord Jesus of Nazareth} is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
So the penalty for sin has been paid by the Lord Jesus, so now no one can boast from among the equally unbelieving, "I deserve to be saved more than that him or her, look what he or she has done; I haven't even done one thing as bad as they have done".
God does not want to hear it, and therefore God and Jesus devised the Plan to send Jesus to earth to die on the cross in Israel for the sins of the whole world.
So God is choosing from among the equally unbelieving by making people accept or reject whether Jesus died for their sins or not. That is roadblock number one to whether one is chosen or not. If one passes this roadblock, one gets to go on to roadblock number two.
The second roadblock in how God is choosing from among the equally unbelieving, is that the Lord Jesus of Nazareth also rose from the dead after being for 3 days in the grave, as Jesus also predicted that He would rise before He died.
So this second roadblock in God's choosing from among the equally unbelieving is by accepting or rejecting the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
If one of the equally unbelieving cannot believe that Jesus rose from the dead, then that person will not be chosen.
So God foreknew who would pass both roadblocks, and those He did also predestinate to become sons of God:
Romans 8:29
For whom He {God} did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that He {Jesus of Nazareth} might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Romans 8:30
Moreover whom He {God} did predestinate, them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified: and whom He justified, them He also glorified.
God predestinated the ones whom He foreknew:
Romans 8:29
For whom He {God} did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son.
But what did God "foreknow"? God foreknew who would pass roadblock number one {Jesus dying for their sins) and roadblock number two (Jesus rising from the dead).
Those God also called and He did predestinate them to be conformed to the image of His Son.
Because Jesus had to come to earth to die for the sins of the world to avoid any boasting by the equally unbelievers, God did also of course want to quickly raise His Son Jesus from the dead by the resurrection, so that these two actions by God generated the two roadblocks by which God chooses from among the equally unbelievers.
love, Eden
"in the battle of Jericho, the walls came tumbling down"
IP: Logged |
|
|
TB125
Advanced Member
Member # 2450
|
posted
Daniel,
Carol explained this in the statement that she posted on the point that "God is a respecter of persons". Apparently you don't accept this explanation of the matter. I don't think that there is anything more that I can add to this statement or my other comments regarding this matter that will clarify my reason for believe that God is a "respecter of persons". And again, this does not represent a compromise of his "character"!
--------------------
Bob
Posts: 449 | From: Rockford Illinois | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
oneinchrist
Advanced Member
Member # 6532
|
posted
Hi Bob,
With all due respect, would you please state why you believe that Gods decision to accept Abels/reject Cains sacrifice shows God to be a respecter of persons? In what particular way does it show God to be a respecter of persons, please.
That, I believe, was what you were initially attempting to prove, was'nt it?
I understand that we can only speculate on the reason why God accepted the one sacrifice over the other, but why does this decision of God reflect God as being a respecter of persons........is what I want to know.
With love in Christ, Daniel
Posts: 1389 | From: Wind Lake, WI | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
oneinchrist
Advanced Member
Member # 6532
|
posted
Yes, yes, I agree, Eden. God imparts salvation to whomever He will..........but He does not impart it to those who choose not to come into agreement with Him and His Word and reject His love.
A tendency to lean heavily towards an emphasis on "predestination" often completely leaves out any due regard to the "foreknowledge" of God. This is the respect to which I believe some may error in their thinking.
A real fundamental approach(I think) to show balance (predestination+forknowledge) would be to adress it from the perspective of COVENANT principal. A COVENANT is an agreement between God and man. Before God will save any of us, we must come into agreement with Him and His Word.
God gives us urgent reasons to side with Him, but by no means does God make us agree with Him.
Where confusion can come on this matter, is when we look at biblical accounts that show God to have performed dramatic acts to call people whom He desired to use for His purpose, and we misconstrue these accounts thinking that they somehow prove that God only enables certain individual to be able to come to Him and that man has absolutlely nothing at all to do with whether or not he will be saved. This view can take away from the aspect of truth that God desires us to freely love Him based on His attributes. It is not a mechanical, assembly line process.....but God who wooos us with His love, and testimony given to His faithful followers.
With love in Christ, Daniel
Posts: 1389 | From: Wind Lake, WI | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
TB125
Advanced Member
Member # 2450
|
posted
Daniel,
Contrary to what you said regarding Carol's reference to God's dealing with Cain and Abel being due to his "covenant", I was simply trying to make the point that this decision by God to accept Abel's sacrifice and not Cain's was made before any "covenant", and the biblical account does not give a complete and clear statement regarding why Cain's sacrifice was not accepted. So God's decision must have something to do with his "respect" for Abel that is different from his attitude toward Cain. With this further explanation, I rest my case.
--------------------
Bob
Posts: 449 | From: Rockford Illinois | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
oneinchrist, doesn't this verse say that God has imparted salvation whom He will?
2 Thessalonians 2:13
But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God has from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.
Doesn't that say that God CHOSE them through the mechanism "of sanctification and belief of the truth"? Then God must have done something to some that He did not do to others, right?
As for God's character, His conscience is clear. He set forth a law, "the soul that sins shall die", and all people sinned and are under the penalty of death.
If then God should decide to save some through the death of Jesus on the cross, God's character is not only intact, He and Jesus are showing considerable kindness because They do "love the world".
love, Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
oneinchrist
Advanced Member
Member # 6532
|
posted
Eden,
Please understand that the point of disagreement isnt over whether or not God has the sovereign right/power to choose whomever, or whatever He wants with respect to His plan being carried out.
The point of disagreement is more relating to the character of God itself.............. and that an attempt to show the Holy spirit to have the function of "imparting(to only certain people) the special ability to repent and turn to Jesus" may not be consistent with God not being a respecter of persons.
With love in Christ, Daniel
Posts: 1389 | From: Wind Lake, WI | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Eden
unregistered
|
posted
First of all, God owns the world and is sovereign over what He wants to do with His own creation.
But in any case, the entire world lies in sin and is condemned under the penalty of death. If God does nothing about the creation that He loves, then the end result is that the earth will be destroyed and the penalty of death is paid. And then God could start anew if He chose to do so. So God is under no obligation to save anyone.
How can God be a respecter of persons when all people are equally under sin?
But, if God chooses to save some, God cannot choose on the basis of better or worse people since they are all the same and are all equally under the penalty of sin.
So what can God do then? Let's say that God only wants 10 million sons and daughters, so God, in His sovereign choice, can just choose 10 million people who are all under penalty of death, and choose to save them, and God can still remain sovereign because God decides to save some, eventhough He did not have to.
So if anything, we who are saved should be extremely grateful, that by some massive stroke of blessing, WE ended up being among the saved ones. Not earned, not deserved, just chosen:
John 15:16
You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you ...
2 Thessalonians 2:13
But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God has from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.
God chose as many sons and daughters as He wanted, not based on any merit of our own, and that's the end of that. And we are bound to give thanks always to God for saving us from our sure destiny of destruction.
love, Eden
IP: Logged |
|
|
oneinchrist
Advanced Member
Member # 6532
|
posted
Hi again Bob,
Please share with me ..........the particular reason why you believe God to be revealed as "a respecter of persons" through the Cain-Abel account......so at least I can have a shot at defending what I believe so strongly in.
With love in Christ, Daniel
Posts: 1389 | From: Wind Lake, WI | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
TB125
Advanced Member
Member # 2450
|
posted
Daniel,
God's dealings with Cain and Abel had nothing to do with his "covenant". His "covenant" with Abraham and the people of Israel had not been made at that time. You can persist in your perspective, but it is not biblical.
--------------------
Bob
Posts: 449 | From: Rockford Illinois | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
oneinchrist
Advanced Member
Member # 6532
|
posted
Hi again Bob,
You have not convinced me by your post, and neither will I ever be convinced by anyones post that God is a "respector of persons". Carol's post showed us several reasons why God, according to His character, should not be perceived as a "respector of persons".
The portion that speaks in reference to God being a "respecter of persons" is misleading, All the examples given show us that God made His choices BASED ON His covenant. This fact gives additional proof to the fact that God is not a "respecter of persons", and that His decisions/ and executed will were based primarily on God being faithful to His own Word.
The heading "God is a respecter of persons"(in Carols post) should instead read the following........................
"Some reasons why God may be perceived as being a respecter of persons"
I am sorry Carol, but I believe that the claim that God could be both of those attributes is as false as a claim that God could be both "Holy" and "unholy or "just" and "unjust".
With love in Christ, Daniel
Posts: 1389 | From: Wind Lake, WI | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
You're very welcome. I hope they will be helpful.
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
TB125
Advanced Member
Member # 2450
|
posted
Carol,
Thanks for these very complete statements regarding this matter of whether or not God is a "respecter of persons" that I was discussing with Daniel. They add a lot of biblical truth to the point that I was trying to make with him.
--------------------
Bob
Posts: 449 | From: Rockford Illinois | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
God Is A Respecter Of Persons
In several verses of scripture in the bible we read where God is "no respecter of persons." But we also read in Gen.4:4, 5, "And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering: but unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect." Also we read in Rom. 9:11-13 "(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. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Thus it is apparent God showed partiality to Jacob over Esau, even as he had showed partiality to Abel over Cain. How can these, seemingly, two competing ideas, that God is no respecter of persons and that God shows respect to persons, be harmonized?
The principle Greek word translated "respect of persons" is "prosopolempsia" meaning "partiality." So the phrase that "God is no respecter of persons" means that God does not show partiality to persons. To reconcile the ideas there must be a way (ways) in which God does not show partiality to persons and a way or ways in which God does show partiality to persons. To understand and harmonize these ideas we must go to the context in which they appear.
First, we will look at those verses of scripture in which it is taught that God is no respecter of persons and see on what basis God does not show partiality:
A. Acts 10:34, 35 - "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." Peter said this at the house of Cornelius, a Gentile. Before this, Peter along with the other Jews had thought that God was partial to the Jews, because they were Jews. But God showed Peter that he had a people in every nation. Thus God is not a "respecter of persons" based on nationality.
B. Rom. 2:9-11 - "Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; but glory, honor, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: for there is no respect of persons with God." This shows that God does not shew partiality in reward or punishment based on a person's nationality (Jew or Gentile).
C. Eph. 6:8, 9 - "Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same thing unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him." This shows us that God does not show partiality in judgment based on whether a person is bond or free or whether he is a master or servant. Thus God doesn't favor the master over the servant or the servant over the master.
D. Col. 3:25 - "But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons." In the verses just prior we read about relationships between husbands and wives, parents and children, and masters and servants. Thus we must conclude that God is not partial in judgment based on whether we be husband/wife, parent/child, or master/servant.
E. James 2:1, 2 - "My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment..." This teaches us that God doesn't value anyone based on their economic status.
F. 1 Peter 1:17 - "And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear." This teaches us that God is not partial in judging our work. Thus if our work is good, it will be so judged and if it is evil, it will be so judged without partiality to any one over another.
Thus we see that God is not partial in judgment based on ones nationality, economic status, sex, societal position, position in the family, or whether he is bond or free.
In what manner does God have "respect of persons?" Let us now examine four passages that show us on what basis God has respect of some over others:
A. Ex. 2:24, 25 - "And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. And God looked upon the children of Israel, and God had respect unto them." Here we see God favoring or being partial to Israel over Egypt based on a covenant he had made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
B. Lev. 26:9 - "For I will have respect unto you, and make you fruitful, and multiply you, and establish my covenant with you." Once again God is favoring Israel based on a covenant. This time it was the covenant he made with them on Mount Sinai.
C. II Kings 13:23 - "And the Lord was gracious unto them, and had compassion on them, and had respect unto them, because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not destroy them, neither cast he them from his presence as yet." Again we see God favoring Israel because of his covenant.
D. Ps. 74:19, 20 - "O deliver not the soul of thy turtledove unto the multitude of the wicked: forget not the congregation of thy poor for ever. Have respect unto the covenant: for the dark places of the earth are full of the habitations of cruelty." The psalmist is calling upon God to favor Zion based on His covenant.
Thus we conclude that God shows favor to some over others based on His covenant. It is on the basis of God's covenant of redemption that he was partial to Jacob over Esau and to Abel over Cain.
http://www.bibletruthforum.com/cords3/art310.htm
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Carol Swenson
Admin
Member # 6929
|
posted
God Is No Respecter Of Persons
When the first Gentile was converted to Christianity, the apostle Peter perceived that “God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him” (Acts 10:34-35). Before the church was established and Gentiles began to be converted to Christ, many Jews supposed that God favored them over all other ethnic groups; some had the false notion that merely being Jewish was a sure sign that one was saved (Matthew 3:9; Luke 3:8; 7:30).
When the religious barrier between Jews and Gentiles was broken down, Peter more fully understood one important aspect of God’s character: He does not favor—and never has favored—one person or group of people over others. Whether or not the Israelites always understood it, anyone who obeys God’s commands can be justified in His sight. Consider a sampling of the passages that emphasize God’s fairness toward all humans:
2 Chronicles 19:7: “Now therefore, let the fear of the Lord be upon you; take care and do it, for there is no iniquity with the Lord our God, no partiality, nor taking of bribes.”
Job 34:19: “Yet He is not partial to princes, nor does He regard the rich more than the poor; for they are all the work of His hands.”
Romans 2:10-11: “But glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God.”
Galatians 5:6: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision or uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.”
1 Peter 1:17: “And if you call on the Father, who without partiality judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves throughout the time of your stay here in fear.”
Exactly what does it mean that God is impartial? God offers salvation to every man, no matter what external circumstances, such as socioeconomic status or nationality, might apply to him. God does not offer salvation only to the Jew, just because he is a Jew, or only to the Gentile because he is a Gentile. The Greek word translated “respecter of persons” in the King James Version of Acts 10:34 (“God is no respecter of persons”) is prosopolemptes , a word that refers to a judge who looks at a man’s face instead of at the facts of the case, and makes a decision based on whether or not he likes the man (Lenski, 1961, p. 418). Under Roman law, for example, a defendant’s societal status was weighed heavily along with evidence. Any human judge might show undue favor to a plaintiff or a defendant because of private friendship, bribery, rank, power, or political affiliation, but God, the perfect Judge, cannot be tempted by any of the things that might tempt a human judge to show unfair partiality.
God’s impartiality does not keep Him from choosing people and nations of people to accomplish His specific purposes. He was free to use the Israelites as the seed line to bring about the Son of God in human form (the Israelites have never been the only group of people who had access to salvation—see Romans 1:18ff; Jackson, 2004); He was free to use the Babylonians to defeat the disobedient Israelites in battle and to take the spoils from them (2 Kings 25:1-21); He was free to use Peter and Paul to spread the Gospel to lost sinners. God can accomplish everything He needs to do without violating His commitment to allow all the opportunity to be saved.
Furthermore, God blesses people in different ways. God’s impartiality does not mean that everyone will have exactly the same amount of money, exactly the same amount of influence, exactly the same number of children, or exactly the same number of years upon the Earth. (At the very moment that Peter noted God’s impartiality, he was in the presence of a man who possessed more material wealth than Peter did.) Some do have more money than others, some have families who love them more, and some even have more opportunities to hear the Gospel preached. However, everyone can be saved, if he is willing to search for the truth. While some accountable adults may live their entire lives without hearing a single Gospel sermon, they all experience the marvelous works of the hand of God, showing every person that He exists. Paul wrote:
[W]hat may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts and their foolish hearts were darkened (Romans 1:19-21).
God always has expected impartiality from His followers. We should not treat people differently because of their financial status or outward appearance. The Lord said: “You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty” (Leviticus 19:15). Deuteronomy 1:17 reads: “You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small as well as the great.” After describing a scenario in which a rich man was given a favored seat in the assembly, and a poor man was pushed to the side, James wrote: “But if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors” (James 2:9). In stating that Christians should not show partiality because they believe in Christ, James, by inspiration, suggested that favoritism—treating certain people as if they are of more inherent worth—is inconsistent with faith in Christ, and causes one to violate God’s law of liberty (2:8,12).
We are grateful that God has not arbitrarily chosen some people to be saved and some to be lost. Imagine a basis upon which He might select which people should be saved. Would He choose the wealthy? The well known? The most intelligent? Members of a particular ethnic group or culture? Fortunately, each person can choose for himself whether or not to accept God’s saving grace (Joshua 24:15; Isaiah 7:16; Ezekiel 18:20; Matthew 23:37; Revelation 22:17). Each person is responsible for his or her own actions (Ezekiel 18:20; Romans 14:12; 2 Corinthians 5:10). Because of God’s marvelous love for all humans, He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9; cf. 1 Timothy 2:4).
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2607
Posts: 6787 | From: Colorado | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
