Unconditional Election or Conditional Election

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

nowyouseem033

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2014
535
30
28
Wow imagine that I disagree with two people on this whole forum! Amazing. I must really have a problem. How exactly is dispelling Calvinism and your views being a bigoted moron? Or do you just lash out like that when you can't make a point?
And why exactly would you like my post?
Everything I believe is in scripture and scripture is already substantiated. I don't have to give a reason for why I believe the scripture I just do. You're the one that has to support your calvinistic viewpoint from scripture which you can't do unless you totally misinterpret what the scripture says, which you do as has been evidenced.
Well all it does is confirm that your attitude now has been explicitly witnessed by two witnesses. So it only affirms even more that you are a bigoted moron who has no respect for anyone but himself.

How do i misinterpret the scriptures i posted?? You see again and again you say i do so but give no reason for why i misinterpret scripture.

Typical and sad. Everything i believe is in scripture as well. Afterall i quoted scripture... did i not Stan?

btw: I liked your post because i agree with it. Why else would i like it? But even then you cannot give reasons like i said before and again it only affirms that you indeed really are a ignorant and arrogant person. Sad sad.
 

nowyouseem033

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2014
535
30
28
Quoting Psalm 51 has nothing to do with the issue here. We're discussing New Testament covenant not Old Testament songs.
You said create again, but how can you create again if according to your Doctrine there was never anything there in the first place? Again you misinterpret the Bible because First Corinthians does not say anything about a new creature it says a new creation. Sadly all of your Doctrine is based on a misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the King James version which begs the question why do you continue to use the King James version?
Ahhh i said a new creation in Christ in bold letters. READ IT.... and no im not kjv onlyist. I favor more the ESV.
 
S

StanJ

Guest
Well all it does is confirm that your attitude now has been explicitly witnessed by two witnesses. So it only affirms even more that you are a bigoted moron who has no respect for anyone but himself.

How do i misinterpret the scriptures i posted?? You see again and again you say i do so but give no reason for why i misinterpret scripture.

Typical and sad. Everything i believe is in scripture as well. Afterall i quoted scripture... did i not Stan?

btw: I liked your post because i agree with it. Why else would i like it? But even then you cannot give reasons like i said before and again it only affirms that you indeed really are a ignorant and arrogant person. Sad sad.
A false witness is still a false witness no matter how many times.

Exactly how I showed you you did but then again you don't seem to pay attention to refutations.

No you misrepresented scripture.

in my opinion the only reason you do anything in this form is to be contradictory and divisive. If you refuse to acknowledge the reasons and rationale behind my posts then there's nothing I can say that will convince you otherwise. only those that are ignorant and arrogant run around telling everybody else they are. What is sad is that you think you know so much at an age when you don't even know how to learn on your own but simply parrot everything else you've been inculcated into.
 
S

StanJ

Guest
Ahhh i said a new creation in Christ in bold letters. READ IT.... and no im not kjv onlyist. I favor more the ESV.
What it refers to as the new creation is the New Covenant not the person being made a new creation.
2 Cor 5:17
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!
 
Apr 30, 2016
5,162
75
0
What it refers to as the new creation is the New Covenant not the person being made a new creation.
2 Cor 5:17
Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!
Hi StanJ
2 Corinthians 5.17 refers to the person. If you check the YLT you-ll find that it says.
"So that if any one is in Christ - HE is a new creature".

The THINGS spoken of refers to the new things of God, which is salvatiion through Christ and does include the New Covenant. However, the person accepting Christ is made new, as the HE is referring to a person, not a concept.

Fran
 
Apr 30, 2016
5,162
75
0
Nobody denies we have a will. But to use the term 'free' simply is not biblical whatsover but has been imposed upon the scriptures. If its true that we have a sinful nature and a heart thats wicked then whatever choice we make is a choice that comes from a sinful nature itself. Nobody denies we make choices but to claim you can discern the gospel and make a choice for Christ when you are blind to the gospel and dead in your sins is a contradiction. As the bible says man cannot please God nor can man understand the things of God so it requires first a work of the holy spirit to liberate your captive will that is towards sin towards the gospel. Otherwise plain and simple you will never come unless that happens first.
This idea of how we FIRST have to be infused with the spirit to get the spirit has always instrigued me.
You say we have a will, but it is not free. So, when we're not saved, we will only for satan, and when we ARE saved, we will only for God.

So, are you saying that once we're saved, we no longer sin since we will only FOR GOD?
If we do not have a FREE will, what does that make us?? Does it make us a person? Does it make us someone who could FREELY love God? WHAT exactly are we, in your opinion?

BTW, 1 Corinthians 2:14 is always used when speaking to atheists, not Christians. It's speaking about the NATURAL man, and Not the SPIRITUAL man. The natural man is one who has NOT accepted Jesus as savior, the Spiritual man has and thus he now understands spiritual concepts. It is not possible for a saved person to be lumped in with unsaved persons and be referred to as NATURAL.

Fran
 
Feb 24, 2015
13,204
168
0
This idea of how we FIRST have to be infused with the spirit to get the spirit has always instrigued me.
You say we have a will, but it is not free. So, when we're not saved, we will only for satan, and when we ARE saved, we will only for God.
I think this is the problem of creating theories of faith.
Jesus's message speaks to our hearts, awakens the love and hope we carry with
us. For some they close this off, while others follow the hearts calling.

People describe this difference as Gods work. And yes we are called and chosen.
But it will always be mystery, until we meet face to face, maybe.

What impresses me is there are many in the world who desire spiritual reality and
emotional clarity. Paul preached to many just like this, and those with open hearts
were filled with the Holy Spirit. That is enough for me.

Find the audience and preach, and those ready will respond.
 
Apr 30, 2016
5,162
75
0
I think this is the problem of creating theories of faith.
Jesus's message speaks to our hearts, awakens the love and hope we carry with
us. For some they close this off, while others follow the hearts calling.

People describe this difference as Gods work. And yes we are called and chosen.
But it will always be mystery, until we meet face to face, maybe.

What impresses me is there are many in the world who desire spiritual reality and
emotional clarity. Paul preached to many just like this, and those with open hearts
were filled with the Holy Spirit. That is enough for me.

Find the audience and preach, and those ready will respond.
PeterJens,
I THINK I agree with you.

First, I don't think we should be creating "theories of faith". All the theories of faith necessay were already created by Jesus, Paul, and all the other writers of the New Testament. Sometimes, they are not readily understandable, but we've had good theologians going back to the beginning of the church who worked to keep heresies from entering the church and who died for what they believed. I don't know how many would be willing to do this today.

Regarding Persons closing off their heart to Jesus' love, yes, I definitely agree with this.
Jeremiah 31:33 God will write the Law on our hearts, no more will it be on stone.
Ezekiel 36:26 God will remove our heart of stone, and will give us a new heart and put a new Spirit within us.

It is indeed our choice if we follow the Spirit and invite Him in, or if we close ourselves off to Him. This is what I refer to as our free will. We FREELY CHOOSE to follow God or NOT to follow God.

It is God's work because God is always revealing Himself to us. He has been from the beginning of time. Through Adam and Eve, through the prophets, through the Judges and even through the Kings - and finally, when nothing else would work, through His Son, Jesus, the Christ. And as you said, it is our hope that we could attain the salvation which God has made possible to us. We are called, all mankind is called, and we are chosen - chosen to be like Christ.
Romans 8:29

Those with open hearts will hear the word of God and will respond to it.
Amen.
John 1:12

Fran
 
S

StanJ

Guest
E
Hi StanJ
2 Corinthians 5.17 refers to the person. If you check the YLT you-ll find that it says.
"So that if any one is in Christ - HE is a new creature".

The THINGS spoken of refers to the new things of God, which is salvatiion through Christ and does include the New Covenant. However, the person accepting Christ is made new, as the HE is referring to a person, not a concept.

Fran
Sorry Fran but the YLT is a terrible translation, you'll find Mounce's translation much better. It is a Reverse Greek Interlinear.


https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Cor+5:17&version=MOUNCE

The person who is Born Again becomes part of the New Covenant which is what Paul refers to when saying the new creation.
 
Apr 30, 2016
5,162
75
0
E

Sorry Fran but the YLT is a terrible translation, you'll find Mounce's translation much better. It is a Reverse Greek Interlinear.


https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Cor+5:17&version=MOUNCE

The person who is Born Again becomes part of the New Covenant which is what Paul refers to when saying the new creation.
Hi Stan,
I did check out your link and it seems to me that Mounce, whom I have never heard of before right now, is the only translator that uses WHICH instead of WHO for 2 Corinthians 5:17...

"Therefore if any man be in Christ, HE is a new creature" KJV
"Therefore if any man is in Christ, HE is a new creature" NASB
"So that if anyone is in Christ, HE is a new creature" YLT (which you do not like)
"Therefore if anyone is in Christ, HE is a new creation" NIV
"When someone becomes a Christian, HE becomes a brand new person inside" TLB
"When anyone is joined to Christ, HE is a new being" GNB
"Quindi se uno e' in Cristo, e' creatura nuova" la Bibbia, San Paolo (edition)

I could understand if ONE bible has a terrible translation, but EVERY bible I own has the exact same translation and it's the Mounce which is different.

Also, if you begin reading at 2 Co 5:11 you find that it's speaking about MEN, that Christ died for ALL MEN, that those who live (in Him) should no longer live for themselves but for Him. Paul says that from now on he regards no ONE from a worldly point of view.

The connecting word: THEREFORE, if ANY ONE is in Christ, HE is a new creature, or creation, is referring to a PERSON, not a concept.

Our redemption takes place through Christ, Who makes us into a new creature. The whole world has reconciled itself to God through Christ, not counting MEN'S sins against them - verse 19.

Verse 21 tells how God made Jesus to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.

Chapter 4 and 5 and even 6 is speaking about individual persons, not the New Covenant. If you want to make a case for the NC being the New that has come, it could be argued. But what is in Christ is a MAN throughout these verses and not the New Covenant.

I only respond to this because sometimes wording can be very important, for example John 1:1. Jesus could be God, or He could be a god.

It's best never to trust only one version when a question arises. Also, the word "therefore" is a transition from how a MAN is before and after and is also the contextual word.

Fran
 
Last edited:
S

StanJ

Guest
Hi Stan,
I did check out your link and it seems to me that Mounce, whom I have never heard of before right now, is the only translator that uses WHICH instead of WHO for 2 Corinthians 5:17...

"Therefore if any man be in Christ, HE is a new creature" KJV
"Therefore if any man is in Christ, HE is a new creature" NASB
"So that if anyone is in Christ, HE is a new creature" YLT (which you do not like)
"Therefore if anyone is in Christ, HE is a new creation" NIV
"When someone becomes a Christian, HE becomes a brand new person inside" TLB
"When anyone is joined to Christ, HE is a new being" GNB
"Quindi se uno e' in Cristo, e' creatura nuova" la Bibbia, San Paolo (edition)

I could understand if ONE bible has a terrible translation, but EVERY bible I own has the exact same translation and it's the Mounce which is different.

Also, if you begin reading at 2 Co 5:11 you find that it's speaking about MEN, that Christ died for ALL MEN, that those who live (in Him) should no longer live for themselves but for Him. Paul says that from now on he regards no ONE from a worldly point of view.

The connecting word: THEREFORE, if ANY ONE is in Christ, HE is a new creature, or creation, is referring to a PERSON, not a concept.

Our redemption takes place through Christ, Who makes us into a new creature. The whole world has reconciled itself to God through Christ, not counting MEN'S sins against them - verse 19.

Verse 21 tells how God made Jesus to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.

Chapter 4 and 5 and even 6 is speaking about individual persons, not the New Covenant. If you want to make a case for the NC being the New that has come, it could be argued. But what is in Christ is a MAN throughout these verses and not the New Covenant.

I only respond to this because sometimes wording can be very important, for example John 1:1. Jesus could be God, or He could be a god.

It's best never to trust only one version when a question arises. Also, the word "therefore" is a transition from how a MAN is before and after and is also the contextual word.

Fran
If you go to the following link I think you'll find many more versions that use the rendering of 'new creation' in the context of the New Covenant.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/2 Corinthians 5:17

Paul would have not said what he did and 2 cor 3:18 and then change it in 2 cor 5:17 to contradict himself. You should take note that the NIV also changed it to render it as New Creation from their 1984 version to their 2011 version.
At that time it was a revelation to me as well but made much more sense in light of everything that I knew the New Testament says about salvation. Of course calvinists jump on it because it gives them a diametrically opposed comparison to what they believe is total depravity.
I found the following article today is that does some good exegesis on the issue.

Translating 2 Cor 5:17 – “he is a new creation” or “there is a new creation”?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Apr 30, 2016
5,162
75
0
If you go to the following link I think you'll find many more versions that use the rendering of 'new creation' in the context of the New Covenant.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/2%20Corinthians%205:17

Paul would have not said what he did and 2 cor 3:18 and then change it in 2 cor 5:17 to contradict himself. You should take note that the NIV also changed it to render it as New Creation from their 1984 version to their 2011 version.
At that time it was a revelation to me as well but made much more sense in light of everything that I knew the New Testament says about salvation. Of course calvinists jump on it because it gives them a diametrically opposed comparison to what they believe is total depravity.
I found the following article today is that does some good exegesis on the issue.

Translating 2 Cor 5:17 – “he is a new creation” or “there is a new creation”?


Hi Stan,
This is way off topic, but I did want to answer you.
I went to your link and found 55 versions for 2 Corinthians 5:17.
42 referred to the change in a person, the "new creation" or "new creature" referred to the person that has changed after being born again from above.

The most difference was in the Anglican or Catholic bibles. The Catholic church did work on a new translation, as of 2008, which was translated from the Greek instead of the Latin - and so this would be a more accurate translation. However, all the others were translated from the Greek and it really is difficult, so I went ahead and checked out the verse you referred to:
2 Corinthians 3:18

I'm afraid I see no conflict here. in 3:18 Paul is speaking as to how before, under the Mosaic Law or Covenant, we saw as with a veil that remained unlifted because it is removed by Christ, who IS the New Covenant. So, in verse 3:18 Paul is saying that now that the veil has been removed for those who believe in Christ, WE are being TRANSFORMED into the same IMAGE from glory to glory because we become more and more like Christ.

It seems to me that 2 Co 3:18 is also speaking about the change that takes place in a person when they go from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant.

I fail to understand why this is so important. There are many other reasons why total depravity CANNOT be true without having to insist on this scripture. I might be wrong about this since I'm not an expert at Calvinism, but this I know for sure,

The God I serve is NOT the God Mr. Calvin invented!

Fran
 
S

StanJ

Guest
Hi Stan,
This is way off topic, but I did want to answer you.
I went to your link and found 55 versions for 2 Corinthians 5:17.
42 referred to the change in a person, the "new creation" or "new creature" referred to the person that has changed after being born again from above.

The most difference was in the Anglican or Catholic bibles. The Catholic church did work on a new translation, as of 2008, which was translated from the Greek instead of the Latin - and so this would be a more accurate translation. However, all the others were translated from the Greek and it really is difficult, so I went ahead and checked out the verse you referred to:
2 Corinthians 3:18

I'm afraid I see no conflict here. in 3:18 Paul is speaking as to how before, under the Mosaic Law or Covenant, we saw as with a veil that remained unlifted because it is removed by Christ, who IS the New Covenant. So, in verse 3:18 Paul is saying that now that the veil has been removed for those who believe in Christ, WE are being TRANSFORMED into the same IMAGE from glory to glory because we become more and more like Christ.

It seems to me that 2 Co 3:18 is also speaking about the change that takes place in a person when they go from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant.

I fail to understand why this is so important. There are many other reasons why total depravity CANNOT be true without having to insist on this scripture. I might be wrong about this since I'm not an expert at Calvinism, but this I know for sure,

The God I serve is NOT the God Mr. Calvin invented!
Hi Fran,
You really should go to the link I gave you at the end of my last post as it is all spelled out there.

Translating 2 Cor 5:17 – “he is a new creation” or “there is a new creation”?
 
Apr 30, 2016
5,162
75
0
Hi Fran,
You really should go to the link I gave you at the end of my last post as it is all spelled out there.

Translating 2 Cor 5:17 – “he is a new creation” or “there is a new creation”?

Hi Stan,
I did go to the above link and here it is for anyone reading along that may be interested:
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Translating 2 Cor 5:17 – “he is a new creation” or “there is a new creation”?


By Jason, on November 17th, 2011, at 8:14 am
I got floored with a new insight in preparing for a sermon on
2 Corinthians 5:11-17 last Sunday. In verse 17, the translations I’ve always read said something like this: “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.” (see the 1984 NIV, ESV, NASB, HCSB, and others). However, when doing some study on this verse as part of my larger sermon prep, I noticed that literally, the sentence reads: “If anyone in Christ, new creation” (Ὥστε εἴ τις ἐν χριστῷ, καινὴ κτίσις). In the original Greek for this verse, there are no verbs, so they have to be supplied–If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.
However, the NRSV and the 2011 NIV render the passage, respectively, “there is a new creation” and “the new creation has come.” That’s different.
What alerted me to these alternate translations was the section in David Garland’s commentary on this passage where he pointed out something that turned my understanding of 2 Cor 5:17 upside down:
Paul also never uses the noun “creation” (ktisis) to refer to an individual person (see Rom 1:2, 25; 8:19–22, 39), and the concept of a new creation appears prominently in Jewish apocalyptic texts that picture the new age as inaugurating something far more sweeping than individual transformation—a new heaven and a new earth. The translation “there is a new creation” would mean that the new creation does not merely involve the personal transformation of individuals but encompasses the eschatological act of recreating humans and nature in Christ. It would also include the new community, which has done away with the artificial barriers of circumcision and uncircumcision (Gal 6:15–16; see Eph 2:14–16) as part of this new creation.
(David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, The New American Commentary, 286-87)
Garland’s not the only one that leans toward a “there is a new creation” translation. Ralph Martin writes,
Paul is talking of a “new act of creation,” not an individual’s renovation as a proselyte or a forgiven sinner in the Day of Atonement service. There is even an ontological dimension to Paul’s thought (so P. Stuhlmacher, “Erwägungen”), suggesting that with Christ’s coming a new chapter in cosmic relations to God opened and reversed the catastrophic effect of Adam’s fall which began the old creation (Kümmel, 205). To conclude: en Christo, kaine ktisis in this context relates to the new eschatological situation which has emerged from Christ’s advent (unlike the sense of Gal. 6:14, 15).
(Ralph P. Martin, 2 Corinthians, Word Biblical Commentary, 152)
Or, consider Colin Kruse’s words:
The thrust of this statement is that when a person is in Christ, he or she is part of the new creation. God’s plan of salvation, while primarily concerned with humanity, encompasses the whole created order (Rom. 8:21). When a person is in Christ he or she has become already part of the new creation so that it may be said, the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. This participation in the new creation is reflected in the changed outlook of which v. 16 spoke and in a new holiness of life (cf. 1 Cor. 6:9–11), and will culminate in the renewal of the whole person by resurrection to immortality in the new created order at the parousia (cf. Isa. 65:17; 66:22; Rom. 8:19–23).
(Colin Kruse, 2 Corinthians, Tyndale New Testament Commentary, 123)
What’s happening here? How could so many of the mainstream translations land on the singular “he is a new creation”, when a number of scholars have pointed out otherwise? I think this could be a case where Western individualistic bias has unduly influenced translations to focus on the singular transformation of an individual when it comes to the gospel. As a result, the gospel has been presented as something that is focused solely on the individual–a person’s spiritual life is a “just between him/her and God” sort of thing. Private spirituality. However, the Bible doesn’t conceive of it this way. The OT spent a lot of time talking about the entire nation of Israel and God’s story working in and among them. Blessings and curses recorded in the Law and the Prophets were typically applied to the whole group–if one person messed up, then the whole nation suffered. Not only that, but when God created the heavens and the earth, he saw that it was good. Humanity’s brokenness upended the created order as well. God is repairing all that was broken in both the vertical and horizontal dimensions–between God and people, God and his creation, and also between people and people, people and his creation, and other parts of creation with other parts as well.
So how would seeing this passage as “there is a new creation” instead of “he is a new creation” change things? I think this means is that the gospel is proclaiming a much grander reality than just you and me, it’s talking about all of creation that was started anew in Christ’s death and resurrection and will be completely restored to perfection in the end. When we isolate 2 Cor 5:17 to just a single person sort of thing, we truncate its fuller scope: God intends to reconcile all things to himself–whether on earth or in heaven (Col 1:20). It’s not meant to signal a transformation of individuals only (though they remain primary), but it’s talking about a new heavens and a new earth (Rev 21:1). In between then and now, we’re invited as active participants in this new creation as new creatures dwelling within it. There’s a tension that we live in, of course, as the new creation has been inaugurated but not yet completed.
Taking that all in, I lean this way–2 Cor 5:17 is better thought of as, “If anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation”, or better yet, as Garland suggests to allow for both options to weigh in, “If anyone in Christ, new creation!” I think this preserves the nuance that allows the Christ’s big picture new creation to be primary and the individual new creations to be folded into the grander picture of God reconciling all things to himself.

Translating 2 Cor 5:17 – “he is a new creation” or “there is a new creation”?
 
Last edited: