Calvinism and Context?

  • 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Apr 2, 2020
1,144
424
83
You are correct. The term election aka chosen does have different flavors of application. One application IS meant primarily as election to service for Israel. Not so in the new testament when it is applied to Christians. The term election has a far different aspect to it, a far different application.

May I point out that the term election in Strongs 1586 and 1589 carry with them the quality of foreordination and predestination. Indisputably.

https://biblehub.com/greek/1586.htm
https://biblehub.com/greek/1589.htm

1586 eklégomai (from 1537 /ek, "out of" and 3004 /légō, "speaking to a conclusion") – properly, to select (choose) out of, by a highly deliberate choice (i.e. real heart-preference) with a definite outcome (as with the destination of divine selection for salvation).

Cognate: 1589 eklogḗ (from 1537 /ek, "out from and to" and3004 /légō, "speaking to a conclusion") – properly, selection out of and to a given outcome; (theologically) election. See 1586 (eklegomai).
Considering the perniciousness of Calvinistic theology it's no surprise that they would poison the well by inserting their theology into definitions where they need not be.

It's about the same as the NIV translating "sarx" into "sinful nature," human beings realizing their theology is not express enough so altering Biblical terms to suit their theological conclusions.
 
Apr 2, 2020
1,144
424
83
Sorry I'm not falling for it this time. I'm not going to engage with you in vainly hurling mutual condemnations.

But I will correct you in saying that Judas was born a sinner and he sinned all by himself with no help at all from God. Furthermore I will say that God chose not exert Himself for salvation on behalf of Judas for reason that He and He alone knows.

Our philosophical musings are utterly irrelevant and impotent.
That's not what you've been saying this whole thread, though. You've been attributing Judas' actions to God's ordination, making prophecy an act of God's will rather than foreknowledge. To suddenly abandon that because the consequences are apparent is to negate your entire thread you've been on.
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
4,698
2,128
113
Considering the perniciousness of Calvinistic theology it's no surprise that they would poison the well by inserting their theology into definitions where they need not be.

It's about the same as the NIV translating "sarx" into "sinful nature," human beings realizing their theology is not express enough so altering Biblical terms to suit their theological conclusions.
There you go again.

If you want to call Strongs 1586 and 1589 pernicious doctrine you go right ahead.
I remain neutral in the matter and I only want to understand what the Bible is intending to say.
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
4,698
2,128
113
That's not what you've been saying this whole thread, though. You've been attributing Judas' actions to God's ordination, making prophecy an act of God's will rather than foreknowledge. To suddenly abandon that because the consequences are apparent is to negate your entire thread you've been on.
There you go again. Putting words in my mouth and speaking for me. A very bad habit of yours. And then you begin to extrapolate all these grandiose philosophical implications. Seriously just read your post it's everywhere.

I will say this: That is not what I said.
 
Apr 2, 2020
1,144
424
83
There you go again. Putting words in my mouth and speaking for me. A very bad habit of yours. And then you begin to extrapolate all these grandiose philosophical implications. Seriously just read your post it's everywhere.

I will say this: That is not what I said.
It's kind of essential to your disagreement and assigning Judas the "doomed" prescription, otherwise you're not supporting your sovereign choice claim in any way with the argument. Afterall, if God is able to know exactly what Judas was going to do without being the causative agent the same is true for those spoken of in Romans 8. So what's the point of your arguing that Judas was doomed before he was born if not to assign causation to God?
 
Apr 2, 2020
1,144
424
83
There you go again.

If you want to call Strongs 1586 and 1589 pernicious doctrine you go right ahead.
I remain neutral in the matter and I only want to understand what the Bible is intending to say.
I called it poisoning the well, because they add their theological conclusions to the definitions of the words in order to force their theological conclusions.

Such a declaration is unnecessary for the words themselves as their theological value falls outside of their semantics. Yet so often Calvinists can't help themselves from engaging in fallacies to reinforce their views.
 

EleventhHour

Well-known member
Nov 11, 2019
9,917
9,908
113
You realize on this thread you're contradicting both your out for why God is not the author of sin, and what you posted from Sproul trying to make double predestination palpable?

Here you are saying God's predestination is such that He made Judas sin, because it was prophesied. Making God the author of Judas' sin, and making Judas' predestination symmetric with predestination to salvation.

Thank you, that is what I have been stating... they make God the author of evil.

The fact they always circumvent "double predestination" as the logical outcome of their dogma is very telling, the truth has nothing to hide.

There is always the sense of proselytizing with Calvinism as well... seeking converts ... if read this great theologian you will get it too!
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,445
113
whom He predestined,
these He also called;
whom He called,
these He also justified;
and whom He justified,
these He also glorified.
we're supposed to believe what's written.
Many are called......Few are chosen

If we follow the logical path you are surmising then God fails....because ONLY a few are chosen of the MANY HE CALLS...

Why is that?

Few < Many
 

throughfaith

Well-known member
Aug 4, 2020
3,849
813
113
And if we HONESTLY BELIEVE what is written, we will see the purpose of predestination here (the preceding verse):

For whom he did foreknow, (FOREKNOWLEDGE)

he also did predestinate (PREDESTINATION)

to be conformed to the image of his Son, (PURPOSE OF PREDESTINATION)

that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
(THE PERFECTION OF THE SAINTS AS BRETHREN IN CHRIST)

Does "conformed to the image of His Son" means justification or does it mean glorification? As yo can see it is absurd to imagine that God predestines anyone for justification, since He offers eternal life freely to all -- "whosoever". So you must have removed all the "whosoevers" from your Bible.
Yup it clearly says we are predestined to a future occurrence . To be conformed. ( Glorification) To the Adoption. Rom 8.23 ( Glorification)
 
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,445
113
This sums up the whole equation and fits the argument nicely....

It is painfully onvious that choice if found through out the bible....and the words Whosoever will MAY COME and TAKE/DEINK FREELY and Whosoever believes is having, and whoever has ears to HEAR and eyes to see <-faith comes by hearing is clear scripture.

God would have ALL MEN it says
God testifies to ALL MEN IT SAYS
Christ paid for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD IT SAYS
GOD LOVED the WORLD IT SAYS
Hell made for devil and angels it says

The predetermined will of God is simple.....

All that come to HIM by faith through HIS SON JESUS will be received and adopted as sons and daughters.

God did not CHOOSE man A for the kingdom, and man B thru Z for hell.

GOD does not call ALL, nor is he obligated to because MOST ignore or reject the testimony of CREATION and the INVISIBLE and or close their EARS/EYES to the truth.

GOD DOES know who will believe and who will not believe.

AND EVEN THEN GOD does call MANY that will not believe and due to unbelief NOT BE ELECTED OR CHOSEN.

and yet this CALL IS IRREVOCABLE.......

there are numerous verses, in context that cannot be swept under the table, and said verses absolutely make the Calvinist view contradict scripture.

All of you who are HEAVY LADEN....Jesus said....TAKE MY YOKE UPON YOU AND LEARN OF ME!
 

EleventhHour

Well-known member
Nov 11, 2019
9,917
9,908
113
whom He predestined,
these He also called;
whom He called,
these He also justified;
and whom He justified,
these He also glorified.
we're supposed to believe what's written.
You missed "foreknow"

Interesting Jesus replies to those who stated Lord, Lord >>> "Depart from me I never knew you"
He is not denying omniscient, so obviously another type of knowing.

In that light consider...

Romans 8:29 ” For whom He did foreknow”

So before they were predestined He foreknew them because they had made the choice to believe and then they were predestined based on their belief, which those that Jesus rejected did not have >>>>> belief.

So predestination is not forced belief but the result of belief.
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
4,698
2,128
113
I called it poisoning the well, because they add their theological conclusions to the definitions of the words in order to force their theological conclusions.

Such a declaration is unnecessary for the words themselves as their theological value falls outside of their semantics. Yet so often Calvinists can't help themselves from engaging in fallacies to reinforce their views.
I disagree. The careful usage of terms in their careful arrangements IS what defines doctrine. Theological conclusions are thereby DERIVED from it. Not imposed upon it.

This is my methodology.
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
4,698
2,128
113
It's kind of essential to your disagreement and assigning Judas the "doomed" prescription, otherwise you're not supporting your sovereign choice claim in any way with the argument. Afterall, if God is able to know exactly what Judas was going to do without being the causative agent the same is true for those spoken of in Romans 8. So what's the point of your arguing that Judas was doomed before he was born if not to assign causation to God?
There you go again. Espousing claims and conclusions to me that only you have made.

My only claim, which I stand behind, is that God CHOSE NOT to GRACIOUSLY INTERCEDE on the behalf of Judas.

I did not assign blame to God in the least as you wrongly said.
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
4,698
2,128
113
You missed "foreknow"

Interesting Jesus replies to those who stated Lord, Lord >>> "Depart from me I never knew you"
He is not denying omniscient, so obviously another type of knowing.

In that light consider...

Romans 8:29 ” For whom He did foreknow”

So before they were predestined He foreknew them because they had made the choice to believe and then they were predestined based on their belief, which those that Jesus rejected did not have >>>>> belief.

So predestination is not forced belief but the result of belief.
Post a word study on the term "foreknew". Or "knew" in this case.

Jesus is stating that He does not have a predetermined relationship (from eternity past according to God's elective purpose) with these frauds. BTW Jesus is NOT saying that they don't believe. Because foreknowledge, election aka choosing PRECEDES believing in every single case of salvation in all of Scripture.

You see, belief is the OUTCOME of election, not the cause of it.

This business that God is an impotent observer is destroyed when looking at what the bible actually says.
 
Apr 2, 2020
1,144
424
83
There you go again. Espousing claims and conclusions to me that only you have made.

My only claim, which I stand behind, is that God CHOSE NOT to GRACIOUSLY INTERCEDE on the behalf of Judas.

I did not assign blame to God in the least as you wrongly said.
So then what is the point of your argument? That God can know things in advance and not be the causative agent of them? Seems to run counter to your position.
 
Apr 2, 2020
1,144
424
83
I disagree. The careful usage of terms in their careful arrangements IS what defines doctrine. Theological conclusions are thereby DERIVED from it. Not imposed upon it.

This is my methodology.
Then why insert theological conclusions into the semantics of words prior to analyzing them in context? The strong's author's insert their doctrine into the definition when such theological conclusions are extraneous to the word.
 

awelight

Active member
Aug 10, 2020
315
114
43
65
Many are called......Few are chosen

If we follow the logical path you are surmising then God fails....because ONLY a few are chosen of the MANY HE CALLS...

Why is that?

Few < Many
You misunderstand the point being made here.

Israel (many) were called of God, to be His people nationally speaking. But only a (few) were chosen to be His people, by Election.


Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Rom 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded

In this same way, nation after nation, of the Gentiles, have been called by the Gospel and it's preaching but only a few are chosen.

There is no failure of God's purpose nor will there be. God's purpose stands firm and forever, whether man likes it or not.
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
4,698
2,128
113
Then why insert theological conclusions into the semantics of words prior to analyzing them in context? The strong's author's insert their doctrine into the definition when such theological conclusions are extraneous to the word.
You may cast aspersions upon Strongs definitions at your peril. As for myself I will have to admit that I do not possess te scholarly credentials to do what you are willing to do.
 

cv5

Well-known member
Nov 20, 2018
4,698
2,128
113
So then what is the point of your argument? That God can know things in advance and not be the causative agent of them? Seems to run counter to your position.
I have to say again that the point I'm making is not the point that you're stating. I already made my point and I will make it again verbatim....

"My only claim, which I stand behind, is that God CHOSE NOT to GRACIOUSLY INTERCEDE on the behalf of Judas."
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
28,580
8,915
113
It is definitely not because God has excluded them, since that would violate the Gospel.
it does not violate the gospel. you will say, the gospel is "whosoever willeth, let him come drink of the water" - and that is not wrong - but you are confessing here, that God knows who the whosoever is that will come to Him. God is omniscient. there is neither such thing as a thing God does not know, nor is there any such thing as a time in which God does not know every thing. before you exist, He knows you, and everything you will do - and He is the One who skillfully and wonderfully designs you and gives you existence and sustains that existence. He tells people that they will not come because they aren't His sheep. people He gives existence to and sustains - sons of Adam, who were in Adam when he sinned just as you were; Adam whom God formed and gave breath to.
you only say it violates the gospel because you have an 'intellectual problem' with God exercising His prerogative as God to do as is His pleasure with His own creation - to have His own free will, as God, as Creator of all of us, all of us who are in Adam. we were all in Adam, and in Adam was light and in Adam was found darkness. you consider it unfair -- and it is not unlike as to say, Esau should have had equal, if not more claim to the birthright than Jacob -- but the reality is that God chose Jacob before they were even born and had done or thought or placed faith in anything. Jacob & Esau who were both in Isaac, who was in Adam. that is a sign to us, that God is God and there is no other, and no one can say to Him "what have you done?"

hear what Nebuchadnezzar, whom God chose, who is God's servant, said of Him:

all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and He doeth according to His will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto Him, 'What doest Thou?'
(Daniel 4:35)
the gospel is not, 'every man and woman gets a fair chance to determine their own destiny'
the gospel is Yah-Shua, that God, in His grace, is Salvation; that it is not by works, by effort or human will, but by Him who has mercy, and He has mercy on whom He will. His dominion is eternal. you may dare to judge Him, but i dare not
 
Status
Not open for further replies.