Understanding God’s election
- Thread starter dougcho
- Start date
-
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.
A lesson in Calvinism.
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were elect, were saved.
Here is the verse below that demonstrates God's election of Jacob.
13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”
Now Jacob had twelve sons and we know that only Judah was elect.
Into the lake of fire go those wicked sons of Jacob including Joseph.
Who was the son of Judah?
Perez of course.
So the elect form a series; Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, and Perez.
Calvinism is so easy to work out.
If you deny Joseph is in the lake of fire then your not a Calvinist.
Because Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were elect.
That's my point.
Can you repeat your question Cameron as there are far too many posts to check.
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were elect, were saved.
Here is the verse below that demonstrates God's election of Jacob.
13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”
Now Jacob had twelve sons and we know that only Judah was elect.
Into the lake of fire go those wicked sons of Jacob including Joseph.
Who was the son of Judah?
Perez of course.
So the elect form a series; Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, and Perez.
Calvinism is so easy to work out.
If you deny Joseph is in the lake of fire then your not a Calvinist.
Because Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were elect.
That's my point.
Can you repeat your question Cameron as there are far too many posts to check.
Oh, really? So, your thoughts and ways are higher and better than God's ways? You see...I told you would be quite uncomfortable in a holy environment such as heaven or even in the restored earth. What you don't understand is that the saints in their glorified states will finally be free FROM the presence of all sin -- both from within and from without. Salvation FREES us from the penalty of sin, the power of sin and eventually the presence of sin.
In your world....I know that must suck raw eggs in your world because you would be TOO conformed to the Image of Christ since like Him you would not be able to sin.[/QUOTE]
I wish you had done your homework before replying, but anyway, I believe my understanding is better than yours, including that Christ is free to sin per HB 2:17-18 & 5:8-9, but like him, in heaven we will be unwilling to sin because of what GW taught us during our earthly sojourn.
In your world....I know that must suck raw eggs in your world because you would be TOO conformed to the Image of Christ since like Him you would not be able to sin.[/QUOTE]
I wish you had done your homework before replying, but anyway, I believe my understanding is better than yours, including that Christ is free to sin per HB 2:17-18 & 5:8-9, but like him, in heaven we will be unwilling to sin because of what GW taught us during our earthly sojourn.
Okay, I guess I understand your low opinion of God accurately.
Re "You are trying to change the meaning of 2:8 to accommodate your beliefs." I have explained how I harmonize Scripture, but here it is again:
My hermeneutic or parameters for interpreting the Bible begins with the instruction of Paul (1THS 5:21) to “Test everything. Hold on to the good.” A truthseeker wants to know the truth, and is guided by the question: What is most true or closest to the truth? The means of determining truth is subjective logic that is made as objective as possible by learning from other truthseekers, preferably via dialogue when possible.
As a result of seeking ultimate truth, I have come to value two NT teachings as key points from which to triangulate or use to guide my interpretation of the Bible, especially problematic statements. First, God loves and wants to save everyone (1TM 2:3-4, JN 3:16); Christ died to show God’s love and the possible salvation of all (RM 5:6-8) including His enemies (ungodly, atheist, anti-Christ). Second, God is just (2THS 1:6a, cf. RM 3:25-26 & 9:14, DT 32:4, PS 36:6, LK 11:42, RV 15:3). Explanations of God’s Word should not impugn God’s justice and love for all people (JL 2:13, JN 3:16). I find this hermeneutic affirmed in the OT (PS 145:17): “The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.” Triangulate from God’s love & justness.
This principle leads me to conclude that even the wrath of God is an expression of His love and justice. The writer of Hebrews (12:4-11) indicates that divine wrath is intended as discipline or for the purpose of teaching people to repent of their hatefulness and faithlessness (PR 3:12, IS 33:14-15 RV 3:19). If a righteous explanation cannot be found for a passage of Scripture purporting to describe God’s will, then it should be considered as historical or descriptive of what people perceived rather than as pedagogical or prescriptive of God’s nature. Unrighteous rage should not be attributed to God.
The justice of God is a source of comfort and joy to those who have decided to accept His loving Lordship, but it is experienced as judgment or wrath by those who rebel against Him (IS 13:13, RM 1:18, RV 19:11). The fire that warms (purifies) also burns (punishes). Stating God’s requirement for salvation negatively: a person would do well (be wise) not to reject Him in order not to experience the miserable but just consequence (JN 3:17-18). Just consequences teach good behavior.
Other important elements in my hermeneutic include the following. Everyone lives by fallible faith/belief/opinion and sufficient knowledge of evidence rather than by absolute certainty or proof or coercion (2CR 5:7). Second, a logical train of thought leads an unbiased truthseeker to have a propensity to believe in an all-loving God, who is not tricky and does not hide the way to heaven (HB 11:6, ACTS 13:10). Third, humanity’s understanding of God evolved or progressed through the millenniums, so that the OT was superseded by the NT, which is the apex of divine revelation (HB 7:18, 8:13, 9:15).
The method employed in this hermeneutic is additive or eclectic as taught by Paul (in 1THS 5:21), exemplified by Jesus (in MT 4:6-7) and illustrated by the transparent overlays of bodily systems found in some books on anatomy. I want to include all true assertions in the picture of reality without making a “Procrustean Body” by cutting off or ignoring parts that do not seem to fit, because the correct understanding must be self-consistent or else God would be tricky. The whole truth combines parts without sawing!
Re "You are trying to change the meaning of 2:8 to accommodate your beliefs." I have explained how I harmonize Scripture, but here it is again:
My hermeneutic or parameters for interpreting the Bible begins with the instruction of Paul (1THS 5:21) to “Test everything. Hold on to the good.” A truthseeker wants to know the truth, and is guided by the question: What is most true or closest to the truth? The means of determining truth is subjective logic that is made as objective as possible by learning from other truthseekers, preferably via dialogue when possible.
As a result of seeking ultimate truth, I have come to value two NT teachings as key points from which to triangulate or use to guide my interpretation of the Bible, especially problematic statements. First, God loves and wants to save everyone (1TM 2:3-4, JN 3:16); Christ died to show God’s love and the possible salvation of all (RM 5:6-8) including His enemies (ungodly, atheist, anti-Christ). Second, God is just (2THS 1:6a, cf. RM 3:25-26 & 9:14, DT 32:4, PS 36:6, LK 11:42, RV 15:3). Explanations of God’s Word should not impugn God’s justice and love for all people (JL 2:13, JN 3:16). I find this hermeneutic affirmed in the OT (PS 145:17): “The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.” Triangulate from God’s love & justness.
This principle leads me to conclude that even the wrath of God is an expression of His love and justice. The writer of Hebrews (12:4-11) indicates that divine wrath is intended as discipline or for the purpose of teaching people to repent of their hatefulness and faithlessness (PR 3:12, IS 33:14-15 RV 3:19). If a righteous explanation cannot be found for a passage of Scripture purporting to describe God’s will, then it should be considered as historical or descriptive of what people perceived rather than as pedagogical or prescriptive of God’s nature. Unrighteous rage should not be attributed to God.
The justice of God is a source of comfort and joy to those who have decided to accept His loving Lordship, but it is experienced as judgment or wrath by those who rebel against Him (IS 13:13, RM 1:18, RV 19:11). The fire that warms (purifies) also burns (punishes). Stating God’s requirement for salvation negatively: a person would do well (be wise) not to reject Him in order not to experience the miserable but just consequence (JN 3:17-18). Just consequences teach good behavior.
Other important elements in my hermeneutic include the following. Everyone lives by fallible faith/belief/opinion and sufficient knowledge of evidence rather than by absolute certainty or proof or coercion (2CR 5:7). Second, a logical train of thought leads an unbiased truthseeker to have a propensity to believe in an all-loving God, who is not tricky and does not hide the way to heaven (HB 11:6, ACTS 13:10). Third, humanity’s understanding of God evolved or progressed through the millenniums, so that the OT was superseded by the NT, which is the apex of divine revelation (HB 7:18, 8:13, 9:15).
The method employed in this hermeneutic is additive or eclectic as taught by Paul (in 1THS 5:21), exemplified by Jesus (in MT 4:6-7) and illustrated by the transparent overlays of bodily systems found in some books on anatomy. I want to include all true assertions in the picture of reality without making a “Procrustean Body” by cutting off or ignoring parts that do not seem to fit, because the correct understanding must be self-consistent or else God would be tricky. The whole truth combines parts without sawing!
Whatever.
I pretty much think we've reached the end of this discussion, except to say that if one compares a verse of scripture with another, and they seem to fundamentally contradict each other, then a serious error has occurred somewhere in the process. If you believe salvation is not fully and completely a gift from God in all manner and respects, and that a man must somehow contribute to the achieving of it,
then you've seriously misunderstood something, and your "hermeneutics" have not produced the desired results for you.
What is unequivocally clear in scripture is that Jesus Christ is the sole Savior, and thus, all else within must be supportive of, subordinate to, and align with that singular overriding truth and unifying principle, and which is the essence of Eph 2:8 in particular and all of Eph (and the Bible) in general.
[Heb 10:7 KJV] 7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
I pretty much think we've reached the end of this discussion, except to say that if one compares a verse of scripture with another, and they seem to fundamentally contradict each other, then a serious error has occurred somewhere in the process. If you believe salvation is not fully and completely a gift from God in all manner and respects, and that a man must somehow contribute to the achieving of it,
then you've seriously misunderstood something, and your "hermeneutics" have not produced the desired results for you.
What is unequivocally clear in scripture is that Jesus Christ is the sole Savior, and thus, all else within must be supportive of, subordinate to, and align with that singular overriding truth and unifying principle, and which is the essence of Eph 2:8 in particular and all of Eph (and the Bible) in general.
[Heb 10:7 KJV] 7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
So the Calvinites say that any person who is WILLING to hear the gospel and then actually makes a WILLING decision to accept the FREE GIFT offered in good faith somehow INVALIDATES the whole deal and automatically makes it null and void? I mean that what they proclaim right?
Well, this has the effect of INSULTING the character of the Giver, BURIES/HIDES the gift, and DENIES the plea of the petitioner.
Making the preaching of the gospel of NO EFFECT, further INSULTING the Holy Spirit and DENYING His work.
So therefore I say that the Calvinites make themselves the GATEKEEPERS, the neo-pharisees of today, standing at the door
denying salvation to the world.
[Luk 11:52 NKJV]
"Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered."
=======================================================
Which is why I say that this passage is spoken to them. To them who HIDE the TALENT, hide the gospel message of a FREELY given salvation to anyone who asks.
Woe be unto them!
[Luk 19:20 KJV]
And another came, saying, Lord, behold, [here is] thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:
[Luk 19:21 KJV]
For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.
[Luk 19:22 KJV]
And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, [thou] wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:
[Luk 19:24 KJV]
And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give [it] to him that hath ten pounds.
Well, this has the effect of INSULTING the character of the Giver, BURIES/HIDES the gift, and DENIES the plea of the petitioner.
Making the preaching of the gospel of NO EFFECT, further INSULTING the Holy Spirit and DENYING His work.
So therefore I say that the Calvinites make themselves the GATEKEEPERS, the neo-pharisees of today, standing at the door
denying salvation to the world.
[Luk 11:52 NKJV]
"Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered."
=======================================================
Which is why I say that this passage is spoken to them. To them who HIDE the TALENT, hide the gospel message of a FREELY given salvation to anyone who asks.
Woe be unto them!
[Luk 19:20 KJV]
And another came, saying, Lord, behold, [here is] thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:
[Luk 19:21 KJV]
For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.
[Luk 19:22 KJV]
And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, [thou] wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:
[Luk 19:24 KJV]
And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give [it] to him that hath ten pounds.
-
2
- Show all
Why do you act as if you can grasp the things God does like He has to conform to your human logic and reason? You mockingly ask "Why did he tell us how to be saved and promise if we believed we’d be saved? He already decided lol " as if we as humans can just grasp these deeper ideas of a God outside time and space and how He see's everything in order to read every passage. To relay these messages to all mankind God uses terms we can grasp and understand to to help unlock these deeper ideas the closer we grow to Him.
Just because you can take these ideas and disrespectfully misrepresent how they're seen, and then re-represent them in a mocking and warped way that makes this an easy straw man to burn down, does not make you "default right". Your arguments are poor and so disconnected from what's actually being said that the only thing you seem able stand on is the cult peanut gallery high fiveing you no matter what you say anyway. You don't listen to people, you don't represent their side at all, let alone accurately. You make up these arguments all on your own, then you proof text as if that settles everything without ever explain why or how any of the scripture you just used support your argument, with your own words. You just post them as if that's that. The arrogance and smugness' that you and the crew run with is just impossible. There is just nowhere possible to go with you guys. You remind me so much of "pastor" Anderson and the NIFB crew.
Unjustifiably aggressive and arrogant standing on completely false doctrine driven by the hatred of another group.
Just because you can take these ideas and disrespectfully misrepresent how they're seen, and then re-represent them in a mocking and warped way that makes this an easy straw man to burn down, does not make you "default right". Your arguments are poor and so disconnected from what's actually being said that the only thing you seem able stand on is the cult peanut gallery high fiveing you no matter what you say anyway. You don't listen to people, you don't represent their side at all, let alone accurately. You make up these arguments all on your own, then you proof text as if that settles everything without ever explain why or how any of the scripture you just used support your argument, with your own words. You just post them as if that's that. The arrogance and smugness' that you and the crew run with is just impossible. There is just nowhere possible to go with you guys. You remind me so much of "pastor" Anderson and the NIFB crew.
Unjustifiably aggressive and arrogant standing on completely false doctrine driven by the hatred of another group.
Probably, which is why I posted Paul's parting shot:
Paul went "every Sabbath to the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks" (ACTS 18:4)! "He witnessed to them from morning till evening, explaining about the kingdom of God, and from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets he tried to persuade them about Jesus." (ACTS 28:23b) "Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe. (ACTS 28:24) They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul made this final statement: The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your ancestors when he said through Isaiah the prophet, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving, for this people's heart has become calloused." (ACTS 28:25-27a)
Except to say again (ad nauseum? :^) that I believe salvation is fully and completely a gift from God in all manner and respects, and that a man does not contribute to the achieving of it by accepting it, which is called faith and which is what Paul was hoping his hearers would decide. Would you have been convinced?
Paul went "every Sabbath to the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks" (ACTS 18:4)! "He witnessed to them from morning till evening, explaining about the kingdom of God, and from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets he tried to persuade them about Jesus." (ACTS 28:23b) "Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe. (ACTS 28:24) They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul made this final statement: The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your ancestors when he said through Isaiah the prophet, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving, for this people's heart has become calloused." (ACTS 28:25-27a)
Except to say again (ad nauseum? :^) that I believe salvation is fully and completely a gift from God in all manner and respects, and that a man does not contribute to the achieving of it by accepting it, which is called faith and which is what Paul was hoping his hearers would decide. Would you have been convinced?
Re eternal life: Yes, although not as fully understood as in the NT--like several other doctrines.
Re the difference: choice refers to options, such as the options mentioned in DT 30:19, and free will refers to the ability to choose either one of those options. In NT terms, the choice begins with seeking God/salvation or not, (MT 7:7), and free will refers to faith or opting to seek and accept God's offer of grace when found--which is why we can say that atheists have faith in no God or I-dolatry when they reject God's Gospel and thus are justly condemned.
Re the difference: choice refers to options, such as the options mentioned in DT 30:19, and free will refers to the ability to choose either one of those options. In NT terms, the choice begins with seeking God/salvation or not, (MT 7:7), and free will refers to faith or opting to seek and accept God's offer of grace when found--which is why we can say that atheists have faith in no God or I-dolatry when they reject God's Gospel and thus are justly condemned.
Mat 23:37
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
Does it get any plainer than this?
Here, Jesus contrasted what had long been his will with the will of the people who had rejected, and still were rejecting, his will for their lives. In other words, Jesus had long been seeking to gather the Jews unto himself, and they had long refused to be truly gathered unto him. Prior to his incarnation, he repeatedly strove with them via his prophets who had the Spirit of Christ in them (1 Peter 1:11), and he was here still striving with them, but now in person. To deny this truth is to deny many hundreds of years of biblical history, yet many people on this thread are perfectly willing to do the same.
Stephen, before he was stoned to death, gave the same account of many hundreds of years of Jewish history.
Act 7:51
Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
Act 7:52
Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:
Act 7:53
Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
As their forefathers before them had done, the Jews of Jesus' and Stephen's day were always resisting the Holy Ghost.
What do the Calvinists draw from this?
GOD'S GRACE IS IRRESISTIBLE!
Methinks that they need a lot of help.
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
Does it get any plainer than this?
Here, Jesus contrasted what had long been his will with the will of the people who had rejected, and still were rejecting, his will for their lives. In other words, Jesus had long been seeking to gather the Jews unto himself, and they had long refused to be truly gathered unto him. Prior to his incarnation, he repeatedly strove with them via his prophets who had the Spirit of Christ in them (1 Peter 1:11), and he was here still striving with them, but now in person. To deny this truth is to deny many hundreds of years of biblical history, yet many people on this thread are perfectly willing to do the same.
Stephen, before he was stoned to death, gave the same account of many hundreds of years of Jewish history.
Act 7:51
Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
Act 7:52
Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:
Act 7:53
Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
As their forefathers before them had done, the Jews of Jesus' and Stephen's day were always resisting the Holy Ghost.
What do the Calvinists draw from this?
GOD'S GRACE IS IRRESISTIBLE! Methinks that they need a lot of help.
That is exactly my point too.
They use scripture that apply to believers >>>> those who have stepped out in faith and trusted God as though it supports God it supports their personal selection.
Or they use scriptures that are NOT about how one receives eternal life to prove how they were selected.
Amen!
We need to keep this message front and center lest the Gospel of Christ Jesus be lost.
I think it is a serious issue to deny the power of the Gospel and the need for personal belief.
You list scripture after scripture which make it very clear, unlike the 1 Cor 2:14 which must be understood with audience relevance in mind and the full context of the letter.
They use scripture that apply to believers >>>> those who have stepped out in faith and trusted God as though it supports God it supports their personal selection.
Or they use scriptures that are NOT about how one receives eternal life to prove how they were selected.
Amen!
We need to keep this message front and center lest the Gospel of Christ Jesus be lost.
I think it is a serious issue to deny the power of the Gospel and the need for personal belief.
You list scripture after scripture which make it very clear, unlike the 1 Cor 2:14 which must be understood with audience relevance in mind and the full context of the letter.
-
2
- Show all