Understanding God’s election

[keepingthingsreal]

Only 1 side is deliberately misrepresenting.

There is much misunderstanding of others. That's normal. People are at different levels of knowledge, and possess bias. That's not what I'm referring to. I'm talking about those who understand exactly what you are saying and purposefully distort it.

You asked me a question earlier which I was about to answer, and then I got bombarded with text messages on my phone, I got a phone call, and I also got bombarded with notifications from this thread. Anyhow, I forgot what the question was, and I don't really feel like digging to find it. If you know what it was, then please provide me a link to it. Thank you.

P.S.

I think that you asked me to explain something, but it has slipped my mind. I am busy with some other things at the moment, so nobody needs to pray for me to be healed of dementia...lol.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

Thank you again Zeke but I find it very odd that you're not getting that from anyone here because free will... you know, that false doctrine of free will, is at the heart of everything they argue to deny everything Scripture says about the natural man. And there are quite a few here doing it so I'm not sure how you can miss it.

I guess basically anyone who doesn’t agree with you is spreading false doctrine ?

 

[keepingthingsreal]

@Magenta

I just went back through my notifications, and I found your questions. I will answer them momentarily.

 

[Cameron143]

Again, you are missing the IN CHRIST part.

By way of analogy, consider Noah's ark. The wickedness of men was great in those days, and God, in his foreknowledge, was not caught unaware of the same. Instead, he foreknew, from before the foundation of the world, that it would eventually be so. At that time, God's Spirit was not only striving with men, but we also know that Noah was a preacher of righteousness. In other words, God was actively seeking, via his Spirit and the preaching of righteousness, to save everybody. Furthermore, God provided a "chosen" or "elected" means of escape, which he foreknew from before the foundation of the world, or he chose Noah's Ark. In his foreknowledge, he knew who would favorably respond to the promptings of his Spirit and the preaching of righteousness, and he also foreknew who would unfavorably reject the same, but he still genuinely strove with everybody. Those who got on the Ark did so of their own freewill choices, and those who did not board the Ark chose not to of their own freewill choices. With these things in mind, we could rightfully say that God foreknew who was going to be found "in the Ark" before the foundation of the world, and, similarly, God foreknew who was going to be found IN CHRIST before the foundation of the world. This does not mean that God chose who was going to be in either the Ark or Christ, but simply that he foreknew who would be.

I honestly cannot believe that we even have to have such a discussion. Can I tell you, plainly, what this whole discussion reminds me of?

Before I got saved, I spent some time at the racetrack. One night, a man placed a $100 bill on the floor with a hidden invisible wire attached to it. He then stood there for about an hour while sadistically and gleefully watching people bend over hastily to grab the $100 dollar bill, only to have it snatched away from their grasp at the last second. I actually saw one man go for it with such fervor that he did a somersault on his head before crashing his body onto the floor as the $100 bill was snatched away from his outreaching grasp at the last second.

This is Calvin's "god."

He puts the gift of salvation before certain unsaved people via the preaching of the gospel, and then he sadistically and gleefully pulls it away from their grasp because they never really had a chance to lay hold of it. Calvin's "god" is not the God of the Bible, and he is certainly not my "god." I REPUDIATE Calvin's "god" with every fiber of my being.

I'm not a Calvinist, but if that is your view of Calvinism, then you don't rightly understand election. You make it out to be selection. That's why I asked you if you understand the difference between the two. I'm still interested in your explanation.
In the meantime, do you have any problem with the fact that God in OT times almost exclusively made salvation available to Israel?
Also, apart from an act of God, would Isaac have been born? Is God teaching anything in this?

 

[HeIsHere]

And oh brother how the Calvintes assiduously tip-toe around that land mine!
Right @Cameron143 ?
I mean thats ground zero right?

I am not understanding how this cannot be the logical end of the doctrine of God regenerating his chosen before they believed.
Seems like #2 to me is being employed.

It just comes across as double talk...

1) The toy soldier is the NECESSARY determiner of his own fate – but not in such a way that the toy soldier is the NECESSARY determiner of his own fate.”

Or

2) God is the NECESSARY determiner of the toy soldier’s fate **AS-IF** the toy soldier is the NECESSARY determiner of the toy soldier’s fate.

Br.d (anonymous)

 

[Cameron143]

No your argument does not overcome the ultimate logical conclusion of regeneration (God given only to some) that some have been predestined to not be regenerated by God's sovereign choice.

God not acting is different from God decreeing and acting. Show me from scripture what you are saying or admit it is simply your opinion.

 

[keepingthingsreal]

You call it wooing, I call it God drawing us with loving kindness.

To me, they mean the same thing. At least in the context of how I was using the word wooing.

What about those who believe it is worthy of mocking and scoffing to believe that people have personal experience with God? That God actually keeps His promise to reveal Himself to those who diligently seek Him garners derision from some here. They claim personal revelation is not necessary. Even unfair of God. How do we know God if not personally?

In all honesty, I have only read a very, very tiny amount of the posts here, so I am not aware of who said those things. Do I believe that people can truly have personal experiences with God today? Yes, I most certainly do, and I have had several such experiences myself. In my particular case, those normally, but not always, fell under the category of intense personal correction from God.

 

[Genez]

Do word salads much? What does that even mean...that grace "guarantees freedom to believe"? So God gives the gift of faith to believers after they believe? Also, Jesus said all that the Father gives to him WILL COME to Him! He didn't say that God makes it merely possible for them to come -- but that they will [in fact] come!

All the Father gives to Him will come to Him?

YES!

The Father only gives to the Son those whom the Father was able to draw completion to Himself!
But the Father is invisible and can not be perceived by men in a concrete way. It's a subconscious state of being.
So how does the Father reveal himself to those He knows want Him?

Voilà! His Son! Whom they can see and touch and hear!

To see Jesus is to see the Father in human terms! John 14:9

 

[Pilgrimshope]

Only 1 side is deliberately misrepresenting.

There is much misunderstanding of others. That's normal. People are at different levels of knowledge, and possess bias. That's not what I'm referring to. I'm talking about those who understand exactly what you are saying and purposefully distort it.

“Only 1 side is deliberately misrepresenting.”

i bet you would say it’s the other side , and they might say it’s your side doing it which …I think they have lol made that claim about your side at this point . Who’s the qualified judge among your two factions ?

seems like if we constantly argue and claim others are false we’re just not going to ever have a benefit of discussion . In this zone of scripture warfare . Maybe about fishing I have some stories lol but we could never benefit from discussing the Bible like that in such a way lol

“There is much misunderstanding of others. That's normal. People are at different levels of knowledge, and possess bias. That's not what I'm referring to. “

Yes I agree I think this is the majority of the issue and then when we don’t understand we add thoughts to respond to what we misunderstood…..because we didn’t get it correctly as “exactly what they meant by it “ and then the scripture fight is on haha there’s just …..no way man . Charlie is too many

someone launches a “ saved by grace “ verse to open , but thier opponent calls upon a repentance verse . Then someone else tosses a Granade of verses laced with a slight insult of some type .

oh but they didn’t realize the other guy had a hypersonic at the ready and he unloads all his verses again and it’s pretty damaging when it hits but oops , it was a nuclear power he just hit and he’s gonna retaliate with the “ big one “

As if these verses oppose each other or the message os convoluted and contrary to itself or something and not plain and clear

awe interpret rather than listen and believe what’s already there

 

[Cameron143]

You asked me a question earlier which I was about to answer, and then I got bombarded with text messages on my phone, I got a phone call, and I also got bombarded with notifications from this thread. Anyhow, I forgot what the question was, and I don't really feel like digging to find it. If you know what it was, then please provide me a link to it. Thank you.

P.S.

I think that you asked me to explain something, but it has slipped my mind. I am busy with some other things at the moment, so nobody needs to pray for me to be healed of dementia...lol.

The post you quoted was not referring to you. We have different views, but you haven't misunderstood or misrepresented my positions.
And people get busy and posts are missed. Not a big deal.

 

[keepingthingsreal]

In the meantime, do you have any problem with the fact that God in OT times almost exclusively made salvation available to Israel?

I don't mean for this sound offensive, but I honestly don't know what OT you are reading. If you go through the genealogies in the OT, then you will discover that the nation of Israel did not appear on the scene until around 2200 years after the time of Adam. Many Gentiles, like Abel, Enoch, Noah, and Abraham were saved prior to that time. With such truly being the case, your alleged "fact" is anything but factual.

 

[keepingthingsreal]

The post you quoted was not referring to you. We have different views, but you haven't misunderstood or misrepresented my positions.
And people get busy and posts are missed. Not a big deal.

I know that the post wasn't referring to me. I just used it to ask you my question. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[HeIsHere]

God not acting is different from God decreeing and acting. Show me from scripture what you are saying or admit it is simply your opinion.

My point is God acting and not acting gives the same result, His limited positive action for some is a negative action for others who do not receive the benefit of the same positive action.

Yeah that is right!

And I pretty sure I never used the word decreeing.

 

[cv5]

All the Father gives to Him will come to Him?

YES!

The Father only gives to the Son those whom the Father was able to draw completion to Himself!
But the Father is invisible and can not be perceived by men in a concrete way. It's a subconscious state of being.
So how does the Father reveal himself to those He knows want Him?

Voilà! His Son! Whom they can see and touch and hear!

To see Jesus is to see the Father in human terms! John 14:9

The Father gives the Son the Bride.....who WILLINGLY said YES to the marriage proposal.
You know.....just like any father gives his little girl to the groom who he approves of and who wooed her successfully.

So simple so easy so attainable.

However the Calvinites are quite expert at making the patently simple absurdly complicated and patently impossible.
No happy marriages or happy endings allowed by the doomer Calvinite home-wreckers!

 

[Cameron143]

“Only 1 side is deliberately misrepresenting.”

i bet you would say it’s the other side , and they might say it’s your side doing it which …I think they have lol made that claim about your side at this point . Who’s the qualified judge among your two factions ?

seems like if we constantly argue and claim others are false we’re just not going to ever have a benefit of discussion . In this zone of scripture warfare . Maybe about fishing I have some stories lol but we could never benefit from discussing the Bible like that in such a way lol

“There is much misunderstanding of others. That's normal. People are at different levels of knowledge, and possess bias. That's not what I'm referring to. “

Yes I agree I think this is the majority of the issue and then when we don’t understand we add thoughts to respond to what we misunderstood…..because we didn’t get it correctly as “exactly what they meant by it “ and then the scripture fight is on haha there’s just …..no way man . Charlie is too many

someone launches a “ saved by grace “ verse to open , but thier opponent calls upon a repentance verse . Then someone else tosses a Granade of verses laced with a slight insult of some type .

oh but they didn’t realize the other guy had a hypersonic at the ready and he unloads all his verses again and it’s pretty damaging when it hits but oops , it was a nuclear power he just hit and he’s gonna retaliate with the “ big one “

As if these verses oppose each other or the message os convoluted and contrary to itself or something and not plain and clear

awe interpret rather than listen and believe what’s already there

Except...the other side has made no such claim against me. They are free to do so. But I don't misrepresent their positions. I simply state what I disagree with. And that's the difference.

 

[keepingthingsreal]

I'm not a Calvinist, but if that is your view of Calvinism, then you don't rightly understand election. You make it out to be selection. That's why I asked you if you understand the difference between the two. I'm still interested in your explanation.

Unconditional election

Unconditional election is a Calvinist doctrine relating to predestination that describes the actions and motives of God prior to his creation of the world, when he predestined some people to receive salvation, the elect, and the rest he left to continue in their sins and receive the just punishment, eternal damnation, for their transgressions of God's law as outlined in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. Wikipedia

I rightly understand "election" in the biblical sense. If the definition given above truly represents what Calvinists believe in relation to "election", then they are clueless; whether ignorantly or deliberately.

Furthermore, they are clueless in relation to the actual biblical meaning of "predestination."

 

[Pilgrimshope]

Not understanding it? How about not even considering it? I just posted this in "Life-Bits" a couple of days ago.

View attachment 271316

“And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.”
‭‭2 Timothy‬ ‭2:24-26‬ ‭KJV‬‬

we can never forget the situation and goal of the gospel being shared (on either side of a debate )with others all others we can’t choose for anyone else but can show the choice Jesus offered us all in the gospel

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, Because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; He hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, And recovering of sight to the blind, To set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭4:18-19‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

while it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation. For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.

But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness? And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭3:14-19‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Some believed and entered into rest with thier fathers before them even then but others believed not and were destroyed the gospel is meant for salvation and not condemnation of any bit calling to repentance of all

 

[Pilgrimshope]

Except...the other side has made no such claim against me. They are free to do so. But I don't misrepresent their positions. I simply state what I disagree with. And that's the difference.

Yeah you’re pretty good to discuss with brother I agree with that part always a good spirit and intent is evident

 

[keepingthingsreal]

Some believed and entered into rest with thier fathers before them even then but others believed not and were destroyed

Exactly. It really is that simple.

 

[Genez]

Is this about salvation? If it is, then you are advocating keeping the law to obtain salvation.

The Law was given for the saved to live by.
It was also given to teach all that they are sinners by defining sins.
That is why the Law ultimately demanded atonement.

The Law was not given to get men saved by following it.

You were either a good believer (followed the Law). Blessed Jews in the Land.
Or, you were a bad believer (rebelled against the Law). Disciplined and judged by disasters of war, famine, etc.

The unbelievers in the land who did follow, followed the Law by means of peer pressure and conformity. (like many Catholics do)