Understanding God’s election

[Inquisitor]

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.

Well, that was the winning post.

God's favorite nation Israel was elect, chosen, selected from all the nations.

They are the example set for or all of us and we learn that God's grace can be resisted.

The conclusion is even when you become one of the elect, do not resist the Holy Spirit.

Calvin clearly blundered on that tulip point, that is, 'Irresistible grace'.

 

[Kroogz]

I also think there is an emotional/fleshy appeal of Calvinism along with some narcissistic elements.

My old church, the majority who were very vocal and in your face about reformed theology were..........The smartest guy in the room.
1 Cor 22-24
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

The Lord Jesus Christ lived, worked and died for ALL sin and for each and every person who has ever lived. And He asks each and every person to trust in Him and His work/life for their salvation.

Foolishness to those who are perishing.

 

[Cameron143]

I don't even know what your other questions were. Wait...the difference between election and selection? What do you think the difference is? I need to shave and shower...

Hit me up when you have time. I'll reask the questions.

 

[Genez]

Contrarily, NO good father would give his little girl to ANY groom without her consent, nor would any good father do so without a good faith genuine offer of marriage, or without a loving and sincere wooing of her.

We are created in His image.

TULIP dehumanizes God's purpose in having our thinking and feelings towards others handcuffed.

What they can not understand?

And, many of us who do not agree with TULIP?

Is how was it possible for God to create our souls? Without knowing how we would choose!

Even that is explained in Scripture...

Believe it or not.

How God was able to create us without interfering with man's volition, is buried treasure in Scripture.
It has to be dug out.

grace and peace ..............

 

[Inquisitor]

Calvinists don't say that. They merely say the source of the willingness comes from outside of the individual and is not sourced within themselves.

Calvin does not simply say that.

Calvin says they are elect from eternity.

Calvin says they are saved before the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The source being God's gift of salvation and salvation is a gift given to those that believe.

The source is always external but the response is not external.

The response is required, one must believe in Jesus, one must trust Jesus.

Then the gift of the Holy Spirit is granted and only then are they sealed, saved.

 

[Genez]

mstektytyat

This might help you...

 

[wolfwint]

This might help you...

Thats a very low dose.

 

[HeIsHere]

Calvin does not simply say that.

Calvin says they are elect from eternity.

Calvin says they are saved before the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The source being God's gift of salvation and salvation is a gift given to those that believe.

The source is always external but the response is not external.

The response is required, one must believe in Jesus, one must trust Jesus.

Then the gift of the Holy Spirit is granted and only then are they sealed, saved.

Oh well, I am not a Calvinist, some will say.

 

[HeIsHere]

God's favorite nation Israel was elect, chosen, selected from all the nations.

They were chosen to fulfill a role, a purpose correct?

 

[Cameron143]

Calvin does not simply say that.

Calvin says they are elect from eternity.

Calvin says they are saved before the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The source being God's gift of salvation and salvation is a gift given to those that believe.

The source is always external but the response is not external.

The response is required, one must believe in Jesus, one must trust Jesus.

Then the gift of the Holy Spirit is granted and only then are they sealed, saved.

Got some questions:
What is the difference between selection and election?
Would Isaac have been born if God doesn't intervene? Anything being taught in this?
After forming the nation of Israel, God brings salvation almost exclusively to this nation, to the exclusion of almost all other nations. Any problem with this?

 

[wolfwint]

Calvin does not simply say that.

Calvin says they are elect from eternity.

Calvin says they are saved before the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The source being God's gift of salvation and salvation is a gift given to those that believe.

The source is always external but the response is not external.

The response is required, one must believe in Jesus, one must trust Jesus.

Then the gift of the Holy Spirit is granted and only then are they sealed, saved.

Our bible school teacher explained it in this way. A believer hears the gospel and the Lord open his heart and the believer see his sin and turns to Christ. When he then enter the heaven he is going through a gate. When he went through and is looking back, on the top of the gate is sees written: electet before the earth was foundet.

 

[Magenta]

Lol. Your opening run-on sentence gave the Apostle Paul a run for his money.

Even at that I'm sure left something out... Like a bad tree not being able to bear good fruit. And, there's more!!! LOL

I asked you earlier (I know that you are busy at work, so I am not accusing you of avoiding my question) if people can vote (make choices) in a sovereignty? Well, can they?

Yes I will have to come back to some of these questions later because your post is a bit long I know mine was too it took me a while to compose it and I do have work to do here... I do believe that people make choices even in or under a sovereignty ... I mean if you look at any other sovereignty people are under the rule of the law but people broke the law all the time. I am speaking historically of course but even with God he allows us to break the law and people do choose to break the law and I also make a distinction between free will and making choices which is not something I see a lot of other people doing. More often than not they get treated as the same thing when I don't believe they are.

That would depend upon what those personal revelations are. Are they in line with God's word or contrary to it?

Well, the context has always been personal revelation as a way of God drawing and bringing people to believe in Him so yes they are in accordance with Scripture, at least the ones to which I refer. I am not saying everybody's revelations are. And I don't think it is unfair of God, who is personal after all, to reveal Himself in ways that are personal, while in the process of drawing people to Himself with loving-kindness that they may come to believe.

 

[GWH]

I'm not asking about faith. I am looking for a generic definition of freewill that we can agree upon.

The Biblical definition of free will is essentially synonymous with faith, which is why I say that the way a person chooses the life/blessing option in terms of DT 30:19 is by having faith like Abraham per Paul in Romans, and that a person chooses death/cursing by faith in the opposite. I have no better definition of free will/faith than that, so it is your turn to share your definition.

 

[keepingthingsreal]

You're hilarious!!!

Shhhhhh. Let's keep that as our little secret, okay?

 

[keepingthingsreal]

Well, the context has always been personal revelation as a way of God drawing and bringing people to believe in Him so yes they are in accordance with Scripture, at least the ones to which I refer. I am not saying everybody's revelations are. And I don't think it is unfair of God, who is personal after all, to reveal Himself in ways that are personal, while in the process of drawing people to Himself with loving-kindness that they may come to believe.

In the manner in which you are describing, I have heard the testimonies of people who said they came to faith in Christ that way. One of them, I knew personally, and, last I heard, he is now a pastor.

 

[Cameron143]

The Biblical definition of free will is essentially synonymous with faith, which is why I say that the way a person chooses the life/blessing option in terms of DT 30:19 is by having faith like Abraham per Paul in Romans, and that a person chooses death/cursing by faith in the opposite. I have no better definition of free will/faith than that, so it is your turn to share your definition.

Did Adam have freewill before sin? Then how can you say freewill must be tied to faith?

 

[Kroogz]

You misrepresented me and my beliefs. So many have presented such mangled versions of what I believe it's ridiculous. Absolute falsehoods again and again. But according to them they understand what I believe. They don't even bother to ask. They just present lie after lie after lie.

I went deeper into reformed theology than you have? I went all the way down the rabbit hole.

I tried to sugar coat my belief of "saved THEN belief" Or how election and predestination was about salvation. I tried to reason every part of my TULIP. And all of you folks are using the very same "sugar coating" I used to try to explain my contradictions.

 

[keepingthingsreal]

Also, without God's intervention, would Isaac have ever been born? Any significance to this?

I could literally write a book about Isaac, so I will withhold from answering this question until you tell me what you think the significance might be. That way, I will know what to specifically address.

 

[HeIsHere]

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

It all hinges on the idea man cannot believe and the Gospel message is not sufficient because he is blind, a sinner, has a heart of stone, is born evil and the Gospel is foolishness unless god provides the ability to believe.

 

[keepingthingsreal]

It all hinges on the idea man cannot believe and the Gospel message is not sufficient because he is blind, a sinner, has a heart of stone, is born evil and the Gospel is foolishness unless god provides the ability to believe.

I get that, but I honestly believe, as I assume that you do too, that the verses which they use to make this argument are all taken out of context.