Understanding God’s election

[PaulThomson]

Yes, yes, I know you're not a big fan of the Book of Job. But just because Job's three buddies didn't understand that God doesn't operate on the Law of Retribution principle, and just because Job also subscribed to that error which, in turn led him to wax self-righteous, doesn't give you license to scrap the entire book of Job from the canon of scripture because there are too many inconvenient truths in the book that you despise. Just because Job and his three buddies were wrong in one specific area of theology doesn't mean they didn't understand any spiritual truth!

I love the book of Job. Why are you resoprting to ad hominem attacks. Inspired Elihu and God got it right in the book corracting the useful foil of he errors of Job and his three friends. I don't scrap the entire book of Job from the cannon of scripture.

 

[Mem]

And how did that promise Israel made work out historically for Israel? Were they covenant keepers or covenant breakers?

And you do realize that the Mosaic Law Covenant was in fact a conditional, bilateral covenant, right? But what kind of covenant is the New Covenant?

I won't wonder if it's too much of a stretch to assume that it is your assertion is that the New Covenant isn't at all conditional, that is, going by the "U" in TULIP. And so, to adopt your assertion as truth, then I'd have to assume that salvation coming by grace through faith isn't a condition, even though it certainly looks exactly like at least one if not two conditions. But I can't seem to stretch reason that far, not just yet anyway. And I don't know how to get past that.

 

[PaulThomson]

But neither did you explicitly state it in Abel's case, Mr. Duplicitous. If Abel NEEDED God's grace in order to trust in Him -- just like those first century believers in Acts 18 did -- then how can that grace not be efficacious? I know you want to argue that God's saving grace is nothing more than a mere opportunity for smart, savvy, capable, deep-thinking, God-loving, God-fearing sinners to capitalize on it but Paul didn't say that in chapter 18. He said they actually believed BY his grace. Not by their freewill. Not by their free choice. Not by their own decision. But by God's grace. Here's a novel idea for you: Just as helpless sinners are saved by God's grace (Eph 2:8-9), so too powerless sinners believe by that same grace!

God's forbearance is grace. God's illumination of man's imperfect spirit with truth is by God's grace. The faculty of faith we are born with, with which we trust God, along with all our God-given faculties, are by God's grace. Our life and consciousness are by God's grace. The strength to do anything is by God's grace. We need God's grace to survive and to do anything at all. None of the things God gives us by grace are we irresistibly forced to continue receiving.

Not everything we do by God's grace is willed by Him.

 

[Rufus]

I love the book of Job. Why are you resoprting to ad hominem attacks. Inspired Elihu and God got it right in the book corracting the useful foil of he errors of Job and his three friends. I don't scrap the entire book of Job from the cannon of scripture.

And the rest of the speakers weren't inspired!? So, how much of the book do you scrap: 20%, 40%, 60%, what?

And you are totally unaware of your FALLACY re Job and his three friends. I'm alluding the Fallacy of Composition! You're assuming that [virtually] the whole of the book is corrupt with error because because Job and his 3 friends spoke in error with respect to one part of their theology; therefore, you think NOTHING these four have said can be true. Go back and read how utterly dismissive you were of passages that were spoken by one of these four.

Furthermore, this theological error of the Law of Retribution was very common among believers in the ANE. Even the disciples in Jesus' day bought into it (Jn 9:1-3)! Going by your logic, therefore, with the Book of Job, all of Christ's disciples also lost their credibility because they, too, subscribed to this error. Do you trash all of John's writings and Peter's as well?

 

[Rufus]

God's forbearance is grace. God's illumination of man's imperfect spirit with truth is by God's grace. The faculty of faith we are born with, with which we trust God, along with all our God-given faculties, are by God's grace. Our life and consciousness are by God's grace. The strength to do anything is by God's grace. We need God's grace to survive and to do anything at all. None of the things God gives us by grace are we irresistibly forced to continue receiving.

Not everything we do by God's grace is willed by Him.

There's no such thing as "the faculty of faith we are born with". Man's faculties are the same as the Creator's: Mind, Affections, Conscience and Will. Period.

Moreover, the biblical definition of Grace is divine favor which God by his power bestows upon undeserving, unworthy sinners.

Also, you're conflating common grace with saving grace. Everyone in this world has tasted of the former, but only a "few" have experienced the latter.

 

[Rufus]

I won't wonder if it's too much of a stretch to assume that it is your assertion is that the New Covenant isn't at all conditional, that is, going by the "U" in TULIP. And so, to adopt your assertion as truth, then I'd have to assume that salvation coming by grace through faith isn't a condition, even though it certainly looks exactly like at least one if not two conditions. But I can't seem to stretch reason that far, not just yet anyway. And I don't know how to get past that.

Spend some time in Jer 31-32 and Ezek 36-37. All the New Covenant promises therein are unilateral in nature, which is very much unlike the Old Covenant which was bilateral in nature.

 

[PaulThomson]

But neither did you explicitly state it in Abel's case, Mr. Duplicitous. If Abel NEEDED God's grace in order to trust in Him -- just like those first century believers in Acts 18 did -- then how can that grace not be efficacious? I know you want to argue that God's saving grace is nothing more than a mere opportunity for smart, savvy, capable, deep-thinking, God-loving, God-fearing sinners to capitalize on it but Paul didn't say that in chapter 18. He said they actually believed BY his grace. Not by their freewill. Not by their free choice. Not by their own decision. But by God's grace. Here's a novel idea for you: Just as helpless sinners are saved by God's grace (Eph 2:8-9), so too powerless sinners believe by that same grace!

You cannot assume that what someone does not state in a particular post, they deny.

 

[Mem]

Spend some time in Jer 31-32 and Ezek 36-37. All the New Covenant promises therein are unilateral in nature, which is very much unlike the Old Covenant which was bilateral in nature.

Again, your summary depends on adopting a TULIP assumption, that I haven't seen adequate reason to as firmly hold to.

I know you want to argue that God's saving grace is nothing more than a mere opportunity for smart, savvy, capable, deep-thinking, God-loving, God-fearing sinners to capitalize on it but Paul didn't say that in chapter 18.

If this an admission of your own personal stupidity, ignorance, incompetent, careless, misotheistic, sinfulness? Or, if now you are smart, savvy, capable, deep-thinking, God-loving, and God-fearing, it's only because God created you, not with only potential but without the will to?

 

[PaulThomson]

There's no such thing as "the faculty of faith we are born with". Man's faculties are the same as the Creator's: Mind, Affections, Conscience and Will. Period.

Moreover, the biblical definition of Grace is divine favor which God by his power bestows upon undeserving, unworthy sinners.

Also, you're conflating common grace with saving grace. Everyone in this world has tasted of the former, but only a "few" have experienced the latter.

If their is no faculty of faith innate in humans, how can humans believe anything at all before being saved.

What? Do you think that God does not have faith?

You say "the biblical definition of grace is divine favor which God by his power bestows upon undeserving, unworthy sinners.
Can you please show me where that definition is in scripture? I suspect it is a definition that comes from on eof you favourite systematic theology tomes.

The Bible never mentions different types of grace (common grace vs. saving grace). That is a post hoc dividing of God's word to invent evidence for doctrines not actually taught in God's word, but which are necessary to seem to validate LOUPI.

 

[PaulThomson]

And the rest of the speakers weren't inspired!? So, how much of the book do you scrap: 20%, 40%, 60%, what?

And you are totally unaware of your FALLACY re Job and his three friends. I'm alluding the Fallacy of Composition! You're assuming that [virtually] the whole of the book is corrupt with error because because Job and his 3 friends spoke in error with respect to one part of their theology; therefore, you think NOTHING these four have said can be true. Go back and read how utterly dismissive you were of passages that were spoken by one of these four.

The book of Job is an inspired true account of what was done and said. All of it. But you are assuming that because something is in the Bible, it must be true, even the lies reported in the Bible must be true.

I have not said that everything that Job and his friends said MUST BE ERRONEOUS because God Himself rebuked them all for what they said.. I am saying that you are on weak ground when you take the words of men whose words God rejected, and use them as evidence for your own opinions.

Job got something right - after God had instructed and corrected Him - so not all of what Job said in Job was foolish.

42 Then Job answered the Lord, and said,

2 I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.

3 Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.

4 Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.

5 I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.

6 Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.

7 And it was so, that after the Lord had spoken these words unto Job, the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.

Maybe you should go back and read how totally dismissive God was of Job''s and His friends arguments.

Furthermore, this theological error of the Law of Retribution was very common among believers in the ANE. Even the disciples in Jesus' day bought into it (Jn 9:1-3)! Going by your logic, therefore, with the Book of Job, all of Christ's disciples also lost their credibility because they, too, subscribed to this error. Do you trash all of John's writings and Peter's as well?

The book of Job is an inspired true account of what was done and said. All of it. I don't trash the book of job, or any other book in the Bible. Your problem is that you equate your interpretation of scripture with scripture, and so any rejection of what you are claiming scripture says, you see as trashing scripture. No. I'm just rejecting your understanding of scripture. And I am giving very good reasons for doing so. You don't engage with those reasons. You simply throw more scriptures into the blender that you think agree with you, and you expect those to overpower the very good arguments against your previous canon fodder.