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.
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.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
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.
Not everything we do by God's grace is willed by Him.
-
1
- Show all
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?
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?
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.
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.
-
1
- Show all
Again, your summary depends on adopting a TULIP assumption, that I haven't seen adequate reason to as firmly hold to.
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?
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?
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.
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.
-
1
- Show all
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.
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.
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.
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.
You just contradicted yourself! God doesn't give his grace to anyone unless He wills it! If he didn't actively choose to grant his grace to people, then how can it be said that they do anything by His grace? How did these people access his grace if it weren't for his will?
So, you don't have to receive his grace, right? You can choose to refuse it. Good. Prove it to us by just choosing to quit breathing, since you have said that "our life and consciousness are by God's grace". All you have to do is shut down your auto-reflex breathing apparatus to show us all just how independent you are of His grace.
So, you don't have to receive his grace, right? You can choose to refuse it. Good. Prove it to us by just choosing to quit breathing, since you have said that "our life and consciousness are by God's grace". All you have to do is shut down your auto-reflex breathing apparatus to show us all just how independent you are of His grace.
First of all, how did the "lies" (i.e. the misconceptions Job and his 3 friends had about the Law of Retribution) get into the Book if they weren't inspired? I have long acknowledged that these four were dead wrong on this particular issue! But you have taken the words of any of these four men much further than this particular issue: You have totally dismissed everything they have said simply because because they were wrong on this one issue. And this, sir, is the fallacy of composition. You are assuming that these four had ALL their theology wrong, which is why you cannot accept their take on the human condition.
So, I guess you are very dependent on God's common grace, then. It seems to me you have no mind to quit receiving God's life-giving, life-supporting grace that keeps you alive every second of every day. In fact, it certainly appears that you are living proof of the biblical doctrine of Compatibilism. God has made you willing [to live] in this day of his power; for you, too, want/desire what God's will is for you at the moment. God doesn't force anyone to do anything against their will. All the actors on God's world stage are willing players, playing the roles God has assigned to each of us.
Thanks for playing...
Thanks for playing...
God needs faith!? Really? What is his faith in? Why would all-knowing, all-wise, all-powerful God require faith? Don't you know what the biblical definition of "faith" is?
Heb 11:1
11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
NIV
So...what precisely is God hoping for, and of what is He so certain that he does not or cannot see?
I explained the differences between common and saving grace. Common Grace is generally bestowed upon all mankind.
Matt 5:45
45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
NIV
And,
Heb 1:3a
3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.
NIV
Common Grace, as described above, is apparently efficacious. The text doesn't say that "He gives the sun an opportunity to rise on the evil and the good, or that he gives the rain the opportunity to fall to the earth.
Saving Grace, on the other hand, is given only to God's elect, and is just as efficacious. Eph 2:8 reads For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Paul didn't write the above to the world. He wrote it to one of Christ's churches!
Also, since God is a covenant God, who sovereignly enters into covenant relationships with whom He wills, we should rightly inquire as to where is the Redemptive Covenant in scripture that He made with all men w/o exception? God's unconditional covenant with Abraham does not promise that Abraham would become the [spiritual] father of all men w/o exception. But it does promise that he would become the spiritual father of all NATIONS (i.e. all men w/o distinction).
Therefore, the core difference between Common and Saving Grace is that the former is general and applies to all men in the universal sense, whereas the latter is particular and applies only to God's chosen people (i.e. all men w/o distinction).
Heb 11:1
11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
NIV
So...what precisely is God hoping for, and of what is He so certain that he does not or cannot see?
I explained the differences between common and saving grace. Common Grace is generally bestowed upon all mankind.
Matt 5:45
45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
NIV
And,
Heb 1:3a
3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.
NIV
Common Grace, as described above, is apparently efficacious. The text doesn't say that "He gives the sun an opportunity to rise on the evil and the good, or that he gives the rain the opportunity to fall to the earth.
Saving Grace, on the other hand, is given only to God's elect, and is just as efficacious. Eph 2:8 reads For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Paul didn't write the above to the world. He wrote it to one of Christ's churches!
Also, since God is a covenant God, who sovereignly enters into covenant relationships with whom He wills, we should rightly inquire as to where is the Redemptive Covenant in scripture that He made with all men w/o exception? God's unconditional covenant with Abraham does not promise that Abraham would become the [spiritual] father of all men w/o exception. But it does promise that he would become the spiritual father of all NATIONS (i.e. all men w/o distinction).
Therefore, the core difference between Common and Saving Grace is that the former is general and applies to all men in the universal sense, whereas the latter is particular and applies only to God's chosen people (i.e. all men w/o distinction).
With all due respect, sir, you're the one who is obsessed with the TULIP assumption. I never mentioned TULIP. Rather, I pointed you to four specific chapters to read in the OT. But somehow, you twisted those four chapters to mean an adoption of the assumption of TULIP. Why don't you just read those four chapters and then get back to us with the requirements that need to be fulfilled by mankind.
-
1
- Show all
Now, look who's desperate. You pull a dated posted of mine that was written in an entirely different context than the unilateral conditions of the New Covenant. In my most recent exchanges with Mem that challenged him to read 4 chapters in the OT that pertain to NC promises, I never mentioned TULIP -- or for that matter the Doctrines of Grace.
You remind me of the evil one who dishonestly twisted scripture when he tempted Christ in the wilderness. Likewise, you have pulled an old post of mine out of context to try to discredit my recent exchanges with Mem. The apple Shirley doesn't fall far from its tree, does it?
You remind me of the evil one who dishonestly twisted scripture when he tempted Christ in the wilderness. Likewise, you have pulled an old post of mine out of context to try to discredit my recent exchanges with Mem. The apple Shirley doesn't fall far from its tree, does it?