How do you believe someone is of the elect

[Mem]

Jesus says He never knew them. The context I have been told heavily suggests intimate relationship. Not one of physical intimacy.
So God knowing some and not others in foreknowledge has to do with salvation, because those He never knew He calls evil doers.

In the Hebrew, there is a connection between evil and doubt, as exampled in the meaning name Amalech. Those he addresses by these words are those that claimed to have been doing works in His Name all along, but it seems obvious to me that they must not have been doing anything of the sort.

You are suggesting His omniscience means He does not know everything is a possibility. Makes no sense.

And I have no idea how you've come to that conclusion.

 

[Trulyfree]

predestined to be conformed to His image, i.e. to be one with Him, those He foreknew to love him, per v.28 , "And we know God works all things together for who love Him, who are called according to His purpose (which is to become one with Him).

This helps me answer the OP's question. You can tell that a person is elect if that person loves Him, even if they have yet to 'believe' in Him (i.e. they might hold a skeptical 'too good to be true' attitude toward him, initially, but, because of that love, or the love of the reputation that follows His person, keep searching Him out, and we know that scripture tells us that He is a rewarder of those that diligently seek Him...and ultimately find, indeed, to their delight, that He first loved them).

I don’t really see this played out in the life of Saul of Tarsus… “Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest.” Acts 9:1 NKJV

 

[Magenta]

In the Hebrew, there is a connection between evil and doubt, as exampled in the meaning name Amalech. Those he addresses by these words are those that claimed to have been doing works in His Name all along, but it seems obvious to me that they must not have been doing anything of the sort.

And I have no idea how you've come to that conclusion.

The connection between evil and doubt is made ever more clear in Scripture where it says, anything not of faith is sin, as Paul tells us in Romans 14 verse 23. Yes I was still stuck on your idea that God doesn't know us until we love, and I'm assuming you mean until we love Him, which really doesn't make any sense to me given we are told He loved us first. He draws us with loving-kindness... Which is intended to lead us to repentance.

 

[Mem]

The connection between evil and doubt is made ever more clear in Scripture where it says, anything not of faith is sin, as Paul tells us in Romans 14 verse 23. Yes I was still stuck on your idea that God doesn't know us until we love, and I'm assuming you mean until we love Him, which really doesn't make any sense to me given we are told He loved us first.

You're representing your idea of my idea, rather than my actual idea, and that is probably why it doesn't make sense to you.

 

[Mem]

I don’t really see this played out in the life of Saul of Tarsus… “Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest.” Acts 9:1 NKJV

Did Saul believe that he was doing this in service to the Lord?

 

[Magenta]

You're representing your idea of my idea, rather than my actual idea, and that is probably why it doesn't make sense to you.

It doesn't make sense to me because it's not Scriptural. What is Scriptural is that we love because God loved us first and He draws us with loving-kindnesss and He does that to lead us to repentance ... your idea that He doesn't know us until we love? Where is this represented in Scripture?

 

[Mem]

It doesn't make sense to me because it's not Scriptural.

Okay

 

[Magenta]

Okay

Not really. But you think you can put forth unscriptural ideas and not defend them and pretend it's the truth even against all the Scriptures that oppose what you're presenting.

 

[Mem]

Not really. But you think you can put forth unscriptural ideas and not defend them and pretend it's the truth even against all the scriptures that oppose what you're presenting.

This is a good example of the appropriateness of saying, "I never knew you," even though someone thinks that they know you.

 

[Magenta]

This is a good example of the appropriateness of saying, "I never knew you," even though someone thinks that they know you.

If you think I think I know you you are wrong. Likewise I know you do not know me... and you have certainly shown that you are clueless when it comes to what I believe, though you think you understand that as well.

 

[Mem]

If you think I think I know you you are wrong. Likewise I know you do not know me... and you have certainly shown that you are clueless when it comes to what I believe, though you think you understand that as well.

You claim both that you don't know what I think while claiming you know what I think?

 

[Magenta]

You claim both that you don't know what I think while claiming you know what I think?

Not sure how you got that from what I said. But I do know I have spoken at length on certain things that you pretend are mere assumptions when they are spelled out quite clearly in Scripture... and then when I have asked what you mean, you come back at me with something completely unrelated because once again you cannot defend what you said.

 

[Mem]

Not sure how you got that from what I said. But I do know I have spoken at length on certain things that you pretend are mere assumptions when they are spelled out quite clearly in Scripture... and then when I have asked what you mean, you come back at me with something completely unrelated because once again you cannot defend what you said.

Arguments with you always come to your go to defense, "It's not scriptural" when the reality is that my reading of scripture is not tulipual or whatever inclination you have toward any particular subject. What sort of scriptural discussion is even feasible with you if everyone must adhere to your lean of 'scriptural' interpretation.

 

[Magenta]

Arguments with you always come to your go to defense, "It's not scriptural" when the reality is that my reading of scripture is not tulipual or whatever inclination you have toward any particular subject. What sort of scriptural discussion is even feasible with you if everyone must adhere to your lean of 'scriptural' interpretation.

If you want to talk about Scripture then please provide it. So far you have not. You talk about MY interpretation when
I have given specific Scriptural references, whereas you have not provided any at all to back your assertion.

 

[Mem]

If you want to talk about Scripture then please provide it. So far you have not. You talk about MY interpretation when
I have given specific Scriptural references, whereas you have not provided any at all to back your assertion.

I see, you see fit to allow me any autonomy in thought. What a friend you are!

 

[Magenta]

I see, you see fit to allow me any autonomy in thought. What a friend you are!

You seem unable to do anything but assign Calvinism to me. You have been no friend to me for some time.

In fact you fall onto these false accusations as a means of avoiding giving any Scripture to back your claims.

Somehow this is seen as acceptable to you rather than actually discussing Scripture.

 

[Mem]

You seem unable to do anything but assign Calvinism to me. You have been no friend to me for some time.

Somehow this is seen as acceptable to you rather than actually discussing Scripture.

It's not that I've equated you with the man himself. Why should you take offense in the association if it is of one that you do have an accord in belief with?

 

[Roughsoul1991]

How do you deal with Romans 8:29? It seems to be both.

Romans 8:29 (ESV)
29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

It is the order in the sequence that is important. When I mentioned predestined it was in reference to to TULIP doctrine.

Romans 8:29 mentions those who He foreknew

Take that into the context of other scripture that mentions God wanting all to be saved, He calls everyone unto Himself, and that the invitation is open to everyone who believes then you understand that election involves those who He foreknew and predestined involves those He foreknew.

Logic provides no other way. Either God wanted all to be saved and was powerless to do so or free will is involved.

 

[Magenta]

It's not that I've equated you with the man himself. Why should you take offense in the associated if it is of one that you do have an accord in belief with?

I give Scripture and you give false impressions. You see nothing wrong with that? You do disappoint. You seem to demand that you have some freedom of thought while trying to corral my own freedom into some detestable acronym that I am not in accord with.

 

[Mem]

I give Scripture and you give false impressions. You see nothing wrong with that? You do disappoint. You seem to demand that you have some freedom of thought while trying to corral my own freedom into some detestable acronym that I am not in accord with.

This is your forte, distorting faces of otherwise beautiful people. Find someone else to bicker with. I have better things to do.