Hermeneutics: Interpreting Scripture

Maybe being chosen is not ultimately in dispute, but the whole concept of when and by what factor(s) is most certainly in dispute.

What is your concept of election?

Please define "harmonize" or point me to where you've already done so.

Deut4:49?

I don't know if I see you harmonizing. You seem to be asserting what you see as a Biblical view without really explaining it or by inserting things from Scriptures not referenced. IMO, you need to explain what you derive from the referenced verses so your reasoning in your harmonization is clear as to how it's derived.

Some of the same comments as above.

How have you harmonized John15:16 by negating its applicability?

You just seem to be putting forth an opinion of Rom9:11 & 16.

Again, please define "harmonize" or point me to where you've already done so.

And please explain your view of election as simply as you can.

Okay. My definition of the verb elect is to choose or select, and thus of the noun the corresponding forms: chosen or selected.

My definition of harmonize is my hermeneutic, which is explained on our website as follows:

Another important elements in this Bible-based hermeneutic is that everyone lives by fallible faith/belief/opinion and sufficient knowledge of evidence rather than by absolute certainty or proof or coercion (2Cor. 5:7), so humility is needed. A logical train of thought leads an unbiased truthseeker to have a propensity to believe in an all-loving God, who is not tricky and does not hide the way to heaven (Heb. 11:6, Acts 13:10). Humanity’s understanding of God evolved or progressed through the millenniums, so that the OT was superseded by the NT, which is the apex of divine revelation (Heb. 7:18, 8:13, 9:15).

This hermeneutic seeks to harmonize disparate Scriptures as taught by Paul (in 1Thes. 5:21), exemplified by Jesus (in Matt. 4:6-7) and illustrated by the transparent overlays of bodily systems found in some books on anatomy. Considering both sides of an issue or doctrine is called dialectical theology. An interpreter should want to include all true assertions in the picture of reality without making a “Procrustean Body” by cutting off or ignoring parts that do not seem to fit, because the correct understanding must be self-consistent or else God would be tricky. The whole truth combines true parts without sawing!

The Bible says God’s Spirit is love and truth (1JN 4:8 & 5:6), which means all love (agape, RM 6:5-8) in all people is God’s operation, and all truth in all cultures is God’s revelation. Thus, becoming a Christian theist does not mean rejecting what is good and true in one’s pre-Christian experience or culture. When considering two different understandings (thesis A versus antithesis B), the truth may not be either one or the other but rather the proper harmonization of the two. (Both A and B = synthesis C.)

The Bible teaches (GN 1:3, JN 1:1-3) that both the world and inspired words are expressions of God’s Word/Logos, and thus scientific and spiritual truths must be compatible or else God would be tricky. So, while belief that God is love and Jesus is Lord is based upon the biblical revelation, some knowledge also is gleaned from the natural sciences and common sense. While this interpretation of reality is influenced by the Bible, it also utilizes God-given logical thinking where the Bible seems silent, hoping to be guided by the Spirit of Truth (JN 14:17).

Logic is the way every sane soul has access to the supreme Mind or Logos (1CR 2:11-16). Right reasoning is the glue that binds all individual truths together in one faith. Logic provides the rationale for believing that the history of humanity is not a farce, and it sustains the hope of experiencing love and joy in a future heavenly existence. The beauty of this hermeneutic is the harmonization of whatever is good and true. However, I realize that—just as frequently happens when a person shares favorite musical or scenic beauty with someone else—it may not move your soul like mine (MT 11:16-17).

Regarding your other questions:

The first step in harmonizing Scripture is to discern which parts of GW are related to the topic being considered.
I agreed with your observation that John15:16 was not applicable to the topic of election unto salvation.

We all opine about Rom. 9:11 & 16 or anything else.

IMO, I have done harmonized MT 7:7 with RM 3:11 and DT 30:19 with RM 9:11 & 16, as well as the four couplets cited in previous posts, but I am open to better ideas.

My view of election was explained in the post that said:

M – God’s requirement for salvation (GRFS) is a Moral one: seek right/truth/love, and His moral option presumes human volition even for sinners, which makes them morally accountable.

F – God enables all morally accountable souls sufficient Freedom to satisfy GRFS—or not, because His grace is not irresistible, which means sinners are justly condemned.

W – Will refers to faith or seeking salvation—or not, and accepting God’s grace is not meritorious.

One of the clearest statements of the Moral option in Scripture is Deut. 30:19b, “I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.” Jesus equated moral right with spiritual truth and acceptance of him as Messiah (John 8:31 & 40-47), and Paul taught that the purpose of moral law and conscience is to lead sinners to faith in the Gospel of Christ (Romans 2:14-15, 3:20, Gal. 3:19 & 24).

Sinners are Free to receive God’s grace or salvation by means of volition or faith, which is the condition but not the cause of salvation. The reason this truth is a stumbling-block for TULIPists is because they have been brain-washed to believe that faith is a meritorious work. Although Jesus said in John 6:29 that “the work of God is to believe in the one he has sent”, there is no reason to think Jesus viewed such faith as meritorious instead of merely indicating that a soul’s faith willingly cooperates with the will of God.

Although sinful souls are described as depraved and unable to save themselves, this does not mean they have no Will and are mere animals who live by instinct or robots who act as programmed and are thus not accountable for moral behavior. The clearest NT Scripture supporting this view is Matthew 23:37, in which Jesus laments that Jerusalem was “not willing” to be saved.

I don't see clearly how or when election takes place in our salvation per your MFW because I don't see you clearly stating it by word.

So, by harmonizing which by definition in this context speaks of agreement or compatibility, you're rejecting verses that do not apply to the topic, then you're trying to find agreement between 2 opposing views or substantiate one view?

Election occurs when sinners satisfy GRFS.
In terms of MFW: when seeking, when grace is accepted, when willing to cooperate with God.

Harmonizing is the hermeneutical method of interpreting Scripture with Scripture in the belief that truth is one.

So, when one believes - chooses to believe - one becomes elect?

Is there an act of God that determines if/when one believes and actually elects or is it in effect on autopilot so to speak?

OK on the harm. herm. - Script. w/ Script. - this probably needs to be explained more often when speaking of harm. and rejecting verses that don't apply. It seems to me the Script w/ Script terminology is better known & recognized. But in the end, it's just going to be the age-old application of Scriptures to Scriptures in proof-texting fashion most have practiced or been fed and it's simple to see that actual analysis of Scripture in context is a weakness here.

Yes, one becomes elect at the moment of accepting Jesus as Messiah and Lord.

God acts/determines that all morally accountable souls/sinners have sufficient volition for deciding whether to have saving faith in God/Christ or to believe demonic lies (e.g., A&E).

Proof-texting is playing ping-pong, when folks are trying to score points.
Harmonizing (SwS) is seeking to learn the whole truth/context.
Most folks settle for ping-pong (e.g., on UGE) because it is more fun,
whereas SBS requires persevering effort and synthetic (both-and) logic--a gift many lack,
which is okay, of course, as long as we all have the love of Christ/spiritual unity.

One becomes elect upon belief being the corporate election concept vs. the individualistic election of Calvinism - have you seen it so identified?

My question about God acting was more of a concept of God accepting one's belief and granting men to His Son vs. the act you speak of which seems more aligned with what part of His Plan is.

The p-p is not always about scoring points but repetitively answering the fool according to his folly. Mockery and sarcasm is part of Scripture but can admittedly be overdone and I don't see much to any love in it. There are times I'm not certain we're even dealing with a sibling.

SwS is the task but many think proof-texting is SwS and cannot interpret Scripture in context. Very few here seem to exhibit this ability and seem to fear being exposed for the inability. Synthetic logic I've often equated with dimensional reasoning. It takes all of this to deal with seeming contradictions.

IMO NT salvation is only individual and corporate distinctions are moot.

Well, I have been accused of not being a sibling, but I am confident about being on the saved side of any line that divisive people draw.

Not sure what dimensional reasoning refers to, but synthetic logic is most famously known as Hegelian synthesis:
thesis a + antithesis b = synthesis c.

Scanning the UGE thread beyond post #59 the next substantive one to analyze IMO is #91, which I have tidied up or prepared for analysis in accordance with our systematic method/hermeneutic as follows:

{{{Election means that God had a plan before He Created this earth to incarnate His Son and become the ultimate Sacrificial Lamb to free all people of all Sin for all time. God does not just elect/choose some to be saved and others not to be saved, but rather we were all elected to be adopted back into God's family through Jesus Christ. That was in His plan.

Ephesians 1:4-6 (Common English Bible)
4 God chose us in Christ to be holy and blameless in God’s presence before the creation of the world.
5 God destined us to be his adopted children through Jesus Christ because of his love. This was according to his goodwill and plan
6 and to honor his glorious grace that he has given to us freely through the Son whom he loves.

God does not show favoritism:

Deuteronomy 10:17: "For the Lord your God is the God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, mighty, and awe-inspiring God, showing no partiality and taking no bribe"
Ephesians 6:9: "There is no favoritism with him"
Romans 2:11: "For there is no favoritism with God"

The Greek word for elect is eklektos, meaning “picked out, chosen; chosen by God; to obtain salvation through Christ”. Christians are called "chosen or elect" of God

I say we have free will to Choose to accept Jesus Christ and what He did on the cross–or refuse Jesus Christ and what he did on the Cross. That is our choice. God elected ALL People to come back into His Family by our receiving Salvation and it is there for us. We are the ones who choose to be in the elected or chosen or not to be.

God wants everyone saved (1 Timothy 2:4), but not all people choose to be saved. The elect are God's saints who have personally chosen to accept His salvation offer. God Knows our hearts and knows whose heart will be receptive to His Gospel, and God allows the people whose hearts are hardened toward Him and His Word to have their way. God does not force people to come to Him. We have free will to choose LIFE or DEATH”.}}}

As you can see, this post is pro-MFW, but I cannot help that, so let us see what can be gleaned from it that will advance our study of the doctrine of election.

Corporate election in essence: Christ is the chosen one (1Pet2:4, et.al.). When we're in Christ according to God's Plan we're one of the chosen. The Plan is corporate and includes individuals. The UGE91 post you're dealing with here references Eph1:4 that is often used to try to make this point: God chose us in Christ or in Christ (corporate) God chose us (corporately) to be...vs. God chose us (individually) [to be] in Christ.

The problem for me is that I'm not certain it's one or the other but both which is why I asked you if you think there's a point where God chooses a person to be in Christ and in Christ the person is one of the chosen. And I'm not speaking of the TULIP concept.

UGE91 seems to be discussing a concept of this corporate Salvation/Election Plan. I can see what it's saying but it's the usual argument of no partiality. Even here we encounter some necessary reasoning because God is not partial to faces when He applies His standards but is partial to His standards and is obviously partial to belief vs. unbelie.

Pretty much agrees with what I said.

Honestly, at the end of all of this, or at least at this point, I'm not seeing a sufficient anything that moves the study forward. I'm going to watch you again and respond to what I see in UGE91 and what you do with it.

I typically prefer both-and logic, so I think both that God initiates and that souls cooperate--or not.

I understand that moving the study forward is a challenge, but I do appreciate you double-checking my attempts.
I do not intend to peruse all 700+ pages of the UGE thread, so if you utilize your search skills to find a mother lode,
please let me know.

Looking at #91, I note it affirms the MFWist interpretation of Eph. 1:4-6f. to mean that God's plan to save/elect those who exercised MFW to accept Christ is what was predestined, NOT that God chooses some to be saved and others not to be saved, because "God does not show favoritism". (Eph. 6:9, Rom. 2:11) I think this verse may be the Achilles heel of Mr. TULIP.

I also note that #91 cites my favorite verse regarding this issue, "God wants everyone saved" (1 Timothy 2:4), which is a major stumbling-block for the flower folks.

Finally, #91 notes that God's grace allows the people whose hearts are hardened toward Him and His Word to have their way. God does not force people to come to Him. We have free will to choose LIFE or DEATH--a third key Scripture (Deut. 30:19, cf. Matt. 13:14-15).

Now let us see if we can find a substantive pro-TULIP post (citing GW rather than a mere rant) to help move our study forward.

I found a substantive pro-TULIP post on UGE at #132, which I have prepared for analysis as follows:

1. You are correct, God does know that, and by that He also knows that no one of themselves will/can be receptive to His word. He knows the heart of natural man is deceitful above all things.
[Jer 17:9 KJV] 9 The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it?

2. He knows that natural man, being natural man, is unrighteous; that they have no spiritual understanding; that none can seek after Him
[Rom 3:10-12 KJV] 10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

3. He knows that He alone must give them a new heart, new spirit and a renewed mind, which only comes from salvation. Until and unless saved, they will never come to true spiritual wisdom.
[Eze 36:26 KJV] 26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
[Rom 12:2 KJV] 2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

4. He knows that natural man is spiritually dead in sin and being spiritually dead, incapable of doing anything to give themselves spiritual life - that He must first forgive their sins, and from that, they obtain spiritual life; from spiritual life, comes spiritual understanding, not the reverse.
[Eph 2:1 KJV] 1 And you [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins;
[Col 2:13 KJV] 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

5. He knows that by the wisdom of natural man, that natural man can never find wisdom.
[1Co 2:13-14 KJV] 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

6. He knows that natural man cannot even understand the tenets of salvation until their sins have first been forgiven them [Luk 1:77 KJV] 77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,

7. He knows that we are all completely dependent upon His grace and mercy for salvation - which mercy and grace He does not impart to everyone - we can contribute nothing to the receiving of it but to be its recipients: it cannot be purchased, nor deserved, nor taken by force, nor by works - it is completely and in its fullness a gift from Him alone in all ways, given only to those whom He has chosen for it, it being out of the reach or power of man. Should we have to make any contribution at all for it, then we would be co-saviors with Christ, but Christ alone is the Savior.
Instead, we are first saved, and from/by that, given the attributes of salvation which follow it - those of a Christian - such as true faith - which come through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Anyone who feels led to begin a dialectical discussion of this post, please feel free or perhaps predetermined.

At this juncture I agree with this concept.

It's interesting but wearying that some call this works salvation.

Not looking at what this point is responding to, and not looking first to some counterpoint, the main flaw I'm seeing in all of this thinking is again simply from looking at this proof-texting practice from actual close context:

Judah has wandered off from God into sin and idolatry. So, this carries the truth that these are a people that knew God and fell away, so both truths are included - Faith & Loss of or No Faith:

Loss of or no Faith:

NKJ Jer17:5-6 Thus says the LORD: "Cursed is the man who trusts in man And makes flesh his strength, Whose heart departs from the LORD. 6 For he shall be like a shrub in the desert, And shall not see when good comes, But shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, In a salt land which is not inhabited.

And Faith:

NKJ Jer17:7-8 "Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD, And whose hope is the LORD. 8 For he shall be like a tree planted by the waters, Which spreads out its roots by the river, And will not fear when heat comes; But its leaf will be green, And will not be anxious in the year of drought, Nor will cease from yielding fruit.

Both are addressed before this statement which includes both:

NKJ Jer17:9-10 "The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it? 10 I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give every man according to his ways, According to the fruit of his doings.

The TULIP interpretation inevitably seems to drop this duality of Faith and No or Loss of Faith and focus on the 2 latter. But Heb11 tells us there has always been Faith at least since Abel and then down through history including with Rahab a Gentile prostitute. And the Tanakh speaks of God's Remnant who did not fall into idolatry and Paul picks this up in the NC as foundational for believing Jews coming to Faith in Jesus the Messiah.

So, I suppose the harmonization or SwS here is first to read in context, then it's to maintain the understanding that God has always had Faith on the earth from which to carry forward and build even if it was as Noah's time where He had to destroy everything and build from a man of Faith that Heb11 also identifies.

It's beginning to seem like these 2 practices are key to much of what we're seeing on the UGE thread.

The issue here is once again IMO a misreading of the Text and not maintaining the fact that there has been Faith on the earth since the first family.

These verses are simply making the case that all men were under sin. It does not say that there were not or never were men of Faith existing under sin & death before Messiah. Also, these verses are being draw from the Psalms that in context also include that God has His people, so this duality of Faith and No or Loss of Faith is included there as it is in Romans. Furthermore, as you have posted several times, there are other verses that do speak of men seeking God. Then, "righteousness" is used differently in the Text, men are doing righteousness while not being absolutely righteous like God and not yet having His righteousness in Christ, so we always have to read in context.

Yes indeed and dropping or deemphasizing GW teaching divine love for humanity has been the flawed practice of the flower folks ever since Augustine of Hippo.

Yes and we including the flower folks should always seek to harmonize pet parts of GW with the other parts. Doing so yields the synthesis that all do not seek God before they repent and find Christ.

Synthesis from whose viewpoint? Repent - find Christ > seek God?

The view gained via SwS.
Repent = seek God->find GW re salvation via faith in Christ