Understanding God’s election

[Magenta]

I love reading your posts, sister; for your passion and love for the Lord shines through every one of them!

John 3 verse 3, John 1 verse 13, James 1 verse 18, Romans 8 verse 9b, 1 Peter 2 verse 9 ~ Jesus replied, “Truly, truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.” Born not of blood, nor of the desire or will of man, but born of God. He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we would be a kind of firstfruits of His creation. If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. You are chosen to proclaim the virtues of Him Who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light. My soul will exult in my God, for He has clothed me with garments of salvation, and wrapped me in a robe of righteousness. Plus Isaiah 61 verse 10

 

[Rufus]

Besides argument from silence, back to the basics of context again, son. It's simply not what he's talking about. It's like asking why Moses didn't give any credit to man's volition in Gen1.

If you want to get to the Christian's volition in this context, then go to verses like 3:18, 21 where Paul is issuing commands to choose to reject or obey.



Because just as there is no seed and no water and no soil and all the ways God has designed them to work together, Paul knows that apart from God there is no Gospel with its inherent power and there is no teaching and explaining in words provided by God and there is thus no growth apart from God.

But Paul is also speaking of credit - negative or positive - for God's fellow-workers in 3:8 on.

Paul also knows that apart from God's grace, he has no ministry let alone no life.


You manufacture turmoil.

Oh...you mean the passage wherein Paul warns the Corinthians to quit deceiving themselves and boasting about men -- just like Paul didn't boast about man's ability to grow himself earlier in the passage? You should pay closer attention to Paul and quit boasting about how smart and spiritual savvy some sinners are compared to others.

And God's fellow-workers will receive "credit" (rewards) not because they were anything in and of themselves but because they obeyed God's call and were faithful servants.

When Paul said said that he and his fellow workers weren't anything -- but ONLY God who gives the increase -- I'm mindful of something else Paul told the church in Rome:

Rom 9:15-16
15 For he says to Moses,

"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy
NIV

You see...man can plant, sow, water, cultivate the land, etc. 'till the cows come home; but if it doesn't please God to have the ground grow anything -- then guess what!? Where does that leave all the workers of the land? It seems to me that the one who totally controls the forces and elements of nature is the one really in charge -- not your so-called smarter sinners v. the dumber ones. At the end of the day, it's all on God who has mercy and compassion on whom he WANTS to have. Did the Holy Spirit in Acts 16 desire to have mercy on the Asians?

Your secular humanism has an aroma of death to it.

 

[Magenta]

John 15 verse 5c; Philippians 2 verse 13 Apart from Me you can do nothing. For it is God who works in you to will and to act on behalf of His good purpose.

 

[Magenta]

1 Corinthians 3 verses 6-7 ~ I planted the seed and Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God Who makes things grow.

 

[Mem]

I worked things out a long time ago, madam. Unlike you, I know God saves all men [w/o distinction] in this world. If Christ actually and truly and really atoned for the sins of all men w/o exception (as opposed to potentially atoning), then this must mean that he also redeemed all men in the world w/o exception, right? Yet, the same apostle wrote elsewhere:

Rev 5:9
9 And they sang a new song:

"You are worthy to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
because you were slain,
and with your blood you purchased men for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation.
NIV

Does your translation read that God redeemed/purchased ALL men for God, or each and every person for God, or all men w/o exception for God? Or does the passage say that the Lamb potentially purchased all men for God?

And again,

Rev 7:9
9 After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands.
NIV

Or does the above passage say that "before me was a multitude consisting of everyone in the world..."?

Eisegesis is a bear because you're adding to scripture what God did not put into it! You see the term "world" or "whole world" -- and then you have this knee jerk reaction that triggers an interpretation of "each and every person w/o exception", as being the only viable way of understanding the passage.

Also, since God is a covenant God in that he has established the medium of covenants to form the basis for Him having a personal, saving, redemptive relationship with his chosen people, then please point me to the covenant that God made with all men w/o exception. Where is this covenant that God universally made with all men? What are this covenant's conditions? Don't you know that God's covenant of love is made only with his elect (Deut 7:9-12; Dan 9:4, etc.). When Christ instituted the New Covenant at the Last Supper, did he institute that covenant with the entire world or with his chosen people?

I'd have to want to go where you're trying to lead me with all those leading questions so you must suppose that doesn't want me to go there, right?

 

[Magenta]

Rev 5:9
9 And they sang a new song:

"You are worthy to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
because you were slain,
and with your blood you purchased men for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation.
NIV

Snippets of this song have been playing in my mind for a few days now...

Chris Tomlin - Is He Worthy? (Live)

 

[Inquisitor]

What verse in Mat 22 states "corporate election"? There's nothing in the parable that says that the king sent out his servants to gather the nations to his wedding feast. But they did go out to gather individuals from other ethnicities.

Jesus did not teach that many nations are called but few nations are chosen. Which of the few nations on this earth are chosen? You must know which nations, right?

Of course I know which nations would have the green light for the gospel.

Nations that were chosen include; Macedonia, Türkiye, Italy, Greece, Spain, North Africa, etc.

The nations above were given

Here are some examples below that had a red light for the gospel for a very long time.

New Zealand Gospel arrived nineteenth century.
Japan Gospel arrived sixteenth century.
North America Gospel arrived sixteenth century.
South Africa Gospel arrived seventeenth century.
Australia Gospel arrived nineteenth century.
Indonesia Gospel arrived sixteenth century.

There are a lot of other countries in Asia that also waited a long time.

There are seven countries that the gospel cannot be preached in, see below.

Nth Korea, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, etc.

No sovereign election in those seven countries.

We could add that many Islamic nations that would have an extremely low Christian conversion rate. A miniscule degree of sovereign election in many Islamic countries.

Sovereign election is a regional phenomenon; it depends where you live.

You might assume that, but I never did! You don't pay attention to what people write. I have frequently stated on this thread and in others as well that God does save ALL men w/o distinction. It's you FWs who think that Christ died for all men w/o exception, remember?

The megabytes of irony about the Acts passage you quote is that it clearly refutes the FWs' ASSUMPTION that God doesn't want anyone on the planet to perish! Yet, here we have a text that teaches that the Spirit of Christ would not permit them to go into Asia! How "politically/theologically incorrect" is that!? There are FWs here who see God as the EOE (Equal Opportunity Employer) kinda guy who treats all men equally because if he didn't He'd be vile, unjust monster.

So...Mr. Delusional Winner , can you rattle off who all the elect nations are? Or better yet, just address the passage I quoted earlier in which Jesus Jesus told Israel that the Kingdom would be taken from them and given to another NATION!

Matt 21:43
43 "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.
NKJV

Since you're so full of yourself, you should be able to tell me who the specific nation is that was given the Kingdom of God. Not only that but this nation, according to Jesus, will actually bear the fruits of the kingdom! Why don't you write a list for us of which nations on this planet are so faithful to God that they are actually bearing kingdom fruit.

And has any nation in the world (Vatican excluded) declared itself to officially be a Christian nation, has adopted God's holy laws for their own laws of their land, and have evicted all the pagans in their officially Christian land? Or do all these elect national entities still permit idolaters to reside and flourish in their lands with false religions of their own? Do these elect national entities follow in the footsteps of OC apostate Israel by allowing pagans to influence public policy and to corrupt believers in their lands? Is this NC dispensation just more of the same ol' OC economy?

Or since you think God's elect are all the nations in the world, then you should be able to find in scripture the covenant that God made with all the nations in the world, since historically God's relationship with his chosen people has been and is by covenant only. I would dearly love to see the conditions for this universal covenant of love that God has made with the entire world.

P.S. One other thing before I forget. You say above that in Jesus' parable national Israel refused the invitation. So...since that is the case, where does that leave all the individual Jews who did not refuse? What "nation" are they part of? Where and how do they fit in to your scheme of election of nations?

What verse in Mat 22 states "corporate election"? There's nothing in the parable that says that the king sent out his servants to gather the nations to his wedding feast. But they did go out to gather individuals from other ethnicities.

Jesus did not teach that many nations are called but few nations are chosen. Which of the few nations on this earth are chosen? You must know which nations, right?

Of course, I know which nations would have the green light for the gospel.

Nations that were chosen; Macedonia, Türkiye, Italy, Greece, Spain, North Africa, etc.

Here are some examples below that had a red light for the gospel for a very long time.

New Zealand Gospel arrived nineteenth century.
Japan Gospel arrived sixteenth century.
North America Gospel arrived sixteenth century.
South Africa Gospel arrived seventeenth century.
Australia Gospel arrived nineteenth century.
Indonesia Gospel arrived sixteenth century.

There are a lot of other countries in Asia that also waited a long time.

There are seven countries that the gospel cannot be preached in, see below.

Nth Korea, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, etc.

No sovereign election in those seven countries.

We could add that many Islamic nations that would have an extremely low Christian conversion rate.

A miniscule degree of sovereign election in many Islamic countries.

Conclusion, sovereign election is a regional phenomenon and it depended on where you live.

 

[studier]

Oh...you mean the passage wherein Paul warns the Corinthians to quit deceiving themselves and boasting about men -- just like Paul didn't boast about man's ability to grow himself earlier in the passage? You should pay closer attention to Paul and quit boasting about how smart and spiritual savvy some sinners are compared to others.

So, are we doing the usual and shifting away from your original erroneous point you inserted apart from context and in argument from silence? Of course we are, as expected.

I pointed out a few commands to Christian volition. So, yes, I meant those commands. Part of the issue Paul is dealing with is youthful ignorance and resultant volition. So, Paul is instructing to fix the ignorance so volition will be applied appropriately. You may want to consider this theme in regard to the Gospel.

And God's fellow-workers will receive "credit" (rewards) not because they were anything in and of themselves but because they obeyed God's call and were faithful servants.

As I said, there is positive and negative credit being discussed. It is based upon the quality of work done and materials used.

I also covered the concept of men being nothing apart from God. Yet you turn it onto an argument as If I didn't. As I said, you create turmoil. It's obviously a personal problem.

When Paul said said that he and his fellow workers weren't anything -- but ONLY God who gives the increase -- I'm mindful of something else Paul told the church in Rome:

Your mindfulness is the cause for much turmoil and misdirection. Also, it really doesn't matter if you capitalize your insertion of "ONLY" because the word is not in the Text. There is implication we can all understand, and I spoke of it, but the way you insert it is typical of how you treat the involvement of men, in this instance men whom God has chosen to work together with.

Your last many words are more of the same as already explained above. From your closing rant we can see your consistent and repetitive ad-hominem fallacy, actually a really dumb one, yet only another one.

At times it strikes me that you may be a plant to show how bad is the tradition you advocate for. But then you'd have to be better at non-fallacious argumentation, so the focus was more the tradition rather than how poor your arguments are.

 

[PaulThomson]

Besides argument from silence, back to the basics of context again, son. It's simply not what he's talking about. It's like asking why Moses didn't give any credit to man's volition in Gen1.

If you want to get to the Christian's volition in this context, then go to verses like 3:18, 21 where Paul is issuing commands to choose to reject or obey.



Because just as there is no seed and no water and no soil and all the ways God has designed them to work together, Paul knows that apart from God there is no Gospel with its inherent power and there is no teaching and explaining in words provided by God and there is thus no growth apart from God.

But Paul is also speaking of credit - negative or positive - for God's fellow-workers in 3:8 on.

Paul also knows that apart from God's grace, he has no ministry let alone no life.


You manufacture turmoil.

Paul does claim to be the father or certain believers.
1Co 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

Paul seems to me to be taking some credit there.

 

[Rufus]

So, are we doing the usual and shifting away from your original erroneous point you inserted apart from context and in argument from silence? Of course we are, as expected.

I pointed out a few commands to Christian volition. So, yes, I meant those commands. Part of the issue Paul is dealing with is youthful ignorance and resultant volition. So, Paul is instructing to fix the ignorance so volition will be applied appropriately. You may want to consider this theme in regard to the Gospel.

From what "original erroneous point" did I shift away from: That God ALONE has the authority and power to make things grow!? Is that point that you hate so much?

I have done no such thing. And those commands were given to believers who actually have God's power within them to obey! You conveniently keep forgetting that all true believers have had their hearts circumcised by God so that they may truly love God! And if they truly love God, they will obey him; for it is God's love within them that impels them to love and obey.

I also covered the concept of men being nothing apart from God. Yet you turn it onto an argument as If I didn't. As I said, you create turmoil. It's obviously a personal problem.

Really? Is that why you said that the difference between two distinct sinful lumps of clay with one representing those who repent and believe the gospel and the other who reject the gospel lies within both groups themselves? The former group, you claimed have the capability to believe, plus they're smarter than their dumber (non-repentant) counterparts? You gave ZERO credit to God for making the difference! And now you're going to lie through you teeth pretending that God, at the end of the day, makes the difference between who believes and who doesn't? And just how did all these smart, intelligent, spiritually wise, self-sufficient, capable Christians materialize given that it appears that God doesn't choose very many such people to come into his kingdom?

1 Cor 1:18-31
18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:

"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

26 Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things — and the things that are not — to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God — that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."
NIV

Yet, several days ago you boasted in the spiritual capability and smarts of sinners, saying that the difference between unbelievers and believers lies [solely] within the two groups themselves. And now you claim that God is really an important part of the equation? Then explain to us exactly how is it that it's "because of Him that you are in Christ Jesus"? How come the passage doesn't read, it's because of sinners' choices that you are in Christ Jesus? I mean the gospel requires obedience correct? There are demands in the gospel to the volition of the sons of men, right? How can it be said, therefore, that since the volition of a repentant sinner has put him in Christ that God put sinners in Christ!? Is not the volition of sinners effectual -- whether they repent or not?

The depth of your self-deception runs so deep that you're no longer capable of being aware of what you write or of the implications thereof. You have so easily forgotten that you boasted in the ability of unregenerate sinners, who cannot please God in their flesh, to come to faith and repentance -- because they're capable and smarter!

Your mindfulness is the cause for much turmoil and misdirection. Also, it really doesn't matter if you capitalize your insertion of "ONLY" because the word is not in the Text. There is implication we can all understand, and I spoke of it, but the way you insert it is typical of how you treat the involvement of men, in this instance men whom God has chosen to work together with.

Oh boy...you got me there. But then again, who is it that ultimately controls the growth of what has been planted and watered? Does God NEED the help of the sons of men to grow anything on this earth? Is this a synergistic operation?

 

[Magenta]

Hebrews 11 verse 6 ~ Without faith it is impossible to please God.

 

[Rufus]

Paul does claim to be the father or certain believers.
1Co 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

Paul seems to me to be taking some credit there.

But he also said that he and Apollos weren't anything! I mean it does say that Paul, a preacher of the gospel, begat them through his preaching of the gospel. You do realize that he's speaking metaphorically? The passage is along the lines of what Paul wrote later on in the same epistle:

1 Cor 9:22-23
22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some . 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.
NIV

Did Paul literally save souls? Or is he simply employing hyperbole because he was willing to do whatever it takes to win souls? Is there another passage somewhere wherein Paul that "by my doing I have saved many people"? Or "by my doing many are in Christ Jesus?

 

[GWH]

You might have noticed how I like to KISS and enumerate things, so here is my thought regarding this subject:

1. I once was OSAS, but now I am not for reasons involving what I call the "Sour 16".

2. I am not against all Calvinist teachings, so I have started calling what I disagree with "TULIPism".

3. Regarding divine love and sovereignty: I believe God loves everyone and forces no one to be chosen or damned.

4. Regarding the human soul and agency: I believe humans are sinful and bound for hell unless God saves them.

5. Regarding God's grace: I believe God graces every sinner with sufficient volition to repent and seek His salvation.

6. Regarding human volition: I believe sinners who choose to seek will find God, but those who ignore His grace will be judged justly.

I have no idea what y'all define as Arminianism, but if it does not believe #1-6, then call me a "MFWist", meaning that
"God initiates; sinners may cooperate--or not."

Thanks to y'all for helping me figure out what I believe about this topic.
(You can carry on now :^)

 

[Rufus]

Of course I know which nations would have the green light for the gospel.

Nations that were chosen include; Macedonia, Türkiye, Italy, Greece, Spain, North Africa, etc.

The nations above were given

Here are some examples below that had a red light for the gospel for a very long time.

New Zealand Gospel arrived nineteenth century.
Japan Gospel arrived sixteenth century.
North America Gospel arrived sixteenth century.
South Africa Gospel arrived seventeenth century.
Australia Gospel arrived nineteenth century.
Indonesia Gospel arrived sixteenth century.

There are a lot of other countries in Asia that also waited a long time.

There are seven countries that the gospel cannot be preached in, see below.

Nth Korea, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, etc.

No sovereign election in those seven countries.

We could add that many Islamic nations that would have an extremely low Christian conversion rate. A miniscule degree of sovereign election in many Islamic countries.

Sovereign election is a regional phenomenon; it depends where you live.

What verse in Mat 22 states "corporate election"? There's nothing in the parable that says that the king sent out his servants to gather the nations to his wedding feast. But they did go out to gather individuals from other ethnicities.

Jesus did not teach that many nations are called but few nations are chosen. Which of the few nations on this earth are chosen? You must know which nations, right?

Of course, I know which nations would have the green light for the gospel.

Nations that were chosen; Macedonia, Türkiye, Italy, Greece, Spain, North Africa, etc.

Here are some examples below that had a red light for the gospel for a very long time.

New Zealand Gospel arrived nineteenth century.
Japan Gospel arrived sixteenth century.
North America Gospel arrived sixteenth century.
South Africa Gospel arrived seventeenth century.
Australia Gospel arrived nineteenth century.
Indonesia Gospel arrived sixteenth century.

There are a lot of other countries in Asia that also waited a long time.

There are seven countries that the gospel cannot be preached in, see below.

Nth Korea, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, etc.

No sovereign election in those seven countries.

We could add that many Islamic nations that would have an extremely low Christian conversion rate.

A miniscule degree of sovereign election in many Islamic countries.

Conclusion, sovereign election is a regional phenomenon and it depended on where you live.

You still haven't answered my question about Mat 21:43. You obviously cannot reconcile this passage with your wild and crazy theory of numerous elect nations.

Furthermore, you came up with a very short list. Are you aware that currently there are at least 195 nations in the world? Do you consider the U.S.A. to be one of God's elect nations?

Also you need to prove your claim by showing that all the above countries since they are CHRISTIAN, according to you, have actually been justified, are currently living sanctified lives in the world and will be glorified on the last day. For example, you list Japan that is at best nominally Christian! I know because my former church supported a missionary to that country, and the Japanese are very much stuck on their ancient traditions. The Japanese people are a very hard sell, since their worldview is so radically different from OC Judaism or Christianity. So, what criteria do you use to support your theory that God elects nations? What if Japan had only one Christian in their country? Or ten? Or twenty? Or a 1,000? How many Christians would it take before you dub a nation officially "Christian" or "God's elect"?

Or take Australia in your list. Are you even remotely aware of how far left politically that nation is!? Australia is no friend of conservative, evangelical Christians! Australia's leftist politics is totally off the rails! The political leaders there make the Newsomes or Trudeaus of this world look tame by comparison. Yet, you consider a nation like this to be Christian because it has a very small Christian population?

Or what about India? How come India isn't on your list!? Aren't there any Christians in India? (I certainly hope so because for years I've been supporting missionary work there!) So what this country is primarily a Hindu nation and vigorously persecutes Christians, and even Muslims because they so covet their Sacred Cow? If it has a few Christians in it, the entire nation is elect, right? You have lowered the bar so low that it could be said that the vast majority of this ungodly world is nonetheless at the same time God's elect! You would have us believe that the vast majority of the ungodly, God-hating world consists of Christian nations!

And how come China isn't on your list? No Christians in China? No persecuted Christians in China? It seems to me that if there are at least 2 disciples of Christ in any given country, it could be biblically be said that it's a Christian nation, since wherever two or three are gathered in Christ's name, there He will be in their midst (Mat 18:20).

And you still haven't answered my questions about messianic Jewish believers. I see that you omitted Israel from your list, so how do messianic Jews fit into your scheme of national election? What nation are the messianic Jews in since Jesus took away the kingdom from Israel and gave it to another nation (as in ONE nation)? I ask these questions because of what Peter wrote in his First Epistle which primarily was addressed to messianic Jews scattered throughout the world:

1 Peter 2:9-10
9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation , a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. 10 Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
NIV

Paul here defines [God's] nation as "a people belonging to God". I could be wrong, but I kinda have this sneaky suspicion that they belong to God because they are a chosen people, a royal priesthood and a holy nation. But how could Peter's original audience be classified as a "holy nation" since they were scattered among the nations all over the Roman empire? And Peter could not have been referring to national Israel because she rejected her Messiah which is why the kingdom of God was taken away from her. So, what "holy nation" was Peter referring to? Here's a novel idea: Could it be the "nation" Jesus talked about in Mat 21:43?

So, since Peter defines a "holy nation" as a people belonging to God, is that how you see all the elect nations of the world -- as nations who are holy, who serve God as royal priests?

I very much look forward to you claiming, yet, another win...again.

 

[Rufus]

You might have noticed how I like to KISS and enumerate things, so here is my thought regarding this subject:

1. I once was OSAS, but now I am not for reasons involving what I call the "Sour 16".

2. I am not against all Calvinist teachings, so I have started calling what I disagree with "TULIPism".

3. Regarding divine love and sovereignty: I believe God loves everyone and forces no one to be chosen or damned.

4. Regarding the human soul and agency: I believe humans are sinful and bound for hell unless God saves them.

5. Regarding God's grace: I believe God graces every sinner with sufficient volition to repent and seek His salvation.

6. Regarding human volition: I believe sinners who choose to seek will find God, but those who ignore His grace will be judged justly.

I have no idea what y'all define as Arminianism, but if it does not believe #1-6, then call me a "MFWist", meaning that
"God initiates; sinners may cooperate--or not."

Thanks to y'all for helping me figure out what I believe about this topic.
(You can carry on now :^)

It's very sad that you have made God into your own image. Your belief system doesn't square with scripture at all. Why don't you reconcile your #3 with that long list of cites I sent you several days ago that teach that God hates, despises, loathes, etc. sinners.

And I'd love proof texts for your number 5.

 

[Rufus]

Mr. Inquisitor Sir, I have another question to you re national election. But first here's the passage in question:

1 Peter 1:1-2
1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,

To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood:

Grace and peace be yours in abundance.
NIV

How could Peter have called his original audience (primarily messianic Jews) "God's elect" since he could not have been referring to Israel since the Kingdom of God was taken from Israel (Mat 21:43)? Furthermore, he wrote to people scattered all over the Roman empire, yet Peter didn't refer to his audience as being elect nations, but rather he referred to them as being one particular nation -- a holy nation (2:9). While some of his audience were no doubt Roman citizens (such as Paul was), the vast majority of them were not. My question, therefore, is this: of what nation was his original audience?

Very much looking forward to your answer....

 

[studier]

Oh boy...you got me there. But then again, who is it that ultimately controls the growth of what has been planted and watered? Does God NEED the help of the sons of men to grow anything on this earth? Is this a synergistic operation?

Too much to read. Maybe later. More of your typical m.o. One point ultimately turns into verbose narratives - enter the baffle em with b.s. phase. Consistent tactics and strategy.

God chose to create and to work with men. It began physically at the Creation and then in the Garden. It will continue to be the case for eternity. Get used to it.

 

[studier]

Paul does claim to be the father or certain believers.
1Co 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

Paul seems to me to be taking some credit there.

I seriously don't think our Lord is offended by such language and thinking. Some of the fellowship language ends up in translation speaking of being His partners.

NKJ Philemon 1:10 I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten while in my chains,

NKJ Galatians 4:19 My little children, for whom I labor in birth again until Christ is formed in you,

NKJ 1 John 2:1 My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

NKJ 1 Corinthians 4:14-17 I do not write these things to shame you, but as my beloved children I warn you. 15 For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. 16 Therefore I urge you, imitate me. 17 For this reason I have sent Timothy to you, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord, who will remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every church.


Also, since @Rufus is for some consistently odd reason countering you with 1Cor9:22-23 which he's explaining away as hyperbole, we can just add to it with:

NK Rom11:13-14 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them.


And then more hyperbole from Christ's Apostle who so personalized his ministry for our Lord:

16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel. (Rom. 2:16 NKJ)

25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began (Rom. 16:25 NKJ)

8 Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was raised from the dead according to my gospel, (2 Tim. 2:8 NKJ)


Imagine the arrogance of a man who understands God so well and his by grace ministry in Christ in Spirit living under grace that he personalizes his living, mutually abiding relationship and work together with God to such a degree. It rather seems to me that we can take all of the instruction, allow Him to make it our own, and know what to say and when in the context of a discussion.

 

[GWH]

It's very sad that you have made God into your own image. Your belief system doesn't square with scripture at all. Why don't you reconcile your #3 with that long list of cites I sent you several days ago that teach that God hates, despises, loathes, etc. sinners.

And I'd love proof texts for your number 5.

Correct me if my memory is wrong, but I think we already concluded our discussion
with me making you a heavenly bet that I am right, but if not then start with MT 7:7 & 1TM 2:3-4.
(If I lose the bet, then I will need to amend the website yet again! :^)

 

[PaulThomson]

You might have noticed how I like to KISS and enumerate things, so here is my thought regarding this subject:

1. I once was OSAS, but now I am not for reasons involving what I call the "Sour 16".

2. I am not against all Calvinist teachings, so I have started calling what I disagree with "TULIPism".

3. Regarding divine love and sovereignty: I believe God loves everyone and forces no one to be chosen or damned.

4. Regarding the human soul and agency: I believe humans are sinful and bound for hell unless God saves them.

5. Regarding God's grace: I believe God graces every sinner with sufficient volition to repent and seek His salvation.

6. Regarding human volition: I believe sinners who choose to seek will find God, but those who ignore His grace will be judged justly.

I have no idea what y'all define as Arminianism, but if it does not believe #1-6, then call me a "MFWist", meaning that
"God initiates; sinners may cooperate--or not."

Thanks to y'all for helping me figure out what I believe about this topic.
(You can carry on now :^)

And this is a main value of these discussions. We put our ideas about God and scripture in this crucible and see how they hold up under the heat of critical evaluation. Not all the criticism is valid. But where it is, we are able to adjust our perspective to be more realistic. and produce in us more Christ-like character. In the process we are providing others with alternative perspectives to compare with their present ideas, and they are able to adjust their perspectives accordingly to produce in them a more Christ-like character. If we don't see ourselves becoming more Christ-like in character through this process, something is wrong with the way we are participating in this forum.