Understanding God’s election

[Mem]

And the natural mans default position is......Sorry bud, good luck. Jesus might save you.

That's your misconception about what others believe. You are the only one here promoting such.

the statement that generated @Kroogz response was, "Men's default position is unbelief, and, thus, condemnation."

So, to employ the scholarly practice of charity in interpretation, I have to ask myself, how does that position not imply that God forsakes some to condemnation while choosing to save others in spite of their condemnation (because men's default position is...condemnation). How does that suggest it is righteousness judgment that unbelief in one is forgivable while never forgivable in the other's case? The only answer I can imagine is that God isn't impartial, but bias. However, that goes against scripture that declares there is no partiality with God, Rom2:11 and Acts 10: 34-35, "...God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."
Granted, if God is biased there's nothing I can do about it, but how is God's choice from a 'fanciful (ie, designed to be 'ornamental' rather than practical "fanciful bonnets") vantage point glorify Him differentiate Him from the pope's display of glory?

I'm inclined to believe that God's choice is practical as, there's no denying, it is faith that pleases Him.

 

[studier]

This is a clever swich-a-roo. I asked you some very specific questions which you answered broadly. I ask you again to answer my questions and you pull some questions from a post directed towards another poster rather than answer the questions I directed towards you. You also didn't copy my entire post as I have asked of you when quoting my posts. Why the slick behavior? Why can't you simply answer the direct questions I asked?

It was a mistake, Cameron. I did not notice the post was to another. Long day for me yesterday. My apology. One thing, though. if you're going to talk to me like this, I have zero interest in discussing anything with you. I'm going to try to be done with these non-productive discussions. My experiments are over for now.

 

[GWH]

Yes he chooses but the belief that out of two people God chose one for heaven and one for hell before the foundations of the world? No. He chose Abraham because he was righteous.

RM 4 etc. indicate that God chose Abraham because of his faith, which God viewed as making him
spiritually one with the righteousness of Christ/in Christ.

 

[GWH]

I understand what you believe. I'm trying to ascertain why you believe as you do. And again, I am not trying to go further than you feel comfortable. But my question was to find out what undergirds what you believe. Is there anything within the character or ways of God, in your understanding, that precludes God from choosing?

FYI, while I do believe God chooses some to salvation, I don't believe He has made any for destruction. I believe men fit themselves for destruction.

FYI, the problem is believing God chooses only some to salvation without giving all the opportunity to choose/seek to be saved,
which contradicts Scripture teaching that God loves everyone and does not show favoritism..

 

[studier]

Not sure that I understand your point entirely, but if I do, not really. However, I think I see how you came to that conclusion based upon 1 Peter 1:1. However, to understand who actually is in view in 1:1, it is important to consider 1Peter 2:9 -10 too. Old categorizations/labels such as Jew and Gentile as used in the OC earthly context, lost significance through Christ. The elect, regardless of human linage, became the people of God by being chosen/elected by God. In 1 Peter 2:9-10 (below), Peter emphasizes their new spiritual linage and relationship with God through Christ - that they have become a completely new people. Paul in Galatians 3:27 -29 essentially tells us the same thing.

Thanks for the answer. I understand the one people in Christ. The diaspora language and the references to Hosea were typically re: Israel who had become not His people. But there is a lot of blending going on in 1Peter.

FWIW the "elect exiles" translation best follows the original language.

 

[xnman]

Let's consider all this election thing for minute.
God showed "grace" to man by sending Jesus to this earth.
Therefore, in that regard, it is God that allows one into heaven or not. Man has nothing to do with Grace. Grace is like God opening the door so that man may enter.
But....
God also created man and gave man a "free will" in that man can choose to enter the door of Grace or not. And as I read the bible, God never took the "free will" from man.
So while God opened the door of heaven through "grace", man has the right to accept that door or not, because of man's free will.
And while God wants everyone to go to heaven, it is man that chooses to go or not to go. God doesn't make that choice. It is not God's fault if someone doesn't go to heaven.
How does man choose to go to heaven.... simple.... by doing what Jesus wants, and doing it the way Jesus wants it done.
Which brings me back to this "election" idea....
God give grace...
But man, because of his free will, must choose to accept that grace.
Thus the election is a two part process.... God's and man's.

 

[studier]

God does all things for His glory. Choosing would be included in this. And hopefully we aren't heading down the same road as last time where I ask you questions, you refuse to answer, and then ask me questions.
I did you the courtesy of answering your questions, yet you refused to answer mine. Would you please answer my questions before asking some in return?

As you and I have done before, no, I'll answer you in any way I choose to answer you. You can pass if you'd like.

Please go back and see how this discussion came about. You jumped into a discussion I was having with another re: Eph1 You made a remark. I answered your remark in some detail remaining re: Eph1. You responded by taking us out of that specific Scripture and into a generalized set of questions about the overall topic. I questioned you to take you back to Eph1 and answered you in general about your distracted questions.

Why didn't you stay on track and respond to the points about Eph1? Please don't hijack discussions and start making rules.

 

[studier]

I didn't like my last reply to you, so I'll try to clarify it now. if I understand you correctly, your point is that it is up to us to believe in Christ in order to become Christians, and by becoming Christians, adopted in Christ. If so, I disagree.
Do you see in Eph 1:5 the "predestined us for adoption to himself AS SONS"? We can see in it that, on an individual basis, we were predestined unto adoption. It does not state that people were predestined for adoption because they became Christians - it is in the reverse - that we were adopted and subsequently became Christians by first having been predestined to that adoption by God. Gal 4:4 - 6 also demonstrates adoption unto sonship occurring on a person-by-person basis; that is, having first been predestinated, we become adopted as sons, by which, the Spirit enters into our spiritual hearts so that we call-out to God as Father and we as sons. It is all by God, nothing by us.
It's kind of late for me so I may not have been very clear in this post either. I'll review it again in in the morning and if needed, repost.

Thanks for the extra effort.

Yes, we do disagree. Here are a few reasons why I disagree with your interpretation:

• "us" does not have to, nor do I see it as referring to each of us individually. Paul is talking in the context of "all of us" as Christians.
• Again, there is no part of this language that says God chose us individually or collectively TO BE in Christ.
• I've detailed how Paul is talking in context about God's Prothesis - God's Advance Plan - which he wrote of several times. And I've stated that Paul in Eph1 speaks of many aspects of God's Plan involving what takes place for us to be IN CHRIST and what will take place for those IN CHRIST - Christians.
• IN CHRIST (In God's Plan):
  • God blessed Christians:
    • in every spiritual blessing
    • in the Heavens
    • God chose Christians:
      • Before the foundation of the kosmos
      • To be holy and blameless in His presence
      • Predestining Christians to adoption to Himself in Jesus Christ

I see this as part of the detailing of God's Plan for all Christians to be His adopted sons in union with His first-born Son and their first-born brother and Lord Jesus His Christ.

I don't see this talking about how we become Christians, and I definitely do not see this as saying God elects some people TO BE Christians which would be an insertion of language and concept into the Text.

I do think there is a place to discuss who God chooses, but it does not align with TULIP.

 

[studier]

God also created man and gave man a "free will" in that man can choose to enter the door of Grace or not. And as I read the bible, God never took the "free will" from man.

This is a good thread for you to be condemned by others for this statement and how you proceed with it.

I won't be one of those who do so. I agree with you that God created men and endowed them with the right and ability to choose. I also agree that God doesn't take this away but works with it in various ways and will ultimately honor it with eternal union with Him or eternal separation from Him.

 

[GWH]

Let's consider all this election thing for minute.
God showed "grace" to man by sending Jesus to this earth.
Therefore, in that regard, it is God that allows one into heaven or not. Man has nothing to do with Grace. Grace is like God opening the door so that man may enter.
But....
God also created man and gave man a "free will" in that man can choose to enter the door of Grace or not. And as I read the bible, God never took the "free will" from man.
So while God opened the door of heaven through "grace", man has the right to accept that door or not, because of man's free will.
And while God wants everyone to go to heaven, it is man that chooses to go or not to go. God doesn't make that choice. It is not God's fault if someone doesn't go to heaven.
How does man choose to go to heaven.... simple.... by doing what Jesus wants, and doing it the way Jesus wants it done.
Which brings me back to this "election" idea....
God give grace...
But man, because of his free will, must choose to accept that grace.
Thus the election is a two part process.... God's and man's.

Yes, God initiates; sinners may cooperate or not.
(Welcome to CC :^)

 

[rogerg]

Thanks for the extra effort.

Yes, we do disagree. Here are a few reasons why I disagree with your interpretation:

• "us" does not have to, nor do I see it as referring to each of us individually. Paul is talking in the context of "all of us" as Christians.
• Again, there is no part of this language that says God chose us individually or collectively TO BE in Christ.
• I've detailed how Paul is talking in context about God's Prothesis - God's Advance Plan - which he wrote of several times. And I've stated that Paul in Eph1 speaks of many aspects of God's Plan involving what takes place for us to be IN CHRIST and what will take place for those IN CHRIST - Christians.
• IN CHRIST (In God's Plan):
  • God blessed Christians:
    • in every spiritual blessing
    • in the Heavens
    • God chose Christians:
      • Before the foundation of the kosmos
      • To be holy and blameless in His presence
      • Predestining Christians to adoption to Himself in Jesus Christ

I see this as part of the detailing of God's Plan for all Christians to be His adopted sons in union with His first-born Son and their first-born brother and Lord Jesus His Christ.

I don't see this talking about how we become Christians, and I definitely do not see this as saying God elects some people TO BE Christians which would be an insertion of language and concept into the Text.

I do think there is a place to discuss who God chooses, but it does not align with TULIP.

I see it otherwise - guess we'll just leave it at that. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Cameron143]

God.

Genesis 15:6
Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.

So, what is the source of his righteousness?

 

[Cameron143]

the statement that generated @Kroogz response was, "Men's default position is unbelief, and, thus, condemnation."

So, to employ the scholarly practice of charity in interpretation, I have to ask myself, how does that position not imply that God forsakes some to condemnation while choosing to save others in spite of their condemnation (because men's default position is...condemnation). How does that suggest it is righteousness judgment that unbelief in one is forgivable while never forgivable in the other's case? The only answer I can imagine is that God isn't impartial, but bias. However, that goes against scripture that declares there is no partiality with God, Rom2:11 and Acts 10: 34-35, "...God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."
Granted, if God is biased there's nothing I can do about it, but how is God's choice from a 'fanciful (ie, designed to be 'ornamental' rather than practical "fanciful bonnets") vantage point glorify Him differentiate Him from the pope's display of glory?

I'm inclined to believe that God's choice is practical as, there's no denying, it is faith that pleases Him.

God being no respecter of persons simply means that heaven is full of every nation, tribe, kindred and tongue. But in the same passage that you cited which teaches this, God also requires fear and righteousness. And you rightly point out that this is righteousness that is ascribed through faith. What you fail to point out is that God is the source of faith...faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. You also fail to point out that God is also the source of the righteousness that exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees...having no righteousness of my own...but that which is through the faith of Christ...

 

[Cameron143]

FYI, the problem is believing God chooses only some to salvation without giving all the opportunity to choose/seek to be saved,
which contradicts Scripture teaching that God loves everyone and does not show favoritism..

This is error. God does show preference. He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and hardens whom He will. And while God exercises love towards the entire cosmos or creation, the scripture doesn't say God loves every individual person. There is no omnilove in scripture for every individual. Neither is there a verse in scripture that claims God always exercises love. You believe God condemning someone to hell is an act of love. It is not. It is an act of justice and righteousness, but not love. While you can't find a verse that says God must always act in love, you can find a verse that says that God always acts in righteousness.
I'm not the one who has scripture wrong.

 

[Cameron143]

It was a mistake, Cameron. I did not notice the post was to another. Long day for me yesterday. My apology. One thing, though. if you're going to talk to me like this, I have zero interest in discussing anything with you. I'm going to try to be done with these non-productive discussions. My experiments are over for now.

This would be believable if you actually admitted the mistake and then answered my questions. But it your pattern to obfuscate and deflect without ever answering my questions.
I accept your apology though none is necessary. I taken no offense. Just answer the questions.

 

[studier]

This would be believable if you actually admitted the mistake and then answered my questions. But it your pattern to obfuscate and deflect without ever answering my questions.
I accept your apology though none is necessary. I taken no offense. Just answer the questions.

As I said, zero interest.

 

[GWH]

God being no respecter of persons simply means that heaven is full of every nation, tribe, kindred and tongue. But in the same passage that you cited which teaches this, God also requires fear and righteousness. And you rightly point out that this is righteousness that is ascribed through faith. What you fail to point out is that God is the source of faith...faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. You also fail to point out that God is also the source of the righteousness that exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees...having no righteousness of my own...but that which is through the faith of Christ...

God being no respecter of persons means that no one will be denied the opportunity to repent and be saved/elect.
This is His preference and His will.

 

[Cameron143]

God being no respecter of persons means that no one will be denied the opportunity to repent and be saved/elect.

That is incorrect. It means God doesn't choose based on anything in man. It means He chooses sovereignly. For reference, see why God chose Israel...Deuteronomy 7:6-8.

 

[studier]

What you fail to point out is that God is the source of faith...faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Rom10:15-17 And how are they to make official announcements if they are not sent? Just as it has been written, How beautiful the feet of the men who proclaim good news [of] good things. But not all [men] obeyed the good news, for Isaiah says, Lord, who believed our news? Therefore, the faith from news, and the news through God's spoken word.

God is the source of faith?

Or God is the source of good news that is believed and obeyed?

 

[Mem]

God being no respecter of persons simply means that heaven is full of every nation, tribe, kindred and tongue.

While that is included in the meaning, it simply is not all inclusive of its entire meaning.

What you fail to point out is that God is the source of faith...faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

I fail in the school of TULIP, that is true.
God is the object of faith, hearing the word of God is the source by which one generates and draws faith.
[QOUTE="Cameron143, post: 546375, member: 314370"]You also fail to point out that God is also the source of the righteousness that exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees...having no righteousness of my own...but that which is through the faith of Christ...[/QUOTE]
...having no righteousness of my own...but...that which is through faith...
You undoubtedly argue here that this is Christ's faith that God's accounts for righteousness, I argue that, although not without being generated by Christ's exemplification of His faith, God saw Abraham's faith, in God word, and counted it for his righteousness.