Chosen by God - A study in Election

[cv5]

I have stated this too multiple times.... LOL

Same like when "all" doesn't really mean "all" but then it does mean "all" sometimes.

I have stated this too multiple times.... LOL

Same like when "all" doesn't really mean "all" but then it does mean "all" sometimes.

We had better be careful not to mishandle the term "all" as it is used in scripture. Doing so is a grievous and crippling deficiency. I would be very very careful about promoting doctrine on the term all........which you and a couple of other posters here seem to want to try and do. Erroneously I might add.

John 12:32
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all (men) unto me.
All of who? Certainly not the unsaved!

Rom 11:26
And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come from Zion; He will remove godlessness from Jacob.
Certainly not the 2/3rds who will die unsaved during the time of the great tribulation.

 

[Bbrdrd]

We had better be careful not to mishandle the term "all" as it is used in scripture. Doing so is a grievous and crippling deficiency. I would be very very careful about promoting doctrine on the term all........which you and a couple of other posters here seem to want to try and do. Erroneously I might add.

John 12:32
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all (men) unto me.
All of who? Certainly not the unsaved!

Rom 11:26
And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come from Zion; He will remove godlessness from Jacob.
Certainly not the 2/3rds who will die unsaved during the time of the great tribulation.

The issue isn't that the context and other issues don't modify the plain text, but that those who support reformed theology apply an inconsistent hermeneutic recognizing contextual moderation of the text in some instances and others forcing a surface read disallowing contextual discussion. It's the latter that is problematic because all that happens in that is modern biases are introduced to the text.

 

[cv5]

You treat the Word hypocritically, in one place what you take as the surface read is "clear and precise" yet in others such as John 3:16 you must amend it to fit with your doctrine.

I didn't say conditional election were true, but that if your use of the verses in 6:64-65 were to support any sort of election it would be conditional election. You forwarded those verses under a discussion on election so to then add the limiter that they are not speaking eternally but only to Jesus' ministry is backpeddaling. Are they supposed to demonstrate election or not?

You say John 6:64-65 supports conditional election? Go ahead and prove it.
No where in scripture is there, as you say, a qualifier for election.

Now you've already been caught red handed stipulating that only those performing righteous deeds are worthy to be elect. And here and now am going to tell you NO, rather it is the elect who are GRANTED righteousness, become obedient, being born again for good works . Your proposed merit-based and works based election theory is an epic failure.

Eph 2:10
For we are His workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

 

[cv5]

The issue isn't that the context and other issues don't modify the plain text, but that those who support reformed theology apply an inconsistent hermeneutic recognizing contextual moderation of the text in some instances and others forcing a surface read disallowing contextual discussion. It's the latter that is problematic because all that happens in that is modern biases are introduced to the text.

Sounds like you have a beef with reformed theology eh?
So tell us what form of theology do you champion?

 

[Bbrdrd]

You say John 6:64-65 supports conditional election? Go ahead and prove it.
No where in scripture is there, as you say, a qualifier for election.

Now you've already been caught red handed stipulating that only those performing righteous deeds are worthy to be elect. And here and now am going to tell you NO, rather it is the elect who are GRANTED righteousness, become obedient, being born again for good works . Your proposed merit-based and works based election theory is an epic failure.

Eph 2:10
For we are His workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

Given the manner you handle the Word it's no surprise you're twisting my words and putting words in my mouth that I have flatly denied.

My statement is that if John 6:64-65 supports any form of election, then the election is conditioned because it speaks of Jesus' foreknowledge. You lot are the ones who put it forward as supporting election.

As for your second charge, I did not stipulate that those "performing righteous deeds" are worthy to be elect, deeds did not enter the picture.

You repeatedly expose your lack of integrity, speaking out of both sides of your mouth and hypocritically double standards of interpretation for verses that on first blush could support your doctrine and those that clearly deny it. Your doctrines are inherently double minded, and that double mindedness shines through in your lack of integrity.

 

[49]

As said few times before, am still learning, and have many questions. Concerning election, particularly Romans 9, verses 11-18 are pretty clear to me. Verse 16 says 'So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy'. And verse 18, 'Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth'. Seems pretty cut and dried, to me anyways.
For those that see it any other way, how do they explain/interpret 19-33? Mind you all, still learning, and the back-and-forth along with the bitter/sarcastic replies and undertones are not helpful.
Thanks.

 

[Bbrdrd]

As said few times before, am still learning, and have many questions. Concerning election, particularly Romans 9, verses 11-18 are pretty clear to me. Verse 16 says 'So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy'. And verse 18, 'Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth'. Seems pretty cut and dried, to me anyways.
For those that see it any other way, how do they explain/interpret 19-33? Mind you all, still learning, and the back-and-forth along with the bitter/sarcastic replies and undertones are not helpful.
Thanks.

It seems to me the issue with Romans, and this crops up throughout theological premises built on it, is that it is treated as a theological treatise. Romans is written to a church divided between Jews and gentiles where the Jews were protesting that they were the repository of God's promises because they were the children of Abraham. This situation has to be taken into an understanding of the verses, and it shapes Romans 9 like this: it's speaking to the change in plan from national Israel to a spiritual body of the church with the grafting in of gentiles. This is clear from the use of the potter and clay analogy, as the clay is not individual believers but the nation of Israel. Paul is telling the Jews that God is not unjust for changing the plan of salvation because they were warned beforehand by Jeremiah that if they did not relent of their evil the blessing would be taken from them. The whole dialogue of Romans 9-11 is speaking to the change in program and showing how God is not inconsistent and capricious that what He wills is deliberate and done with good reasons consistent with His character and we are to trust Him even when we can't see why He is doing what He is doing.

 

[cv5]

Given the manner you handle the Word it's no surprise you're twisting my words and putting words in my mouth that I have flatly denied.

My statement is that if John 6:64-65 supports any form of election, then the election is conditioned because it speaks of Jesus' foreknowledge. You lot are the ones who put it forward as supporting election.

As for your second charge, I did not stipulate that those "performing righteous deeds" are worthy to be elect, deeds did not enter the picture.

You repeatedly expose your lack of integrity, speaking out of both sides of your mouth and hypocritically double standards of interpretation for verses that on first blush could support your doctrine and those that clearly deny it. Your doctrines are inherently double minded, and that double mindedness shines through in your lack of integrity.

OK buddy. I will find your works righteousness post that I am referring to and I will re-posted it. Try and deny it then.

As for your theory noted in post #1215, ("Those who proclaim themselves teachers of God were not being drawn"), this makes no sense whatsoever. Jesus made VERY similar statements in verses 39 and 44 to a rabble of peasants. A completely different audience then verse 65.

Then there is Matthew 16:17.....Aagain a very similar statement pertaining to the Father, made only to Peter.

What you call exegesis I call vacuous humbug. Your embarrassing failures are of course to be expected when one tries to deny the bulletproof boilerplate ironclad doctrine of sovereign election.

 

[cv5]

As said few times before, am still learning, and have many questions. Concerning election, particularly Romans 9, verses 11-18 are pretty clear to me. Verse 16 says 'So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy'. And verse 18, 'Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth'. Seems pretty cut and dried, to me anyways.
For those that see it any other way, how do they explain/interpret 19-33? Mind you all, still learning, and the back-and-forth along with the bitter/sarcastic replies and undertones are not helpful.
Thanks.

It is cut and dried. It is meant to be cut and dried. And the scriptures are very carefully enunciated, dictated, arranged and organized to INSURE that this doctrine of election is cut and dried.

 

[Blue_Of_Lake]

We had better be careful not to mishandle the term "all" as it is used in scripture. Doing so is a grievous and crippling deficiency. I would be very very careful about promoting doctrine on the term all........which you and a couple of other posters here seem to want to try and do. Erroneously I might add.

John 12:32
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all (men) unto me.
All of who? Certainly not the unsaved!

Rom 11:26
And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come from Zion; He will remove godlessness from Jacob.
Certainly not the 2/3rds who will die unsaved during the time of the great tribulation.

yes, better to promote to be Open-Minded and seeking the Truth (or at least Open to Correction from Time to Time -- from God) not our own Understandings Only (which might be very Incomplete compared to God's All-Knowingness) ------ Always.

 

[Bbrdrd]

OK buddy. I will find your works righteousness post that I am referring to and I will re-posted it. Try and deny it then.

As for your theory noted in post #1215, ("Those who proclaim themselves teachers of God were not being drawn"), this makes no sense whatsoever. Jesus made VERY similar statements in verses 39 and 44 to a rabble of peasants. A completely different audience then verse 65.

Then there is Matthew 16:17.....Aagain a very similar statement pertaining to the Father, made only to Peter.

What you call exegesis I call vacuous humbug. Your embarrassing failures are of course to be expected when one tries to deny the bulletproof boilerplate ironclad doctrine of sovereign election.

Whether teachers or a Jewish rabble, the statement doesn't change. The issue is that all were supposed to be taught by God, yet they grumbled against Jesus' teaching and did not recognize what the Father teaches despite being the people who should have been most amenable to the Father's teaching.

As for 64-65, again the issue is what the people believe in that they are rejecting what is being taught.

What you are doing is eisegeting, anywhere you see something about the Father teaching reading that as the Father also preventing some from knowing, but all it says is that the Father reveals it. Especially in Peter's case, the point is not that Peter is specially gifted by the Father but that Peter has reckoned to the Father's voice.

6:45 says it all "they will all be taught by God." Yet you insist that only some are taught by God.

 

[jackrosie]

The point is understanding what is meant by the expression in context and according to the verbiage of the text .. do you think Jesus lives inside an organ in your body?



The Holy Spirit dwell in my inner being,the night I was saved...that’s how I know I am born again,He testified that to my Spirit that I am His Child.

Do you understand what that means?.....you should if you are born again.

An organ in your body.......very odd for a born again to say that to a believer.

That which is born of the Spirit is spirit?.......that which is born of the flesh is flesh?

 

[jackrosie]

I still waiting on the "Free Willist" to give interpretations of these verses. Will probably have to wait, to the proverbial hell freezes over.

Speaking of intelligence, please give answer to what our Lord is teaching here:

Mar 8:29 And he asked them, But who say ye that I am? Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.
Mar 8:30 And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.

Why was our Lord hiding from others who He was?

Mar 9:9 And as they were coming down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, save when the Son of man should have risen again from the dead.

Again, why is the Lord hiding what they had seen?

Luke 8:55 And her spirit returned, and she rose up immediately: and he commanded that something be given her to eat.
Luke 8:56 And her parents were amazed: but he charged them to tell no man what had been done.

And yet again?

Finally, what was the Lord teaching here?

John_6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.

John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who it was that should betray him.
John_6:65 And he said, For this cause have I said unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it be given unto him of the Father.

A human could not have identified with Jesus and His teaching could they?

Only once you are born again can you identify with Jesus and His teaching......

He went about His Fathers business....as a non believer as I once was.....that would have been foreign talk...I wouldn’t of had a clue......I used to say to my ex brother in law who was born again......you speak in a different language to me......LOL......now I understand him.because I have been born of the Spirit.

 

[ForestGreenCook]

In my opinion Paul was elect from eternity past. He of course did not know this nor did anyone else. After his CALL was enunciated by Jesus Himself on the Emmaus road, he then he returned to Damascus and the Holy Spirit applied and confirmed his election by regeneration by being baptized by Ananias. That seems like the most plausible scenario.

Gal 1:15
But when God, the One having selected me from my mother's womb and having called me by His grace, was pleased

I agree with you that Paul, like the rest of God's elect were called, in a covenant relationship, before God ever formed the world. Romans 1:6, among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ. According to Nickodemus account, being born again can come unnoticed by most, like a gentle breeze that you don't know where it comes from, or where it goes. Our conversion, is quite the contrary, it comes with a "big bang" effect. Being baptized is the "answer of a good conscience" that comes after conversion.

 

[ForestGreenCook]

Impossible if they are not elect. The gospel becomes a lie.

The natural man, before he has been quickened to the new spiritual life, will not, and indeed, can not, believe the spiritual gospel.

 

[ForestGreenCook]

That is Gods problem. It is definitely not our problem....we are commanded to preach the gospel to every living creature. The problem with Christian philosophers is that they simply do not know their place in the scheme of things.

The natural man, before he has been regenerated, cannot believe in the things of the Spirit. Why would God instruct his ordained Elders to preach to someone that does not have spiritual ears to hear? Jesus instructed his Apostles to go and preach to the "lost sheep" (God's regenerated babes in Christ) of the "house of Israel", which is the "house of Jacob", as God changed Jacob's name to be no more called Jacob, but to be called Israel, Gen 33:28. Most people, mistakingly, interpret the word "Israel" to mean "the nation of Israel".

The newly regenerated "babes in Christ" are in need off being taught the "knowledge of the righteousness of God". They learn and grow into maturity, gradually, as they are taught.

 

[cv5]

Whether teachers or a Jewish rabble, the statement doesn't change. The issue is that all were supposed to be taught by God, yet they grumbled against Jesus' teaching and did not recognize what the Father teaches despite being the people who should have been most amenable to the Father's teaching.

As for 64-65, again the issue is what the people believe in that they are rejecting what is being taught.

What you are doing is eisegeting, anywhere you see something about the Father teaching reading that as the Father also preventing some from knowing, but all it says is that the Father reveals it. Especially in Peter's case, the point is not that Peter is specially gifted by the Father but that Peter has reckoned to the Father's voice.

6:45 says it all "they will all be taught by God." Yet you insist that only some are taught by God.

Sorry that's not working for me. I think you're missing the point of the passages. A very significant and profound point.

 

[ForestGreenCook]

So you're saying God can be a hypocrite and remain just? What's to stop a hypocritical God from claiming to not be a liar but promising you to save you and then actually condemning you? Afterall, man has no claim on God.

God did not promise to eternally save all mankind, else, all mankind will live in heaven, and that will not harmonize with many scriptures.

 

[ForestGreenCook]

Not good enough. A lie is a lie. In your theology, preaching the gospel can become a lie. And you say that’s God’s problem? Wow!

God knows that preaching the spiritual gospel to the natural man, before he has been regenerated, will fall on ears that cannot receive a spiritual gospel, and thinks it to be foolishness. That is why Jesus instructed his Apostles to go and preach the gospel to the "lost sheep"(God's newly born regenerated children) of the "house of Israel", which is "the house of Jacob", as God changed Jacob's name to be called "Israel", Gen 33:28. The "house of Israel" is comprised of people from every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation, Rev 5;9. Most, well intend christians, misinterpret the word "Israel" to mean the "nation of Israel".

 

[cv5]

So you're saying God can be a hypocrite and remain just? What's to stop a hypocritical God from claiming to not be a liar but promising you to save you and then actually condemning you? Afterall, man has no claim on God.

I do notice that those supposed Christians who reject the doctrine of election are very prone to criticizing God the Father, hurling condemnations such as:
-hypocrite
-unjust
-merciless
-unfair
-tyrannical

Such condemnations are diametrically opposed to what the Bible says about God the Father.
So let me ask you: are these condemnations coming from these detractors as a result of the Spirit testifying with our spirit? To make matters worse, if the doctrine of election is true (which I am certain that it is) why are these people not being taught of God to believe it?