Chosen by God - A study in Election

[jackrosie]

If you don't accept the gift of salvation then you will perish. His word clearly states that he draws all. So why are all not saved? Simply put the ones who are not saved did not accept his gift of salvation.

Disagree...your understanding of scripture is skewed and misinterpreted....it clearly states God chooses and draws whom he chooses,we do not get to choose...so agree to disagree....no offence meant.

 

[jackrosie]

You know if you want to follow a false plan of salvation that is your choice..... but I hope you realize the seriousness of promoting and peddling this false dogma.

God has strong words for people who present a different Gospel.

My faith is in God and it is you who is peddling this false plan of salvation.....
Yes,God does have strong words for those who skew and misinterpret scripture.as you do...

 

[jackrosie]

I have fellow brothers and sisters in Christ,on this thread,who I fully understand...because they teach from the spirit of God,the word of God...so you stick with your belief and I mine.

 

[1ofthem]

Disagree...your understanding of scripture is skewed and misinterpreted....it clearly states God chooses and draws whom he chooses,we do not get to choose...so agree to disagree....no offence meant.

Does it really though? Jesus said if I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me. He also says that when the Holy Spirit is come he will convict the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgement. He said the world which means everyone. Think on that for awhile, and the many other scriptures that have been quoted to you about this.

But yes, it is probably best to just agree to disagree. And same to you, I am not meaning to offend, just discussing the scriptures.

 

[EleventhHour]

You do not accept the gift of salvation,...God chooses who receive salvation.....he chooses he draws and he quickens..there and then.so i disagree.

Just as God quickened Adam..then what happened?

You do not accept the gift of salvation

This is in direct opposition to the words of God and in my book heresy.

A gift is a gift it is to be received and accepted that is why it is called a GIFT.

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
John 1:22

It does not state "all He forced Himself upon"

 

[jackrosie]

Does it really though? Jesus said if I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me. He also says that wen the Holy Spirit is come he will convict the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgement. He said the world which means everyone. Think on that for awhile, and the many other scriptures that have been quoted to you about this.

But yes, it is probably best to just agree to disagree. And same to you, I am not meaning to offend, just discussing the scriptures.

No one can come to me unless the Father draws them..that is in scripture somewhere,probably the wording isn’t precise.

No offence taken,enjoy the rest of your day.

 

[throughfaith]

Thanks for the correction...I was going off memory and it is not the greatest anymore.

lol me too .

 

[jackrosie]

This is in direct opposition to the words of God and in my book heresy.

A gift is a gift it is to be received and accepted that is why it is called a GIFT.

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
John 1:22

It does not state "all He forced Himself upon"

I have just posted about the Father,no one can come to the Son unless the Father draws them....again my wording aren’t the precise words.

 

[1ofthem]

No one can come to me unless the Father draws them..that is in scripture somewhere,probably the wording isn’t precise.

No offence taken,enjoy the rest of your day.

I think, the scriptures I quoted above explains this.

Anyways same to you...enjoy your day.

 

[EleventhHour]

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.

Here is more for you to deny @cv5 and @jackrosie
... basic understanding of the context of the situation.

This has nothing to do with being chosen by God and irresistible POOF regeneration before belief.

It’s a dialogue between Jesus and the unbelieving Jews.
They rejected Jesus because they rejected the Father.
Jesus identifies Himself with the Father, having rejected the Father, they are NOT now going to accept His Son.
It’s the drawing of the Jewish faithful, and that’s who the Father willed to reveal His Son....while other Jews were being hardened in their unbelief.

 

[EleventhHour]

HAHHAAHAHHH

She has never criticized the Father dude...and Calvinist teachers are no more appointed by God than Jim Jones was....!!!

Calvinists have this thing about the "great men of god" .. they use that a lot, a certain "main peddler" comes to mind once again shows how they are so very indoctrinated.

The secret society gospel of Calvinism .... chosen by god to be irresistibly saved, for a reason cloaked in mystery which no one can

question, in which they admit that they have no idea why god picked them, but unashamedly rejoice in the fact they were chosen while

god passes others by.

 

[cv5]

So then you were saved before you were saved.
All this because you do not correctly interpret Ephesians 1

According to your understanding of Ephesians 1 ......you were never under God's wrath and while you were faithless you were already in Him.

Actually, technically you were elect before you were saved. But the eventuality of salvation is inevitable for the elect.

Nope. Never under God's wrath even before the actual salvation event. Here's why.....

Rom 8
And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom (1) He foreknew (aka ELECTED) , He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom
(2) He predestined, these (3) He also called; whom He called, these (4) He also justified; and whom He justified, these (5) He also glorified.

You see, if you have been so abundantly graced to be APPOINTED to phase (1), you are definitely going to make it to phase (4). And of course to be included in the ultimate finality to Gods predetermined plan of the eternal ages, which is phase (5).

BTW, the apostle Paul is laying out a clearly defined and deliberate PROCESS, in a manner that appeals to our sensibilities as regards the component of time as insofar as we perceive it.

 

[Bbrdrd]

Actually, technically you were elect before you were saved. But the eventuality of salvation is inevitable for the elect.

Nope. Never under God's wrath even before the actual salvation event. Here's why.....

Rom 8
And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. For whom (1) He foreknew (aka ELECTED) , He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom
(2) He predestined, these (3) He also called; whom He called, these (4) He also justified; and whom He justified, these (5) He also glorified.

You see, if you have been so abundantly graced to be APPOINTED to phase (1), you are definitely going to make it to phase (4). And of course to be included in the ultimate finality to Gods predetermined plan of the eternal ages, which is phase (5).

BTW, the apostle Paul is laying out a clearly defined and deliberate PROCESS, in a manner that appeals to our sensibilities as regards the component of time as insofar as we perceive it.

Foreknow-to be aware of an event before it happens

Yet here you add to the definition of the plain word, as if knowing in advance implies causative action. Is the plain text not good enough that you must supply your twist of a definition to make it read how you insist it must? Afterall, it seems far more natural that "elected" would go with predestined, and then the objection becomes that such election is predicated on God's foreknowledge, something that your theological position denies.

 

[cv5]

This scripture does give one pause for thought. It seems out of place with God's character throughout the New Testament. However, when thinking about it, clearly God chose Jacob to be a leader and Israel to be his people. Even though he chose Jacob before he was born and had not done any good or evil....God still knew who to choose for service.

Does this mean that he actually hated Esau and sent him to hell without a chance for repentance. I don't think so. After reading the story of Jacob and Esau, you can see that Jacob did want to please God and Esau was more concerned with pleasing himself. After all, Esau did choose to sell his own birth right. God didn't make Esau do this, it was Esau's choice. So in my opinion, this shows that God has the foresight to choose people for service. Before it even played out, God knew how it was going to go.

I think, the same can be said for the scripture that states we were chosen in him before the foundation. Scripture also states that the lamb was slain before the beginning of the world. We know this was not actually the case, so it must be speaking of God's foreknowledge. God made a plan for salvation, in that he sent his only begotten Son so that whosoever believes in him should not perish. If we accept and believe in him then we are elected in him. If not then we will surely perish. Put simply God has the foresight and foreknowledge to know who will believe, obey, and accept his gift and plan for salvation and who will not. He doesn't make people accept it and he doesn't reject anyone. It is the persons choice, yet God knows the beginning from the end. He is the alpha and omega.

At first glance this seems like a comforting and somewhat soothing doctrine. Unfortunately it is objectionable on at least three grounds (and really several more):

1) It doesn't square with the rest of scripture
2) This road of thinking leads you off the precipice of works/merit based salvation
3) It makes God simply a reactionary to the will of man......which is exactly the OPPOSITE of what the Bible clearly teaches.

We have to tread very lightly here as it is well known that in Jewish lore, the ancient rabbis created (and taught) a ridiculous doctrine that declared Abraham to be so INHERENTLY righteous in and of himself, in his deeds and actions and thinking, that God HAD TO choose Abraham. He had no other choice.

I am pretty much convinced that the Bible is written the way it is to quash that heresy among many others.

 

[Bbrdrd]

At first glance this seems like a comforting and somewhat soothing doctrine. Unfortunately it is objectionable on at least three grounds (and really several more):

1) It doesn't square with the rest of scripture
2) This road of thinking leads you off the precipice of works/merit based salvation
3) It makes God simply a reactionary to the will of man......which is exactly the OPPOSITE of what the Bible clearly teaches.

We have to tread very lightly here as it is well known that in Jewish lore, the ancient rabbis created (and taught) a ridiculous doctrine that declared Abraham to be so INHERENTLY righteous in and of himself, in his deeds and actions and thinking, that God HAD TO choose Abraham. He had no other choice.

I am pretty much convinced that the Bible is written the way it is to quash that heresy among many others.

You bring up one of the major errors of reformed doctrine, the idea of righteousness is so opposed to it that righteousness becomes meaningless. Rather than being a real quality we can look and see a glimmer of in people it's a mystery what it means because it is a property exclusive to God.
Yet the Bible tells us certain men are righteous, even in their own right. Not as if their righteousness indebts God, but that we may understand what it means to be righteous through examining their lives.
It is one of the many ways that your repugnant doctrine make God unknowable by making every one of His qualities different from their common meanings.
Rather than recognizing the glory of a personal God you treat God as an impersonal object of sovereignty, feign worship when all you're really doing is worshiping the very human idea of power.

 

[cv5]

Foreknow-to be aware of an event before it happens

Yet here you add to the definition of the plain word, as if knowing in advance implies causative action. Is the plain text not good enough that you must supply your twist of a definition to make it read how you insist it must? Afterall, it seems far more natural that "elected" would go with predestined, and then the objection becomes that such election is predicated on God's foreknowledge, something that your theological position denies.

Wrong. If you care to study the Bible in its full extent you will come to the inevitable conclusion that the terms "foreknown" or "foreknew" etc. indicates a previously determined relationship from eternity past. It does NOT mean simply making an observation yet future.

Every single time the Bible uses the term foreknown or foreknew, it is directly linked to His people. It is never associated with non-personal objects or events.

Time for you to hit the books buddy!

 

[Bbrdrd]

Wrong. If you care to study the Bible in its full extent you will come to the inevitable conclusion that the terms "foreknown" or "foreknew" etc. indicates a previously determined relationship from eternity past. It does NOT mean simply making an observation yet future.

Every single time the Bible uses the term foreknown or foreknew, it is directly linked to His people. It is never associated with non-personal objects or events.

Time for you to hit the books buddy!

The word means what it means without us adding to it. Or do you think the Holy Spirit chose the wrong word like you do so often when it is "all," "every," and "world?"

Simply being attached to people doesn't add the element of selection to it simply speaks of God's omniscience.

If we follow your logic of God knowing for all eternity to its conclusion you make God the author of sin by the very same token.

 

[dcontroversal]

This scripture does give one pause for thought. It seems out of place with God's character throughout the New Testament. However, when thinking about it, clearly God chose Jacob to be a leader and Israel to be his people. Even though he chose Jacob before he was born and had not done any good or evil....God still knew who to choose for service.

Does this mean that he actually hated Esau and sent him to hell without a chance for repentance. I don't think so. After reading the story of Jacob and Esau, you can see that Jacob did want to please God and Esau was more concerned with pleasing himself. After all, Esau did choose to sell his own birth right. God didn't make Esau do this, it was Esau's choice. So in my opinion, this shows that God has the foresight to choose people for service. Before it even played out, God knew how it was going to go.

I think, the same can be said for the scripture that states we were chosen in him before the foundation. Scripture also states that the lamb was slain before the beginning of the world. We know this was not actually the case, so it must be speaking of God's foreknowledge. God made a plan for salvation, in that he sent his only begotten Son so that whosoever believes in him should not perish. If we accept and believe in him then we are elected in him. If not then we will surely perish. Put simply God has the foresight and foreknowledge to know who will believe, obey, and accept his gift and plan for salvation and who will not. He doesn't make people accept it and he doesn't reject anyone. It is the persons choice, yet God knows the beginning from the end. He is the alpha and omega.

Amen......!

 

[cv5]

You bring up one of the major errors of reformed doctrine, the idea of righteousness is so opposed to it that righteousness becomes meaningless. Rather than being a real quality we can look and see a glimmer of in people it's a mystery what it means because it is a property exclusive to God.
Yet the Bible tells us certain men are righteous, even in their own right. Not as if their righteousness indebts God, but that we may understand what it means to be righteous through examining their lives.
It is one of the many ways that your repugnant doctrine make God unknowable by making every one of His qualities different from their common meanings.
Rather than recognizing the glory of a personal God you treat God as an impersonal object of sovereignty, feign worship when all you're really doing is worshiping the very human idea of power.

Is that coming from "the book of Bbrdrd"? Because it's not coming from the Bible that's for sure.
You are leaking your merit/works based righteousness ideas again. You have been promoting this idea that we can meet God halfway.

I don't know if anyone else perceives it but I see it all the time peppered throughout your posting.

 

[dcontroversal]

The word means what it means without us adding to it. Or do you think the Holy Spirit chose the wrong word like you do so often when it is "all," "every," and "world?"

Simply being attached to people doesn't add the element of selection to it simply speaks of God's omniscience.

If we follow your logic of God knowing for all eternity to its conclusion you make God the author of sin by the very same token.

The jokers said that a dozen pages back or so......and after being called on it they denied it....the exact verbiage escapes me at the moment (4:55) am, monday morning in AU.....but essentially said God is the cause for everything.....something along those lines.....

End of the story.....Calvinism is just another man made "ISM"

It is false, not biblical, skews truth and words, denies truth, deals dishonestly with truth and what others say and is no more biblical than what Joseph Smith had to say about the angel and the golden plates...!