Chosen by God - A study in Election

[EleventhHour]

Lol. It seems to me that criticizing my posts is the best you can do at formalizing doctrine.
Anyhoo. Eph 1, Rom9, Rom 11,

Rewriting the Bible are we? Let's hope you're not leading anybody astray.

That is according to you ..... world means elect.

I do not rewrite anything I demonstrate the deception that is Calvinism.

 

[cv5]

You keep abusing the word "harmonize" when you've displayed exactly what you mean by that. Change word meanings where it doesn't suit your doctrine, insist on the "iron clad" nature of your doctrine, and take tidbits that can be twisted and force-fit to your doctrine out of context. You don't use a consistent approach because you seek to preserve your doctrine at all cost.

Are you gonna sit here all night and criticize every word I write? Why don't you think for yourself for a change and actually do some of your own research and Bible study?

Frankly my back hurts from carrying you around on it for all of dozens these pages.

Oh well I guess some people are leaders and some people are followers eh?

 

[Bbrdrd]

Lol. It seems to me that criticizing my posts is the best you can do at formalizing doctrine.
Anyhoo. Eph 1, Rom9, Rom 11,

Rewriting the Bible are we? Let's hope you're not leading anybody astray.

You persist with the same proof texts when they've already been addressed. Romans 9-11 is discussing the Jewish people as a collective and explaining how God remains just while transitioning from the nation of Israel as His elect to the body of Christ. It is not speaking of particular election but collective election, which you would understand if you understood the central question of the book of Romans.

Ephesians 1 is a doxology, it's purpose is not to set doctrine but to praise God. Therefore it would be highly unnatural to speak of man's end in salvation, yet it states that man must hear and then believe. It does not say "when you heard and God caused you to believe" but attributes the belief to the individual themselves. So even in your proof text there is reason to reject your doctrine.

 

[cv5]

It does not matter whether you quoted Calvin or not since you hold to his doctrines. But you missed the point of my post altogether because you did not read what Calvin wrote.

HE ACTUALLY REFUTED YOU, AND HIMSELF, AND REFORMED THEOLOGY in those two short paragraphs. Did you get that?

I have never read Calvin's commentaries. How the world can I hold his supposed doctrines?

As for refutation, I'm waiting for something from someone that I can actually sink my teeth into. So far it's been a few measily breadcrumbs here and there.

 

[EleventhHour]

I guess all those great men of Calvinism ... Spurgeon... Pink... ... MacArthur etc., etc., missed this part.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Romans 1:18-21

 

[Bbrdrd]

Are you gonna sit here all night and criticize every word I write? Why don't you think for yourself for a change and actually do some of your own research and Bible study?

Frankly my back hurts from carrying you around on it for all of dozens these pages.

Oh well I guess some people are leaders and some people are followers eh?

The irony of this post is palpable. You tell me to do Bible study, yet you repeatedly direct to Pink, Spurgeon, and MacArthur from which you are drawing your doctrine and not answering the simple charge I've laid at your feet. How about you take your own advice and let the Bible speak for itself rather than seeking to make it fit doctrines of men?

The more you bluster and declare yourself a winner the more your pride shows. Yet you haven't addressed my criticism, which has remained the same throughout, that you build your doctrine based on pretexts and do not understand Scripture in its own context.

 

[Nehemiah6]

I have never read Calvin's commentaries. How the world can I hold his supposed doctrines?

You missed the point again. However you have clearly promoted unconditional election (U from TULIP) since this is what you said earlier. And that is indeed Calvin's theology:

"It is double predestination that is a false doctrine. Election is however boilerplate. [meaning that it is embedded in Scripture] It is clear from Rom 9 that God is not choosing those to be damned. Why? God does not need to......they are condemned already (John 3:18)." [Which is a dodge]

And in my quotations from Calvin regarding John 1:29 (above), it was clear that Calvin himself REFUTED you, himself, and Reformed Theology regarding election. Do you still not get it, or are you being obtuse because you have nowhere to run and hide?

 

[cv5]

You persist with the same proof texts when they've already been addressed. Romans 9-11 is discussing the Jewish people as a collective and explaining how God remains just while transitioning from the nation of Israel as His elect to the body of Christ. It is not speaking of particular election but collective election, which you would understand if you understood the central question of the book of Romans.

Ephesians 1 is a doxology, it's purpose is not to set doctrine but to praise God. Therefore it would be highly unnatural to speak of man's end in salvation, yet it states that man must hear and then believe. It does not say "when you heard and God caused you to believe" but attributes the belief to the individual themselves. So even in your proof text there is reason to reject your doctrine.

What you propose is complete and utter nonsense.
The core issue with Romans 9 and Romans 11 is God's sovereign choice aka ELECTION (and the lack thereof!) and unbelief. And to say that Ephesians ch 1 is merely a doxology with no relevant content amounts to the wild ravings of a lunatic apostate. Which at this point I truly believe that you are! Yes at this point I am very comfortable in saying you are in fact an apostate.

Rom 9:11
though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—

Rom 11:5
So then also, in the present time, there has been a remnant according to the election of grace.

Go ahead, make a fool of yourself and deny that election even so much as mentioned in Romans.

 

[cv5]

You missed the point again. However you have clearly promoted unconditional election (U from TULIP) since this is what you said earlier. And that is indeed Calvin's theology:

"It is double predestination that is a false doctrine. Election is however boilerplate. [meaning that it is embedded in Scripture] It is clear from Rom 9 that God is not choosing those to be damned. Why? God does not need to......they are condemned already (John 3:18)." [Which is a dodge]

And in my quotations from Calvin regarding John 1:29 (above), it was clear that Calvin himself REFUTED you, himself, and Reformed Theology regarding election. Do you still not get it, or are you being obtuse because you have nowhere to run and hide?

Your hatred of Calvin and TULIP Is blinding you to the plain meaning of the text.
Luckily I am neutral on the issue so I'm taking it as it comes and reading it as it is.

 

[EleventhHour]

Calvinism has hijacked the words, “chose”, “chosen”, “elect”, “election” and “predestinate” and perverted and denied the true definition.

The true definition is NOT “chose”, “chosen”, “elect”, “election” for salvation.

When the Bible talks about being “chosen” or “elect” or “election”, it is referring to individuals who have willingly believed, NOT

forcibly believed the gospel of John 3:16 and are saved that are “chosen”/”elected” AFTER salvation.

 

[cv5]

You missed the point again. However you have clearly promoted unconditional election (U from TULIP) since this is what you said earlier. And that is indeed Calvin's theology:

"It is double predestination that is a false doctrine. Election is however boilerplate. [meaning that it is embedded in Scripture] It is clear from Rom 9 that God is not choosing those to be damned. Why? God does not need to......they are condemned already (John 3:18)." [Which is a dodge]

And in my quotations from Calvin regarding John 1:29 (above), it was clear that Calvin himself REFUTED you, himself, and Reformed Theology regarding election. Do you still not get it, or are you being obtuse because you have nowhere to run and hide?

Really? Calvin refuted me? Well it looks like I'm not Calvinist after all. That's a relief.

 

[cv5]

Calvinism has hijacked the words, “chose”, “chosen”, “elect”, “election” and “predestinate” and perverted and denied the true definition.

The true definition is NOT “chose”, “chosen”, “elect”, “election” for salvation.

When the Bible talks about being “chosen” or “elect” or “election”, it is referring to individuals who have willingly believed, NOT

forcibly believed the gospel of John 3:16 and are saved that are “chosen”/”elected” AFTER salvation.

I have no idea whether Calvin hijacked anything some things or nothing.
All that I can say is my conscience is telling me that I am not hijacking anything.

 

[EleventhHour]

I have never read Calvin's commentaries. How the world can I hold his supposed doctrines?

I can assure A. W. Pink has...... along with all his Calvinist buddies.

So people who have denied reading John Calvin have actually read far more than they are willing to admit.

 

[cv5]

Calvinism has hijacked the words, “chose”, “chosen”, “elect”, “election” and “predestinate” and perverted and denied the true definition.

The true definition is NOT “chose”, “chosen”, “elect”, “election” for salvation.

When the Bible talks about being “chosen” or “elect” or “election”, it is referring to individuals who have willingly believed, NOT

forcibly believed the gospel of John 3:16 and are saved that are “chosen”/”elected” AFTER salvation.

I couldn't possibly agree less. Which means I don't agree at all. That post takes the cake as the most patently absurd on this thread so far. You win the prize.

 

[cv5]

I can assure A. W. Pink has...... along with all his Calvinist buddies.

So people who have denied reading John Calvin have actually read far more than they are willing to admit.

In any kind of a debate forum Arthur W. Pink would destroy me, annihilate you, humiliate Bbrdrd, and mop the floor with Nehemiah6.

For no other reason than he knows exactly what he's talking about.

 

[Bbrdrd]

What you propose is complete and utter nonsense.
The core issue with Romans 9 and Romans 11 is God's sovereign choice aka ELECTION (and the lack thereof!) and unbelief. And to say that Ephesians ch 1 is merely a doxology with no relevant content amounts to the wild ravings of a lunatic apostate. Which at this point I truly believe that you are! Yes at this point I am very comfortable in saying you are in fact an apostate.

Rom 9:11
though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—

Rom 11:5
So then also, in the present time, there has been a remnant according to the election of grace.

Go ahead, make a fool of yourself and deny that election even so much as mentioned in Romans.

I take your rejection as a badge of honor.

As for Romans 9-11, it is God's sovereign purpose at issue but the quotes Paul uses and the lead up in Romans 1-8 make it clear that Paul is speaking to "children of Abraham" about why they have been displaced, and how God has chosen to show mercy to the gentiles through their rejection. Paul is explaining how this has been the plan from the beginning. God's 'purpose of election" is referring to the election of the Jews rather than an election unto salvation.

As for Ephesians not being useful for doctrine, that's a twisting of what I have actually stated. It is simply that the original purpose of being a doxology must be understood as the principle meaning rather than imposing doctrine onto the text and taking that doxology to justify it.

 

[EleventhHour]

In any kind of a debate forum Arthur W. Pink would destroy me, annihilate you, humiliate Bbrdrd, and mop the floor with Nehemiah6.

For no other reason than he knows exactly what he's talking about.

One thing for certain.................. A. W. Pink and all of his ilk...... would not utter a single word of his FALSE grace DENYING doctrine to Christ Jesus.

 

[Bbrdrd]

In any kind of a debate forum Arthur W. Pink would destroy me, annihilate you, humiliate Bbrdrd, and mop the floor with Nehemiah6.

For no other reason than he knows exactly what he's talking about.

Sounds like you're placing your trust in a man's abilities rather than God. Regardless of his stature, I suspect a child would thwart all of Pink's knowledge since Pink teaches blasphemous lies about the God who chooses the weak to shame the strong.

 

[EleventhHour]

Sounds like you're placing your trust in a man's abilities rather than God. Regardless of his stature, I suspect a child would thwart all of Pink's knowledge since Pink teaches blasphemous lies about the God who chooses the weak to shame the strong.

I cannot even imagine upon the examination of the life of Christ on this earth believing He was not desiring that all would come to repentance and only favored an few.

It is incomprehensible to me, both from my objective knowledge of Him according to scripture and the Spirit of God within me.

Unfathomable and tragic that anyone can create such a different Saviour.

 

[cv5]

I take your rejection as a badge of honor.

As for Romans 9-11, it is God's sovereign purpose at issue but the quotes Paul uses and the lead up in Romans 1-8 make it clear that Paul is speaking to "children of Abraham" about why they have been displaced, and how God has chosen to show mercy to the gentiles through their rejection. Paul is explaining how this has been the plan from the beginning. God's 'purpose of election" is referring to the election of the Jews rather than an election unto salvation.

As for Ephesians not being useful for doctrine, that's a twisting of what I have actually stated. It is simply that the original purpose of being a doxology must be understood as the principle meaning rather than imposing doctrine onto the text and taking that doxology to justify it.

You said: "God's 'purpose of election" is referring to the election of the Jews rather than an election unto salvation."

That is absolute apostate rubbish.

Rom 11:5
So then ALSO, in the present time, there has been a REMNANT according to the election of grace.

Rom 11:8
What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained [[[ ""IT""]]], but the rest were hardened,

Who are these PRESENT (the time of Pauls writing) elect remnant that Paul is referring to?
They are Jewish converts to Christianity!

What exactly is this ""IT"" that they have obtained?
True righteousness that ONLY COMES with the belief in the risen Savior the Lord Jesus Christ.

Yes indeed the text is utterly unassailable in stating that ALL JEWISH CHRISTIANS in the Pauls day were the ELECT REMNANT chosen OUT OF the nation Israel by God to be saved.