FreeGrace2 said:
Are you deaf? Though I am, this is not about dispensationalism. Can you understand this?
So long as you continue to choose Dispensationalism as your religion
OK, so you ARE deaf. Good to know. You need to find some hearing aides. And regarding your ridiculous comments about dispensationalism, first, it's NOT a "religion". That is just a very ignorant comment. And I've already told you to define what you meanby "dispensational terminology" since I have no idea what that even is.
If you want a discussion from me, then please DEFINE your ridiculous terms.
that will always be the biggest communication barrier. Christian scripture is different than Dispensationalist scripture.
Oh, stop it. I use biblical terms. And what is "dispensational scripture". Some other kind of bible?
100% of the elect are Christian, including Abraham and other OT saints. This isn't hard to understand when you use the term "elect" correctly.
I have been. But since you disagree, show me where I have used the term incorrectly.
As I said, I would prefer to use "elect" and "chosen" in their proper Christian sense.
I use the words in the BIBLICAL sense. The words apply to both the OT and NT. And ALL of the uses, whether OT or NT, are about SERVICE. Or prove me wrong.
We should avoid using them from a Dispensationalist sense because it is going to cause confusion.
I'm getting real tired of your silliness. Give up on your phony dispensationalist "sense" as if there is other senses than the Bible's. I can prove from Scripture that election is to service, in EVERY case.
What can you prove?
And admittedly, you might be confused because you may not understand the Christian perspective yet.
What kind of snark is this? You suggesting that I'm not a Christian? That would be very stupid.
FreeGrace2 said:
You still have not quoted ANY verse that supports your claims.
I did provide exactly that, but only from a Christian perspective, not a Dispensationalist one.
Stop your nonsense. Grow up. None of the verses you quoted even mentioned election. So you continue to FAIL to prove your point.
Again, please use these terms in a Christian sense if you are able so that we can both communicate clearly with one another.
I think you are just being silly to avoid the FACT that you cannot prove your view about election.
I asked you to define your terms but it is clear you have no intention of doing so. That means you are dishonest. You don't want an honest discussion. So you couch everything in terms that you refuse to define. Quit being dishonest.
This was my attempt at understanding what you mean by "election"/"chosen", etc.
I TOLD you what the BIBLE means. God chooses or elects to service, including Jesus Christ Himself.
You had every opportunity to present the Dispensationalist definition of the terms and you haven't yet.
Until you get over your dishonesty and define what YOU mean by "the dispensationalist definition", there is no way to advance this discussion. Which is what you probably want anyway, since you can't defend your own view from the Bible.
Let's move on and please just use these terms in a Christian sense.
Would you just STOP this insanity.
. Does Dispensationalist scripture contain 2 Cor 3:14?
The ONLY Scrpture I read is the Bible itslef. So get off your insane ideas about there being a dispensational scripture. I've never heard of it.
What is the authorized Dispensationalist interpretation of scripture?
stupid comment.
The Dispensationalist handbook
Oh, so there is such a thing. Where did you get one? I''ve never even heard of such a thing. Or, are you just making all this up, just to avoid having to defend your own views?
How does your belief even work within Dispensationalism?
I couldn't care LESS. Your questions are just so stupid and childish.
FreeGrace2 said:
[Saul's lack of failure as Paul] is totally irrelevant.
The fact that you think it is irrelevant means that you don't understand what I am asking.
No, it means exactly what is says. Your comment is irrelevant to this discussion, Maybe if you would actually explain/define what you mean, it would help.
FreeGrace2 said:
The people of Israel were chosen in the OT, from the beginning of the Jewish people.
It's not clear what you mean by this.
Sure it is. When did the Jews become Jews? Adam wasn't Jewish. Neither was Noah. My point was when God commanded circumcision, as a sign of His people being distinct from all other peoples.
FreeGrace2 said:
It absolutely IS IS IS conditional. "every one who sees and believes on the Son, may have everlasting life".
You are parsing that incorrectly.
I haven't parsed anything. Johbn 6:40 is a clear condition for receiving eternal life; which is to believe. Calvinists just have blinders on.
The statement is "X allows Y", or "X happened so that Y may happen". This isn't a conditional statement, it is a description of cause and effect.
Same thing. IF the cause, THEN the effect. See? Real simple. Not difficult at all.
"Invited" and "chosen" mean distinctly different things in Christianity.
Yes, they are different, but there are verses that speak of the same things, yet one verse has kletos and the other has eklectos. So there IS overlap, even if you were ignorant of that fact.
It perhaps would be helpful if you can translate into plain English what you mean "chosen" and "elect".[/QUOTE]
OK, now pay close attention. These 2 words mean the SAME THING.
I hope you were sitting down when you read that. The Greek word is the SAME, so the 2 words, used by translators is the same as well.
A few Dispensationalists I've encountered had a difficult time explaining what "many are called, few are chosen" meant from a Dispensationalist perspective because "called" and "chosen" meant the same thing to them.
Since you won't define what you mean by dispensationalist perspective, dispensationalist scripture, etc, I'm just going to ignore all these very childish snipes.
In the text where the phrase occurs, the context is about salvation. The "many are called" is evangelism. Which is for everyone, as Titus 2:11 plainly says. "few are chosen" refers to the fact that only those who believe the gospel and are saved are chosen for service.
In Christianity, they don't mean the same thing, and there is a clear differentiated meaning conveyed by "called" and "chosen" but these meanings very apparently differ from the Dispensationalist rendering of the words. Here's your chance to explain how your religion handles these words. And specifically, what these words mean to you, as it seems that Dispensationalists disagree with each other on this point too.
Believers are invited to serve and chosen to serve. Real simple.
FreeGrace2 said:
Please tell me what the word "us" refers to in Eph 1:4. "God chose us". Who are the us?
The Christian perspective is that "us" is in reference to Christians collectively.
I'm totally NOT interested in whatever you might mean by "Christian perspective". You only have to look across evangelicalism today and see the WIDELY and VARIOUSLY held views of the Bible and KNOW that there is no unity at all.
I am interested in ONLY what the Bible says. So you can jettison your flimsy "Christian/dispensationalist" junk. My focus is only on what the Bible says.
I would ask you what you interpret "us" to mean in this case, but I really don't care for the flip-flop answer.
My answer was straightforward and clear. The "us" in Eph 1:4 is actually defined in Eph 1:19.
and his incomparably great power for
us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength
That is very clear. So 1:4 actually says "God chose believers". What the verse doesn't say, nor any other, is that God chooses who will believe. That's just the calvinist perspective, but without any biblical support.
Dispensationalism relies on a significant amount of eisegetic content.
So do the calvinists.
Terminology is used differently between Dispensationalists and Christians.[/QUOTE]
Well, that's an interesting snipe. So you view dispensationalists as non Christians then. Wow. I guess we don't need to continue this phony discussion, since your calvinist elitist perspective has you so blinded to truth, that there is no point in any kind of discussion.
[QIUOTE]And heck, maybe you don't care for clear communication.[/QUOTE]
No, that would be your problem. You hide behind phony ideas etc, and even don't consider a dispensationaist as a Christian. That is insanity.
You don't understand the Christian perspective on what election, chosen, called, and salvation mean.
You can clear all this up by simply quoting a verse that shows that election is to salvation. But so far, all you do is make long posts without any evidence from Scripture. Yet, I can quote many verses that clearly show what election is for; service.
I even gave you 1 example: 1 Cor 1:27,28. I suspect you just ignored it, since it doesn't fit your elitist calvinist perspective. You should join the Christian perspective and accept what the Bible says.
1
