The part of the law regarding forgiveness of sin was to save. It was merely a foreshadow of the far better process of Christ, his blood and the cross.
Understanding God’s election
- Thread starter dougcho
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The part of the law regarding forgiveness of sin was to save. It was merely a foreshadow of the far better process of Christ, his blood and the cross.
Not sure how God saves everyone without purposing to do so.
The OT except in a few places and in some of the prophets did not understand that God loves and wants to save all who satisfy GRFS, not only the Jews.
Not sure what words you think are added to Scripture by saying that the Bible doesn't claim God predestines the non-elect to hell, but those who deny that God provides all the opportunity to be saved imply such. Jesus suggests that few are chosen or elect.
Not sure what paragraph 3 v. 7-9 refers to, but if it is to the passages following, you added words.
1TM 5:21 refers to elect angels, presumably because they had the opportunity to accept Christ
MT 25:34 refers to those who are blessed, presumably because they availed themselves of the same grace.
EPH 1:5-6 refers to God's will, which is to cooperate with the plan of salvation He predestined: to elect those who are in Christ.
RM 9:22-23 says God could choose to condemn people who deserve wrath, but His love offers them salvation in Christ.
I appreciate your offer, and that is what we all should do.
Next?
Sure, but I didn't state that Adam and Eve built an airplane.
I believe that Adam and Eve did repent of their sin even though it isn't explicitly stated in scripture. I don't believe they built an aircraft.
Belief is one thing, but trying to prove it is another. Why believe in something that has zero evidence? I think the lack of anything in the bible speaking of them being forgiven is louder than an assumption they were.
For Iconoclast I think it will be helpful for me to explain my hermeneutic or parameters for interpreting the Bible. My method begins with the instruction of Paul (1THS 5:21) to “Test everything. Hold on to the good.” A truthseeker wants to know the truth, and is guided by the question: What is most true or closest to the truth? Learning truth involves subjective logic that is made as objective as possible by learning from other truthseekers, preferably via dialogue when possible.
As a result of seeking ultimate truth, I have come to value two NT teachings as key points from which to triangulate or use to guide my interpretation of the Bible, especially problematic statements. First, God loves and wants to save everyone (1TM 2:3-4); Christ died to show God’s love and the possible salvation of all (RM 5:6-8) including His enemies (ungodly, atheist, anti-Christ). Second, God is just (2THS 1:6a, cf. RM 3:25-26 & 9:14, DT 32:4, PS 36:6, LK 11:42, RV 15:3). Explanations of God’s Word should not impugn God’s justice and love for all people (JL 2:13, JN 3:16). I find this hermeneutic affirmed in the OT (PS 145:17): “The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.” Triangulate from God’s love & justness.
This principle leads me to conclude that even the wrath of God is an expression of His love and justice. The writer of Hebrews (12:4-11) indicates that divine wrath is intended as discipline or for the purpose of teaching people to repent of their hatefulness and faithlessness (PR 3:12, IS 33:14-15 RV 3:19). If a righteous explanation cannot be found for a passage of Scripture purporting to describe God’s will, then it should be considered as historical or descriptive of what people perceived rather than as pedagogical or prescriptive of God’s nature. Unrighteous rage should not be attributed to God.
The justice of God is a source of comfort and joy to those who have decided to accept His loving Lordship, but it is experienced as judgment or wrath by those who rebel against Him (IS 13:13, RM 1:18, RV 19:11). The fire that warms (purifies) also burns (punishes). Stating God’s requirement for salvation negatively: a person would do well (be wise) not to reject Him in order not to experience the miserable but just consequence (JN 3:17-18). Just consequences teach good behavior.
The method employed in this hermeneutic is additive or eclectic as taught by Paul (in 1THS 5:21), exemplified by Jesus (in MT 4:6-7) and illustrated by the transparent overlays of bodily systems found in some books on anatomy. I want to include all true assertions in the picture of reality without making a “Procrustean Body” by cutting off or ignoring parts that do not seem to fit, because the correct understanding must be self-consistent or else God would be tricky. The whole truth combines parts without sawing!
The Bible says God’s Spirit is love and truth (1JN 4:8 & 5:6), which means all love (agape, RM 6:5-8) in all people is God’s operation, and all truth in all cultures is God’s revelation. Thus, becoming a Christian theist does not mean rejecting what is good and true in one’s pre-Christian experience or culture. As the philosopher Hegel taught: when considering two different understandings (thesis A versus antithesis B), the truth may not be either one or the other but rather the proper harmonization of the two. (Both A and B = synthesis C.)
The Bible teaches (GN 1:3, JN 1:1-3) that both the world and inspired words are expressions of God’s Word/Logos, and thus scientific and spiritual truths must be compatible or else God would be tricky. So, while belief that God is love and Jesus is Lord is based upon the biblical revelation, knowledge also is gleaned from the natural sciences and common sense. While my interpretation of reality is based on the Bible, I utilize logical thinking, especially where the Bible seems silent, hoping that I am guided by the Spirit of Truth (JN 14:17).
As a result of seeking ultimate truth, I have come to value two NT teachings as key points from which to triangulate or use to guide my interpretation of the Bible, especially problematic statements. First, God loves and wants to save everyone (1TM 2:3-4); Christ died to show God’s love and the possible salvation of all (RM 5:6-8) including His enemies (ungodly, atheist, anti-Christ). Second, God is just (2THS 1:6a, cf. RM 3:25-26 & 9:14, DT 32:4, PS 36:6, LK 11:42, RV 15:3). Explanations of God’s Word should not impugn God’s justice and love for all people (JL 2:13, JN 3:16). I find this hermeneutic affirmed in the OT (PS 145:17): “The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.” Triangulate from God’s love & justness.
This principle leads me to conclude that even the wrath of God is an expression of His love and justice. The writer of Hebrews (12:4-11) indicates that divine wrath is intended as discipline or for the purpose of teaching people to repent of their hatefulness and faithlessness (PR 3:12, IS 33:14-15 RV 3:19). If a righteous explanation cannot be found for a passage of Scripture purporting to describe God’s will, then it should be considered as historical or descriptive of what people perceived rather than as pedagogical or prescriptive of God’s nature. Unrighteous rage should not be attributed to God.
The justice of God is a source of comfort and joy to those who have decided to accept His loving Lordship, but it is experienced as judgment or wrath by those who rebel against Him (IS 13:13, RM 1:18, RV 19:11). The fire that warms (purifies) also burns (punishes). Stating God’s requirement for salvation negatively: a person would do well (be wise) not to reject Him in order not to experience the miserable but just consequence (JN 3:17-18). Just consequences teach good behavior.
The method employed in this hermeneutic is additive or eclectic as taught by Paul (in 1THS 5:21), exemplified by Jesus (in MT 4:6-7) and illustrated by the transparent overlays of bodily systems found in some books on anatomy. I want to include all true assertions in the picture of reality without making a “Procrustean Body” by cutting off or ignoring parts that do not seem to fit, because the correct understanding must be self-consistent or else God would be tricky. The whole truth combines parts without sawing!
The Bible says God’s Spirit is love and truth (1JN 4:8 & 5:6), which means all love (agape, RM 6:5-8) in all people is God’s operation, and all truth in all cultures is God’s revelation. Thus, becoming a Christian theist does not mean rejecting what is good and true in one’s pre-Christian experience or culture. As the philosopher Hegel taught: when considering two different understandings (thesis A versus antithesis B), the truth may not be either one or the other but rather the proper harmonization of the two. (Both A and B = synthesis C.)
The Bible teaches (GN 1:3, JN 1:1-3) that both the world and inspired words are expressions of God’s Word/Logos, and thus scientific and spiritual truths must be compatible or else God would be tricky. So, while belief that God is love and Jesus is Lord is based upon the biblical revelation, knowledge also is gleaned from the natural sciences and common sense. While my interpretation of reality is based on the Bible, I utilize logical thinking, especially where the Bible seems silent, hoping that I am guided by the Spirit of Truth (JN 14:17).
Faith isn't believing in something without evidence, it's belief in evidence that we acquire other than sight. Evidence need not be material to be evidence.
How about,
3. Because of Adam and Eve's sin, we are all born with a conscience and all are born under the law because we have the knowledge of what is good and what is evil. No one is worthy because we all sin. What makes us sin is our motivation for living which is love of self above God and others. Justice demands that we all get punished, the Father, in His mercy, saves a few who are chosen by Him. He doesn't force Himself on those HE saves. Jesus' first directive in his preaching was to call sinners to repentance. It is how the Father baptizes, with repentance. It is this deep repentance that turns the individual to God in sorrow and shame. The individual is then baptized in the name of the Son when Jesus is preached to him for the forgiveness of sins and he believes. Jesus then baptizes in the name of the Holy Spirit which acts as a portal through which the Father and Son can enter the being indwelled to perfect the person by changing his motivation for living from love of self first to love of God first and all others as he loves himself. When all this happens, the saint knows that he is unworthy, and it is God that makes him worthy, and he is full of thankfulness.
I have been reading the Bible for close to 50 years.
I asked you. Why are you so afraid to just say yes or no?
I know what the Bible says I want to know what you think it days
Actually no it is not anywhere in the Bible. Yes the lord establishes. He can divert and change people plans. But we are talking about God sending people to hell and not even giving them a chance. We are talking about a God who tells us to love our enemies when he will not do it himself
lol they are the same.
I u destined what it at issue. The character, integrity and reputation of my God
Well here is your first mistake. There was no law until long after the flood
correct once the law came it confined that all have sinned. And it is so that all could be restored. The law said the sacrifice was for everyone. Not just a few people
What makes us sin is the hole left in our heart when we were alienated from God. We were created for god to fill that need. As a lost person we are doing everything we can to fill that whole. The problem is nothing can fill
It but God so we are on a lifelong journey to fill that whole that’s why Gid can draw us by the people who are his and his light shining through. They see hope that can be theirs also if only they would believe
Wow there is alot here. Looks like you have 4 or 5 gospels at once
Can you share with me the prices of being born again?
Did he not repent? Is Adam going to hell?
again God put skins to cover his nakedness do you think God would have done that if Adam rejected God. For that matter do you think Adam would let God do it if Adam was unrepentant?
You don't understand my answers so I'll keep it simple for you per the Bible scriptures you prefer to ignore that state the same thing in contextual detail.
Yes.
It doesn't appear so. See above and below.
Not true.
Proverbs 16:9.
Not true. Thinking to not take God's message in context because scripture harmonizes in the full message is error on your part.
I'll leave you to call scripture false. I can't change that mindset.
Your question was,is vague. What are you asking specifically about?
God is Sovereign. And Omniscient. All things are according to his will and plan.
Would you rephrase?
Where are we told that Adam repented? Either we were told that he repented or we were not told.
Jesus shed His blood for the whole world. Has the whole world repented?
Seems to me not everyone will be saved unless the universalists are right.
And GN 2:16-17, from the beginning God has revealed His will/law/word to man. BTW, PS 119 provides these and numerous other synonyms in each verse.
Universally, the Lord died for everyone. Universally, not everyone has believed the gospel.
Obviously, the “specially” are the ones out of the whole who have believed.
1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
I've given careful consideration to the theological perspective you shared, and I must say, it's quite thought-provoking. I find myself intrigued by the complex interplay between divine sovereignty and human free will presented in this view.
Historically I'm reminded of the debates between Augustine and Pelagius, or later between Calvin and Arminius. These discussions on predestination and free will have shaped Christian thought for centuries. The position outlined here seems to align closely with Calvinist doctrine, particularly the concepts of total depravity and unconditional election.
Psychologically I'm fascinated by how such beliefs might impact an individual's sense of agency and responsibility. On one hand, the idea of being "chosen" could provide immense comfort and security. On the other, it might lead to questions about the nature of love and relationship if choice is removed from the equation.
I find myself grappling with how this perspective aligns with our understanding of God's universal salvific will and human cooperation with grace. Our tradition has long held that God's grace is necessary for salvation that humans can freely respond to or reject this grace.
Although I respect the scriptural basis presented for these arguments, I wonder if there might be alternative interpretations that allow for a more synergistic view of divine and human action in salvation.
What are your thoughts on this, my friend? How do you reconcile the idea of God's sovereignty with human responsibility? I'd be curious to hear your perspective, as these are deep waters.