Understanding God’s election

[Cameron143]

Cam,

You have not explained why you think my understanding of Paul in 2CR 5:6-8, PHP 1:6&14, CL 4:12 & RM 1:16-17 is incorrect, so please choose to do so.

1JN uses the terms "know" and "have confidence" interchangeably, as in 1JN 4:13&17.

Paul says we are sealed in EPH 1:13 and warns against apostasy/believing in vain in 1CR 15:2 because of failing to persevere.

Your closing question indicates that you also ignored me saying "Assured/confident, yes! (Per 2CR 5:6-8, PHP 1:6&14, CL 4:12),
but that is not knowing infallibly; we walk by faith, not by sight/proof/absolute certainty--from first to last (2CR 5:7, RM 1:16-17)."

The word "know" in 1 John 5:13 is the same word used in Genesis 4:1 where Adam "knew" his wife. It is not based on empirical data, but intimate experience. This is what gives the certainty.
So your use of "know" as having confidence only partially expresses the thought. That aspect is present, but it is much more than confidence; it is certainty.

 

[rogerg]

Don't miss out on the word "according" which takes the context back to verse 3. The context is not us, but what God has chosen to give those who are in Christ.

No, it is speaking about those whom God PLACES IN Christ Jesus by His choice of them. The issue ocean raised is whether or not God chose those whom He would save. Verse (v4) unquestionably states that they were specifically and individually chosen for such by God. Those who become "in Christ Jesus", are not so by their choice nor by accident, but by God's choice.

 

[GWH]

The word "know" in 1 John 5:13 is the same word used in Genesis 4:1 where Adam "knew" his wife. It is not based on empirical data, but intimate experience. This is what gives the certainty.
So your use of "know" as having confidence only partially expresses the thought. That aspect is present, but it is much more than confidence; it is certainty.

Even intimate experience does not provide certain knowledge that his wife would not help him sin.

They had weak faith that added to GW rather than doubting the Devil and questioning God about why he contradicted GW.

 

[Magenta]

I do believe we have a choice and I do believe God actually does bring us to the place where we do have that choice (accept Christ) unlike Calvinists who believe we have no choice. I think you may be conflating the word power with the understanding of grace...

Hello hello ocean, and welcome to the conversation. Do please excuse me for jumping in here, because I see this charge against Calvinists all the time ... not that I am a Calvinist for I am not ... but I think there is a misunderstanding, because people conflate having a choice with free will. Free will is widely touted within Chistendom despite the fact that it is not taught at all in the Bible in relation to the natural man. Many assert that the natural man is free to believe or not to believe according to his "free will" when what the Bible actually says is that the natural man denies God, is hostile toward God, and unable to obey, due to having been taken captive to do the will of the devil, being blinded by "the god of this age."

 

[Cameron143]

Even intimate experience does not provide certain knowledge that his wife would not help him sin.

They had weak faith that added to GW rather than doubting the Devil and questioning God about why he contradicted GW.

You missed the point. The reference to Genesis 4:1 was to establish "knowing" as intimate experience, and not confidence. I wasn't equating them with God. God giving intimate experience is the very essence of eternal life...knowing God. This is reserved for the children of God. Experiencing God intimately is the proof of eternal life.

 

[Magenta]

2 Corinthians 4:4 plus I wonder how when someone is blind to something, which, let's face it, means they cannot see it at all, or comprehend it, and finds the message connected to it foolishness, and is hostile in their minds toward the One True God behind it all, and loves evil, and suppresses truth, and cannot come to God on his own, being a slave of sin and unable to submit to God's law... I wonder how these people who push "free will" think such a person suddenly decides to throw over their very human nature and choose something he cannot even receive... some say without any help from God at all.

 

[Iconoclast]

Icon,

God is indeed good to all men, but His not loving everyone "savingly" is NOT good to some men.

God's saving love is offered to all men, but some men choose to reject Him. Those who accept His grace/drawing/calling via non-meritorious faith are elected or receive the Holy Spirit.

Yes, we know this because Paul explains it for us in 1TM 2:3-4 & EPH 2:8-10, etc.

LIC

Hello GWH,
I am enjoying our interaction so far, even if we have not found total agreement yet. I would like to answer your points here;

1] Mankind has fallen and rebelled against God and His word. We all deserve the just wrath of God for our sinful rebellion.
That is why it is called MERCY that God has chosen to save any from fallen mankind.

2]God is not obligated to save all men.

3] God's saving love is offered through the preaching and teaching of God's word. Other than that it is not offered to all men as you claim. Romans 1 speaks of the fact that creation declares to all men that there is a God. That knowledge is not enough to save them as Romans 10 informs us. So it is wrong for you to keep repeating such universal statements that in reality are unscriptural.

4] All men reject God unless and until God gives them a new heart. To suggest otherwise is a denial of the effects of the fall into sin and death. Man died, he was not just wounded at the fall.

5] No one would ever seek God on their own. No one accepts anything unless by a God given faith. Election took place before creation, elect themselves, God has already elected a great multitude that no man can number.so men do not elect themselves as you falsely post here. 2 Tim.1:9 .

 

[dougcho]

1] Mankind has fallen and rebelled against God and His word.
We all deserve the just wrath of God for our sinful rebellion.
That is why it is called MERCY that God has chosen to save any from fallen mankind.

2] God is not obligated to save all men.

3] God's saving love is offered through the preaching and teaching of God's word.
Other than that it is not offered to all men as you claim.
Romans 1 speaks of the fact that creation declares to all men that there is a God.
That knowledge is not enough to save them as Romans 10 informs us.
So it is wrong for you to keep repeating such universal statements that in reality are unscriptural.

4] All men reject God unless and until God gives them a new heart.
To suggest otherwise is a denial of the effects of the fall into sin and death.
Man died, he was not just wounded at the fall.

5] No one would ever seek God on their own.
No one accepts anything unless by a God given faith.
Election took place before creation, elect themselves, God has already elected
a great multitude that no man can number.so men do not elect themselves
as you falsely post here. 2 Tim.1:9 .

Yes, congrats, methunks thou has the right idea ...
which is more than I can say for Moderators on some other Forums.

Many believers are hung up on their age-old doctrine
instead of being open to Scriptural Truth.

 

[ocean]

That's your conclusion based on what Cam wrote?

For your info, God "tasked" himself with election right in the Garden after the Fall. Just sayin'....

I just love how polite Calvinists get when someone questions what they write

y'all make God sound like the SEO of some company and that was what I responded to

please don't bother again

 

[daisyseesthesun]

Hello hello ocean, and welcome to the conversation. Do please excuse me for jumping in here, because I see this charge against Calvinists all the time ... not that I am a Calvinist for I am not ... but I think there is a misunderstanding, because people conflate having a choice with free will. Free will is widely touted within Chistendom despite the fact that it is not taught at all in the Bible in relation to the natural man. Many assert that the natural man is free to believe or not to believe according to his "free will" when what the Bible actually says is that the natural man denies God, is hostile toward God, and unable to obey, due to having been taken captive to do the will of the devil, being blinded by "the god of this age."

What magenta says is true belief will only get you so far, but God says those who have been obedient are his good and faithful servants -

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe and tremble.

 

[ocean]

Given that His elect were chosen by Him, then it was He alone who chose.

[Eph 1:4 KJV] 4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

and created all those other people to burn even thought the Bible states the lake of fire was created for the devil and his angels

right

 

[Publican]

"For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."

In the light of this passage of scripture, the truth of Gods foreknowledge and predestination is clearly displayed.

What in the world are you people arguing about?

 

[Rufus]

The story of the salvation of Cornelius and his family is instructive on many levels. The first thing I believe we should notice is the work of God to prepare both Peter and Cornelius for the encounter. God prepares Peter through a vision. Gentiles were considered unclean by Jews. So God through the vision teaches Peter that He determines who is clean. Likewise, God has Cornelius send an envoy to Peter at the direction of a vision. God is always at work, and, like Jesus, we should be ever doing what we see the Father doing.
Cornelius and friends and family were already believers. Verse 2 gives his Christian pedigree, and verse 8 records his faithful response. So if they were already believers, they were indwelt by the Holy Spirit and placed into the body of Christ...1 Corinthians 12:13. What they had not experienced was the baptism with the Spirit...Ephesians 1:13, which you correctly identify as the work of Jesus...Matthew 3:11. And this is what all present observed as the Spirit fell.

I'm not certain about that. Cornelius and his family and friends were "devout and God-fearing" as proselytes who obviously were initially brought into the faith of Judaism under the Old Covenant. It's not clear from the passage that Cornelius was a believer in the coming Jewish Messiah. But it is clear from the passage that God sent Peter to preach the Gospel to the centurion and his family and friends. And while Peter was preaching the Gospel, the Holy Spirit "fell" upon them all. If Cornelius was already a believer in Christ, then why did God send Peter to preach the Gospel to the man?

 

[GWH]

You missed the point. The reference to Genesis 4:1 was to establish "knowing" as intimate experience, and not confidence. I wasn't equating them with God. God giving intimate experience is the very essence of eternal life...knowing God. This is reserved for the children of God. Experiencing God intimately is the proof of eternal life.

No, YOU miss the point that such knowing does not equate with certainty but only with sufficient confidence as well as all of the points made in the Scripture I cited: 2CR 5:6-8, PHP 1:6&14, CL 4:12 & RM 1:16-17.

 

[ocean]

Hello hello ocean, and welcome to the conversation. Do please excuse me for jumping in here, because I see this charge against Calvinists all the time ... not that I am a Calvinist for I am not ... but I think there is a misunderstanding, because people conflate having a choice with free will. Free will is widely touted within Chistendom despite the fact that it is not taught at all in the Bible in relation to the natural man. Many assert that the natural man is free to believe or not to believe according to his "free will" when what the Bible actually says is that the natural man denies God, is hostile toward God, and unable to obey, due to having been taken captive to do the will of the devil, being blinded by "the god of this age."

Well thanks for being polite. I do not think our wills as free as some suggest...I do maintain the word 'choice' though as the Bible does use the word choose as God saying it. I have actually looked into Calvinism quite a bit and I find that Calvinists just either ignore or twist verses that do not convey their beliefs in a way that would finalize the debate once and for all. I stated a few posts back that I don't think any of us quite fully understand how God chooses (from the foundation of the world) and yet it appears that people do choose when the gospel is revealed to them through a person, scripture or even a vision as some have attested to.

I do believe God does draw us to Him. Although, there are many people who question if there is a God without ever hearing about Him. If I am not mistaken, the Bible, particularly the book of Psalms, does deal with the fact that His handiwork is revealed in the sky and only the fool says in his heart there is no God.

 

[Rufus]

and created all those other people to burn even thought the Bible states the lake of fire was created for the devil and his angels

right

The "lake of fire" seems like an appropriate place for the "seeds" of the Serpent to spend eternity with their spiritual father. Also, God is not unjust in not saving everyone, since he didn't have to save anyone! Is God unjust for not saving the fallen angels?

 

[ocean]

The "lake of fire" seems like an appropriate place for the "seeds" of the Serpent to spend eternity with their spiritual father. Also, God is not unjust in not saving everyone, since he didn't have to save anyone! Is God unjust for not saving the fallen angels?

That's your God? God is good and not unjust. Calvinists certainly do make it seem like He is callous though. I don't see the point in exchanging posts with you as your main aim appears to be indoctrination into the wonderful world of Calvinism. I'm pretty familiar with those views and do not agree with them.

 

[Magenta]

"For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."

In the light of this passage of scripture, the truth of Gods foreknowledge and predestination is clearly displayed.

What in the world are you people arguing about?

Perhaps your membership here does not predate people saying things like God is unfair if he reveals Himself to one person one way and doesn't do the exact same thing for everybody else... Even though the Bible is full of such instances. It has also been said that for God to act unilaterally, He is forcing people against their free will ... and for Him to act unilaterally also makes repentance and His offer of salvation a hoax. There are many more bordering-on -blasphemous things that have been said about God that do seem to all rest on the assertion that the natural man has free will even though no such thing is taught in the Bible.

 

[ocean]

If Calvinism is seen as advocating absolute determinism with no human free will, the Bible challenges that viewpoint.

The Biblical histories as described in the Gospel, Acts, and elsewhere, have people who seem to choose their actions. The Holy spirit is likely involved in leading to that choice. However, I would probably guess the vast majority of Calvinists believe in free will. So I would only object to the most extreme forms of Calvinism, again which I don’t think are really subscribed to by the majority of Reformed Christians or Presbyterians.

There are different types of Calvinists and some who call themselves such, do not even understand or have heard that they had no choice in their choosing.

It is the embedded and extreme view that does not discuss but only tries to teach and or indoctrinate.

 

[Cameron143]

I'm not certain about that. Cornelius and his family and friends were "devout and God-fearing" as proselytes who obviously were initially brought into the faith of Judaism under the Old Covenant. It's not clear from the passage that Cornelius was a believer in the coming Jewish Messiah. But it is clear from the passage that God sent Peter to preach the Gospel to the centurion and his family and friends. And while Peter was preaching the Gospel, the Holy Spirit "fell" upon them all. If Cornelius was already a believer in Christ, then why did God send Peter to preach the Gospel to the man?

God is teaching alot in this story. And why do you believe the lesson is about the salvation of Cornelius in the first place? I believe verse 2 is sufficient to conclude salvation. You didn't address verse 8. What is your take on it?