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 Potter's wheel are decreed pressures that God baptizes everyone into.
He brings them into all our lives.
In doing so, the person under pressure MUST choose to fight it, or be humbled by it.
Resulting in?
His soul was being molded by his choices while under pressure.
It is the person's volitional choices that determine how they will be molded by God.
The losers scream... "UNFAIR!" For who can resist the will of the Lord?"
For a loser always assumes that anyone placed under the same pressures?
Would have done no different!
That is why we hear the...
"Who can resist His will?"
... Plea of innocence, is all about!
For?
To the loser?
One could not have had any other choice if given the same pressures!
The loser always wants to establish an excuse for his bad choices!
That's why makes him a loser!
Proverbs 1:22
Beware of the simple minded who blindly make up their minds.
Those who won't budge, in spite of reasoning with the Word of God.
Always grabbing verses out of context to justify their determined choice.
c'est la vie!
He brings them into all our lives.
In doing so, the person under pressure MUST choose to fight it, or be humbled by it.
Resulting in?
His soul was being molded by his choices while under pressure.
It is the person's volitional choices that determine how they will be molded by God.
The losers scream... "UNFAIR!" For who can resist the will of the Lord?"
For a loser always assumes that anyone placed under the same pressures?
Would have done no different!
That is why we hear the...
"Who can resist His will?"
... Plea of innocence, is all about!
For?
To the loser?
One could not have had any other choice if given the same pressures!
The loser always wants to establish an excuse for his bad choices!
That's why makes him a loser!
Proverbs 1:22
“How long will you who are simple love your simple ways?
How long will mockers delight in mockery
and fools hate knowledge?
Beware of the simple minded who blindly make up their minds.
Those who won't budge, in spite of reasoning with the Word of God.
Always grabbing verses out of context to justify their determined choice.
c'est la vie!
He made it very clear. The passage does not speak to WHAT God foreknew -- but to WHOM (personal pronoun) God knew in eternity ("foreknew" since the Eternal One and eternity existed before temporal reality). You're reading the impersonal pronoun "what" into the passage. That kind of interpretation is called eisegesis because you're adding to the text what isn't there. If God wanted to say he knew WHAT then he could have said through Paul,
"For the faith and repentance that God foreknew in his chosen people..." But that isn't what the text says, is it?
In fact, the NIV renders v.29:
Rom 8:29
29 For those (i.e. people) God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
NIV
And this doesn't change the sense of the passage one iota since people are in view here -- not things about people.
Also, the Gr. term "ginosko" which means "know" also denotes an intimate, personal knowledge of its object. For example, Joseph did not "know" (have intimate, personal, sexual knowledge of) Mary until after Jesus' birth:
Matt 1:25
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
KJV
Matt 1:25
25 and knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
Darby
Matt 1:25
25 and did not know her till she brought forth her son — the first-born, and he called his name Jesus.
YLT
Finally, your interpretation would flat out contradict Eph 1:11 since God's will is not contingent on the will of his moral agents.
"For the faith and repentance that God foreknew in his chosen people..." But that isn't what the text says, is it?
In fact, the NIV renders v.29:
Rom 8:29
29 For those (i.e. people) God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
NIV
And this doesn't change the sense of the passage one iota since people are in view here -- not things about people.
Also, the Gr. term "ginosko" which means "know" also denotes an intimate, personal knowledge of its object. For example, Joseph did not "know" (have intimate, personal, sexual knowledge of) Mary until after Jesus' birth:
Matt 1:25
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
KJV
Matt 1:25
25 and knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.
Darby
Matt 1:25
25 and did not know her till she brought forth her son — the first-born, and he called his name Jesus.
YLT
Finally, your interpretation would flat out contradict Eph 1:11 since God's will is not contingent on the will of his moral agents.
-
1
- Show all
Better yet...be very aware of those who will pervert the scriptures by reading the OT back into the NEW! It is you who keep perverting God's word by adding things into the passage that the original writer never said or intended to say. Paul never spoke about any "pressures". What Paul did was carefully articulate and expand on the truth of there being two kinds of children, hence the two lumps of clay to support his earlier statements.
-
1
- Show all
Indeed, and similarly, Rufus, they overlook a comparable inherent problem within their argument: if individuals who once had faith in Christ subsequently experience various physical or mental impairments, such as a stroke or dementia, ETC, and consequently lose their belief without the ability to regain it, what then becomes of their salvation? Should they happen to lose belief through no fault of their own, is their salvation forfeited, considering that those disagreeing with you deem that man-made, man-sustained belief is a prerequisite to salvation? Or is there an undisclosed exception or another distinct gospel applicable solely to the disabled, young, old, and not to others? If this is the case, then where in scripture has this stipulation been made? Or are there two gospels of salvation to address this and not one, yet the scripture speaks only of one gospel: salvation through/by Christ alone as Savior. This raises the question of the exact measure of faith needed to be produced and sustained by someone in order to attain/retain salvation. Where is this requirement detailed so that everyone can understand exactly how to measure, embody and achieve it, without which, it becomes requirement without solution.
The problem with their argument is that by distorting the pure and simple gospel of Christ—that Christ alone is the Savior, who grants salvation along with everything that accompanies salvation —they are compelled to create increasingly absurd deviations to make it seem viable, akin to forcing a square peg into a round hole, or they simply refuse to address the question at all. These deviations, or lack of answers, should their version of the gospel be followed to its logical end, would lead to utter nonsense and fail to represent the true gospel.
The problem with their argument is that by distorting the pure and simple gospel of Christ—that Christ alone is the Savior, who grants salvation along with everything that accompanies salvation —they are compelled to create increasingly absurd deviations to make it seem viable, akin to forcing a square peg into a round hole, or they simply refuse to address the question at all. These deviations, or lack of answers, should their version of the gospel be followed to its logical end, would lead to utter nonsense and fail to represent the true gospel.
I would opine that this fits snugly into the framework that you have erected.
[Luk 19:20 KJV]
And another came, saying, Lord, behold, [here is] thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:
[Luk 19:21 KJV]
For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.
[Luk 19:22 KJV]
And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, [thou] wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:
[Luk 19:23 KJV]
Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?
[Luk 19:24 KJV]
And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give [it] to him that hath ten pounds.
[Luk 19:26 KJV]
For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.
[Luk 19:20 KJV]
And another came, saying, Lord, behold, [here is] thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:
[Luk 19:21 KJV]
For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.
[Luk 19:22 KJV]
And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, [thou] wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:
[Luk 19:23 KJV]
Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?
[Luk 19:24 KJV]
And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give [it] to him that hath ten pounds.
[Luk 19:26 KJV]
For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.
And what does that passage have to do with Rom 9:21 wherein God MAKES two lumps out of one!? Would not one lump, in the context of the chapter, be the natural, earthly children of Abraham and the other lump be the spiritual children of the patriarch, i.e. children of promise? And who determined which of these two distinct groups everyone is in: God or man?
