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.
how you look
Re "So, why do you accuse me of having a divisive spirit? Please provide quotes of me exhibiting such."
My search found that we discussed things amicably until I posted in #4,045 that ignoring Paul's teaching that God loves and wants to save all people, which means that He gives every sinner volition, thereby enabling him to seek salvation--or not, implicitly blasphemes God by ascribing to Him hatred of humanity, or at least most of it, depending on how many you think He elects.
In the next post you replied, "I have never claimed that faith is meritorious. I'm not sure where you got that idea. It is the opposite of my belief. I do not ignore that A&E are examples of sin and Abe an example of faith. It is quite shocking how easily you lie. I never said the gospel message was foolishness to Abe. I don't know why you feel you have to make up so much crap. Blaspheming God. I never said He hated humanity. My God, what a liar you are to be so dishonest about what I believe."
My reply in #4,079 was this:
Re "I have never claimed that faith is meritorious. I'm not sure where you got that idea. It is the opposite of my belief." Why else would you refuse to ascribe the ability to seek and have faith in God to sinners? If it is non-meritorious, what's the problem?
Re "I do not ignore that A&E are examples of sin and Abe an example of faith. It is quite shocking how easily you lie.": Sorry, I thought that if you viewed Abraham as an example of saving faith for all to be erroneous that you would probably think the same about A&E being an example of sin.
Re "I never said the gospel message was foolishness to Abe. I don't know why you feel you have to make up so much crap.": I inferred it from you saying that the natural/uncircumcised man--which Abraham was--could not believe the Gospel unless God circumcised his heart first, but Paul says Abraham had faith first before circumcision, so how do you avoid implying that crap?
Re "Blaspheming God. I never said He hated humanity. My God, what a liar you are to be so dishonest about what I believe.": What I said was that by denying the teaching that God loves and wants to save all people you implicitly ascribe to Him hatred of however many humans you think He does not elect to circumcise--and you did not say that you believe God circumcises everyone's heart just now, so how do you avoid this implication?
Then I stated my amended understanding:
1. You agree with Paul's teaching that faith is a non-meritorious acceptance of Christ's work...
2. You agree with Paul's teaching that A&E exemplify sin...
3. You disagree that Abraham was saved by faith first and THEN God deemed him to be or spiritually circumcised...
4. You agree with Paul's teaching that the proto-gospel message was NOT foolishness to Abraham...
5. You seem oblivious to the implication that by ignoring Paul's teaching that God loves and wants to save all people, which means that He gives every sinner volition, thereby enabling him to seek salvation--or not, you ascribe hatred for the part of humanity whose hearts God does not circumcise so they may believe and be saved and effectually force them to go to hell. [BTW, it is wrong to say someone lies when they merely misunderstand you.]
[And so we got crossways on p.204, 15DEC24, and Jimbone & Rufus were also pejorative in their disagreement
with us Arminians per #4,197]
I am sure further search will find that I already apologized for misunderstanding y'all's beliefs to be TULIPism,
but just to update our discussion, I hereby apologize again and request that you respect the honest
Arminian interpretation of Scripture, even though you disagree with it.
I hope everyone affirms the essential belief in Jesus as Messiah and Lord,
but I wish we all would agree on what that means and thereby grant the prayer of Jesus in John 17:21-24.
If you disagree with something in my five-point elaboration of the Christian creed, please specify why.
Thanks. Over...
Jesus came to earth and was identified spiritually with sinners. He went through the baptism of repentance, even though He did not need to repent. He suffered abuse from sinners as we all do. He suffered death, as we all have done or will. He experienced humanity, as we all do.
I disagree with your view of what unity and communion requires. It does not require a complete one to one equivalence overlap regarding a specific core set of so-called essential doctrines. It only requires some overlap in experience that enables empathy and compassion.
Spiritual oneness requires essential agreement/overlap that Jesus came to earth, was identified spiritually with sinners, went through the baptism of repentance, even though He did not need to repent, died to pay the penalty for sin and arose to signify repentant sinners will go to heaven, and all else implied so far.
Please specify which part of the "implied" in my five-point elaboration of the kerygma that you deem not to be part of what is required for spiritual oneness.
I have often said and even proved from a large boidy of scripture that God-fearing, pious Jews never considered Israel to be part of the world, that is to say as being just one among many other nations. The Jews considered themselves to be separate from the other nations because they were God's chosen people called to consecrate themselves to God. Of course, by this I don't mean that the Jews didn't consider themselves to be part of God's creation, as Mr. Studier once lamely intimated I believed. 
Here is a passage that solidly and explicitly nails down this doctrine of Separation:
Num 23:7-10
7 Then Balaam uttered his oracle:
"Balak brought me from Aram,
the king of Moab from the eastern mountains.
'Come,' he said, 'curse Jacob for me;
come, denounce Israel.'
8 How can I curse
those whom God has not cursed?
How can I denounce
those whom the LORD has not denounced?
9 From the rocky peaks I see them,
from the heights I view them.
I see a people who live apart
and do not consider themselves one of the nations.
10 Who can count the dust of Jacob
or number the fourth part of Israel?
Let me die the death of the righteous,
and may my end be like theirs!"
NIV
The red bolded text says it all in terms of what the mindset of Jewish writers were and how their original audience would have understood universal-sounding terms such as "kosmos"( or world) that differs substantially from how modernists today understand it. For example, when the Jew John penned Jn 3:16, he most definitely did not understand "world" as being used in the distributive sense, since he would have never considered the nation of Israel to be part of the "kosmos". Rather, he would understand "kosmos" to mean the [Gentile] nations. In other words, God so loved the nations -- which would have excluded Israel. Therefore, the only proper understanding of the Gr. term "kosmos" in this kind of passage is that the term is used in a limited sense, e.g. God loved the nations
w/o distinction. Since the covenant nation of Israel would be excluded from nations, we cannot logically understand "kosmos" to mean each and every person in the world w/o exception. In fact, neither did Jesus understand "kosmos" in the distributive sense, since he explicitly excluded or SEPARATED (cut out) the "kosmos" in his High Priestly prayer in John 17. Jesus actually prayed for ONE covenant nation, i.e. the "nation" to whom the kingdom of God would be given once the kingdom was taken from national Israel (Mat 21:43). And just who was this one covenant nation, specifically? The catholic (universal), invisible Church without physical borders and which consists of ALL Abraham's spiritual descendants throughout the world!
The text bolded in black clearly refutes the FWT objection that God doesn't "force" his will upon anyone. But that's precisely what he did with Balaam. God's grace of blessing to Israel was most definitely efficacious! So, eat your hearts out FWers!
Here is a passage that solidly and explicitly nails down this doctrine of Separation:Num 23:7-10
7 Then Balaam uttered his oracle:
"Balak brought me from Aram,
the king of Moab from the eastern mountains.
'Come,' he said, 'curse Jacob for me;
come, denounce Israel.'
8 How can I curse
those whom God has not cursed?
How can I denounce
those whom the LORD has not denounced?
9 From the rocky peaks I see them,
from the heights I view them.
I see a people who live apart
and do not consider themselves one of the nations.
10 Who can count the dust of Jacob
or number the fourth part of Israel?
Let me die the death of the righteous,
and may my end be like theirs!"
NIV
The red bolded text says it all in terms of what the mindset of Jewish writers were and how their original audience would have understood universal-sounding terms such as "kosmos"( or world) that differs substantially from how modernists today understand it. For example, when the Jew John penned Jn 3:16, he most definitely did not understand "world" as being used in the distributive sense, since he would have never considered the nation of Israel to be part of the "kosmos". Rather, he would understand "kosmos" to mean the [Gentile] nations. In other words, God so loved the nations -- which would have excluded Israel. Therefore, the only proper understanding of the Gr. term "kosmos" in this kind of passage is that the term is used in a limited sense, e.g. God loved the nations
w/o distinction. Since the covenant nation of Israel would be excluded from nations, we cannot logically understand "kosmos" to mean each and every person in the world w/o exception. In fact, neither did Jesus understand "kosmos" in the distributive sense, since he explicitly excluded or SEPARATED (cut out) the "kosmos" in his High Priestly prayer in John 17. Jesus actually prayed for ONE covenant nation, i.e. the "nation" to whom the kingdom of God would be given once the kingdom was taken from national Israel (Mat 21:43). And just who was this one covenant nation, specifically? The catholic (universal), invisible Church without physical borders and which consists of ALL Abraham's spiritual descendants throughout the world!
The text bolded in black clearly refutes the FWT objection that God doesn't "force" his will upon anyone. But that's precisely what he did with Balaam. God's grace of blessing to Israel was most definitely efficacious! So, eat your hearts out FWers!
I don't agree with your premise, Spiritual unity can be experienced with anyone by focusing on those areas in which one has commonality with the other and respecting the other persons right to choose to differ from you in other areas. Jesus developed unity with sinners in this way.
You must have me confused with someone else. I don't even know what this sentence is supposed to mean.
Jesus developed spiritual unity with his disciples, but not with unrepentant Pharisees.
Nope. That was the lame reply you gave me when I pointed out previously that ancient Jews historically believed (and many today still do) they were distinct from the nations of the world.
OK, now I remember. That was when you said that Moses was actually a Weimaraner.
Nope. Your memory is shot. I never said such thing. Why would I say that Moses is a dog?
Nope. Your memory is shot. I never said such thing. Why would I say that Moses is a dog?
Moses could fetch you some manna.Studier has very likely named this pooch Moses.
And retrieve the birds the Jews feasted upon in the wilderness -- if he had enough bird dog in him.
Studier has very likely named this pooch Moses.
Nope. Funny looking little wiener-dog, kind of scrappy, named Rufus. Memory being shot when I named him, I think it's a him, I could only recall he reminded me of someone.