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.
It is also elementary that the heart of the natural man is incapable of loving God.
Something you and your cronies deny. You love your traditions of man/free will false doctrine more than Scriptural truth.
Scripture specifically says the natural man is incapable of submitting to God's law.
And according to you, personal revelation merits mocking, though Scripture attests to its necessity.
Something you and your cronies deny. You love your traditions of man/free will false doctrine more than Scriptural truth.
Scripture specifically says the natural man is incapable of submitting to God's law.
And according to you, personal revelation merits mocking, though Scripture attests to its necessity.
Romans 9:19-21 One of you will say to me, “Then why does God still find fault? For who can resist His will?” But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it, “Why did You make me like this?” Does not the potter have the right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special occasions and another for common use?
Are we talking here about salvation or the purpose for the type of clay?
Does one type of clay have a specific purpose in God's creation?
I have always assumed that the common clay were the Gentile nations.
The context would be that the common use of the clay was the Gentile nations.
-
1
- Show all
Nope. You keep using words I don't use as though I do. Selection is not election. When you learn the difference, you will have a greater understanding of God and His ways.
And if you are not going to allow me types and figures from the OT, then don't allow them for yourself.
Election, not selection, is clearly taught concerning Israel. God made a completely new and distinctive people who were not a people. This Jesus does for those of the new creation. They come into the world but are not part of it, just as God called Israel to be separate. Entrance into this kingdom is limited like Israel, but entrance is not through physical birth, but by spiritual birth. This is the reason that Isaac, a child of promise, was given to Abraham and Sarah when a natural birth was no longer possible. It was promised by God, and only God had a hand in bringing it to pass. I'm sure you believe God forced Isaac to be born, and forced Abraham and Sarah to have and accept the child against their will. Yet the Bible seems to suggest otherwise. They seemed quite happy about it.
Conversely, Ishmael was a product of the natural sinful realm. He was born by natural processes out of a sinful act. God had no supernatural hand in it, and rejected Ishmael.
If God chose between the 2 because of something outside of Himself, that would be selection. That isn't what happened. What happened was God chose to create Isaac supernaturally and place him into the human race, and had God not done so, Isaac would never have existed. That's what election is. God isn't selecting between people who already exist, He is bringing a people into the world supernaturally placing them into His kingdom. Without election, there is no creation of those in Christ before the foundation of the world.
Now you know what election actually is, so perhaps you won't mischaracterize it in the future.
And if you are not going to allow me types and figures from the OT, then don't allow them for yourself.
Election, not selection, is clearly taught concerning Israel. God made a completely new and distinctive people who were not a people. This Jesus does for those of the new creation. They come into the world but are not part of it, just as God called Israel to be separate. Entrance into this kingdom is limited like Israel, but entrance is not through physical birth, but by spiritual birth. This is the reason that Isaac, a child of promise, was given to Abraham and Sarah when a natural birth was no longer possible. It was promised by God, and only God had a hand in bringing it to pass. I'm sure you believe God forced Isaac to be born, and forced Abraham and Sarah to have and accept the child against their will. Yet the Bible seems to suggest otherwise. They seemed quite happy about it.
Conversely, Ishmael was a product of the natural sinful realm. He was born by natural processes out of a sinful act. God had no supernatural hand in it, and rejected Ishmael.
If God chose between the 2 because of something outside of Himself, that would be selection. That isn't what happened. What happened was God chose to create Isaac supernaturally and place him into the human race, and had God not done so, Isaac would never have existed. That's what election is. God isn't selecting between people who already exist, He is bringing a people into the world supernaturally placing them into His kingdom. Without election, there is no creation of those in Christ before the foundation of the world.
Now you know what election actually is, so perhaps you won't mischaracterize it in the future.
Everything you have received is from God. It's all grace, and every good and perfect gift comes down from the Father of lights. How do you then say that faith is not from God? If faith doesn't require God why does He need to provide the gospel and the Spirit? Why do you kick so hard against the pricks? Isn't it better to know God as He actually is?
I go with the scripture and the Greek does not support this Reformed view of salvific faith although very popular.
Faith/belief is the responsibility of the hearer, the condition set by God starting with Abraham, and the requirement to receive the gift.
The gift in Ephesian is salvation.
Faith/belief is the responsibility of the hearer, the condition set by God starting with Abraham, and the requirement to receive the gift.
The gift in Ephesian is salvation.
-
1
- Show all
Yes Cameron.
We have received the new covenant commandment to behave that way, to think that way.
There is no interaction or communication between Christians than love for God and love
for others.
John 15:12
This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.
That is agape love and is the foundation of your existence as a Christian.
Absolutely everything that God has ever done is love in the extreme for us.
That one word is above every other word, LOVE.
God is love!!!
We have received the new covenant commandment to behave that way, to think that way.
There is no interaction or communication between Christians than love for God and love
for others.
John 15:12
This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.
That is agape love and is the foundation of your existence as a Christian.
Absolutely everything that God has ever done is love in the extreme for us.
That one word is above every other word, LOVE.
God is love!!!
-
2
- Show all
Salvation comes through faith. How can faith not be part of the gift. That's like Santa giving you a gift but rather than delivering it to you he leaves it in the North Pole. Faith is the delivery mechanism of the grace, just as Santa's sleigh is the delivery mechanism of your gift. No delivery, no gift.
The context of Romans is nothing, more or less, than the verse below.
Romans 9:30-32
What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness,
but the righteousness that is by faith; however, Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive
at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though they could by works.
Ignore the context of the letter to the Romans at your own peril, Magenta.
Romans 9:30-32
What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness,
but the righteousness that is by faith; however, Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive
at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though they could by works.
Ignore the context of the letter to the Romans at your own peril, Magenta.
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?
My amended understanding is this:
1. You agree with Paul's teaching that faith is a non-meritorious acceptance of Christ's work. It is the way God enables people to be saved.
2. You agree with Paul's teaching that A&E exemplify sin but disagree that Abraham exemplifies faith
3. You disagree with Paul's teaching that Abraham was saved by faith first and THEN God deemed him to be righteous or spiritually circumcised,
4. You agree with Paul's teaching that the proto-gospel message was NOT foolishness to Abrahan, which is why he chose to believe it,
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.
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?
My amended understanding is this:
1. You agree with Paul's teaching that faith is a non-meritorious acceptance of Christ's work. It is the way God enables people to be saved.
2. You agree with Paul's teaching that A&E exemplify sin but disagree that Abraham exemplifies faith
3. You disagree with Paul's teaching that Abraham was saved by faith first and THEN God deemed him to be righteous or spiritually circumcised,
4. You agree with Paul's teaching that the proto-gospel message was NOT foolishness to Abrahan, which is why he chose to believe it,
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.
-
1
- Show all
The Elect of God Defined.
The elect of God are those who God foreknown would, as believers without willful unbelief, ultimately choose to cooperate with His grace within the sound doctrine of Jesus Christ and the promptings of the Holy Spirit.
The elect of God
God foreknown
Ephesians 1:4
Believers without willful unbelief
Ultimately choose to cooperate with His grace
Within the sound doctrine of Jesus Christ
Promptings of the Holy Spirit.
The elect of God are those who God foreknown would, as believers without willful unbelief, ultimately choose to cooperate with His grace within the sound doctrine of Jesus Christ and the promptings of the Holy Spirit.
The elect of God
God foreknown
Ephesians 1:4
Believers without willful unbelief
Ultimately choose to cooperate with His grace
Within the sound doctrine of Jesus Christ
Promptings of the Holy Spirit.