Doctrine of Election

[DiscipleOfIAm]

This is one that has always confused me. I believe we find it in the book of Romans Chapters 9-12. I never knew anything about it until inquiring about Calvinists and then have been doing further study on it. I didn't even know it was in the Bible until then either. But, there it is! Now, how do we interpret it?

What's your take on it? I struggle with the idea that there are those "elect" that God has chosen and then the "non-elect". Which to me says that if you are the non-elect, no matter what, you won't be saved. How does free will fit into this? What makes us so special to be the elect, why? I realize that most hold true that within this elect, you still have the free will to choose, but if you're the non-elect, you never have a chance! I think it conflicts with the idea of Christ died for all to be saved and save the world.

Anyone?

God Bless!

[Crazy Liz]

I just had to write a paper where I was required to read what Calvin wrote in his Institutes about predestination, and was required to [b]defend[/i] Calvin's position! :eek: Can you imagine me doing that????

Calvin relies on these passages in Romans, and is very logical, but he never in this context refers to God's love, except to contrast it with God's hate. I don't think the Bible as a whole teaches that God hates more people than God loves, as Calvin believes. I think it is debatable whether God actually hates any human being. There are a few verses that say God hates, but they are relatively few and obscure compared to all the scriptures that talk about God's love.

I found a hole or two in his argument. The biggest was that the used Ishmael and Esau as equivalent examples of people who despised God's covenant, where the Bible never says anything of the kind about Ishmael.

(In fact, I have become very aware of what an undeserved bad rep Ishmael receives in many biblical interpretations. I would like to see Christians give some careful theological reflection to the role of Ishmael as the scapegoat, and all of its ramifications. But that is :topic: to this thread.)

Anyway, I think it's good to study. You would want to read Chapters 21-24 of Volume 3 (http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/m.sion/calvinst.htm). See how he makes his case, and see if it is convincing to you. He does include some very good critiques of other views than his own.

[BBAS 64]

This is one that has always confused me. I believe we find it in the book of Romans Chapters 9-12. I never knew anything about it until inquiring about Calvinists and then have been doing further study on it. I didn't even know it was in the Bible until then either. But, there it is! Now, how do we interpret it?

What's your take on it? I struggle with the idea that there are those "elect" that God has chosen and then the "non-elect". Which to me says that if you are the non-elect, no matter what, you won't be saved. How does free will fit into this? What makes us so special to be the elect, why? I realize that most hold true that within this elect, you still have the free will to choose, but if you're the non-elect, you never have a chance! I think it conflicts with the idea of Christ died for all to be saved and save the world.

Anyone?

God Bless!

Good Day, DiscipleofIam

I have bolded the part that I do not understand, where did you get that idea?

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Christ died for the Church which is the body of belivers.

His sheep, the ones given to him by the father, his people, the beliving ones, the chosen, the few, the ones that are of God.

Peace to u,

Bill

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

This is one that has always confused me. I believe we find it in the book of Romans Chapters 9-12. I never knew anything about it until inquiring about Calvinists and then have been doing further study on it. I didn't even know it was in the Bible until then either. But, there it is! Now, how do we interpret it?

What's your take on it? I struggle with the idea that there are those "elect" that God has chosen and then the "non-elect". Which to me says that if you are the non-elect, no matter what, you won't be saved. How does free will fit into this? What makes us so special to be the elect, why? I realize that most hold true that within this elect, you still have the free will to choose, but if you're the non-elect, you never have a chance! I think it conflicts with the idea of Christ died for all to be saved and save the world.

Anyone?

God Bless!

Calvinism is more than just the doctrine of election and the other "5 Points." Our beliefs are very Bible centered and it takes a very, very long time to fully comprehend everything that we believe. My suggestion is that you study the scripture and pray to God for spiritual discernment.

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

Try this for a thought: The plan of salvation and the entity of the church were predestined before the foundations of the world...NOT individual believers.

[Diakoneo]

Hey disciple I can make it real simple for you, because I had a real struggle with Calvinism and whether or not it was true (I am of the somewhat strong belief that it is not btw).

Election has nothing to do with God's eternal decree for certain sinners to salvation and certain other sinners for destruction. Nothing at all. It is a misrepresentation/misunderstanding/misuse of scripture to imply otherwise IMHO.

The Scriptural meaning of election by context and usage is that:

- The Son of God was elected for the work of Calvary (1 Pet 1:19-20)
- Israel was elected to be the vehicle for the presentation of Christ (Rom 9:5)
- The Church was elected In Christ and predestinated to be to the praise of His glory (Eph 1:12)

A careful exposition of Romans 9 shows that it has been taken way out of context and crammed into a doctrinal supposition.

[Diakoneo]

Try this a thought: The plan of salvation and the entity of the church were predestined before the foundations of the world...NOT individual believers.

NAIL ON THE HEAD!!

[Diakoneo]

Calvinism is more than just the doctrine of election and the other "5 Points." Our beliefs are very Bible centered and it takes a very, very long time to fully comprehend everything that we believe. My suggestion is that you study the scripture and pray to God for spiritual discernment.

:amen:

*disclaimer - I suggest that everyone study the scripture and pray to God for scriptural discernment. Leave "Institutes" on the shelf, it is not inspired, and don't study the scripture looking for "proof" of your dogma. Leave the dogma at the door and let the Word speak!

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

:amen:

*disclaimer - I suggest that everyone study the scripture and pray to God for scriptural discernment. Leave "Institutes" on the shelf, it is not inspired, and don't study the scripture looking for "proof" of your dogma. Leave the dogma at the door and let the Word speak!

How funny. I have never once touched the Institutes. My beliefs are in fact based upon the Bible. God brought me back into His flock in 2003 and I continued to attend my free will Baptist church for another year. I spent a great deal of time listening to the Old and New Testiment on the road (I travel a lot for work). I was convinced of this Biblical theology from scripture, not from any man's writings concerning scripture. It is true that I now read books that are written by Calvinists but that is because I have studied the scripture and found these things to be true.

[BBAS 64]

Try this for a thought: The plan of salvation and the entity of the church were predestined before the foundations of the world...NOT individual believers.

Good Day Unimportant

Questions if I might, for the sake of the question I will assume you are correct. Is not the church made up of individual "people"?
God predestined a group of "belivers", with out any belivers?
Did Christ die for a group that could have contained "no one"?
Who was saved at the cross, Did his work at the cross save anyone objectively?

Peace to u,

Bill

[BT]

Let's please try to keep this discussion civil. We all know the way that this topic tends to trend downhill quickly.

NO DEBATING BY NON-BAPTIST-ANABAPTIST POSTERS IS PERMITTED. Please see the forum specific rules for the guidelines on posting in here. We value your friendship but will not tolerate debating.


MOD HAT OFF

[DiscipleOfIAm]

Let's please try to keep this discussion civil. We all know the way that this topic tends to trend downhill quickly.

NO DEBATING BY NON-BAPTIST-ANABAPTIST POSTERS IS PERMITTED. Please see the forum specific rules for the guidelines on posting in here. We value your friendship but will not tolerate debating.


MOD HAT OFF

I didn't see any non-baptist-anabaptists debating. Are you going by the symbol on the top left of the poster as to whether or not they are baptist or anabaptist? That's silly because anyone can go and change their label in their profile at any time. My particular denomination is United Brtehren in Christ, which does fall into the category of Baptist/Anabaptist, but I choose to have the "Christian" symbol on my profile.

Back to the point, thank you all for your insight. As I stated in the OP, I find this particular doctrine/belief confusing and very deep. I'm not familiar with any other Calvin view, at least not that I know of. I'd probably be surprised. Anyway, the OP was designed to take aim at a particular group, just this particular doctrine.

God Bless!

[Lockheed]

Right BBAS 64...

- Reformed Baptist -"...born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."

[Bingle]

Ephesians 1:4 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:

The fact is us is people, that is, individuals. The problem I have with Calvinism is that Christ was the 'propitiation for the sins of the whole world', 'in due time he died for the ungodly', etc.

Some people think that God's election was based on his foreknowledge of us choosing him. This doesn't fit for many reasons in my opinion though. So in the end this doctrine is too big for my brain.

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

Let's please try to keep this discussion civil. We all know the way that this topic tends to trend downhill quickly.

NO DEBATING BY NON-BAPTIST-ANABAPTIST POSTERS IS PERMITTED. Please see the forum specific rules for the guidelines on posting in here. We value your friendship but will not tolerate debating.


MOD HAT OFF

Okay, where would you put me? I have attended a Baptist church from age 8 until 23. I now attend a reformed Presbyterian church because it is the only Calvinistic church in my area that I have felt at home. I listen to Presbyterian and Baptist preachers online with equal interest. Also, I have recently began to seriously question the practice of infant baptism, esp. since my first baby could come anyday and so the issue will soon affect me. So do I come close enough to fit the Baptist and Reformed bill?

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, Wilfred

I would say that you fall with in the Reformed Baptist camp IMHO, but I am not a mod.

Peace to u,

Bill

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

Good Day, Wilfred

I would say that you fall with in the Reformed Baptist camp IMHO, but I am not a mod.

Peace to u,

Bill

Thanks for the support! :)

Although I should also mention that I do prefer the more liturgical worship style that is used in PCA churches; meaning that I could stay Baptist in my beliefs of who should be baptised but remain PCA for the rest of my life. It is just that to the best of my knowledge, the biggest doctrinal difference between a Reformed Baptist and a Reformed Presbyterian is infant baptism, and I guess mode. Anyway, it really doesn't matter and I will happily follow whatever the mods think in this case.

[ksen]

Try this for a thought: The plan of salvation and the entity of the church were predestined before the foundations of the world...NOT individual believers.

Can you have a forest without trees? Then how can you have a church without individual believers? :scratch:

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

Can you have a forest without trees? Then how can you have a church without individual believers? :scratch:



The better question is: "can you have a corporation without workers?"

The answer.....YES, you can. I have fully studied Calvinism and the Scripture thebeliefs are based upon and have concluded that the Bible does not teach the Calvinists beliefs. The reason I believe in corporate election is simply because of the options it does contradict or leave out in part of the Scripture.

2and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. 1 John 2:2 (NASB).

[Lockheed]

Bingle,

What was God's INTENTION in Christ's death, to make salvation possible or to atone for the sins of His people?

[ksen]

The better question is: "can you have a corporation without workers?"

The answer.....YES, you can. I have fully studied Calvinism and the Scripture thebeliefs are based upon and have concluded that the Bible does not teach the Calvinists beliefs. The reason I believe in corporate election is simply because of the options it does contradict or leave out in part of the Scripture.

2and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. 1 John 2:2 (NASB).

The Scriptures say that Christ gave His life for His sheep. Did He not know His sheep by name before He died for them?

[BT]

The Scriptures say that Christ gave His life for His sheep. Did He not know His sheep by name before He died for them?

It's not a matter of whether or not He knew their names, it is whether or not He picked them from eternity past to be saved, that is at issue here...

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

The Scriptures say that Christ gave His life for His sheep. Did He not know His sheep by name before He died for them?


You can continue to ask questions OR you can attempt to disprove my beliefs with Scripture. As for thoughts to this question NOWHERE in the Bible does it deal with the names of individuals for salvation from eternity past.

[ksen]

It's not a matter of whether or not He knew their names, it is whether or not He picked them from eternity past to be saved, that is at issue here...

You're probably expecting this verse, but here you go anyway:

The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. - Rev 17:8 (KJV)
This says there is a group of individuals who have had their names in the Lamb's book of life since the foundation of the world.

I don't have time right now to post some other verses that support this argument, but I look forward to reading what you have to say about Rev 17:8.

[BT]

Sure pick on me why don't'cha!?!?

Jk.

I'm at work, leaving to go play hockey but I'll come back and talk about this verse when I get home(ish)... gotta take care of the kids when I arrive.. wife is a little sick.

ttyl

[Lockheed]

Let's be up front here.

Did God create the world and then "foresee" which of all those "slaves to sin", "dead in sin" and "cannot please God" would, of their own "free will", choose Him? If so, what role did God play in their choosing Him if any? If He played some role in their choosing Him, did He not therefore manipulate the results? If He played no role in their choosing Him, who really did the saving?

Or did God, from before He founded the world plan and determine to save, of all that He created, a people to sanctify and glorify as an inheritence for His Son?

If so, was that a people in general, whose names and faces He had no idea of? Or was it rather a specific people, just as undeserving as the rest?

When God sent Jeremiah He said:
Jer 1:4-5
Now the word of the LORD came to me saying,
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
And before you were born I consecrated you;
I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."
Now, it could be said that God chose Jeremiah to be a prophet, to speak His word, but not for salvation. Yet were is 'free will' if God chose Jeremiah to be a prophet before He formed Him in the womb?

Perhaps when God "knew" Jeremiah He knew that Jeremiah would 'freely choose' Him? Yet notice that none of that language is in the verse, though. God chose Jeremiah before He formed Him. Therefore, God intimately knew Jeremiah and formed Him for a purpose.

Maybe Jeremiah is a special case? God only intereferes with the "free will" of some people but not others? If so, how can we know that God purposed Jeremiah but not others?

When Christ speaks of the Apostles he says:
John 15:16
"You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you."
Maybe Christ just chose the Apostles... but didn't know who exactly they were? So He could have said: "I chose you... I mean.. I chose a nameless, faceless group that I didn't know, but you'll do."

If Christ did specifically choose Peter, John and the rest of the gang to be Apostles, and of that group He tells God "I lost none... except the son of perdition" (who was prophesied about) where was their 'free will'?

I find it interesting that no one took on my question, which speaks directly to this issue.

Was Christ's death meant to make people saveable or was it intended to actually save someone, and if it was did Christ know for whom it was intended? If Christ did know for whom it was intended, was it because they were going to choose Him, or because they were chosen?

What does 1 John 2:2 say? Does it mean that Christ died for Judas? And if Christ did die for Judas why was he the "son of perdition"? The real question is this, does Christ's death actually accomplish what God says it accomplishes or is the final 'choice' left up to "slaves of sin"?

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

Let's be up front here.

Did God create the world and then "foresee" which of all those "slaves to sin", "dead in sin" and "cannot please God" would, of their own "free will", choose Him? If so, what role did God play in their choosing Him if any? If He played some role in their choosing Him, did He not therefore manipulate the results? If He played no role in their choosing Him, who really did the saving?

Or did God, from before He founded the world plan and determine to save, of all that He created, a people to sanctify and glorify as an inheritence for His Son?

If so, was that a people in general, whose names and faces He had no idea of? Or was it rather a specific people, just as undeserving as the rest?





When God sent Jeremiah He said:Jer 1:4-5


Now the word of the LORD came to me saying,
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
And before you were born I consecrated you;
I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."


Now, it could be said that God chose Jeremiah to be a prophet, to speak His word, but not for salvation. Yet were is 'free will' if God chose Jeremiah to be a prophet before He formed Him in the womb?


Where does this verse say "before the foundation of the world" ?

When Christ speaks of the Apostles he says:
John 15:16


"You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you."


Maybe Christ just chose the Apostles... but didn't know who exactly they were? So He could have said: "I chose you... I mean.. I chose a nameless, faceless group that I didn't know, but you'll do."



If Christ did specifically choose Peter, John and the rest of the gang to be Apostles, and of that group He tells God "I lost none... except the son of perdition" (who was prophesied about) where was their 'free will'?

I find it interesting that no one took on my question, which speaks directly to this issue.

Was Christ's death meant to make people saveable or was it intended to actually save someone, and if it was did Christ know for whom it was intended? If Christ did know for whom it was intended, was it because they were going to choose Him, or because they were chosen?


As for the apostles put the verse back into context and realize that it was at least the second encounter if not the third or fourth before they were called. Secondly that there were hundreds to thounds of people following Christ yet He chose the twelve to teach more indepth and to be his personal disciples which meant that they would be going everywhere with Christ seeing Him day in and day out, not just at major events.

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

You're probably expecting this verse, but here you go anyway:

The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. - Rev 17:8 (KJV)
This says there is a group of individuals who have had their names in the Lamb's book of life since the foundation of the world.

I don't have time right now to post some other verses that support this argument, but I look forward to reading what you have to say about Rev 17:8.

Psalm 69 28May they be blotted out of the book of life
And may they not be recorded with the righteous.

Rev. 3 5'He who overcomes will thus be clothed in white garments; and I will not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.



The way I'm reading these verses is either our names start in the Book of Life and are taken out by God OR the OSAS position is false, either way there is a problem with the Calvinist Doctrine. Any other questions?

[Lockheed]

Where does this verse say "before the foundation of the world" ?

It doesn't, it says instead: "Before I formed you in the womb"... so when did God know Jeremiah and choose him?

As for the apostles put the verse back into context and realize that it was at least the second encounter if not the third or fourth before they were called.

That in no way alters the fact that it was Christ who "chose you", in fact that simply shows that God calls men before they come to faith.

Secondly that there were hundreds to thounds of people following Christ yet He chose the twelve to teach more indepth and to be his personal disciples which meant that they would be going everywhere with Christ seeing Him day in and day out, not just at major events.

Right... so did Christ simply choose just them, and if so, how did He do it without impeding on their 'free will'.

I'd also like to see you answer some of my other queries... if you would?

[Lockheed]

Psalm 69 28May they be blotted out of the book of life
And may they not be recorded with the righteous.

Rev. 3 5'He who overcomes will thus be clothed in white garments; and I will not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.



The way I'm reading these verses is either our names start in the Book of Life and are taken out by God OR the OSAS position is false, either way there is a problem with the Calvinist Doctrine. Any other questions?

Firstly, Calvinists do not believe in "OSAS"... we believe in perserverance of the saints, a very different idea.

There are 'tares among the wheat', many people who are part of the church and claim faith in Christ and yet will fall away.

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

It doesn't, it says instead: "Before I formed you in the womb"... so when did God know Jeremiah and choose him?



That in no way alters the fact that it was Christ who "chose you", in fact that simply shows that God calls men before they come to faith.



Right... so did Christ simply choose just them, and if so, how did He do it without impeding on their 'free will'.

I'd also like to see you answer some of my other queries... if you would?


It makes a difference because defining what they were chosen for and when they were chosen in the context of Christ's ministry.

I'll answer other question depending on what they are and how they're asked (I hate to sound mean, but in the past the discussions tend to get rather heated and I'm going to avoid that).

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

Firstly, Calvinists do not believe in "OSAS"... we believe in perserverance of the saints, a very different idea.

There are 'tares among the wheat', many people who are part of the church and claim faith in Christ and yet will fall away.

Either way you're not dealing with the text of how somone's name was REMOVED for the Book of Life, which both verses clearly show.

[Lockheed]

It makes a difference because defining what they were chosen for and when they were chosen in the context of Christ's ministry.

So are you saying it was on the basis of something they did that they were chosen, even though the many other verses in Scripture that speak of God's choosing before one is born and even before the foundation of the world?

Is it your position therefore that God choses somethings before the foundation of the world, still others before one is born, and others still while events are occuring?

Is it therefore your position that God simply set events in motion and is allowing them to play themselves out, yet has no control over them? If not, and God does have control over them, how does He do this without violating someone's "free will"?

I'll answer other question depending on what they are and how they're asked (I hate to sound mean, but in the past the discussions tend to get rather heated and I'm going to avoid that).

Of course... read over my previous posts and let me know. :)

[Lockheed]

Either way you're not dealing with the text of how somone's name was REMOVED for the Book of Life, which both verses clearly show.

Yes, just as tares are REMOVED from the wheat at the final judgment.

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

So are you saying it was on the basis of something they did that they were chosen, even though the many other verses in Scripture that speak of God's choosing before one is born and even before the foundation of the world?

I'm saying that you cannot get anything from the text that is not there, such as when the apostles were chosen, however it is my belief that the Apostles were chosen on the grounds of there faith (except Judas the betrayer).


Is it your position therefore that God choses somethings before the foundation of the world, still others before one is born, and others still while events are occuring?

Basicly, yes I believe that the plan of salvation and the church as an entity was chosen before the foundation of time, yet individual believers are not chosen before placing there faith in Christ during their lifetime.


Is it therefore your position that God simply set events in motion and is allowing them to play themselves out, yet has no control over them? If not, and God does have control over them, how does He do this without violating someone's "free will"?

Although a unique position I'm inbetween the two. although God has the ability to violate humanity's free-will I don't believe he does so.



Of course... read over my previous posts and let me know. :)

I wasn't trying to imply that either you or I had said anything yet, just making my position clear from the beginning

[Lockheed]

I'm saying that you cannot get anything from the text that is not there, such as when the apostles were chosen, however it is my belief that the Apostles were chosen on the grounds of there faith (except Judas the betrayer).

So you're saying God chose them on the basis of something they did?

Basicly, yes I believe that the plan of salvation and the church as an entity was chosen before the foundation of time, yet individual believers are not chosen before placing there faith in Christ during their lifetime.

And on what basis do you believe that? Did not God already know those whom have/will believe in Him? Is it your opinion that God has nothing to do with their seeking Him?

Although a unique position I'm inbetween the two. although God has the ability to violate humanity's free-will I don't believe he does so.

What free-will does a 'slave to sin' who 'cannot please God' have?

Are you saying men "elect" themselves?

wasn't trying to imply that either you or I had said anything yet, just making my position clear from the beginning

No problem. :)

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

Yes, just as tares are REMOVED from the wheat at the final judgment.

But the question I have is how did someone's name get removed from the book of Life IF any type of eternal security is true? because that would violate the very nature of eternal security.



PS. As one who has previously held to eternal security and now undecided, I don't have an answer.

[Lockheed]

But the question I have is how did someone's name get removed from the book of Life IF any type of eternal security is true? because that would violate the very nature of eternal security.

PS. As one who has previously held to eternal security and now undecided, I don't have an answer.

God saves whom God wishes... it is God who does all the work in salvation, which is why the apostle Paul writes "You were dead in your trespasses and sins... But God ... made you alive". It is not the person who makes themself alive, but God who gives the gift of new life, including giving the gift of faith (the act of believing).

Therefore it is Christ, who in John 6 says of "those the Father gives Me, I will lose none", who accomplishes the task God set before Him to "seek and save the lost".

There are many who will in some fashion, like the seeds on the un-prepared soil, sprout for a time and then fall away. They are identical in appearance to the good plants except in the end they will fall... likewise the tares, undistinguishable from the wheat, will be destroyed in the end.

The 'book of life' then is not a book of "the elect" but those who proclaim faith in Christ.

Let me ask, if Christ's death actually pays for sins of an individual, how many sins remain to be paid? If Christ's death actually PURCHASES someone from God's wrath... what wrath remains for them?

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

So you're saying God chose them on the basis of something they did?

I'm not sure if that can be answered one way or the other at this point, however I will note that Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, was a disciple of John the Baptist and sought after the Messiah and went to tell his brother.


And on what basis do you believe that? Did not God already know those whom have/will believe in Him? Is it your opinion that God has nothing to do with their seeking Him?

I think all men seek a higher being, due to the fact that I believe
"There is a God shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator, made known through Jesus"--Blaise Pascal

and being Jewish the Apostles would have been seeking the Messiah


What free-will does a 'slave to sin' who 'cannot please God' have?


faith


Are you saying men "elect" themselves?

Conditional election is throughout the Bible, in the OT the Hebrews were always told IF you do _________, THEN I (God) will do _________.

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

The 'book of life' then is not a book of "the elect" but those who proclaim faith in Christ.

Let me ask, if Christ's death actually pays for sins of an individual, how many sins remain to be paid? If Christ's death actually PURCHASES someone from God's wrath... what wrath remains for them?
The first I disagree with you, the second is how do explain 1 John 2:2?

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. (NIV)

[Lockheed]

I'm not sure if that can be answered one way or the other at this point, however I will note that Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, was a disciple of John the Baptist and sought after the Messiah and went to tell his brother.

And it is your view that God had nothing to do with that?


I think all men seek a higher being

Paul explains what "higher being" men seek:

Romans 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

and what "higher being" they do not seek:

Romans 3:
THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;


due to the fact that I believe
"There is a God shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator, made known through Jesus"--Blaise Pascal[quote]

I do not believe that there is a "God shaped vacuum" in the heart of every man. There is however a purposeful rebellion in the hearts of every man toward his creator. As it is written:

Jer 17:9
The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; Who can understand it?

[quote]and being Jewish the Apostles would have been seeking the Messiah

Surely, but what was it about them that caused them to believe while others didn't?


faith

Would not faith in the Son please God? Romans 8:7-9 however states that natural, fleshly man, cannot please God and that only those who have the Spirit in them can please God.

Please explain this apparent contradiction, if man can have faith in God and please Him without first having the Spirit in him?

Conditional election is throughout the Bible, in the OT the Hebrews were always told IF you do _________, THEN I (God) will do _________.

I see, so you believe that if the Hebrews were able to follow the Law they would have been saved? And you also believe that this is a direct correlation to the New Covenant?

Please tell me what the conditions of the New Covenant are and how they're fulfilled.

[Lockheed]

The first I disagree with you, the second is how do explain 1 John 2:2?

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. (NIV)

I realize you disagree with me, but simply quoting 1 John 2:2 doesn't explain why you disagree with me.

Firstly we must identify John's audience... consider that if John is writing to Jews, slaves or someone else than "the whole world" means "not only you". Also, since Scripture also states that Christ purchased the church with His blood (Act 20:28) did He purchase everyone else too? Scripture also states that Christ bought for God men from every tribe nation and tongue, does that mean He bough "every man from every..."?

Finally, if Christ paid for the sins of each and every person who every lived, on what basis does God condemn them?

[eldermike]

Jesus picked 12, one to betray him. Why would anyone conclude that the other 11 were taken on the chance they would continue in the faith?

[Lockheed]

Why would anyone conclude that the other 11 were taken on the chance they would continue in the faith?

I like that, "chance". I think "chance" and "free will" are the god of the semi-Pelagian and the atheist. ;)

Did Jesus pick Judas knowing he was to betray Him?

Did God send Moses to Pharoah knowing that Pharoah would reject? If so, what part did God play in it?

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

And it is your view that God had nothing to do with that?

basically no



Paul explains what "higher being" men seek:

Romans 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

and what "higher being" they do not seek:

Romans 3:
THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;

The question then is what precedes Romans 1:2, the answer Paul's defense of general Revelation (went over this today in class). Showing that NO MAN is with out excuse of believing in God (Paul's words; my emphasis).



[quote]due to the fact that I believe
"There is a God shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator, made known through Jesus"--Blaise Pascal[quote]

I do not believe that there is a "God shaped vacuum" in the heart of every man. There is however a purposeful rebellion in the hearts of every man toward his creator. As it is written:

Jer 17:9
The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; Who can understand it? [QUOTE]

that's not really disproving by Scripture, the evil and wickedness of man's heart does negate something from the fall.


[QUOTE=Lockheed]
Surely, but what was it about them that caused them to believe while others didn't?

their personal choice to place their faith.


Would not faith in the Son please God? Romans 8:7-9 however states that natural, fleshly man, cannot please God and that only those who have the Spirit in them can please God.

Please explain this apparent contradiction, if man can have faith in God and please Him without first having the Spirit in him?


I have to ask where do get the idea that faith in itself would satisfy the wrath of God. Faith allows the blood of Christ to withhold the wrath of God to deserving sinners.

I see, so you believe that if the Hebrews were able to follow the Law they would have been saved? And you also believe that this is a direct correlation to the New Covenant?

Please tell me what the conditions of the New Covenant are and how they're fulfilled.

I'm not sure if following the Law would have saved anyone, it does directly foreshadow the New Covenant.

Faith and repentance are the conditions of the New Covenant.

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

I realize you disagree with me, but simply quoting 1 John 2:2 doesn't explain why you disagree with me.

Firstly we must identify John's audience... consider that if John is writing to Jews, slaves or someone else than "the whole world" means "not only you". Also, since Scripture also states that Christ purchased the church with His blood (Act 20:28) did He purchase everyone else too? Scripture also states that Christ bought for God men from every tribe nation and tongue, does that mean He bough "every man from every..."?

Finally, if Christ paid for the sins of each and every person who every lived, on what basis does God condemn them?

I was disagreeing with you that the Book of Life is not the elect, even in mainstream Calvinism. Secondly I quoted 1st John to ask, how can one believe on limited atonement (not effectual limited atonement{which I do believe})?

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

[/size][/font]

I like that, "chance". I think "chance" and "free will" are the god of the semi-Pelagian and the atheist. ;)

Did Jesus pick Judas knowing he was to betray Him?

Did God send Moses to Pharoah knowing that Pharoah would reject? If so, what part did God play in it?

I would be careful with your words as I could easily say that fate is the god of Calvinism.

[Lockheed]

basically no

LOL! Sorry! I'm not sure what "no" means in this case. Did God have something to do with it or nothing?

The question then is what precedes Romans 1:2, the answer Paul's defense of general Revelation (went over this today in class). Showing that NO MAN is with out excuse of believing in God (Paul's words; my emphasis).

I agree firmly, yet NO MAN does believe God apart from God doing something first. As Scripture states before being "made alive" we were "dead in..sins". Before "God made us alive".

I take it that it is your position that God makes us alive when we choose to be alive, that is, being "born again" is something one does instead of something that happens to them?


[QUOTE=Lockheed]
[quote]due to the fact that I believe
"There is a God shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator, made known through Jesus"--Blaise Pascal[quote]

I do not believe that there is a "God shaped vacuum" in the heart of every man. There is however a purposeful rebellion in the hearts of every man toward his creator. As it is written:

Jer 17:9
The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; Who can understand it? [QUOTE]

that's not really disproving by Scripture, the evil and wickedness of man's heart does negate something from the fall.

The 'evil and wickedness of man's heart' is a result of the fall, and thus we are all "enemies" of Christ. How is it that those who are "dead in sin" and "enemies of Christ" suddenly change their minds without any influence from God?

their personal choice to place their faith.

Sure, but how does one who is an "enemy of God" and whose heart is "deceitful than all else and is desperately sick" and (as Romans 8 states)
"cannot please God" wake up one day and please God by having faith in His Son?

I have to ask where do get the idea that faith in itself would satisfy the wrath of God.

An excellent question, it is not my position that faith satisfies God's wrath.

But it would seem that it would almost HAVE to be your position... here's why:

If you believe that Christ died for "each and every person who every lived", thus effectively paying for their sins, you place God in the very unjust position of punishing two people for the same sins.

Secondly, if Christ's death paid for every sin of "every person who ever lived", would not by that same measure Christ have paid for each and every person's unbelief? (Assuming unbelief is a sin.)

Faith allows the blood of Christ to withhold the wrath of God to deserving sinners.

"Deserving sinners"? You mean "deserving of wrath"? When Scripture states "NO ONE SEEKS FOR GOD", how do sinners "deserve" the blood of Christ?

I'm not sure if following the Law would have saved anyone

You're not sure? Was there some other means, apart from grace through faith in Christ that one could be saved?

...it does directly foreshadow the New Covenant.

Faith and repentance are the conditions of the New Covenant.

I see, so if Christ has paid for the sins of each and every person who ever lived, how many will be punished?

Are failing to believe and failing to repent sins? Did or did not Christ pay for them?

[Lockheed]

I would be careful with your words as I could easily say that fate is the god of Calvinism.

To the contrary, God is the God of Calvinism, since it is God who has "decreed the end from the beginning" (Isa 46:9-11). There is no such thing as "fate".

[ZiSunka]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to unimportantbuthisnameis again.

[Lockheed]

I was disagreeing with you that the Book of Life is not the elect, even in mainstream Calvinism. Secondly I quoted 1st John to ask, how can one believe on limited atonement (not effectual limited atonement{which I do believe})?

Because Scripture states that God's intention was to make atonement for "His people", "His sheep" and to purchase the "church with His blood" and to buy "people from every tribe nation and tongue."

Deuteronomy 32:43
" Rejoice, O nations, with His people; For He will avenge the blood of His servants, And will render vengeance on His adversaries, And will atone for His land and His people."

Acts 20: 28
"Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood."

Titus 2:14
who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.

Revelation 5: 9
And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation."



The 1st John passage goes hand-in-hand with that, not that Christ purchased 'every tribe nation and tongue' but people "from every tribe nation and tongue". Thus, allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture we find no paradox, no contradiction... instead we find that Christ died for people from every tribe, nation and tongue and not just the Jews only.Romans 9:24

even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

Do you believe that Christ interceeds for all those whom He died for? Scripture states that He does...Romans 8:34

...who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.

Is it your position then that Christ interceeds for those whom He knows will never have faith in Him?

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

no


One cannot be born again w/o dying to self (sin)

Why did Cain & Abel offer sacrifices?

sinners deserving wrath

I'm not sure how I classify unbelief right now.

currently I'm not sure of OT Law save (and I had a class on that in college).

I'm not sure how to classify unbelief and unrepentance, I'm quoting Scripture.

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

Because Scripture states that God's intention was to make atonement for "His people", "His sheep" and to purchase the "church with His blood" and to buy "people from every tribe nation and tongue."


Deuteronomy 32:43

" Rejoice, O nations, with His people; For He will avenge the blood of His servants, And will render vengeance on His adversaries, And will atone for His land and His people."

Acts 20: 28
"Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood."

Titus 2:14
who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.

Revelation 5: 9
And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation."






The 1st John passage goes hand-in-hand with that, not that Christ purchased 'every tribe nation and tongue' but people "from every tribe nation and tongue". Thus, allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture we find no paradox, no contradiction... instead we find that Christ died for people from every tribe, nation and tongue and not just the Jews only.Romans 9:24


even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.


Do you believe that Christ interceeds for all those whom He died for? Scripture states that He does...Romans 8:34


...who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.


Is it your position then that Christ interceeds for those whom He knows will never have faith in Him?yes and no. furthermore when in this conversation did I say that individuals were forseen to believe or not to believe.

[Lockheed]

no

One cannot be born again w/o dying to self (sin)

So 'dying to self' is something someone does BEFORE being born again?

Why did Cain & Abel offer sacrifices?

Um... well as I indicated on a prior thred, because they had been informed by their parents that God required a blood sacrifice.

sinners deserving wrath

Gotcha.

Let me ask then, what was it in you that made you turn to Christ whereas another, just as undeserving sinner, doesn't?

I'm not sure how I classify unbelief right now.

I appreciate the candor.

currently I'm not sure of OT Law save (and I had a class on that in college).

Perhaps, since the covenant of 'grace' was given to Abraham, the people under the Covenant of Law who recognized their inability to keep it turned to their God and cried out for mercy?

I'm not sure how to classify unbelief and unrepentance, I'm quoting Scripture.

No problemo. :)

[Crashfreak]

I would think that if predestination where true, it would negate free will. Because it would not be your will but God's will. And if this is true then God has done some really wierd stuff. If there is no free will, then it was not Hitler who Killed 6 million Jews but God. There would basically be no point for anything, if there was no free will....it would almost negate the cross. For God could instead just make people follow the Laws for the Old Covenant and then there would be no need for Christ to give his life, as everyone would be perfect according to the Law.

I am not sure if this is even the right topic, because it seems like a lot of the ideas are all over the place (as mine are). But I tried to explain it like this once. Because God knows what was, what is and what is to be, doesn't necessarily mean he choose it that way. You can look at it like this. We live in 4 dimensions (Height, width, depth and time) God doesn't live in the dimension of time, so each moment in history is not really a sequence of events like we know it but simultaneous events. This is not a great explanation as it is extremely difficult to try explain something that is pretty much incomprehensible to us as humans. Anyway just my thought. Obviously some will disagree.

More than likely because I have no idea what I am talking about at this point. :=)

[Lockheed]

yes and no. furthermore when in this conversation did I say that individuals were forseen to believe or not to believe.

:) You didn't.

How then do you explain the Biblical term of "elect"? I believe you mentioned something resembling "class election"?

Do you believe God is omnipotent and omnipresent?

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

Corporate election is the exact term.

Open theism belongs in the unorthodox theology forum, so please do attempt to "bait" anyone into answering such a question here.

[Lockheed]

I would think that if predestination where true, it would negate free will. Because it would not be your will but God's will. And if this is true then God has done some really wierd stuff.

Let's try a different perspective for a bit.

Adam sins and thrusts all mankind into sin and condemnation. (Rom 5:12)

Each person therefore follows in the steps of Adam, sinners all. (Rom 3:24)

God, Sovereign as He is, uses the effects of sin and sinfulness of some to bring about His predetermined plan and yet the sinners are still responsible for their own sin. (Acts 2:23, Isa 10 etc.)

God's plan, predetermined from before He made the world, is going exactly as He planned it. (Isa 46:9-11)

If there is no free will, then it was not Hitler who Killed 6 million Jews but God. There would basically be no point for anything, if there was no free will....it would almost negate the cross. For God could instead just make people follow the Laws for the Old Covenant and then there would be no need for Christ to give his life, as everyone would be perfect according to the Law.

Consider first that it is not as if God takes away free-will, but that man has willingly become enslaved to sin. (John 8:34) Because of Adam's transgression, all of us "died". It is only through the work of Christ that any are made "alive".

So the will is "free", free to do whatever it's master sin tells it to do.

Perhaps God sent the Laws of the Old Covenant to show people how far they had to climb to reach the requirement of works-salvation? It is Jesus who said: "Be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect."

So the Law then equalizes the playing field, so to speak, making us all equally guilty.

As to God "making people follow His laws", consider what Eze 36 says:
26"Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances."
Who is doing the work there?

I am not sure if this is even the right topic, because it seems like a lot of the ideas are all over the place (as mine are). But I tried to explain it like this once. Because God knows what was, what is and what is to be, doesn't necessarily mean he choose it that way.

So you're saying that the world is not going as God planned and that He is unable to stop it? God instead says: "Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it." (Isa 46:11) and again The LORD of hosts has sworn saying, "Surely, just as I have intended so it has happened, and just as I have planned so it will stand," (Isa 14:24).

What a scary view, that the world is just tumbling along in some random fashion that even God cannot control.

You can look at it like this. We live in 4 dimensions (Height, width, depth and time) God doesn't live in the dimension of time, so each moment in history is not really a sequence of events like we know it but simultaneous events. This is not a great explanation as it is extremely difficult to try explain something that is pretty much incomprehensible to us as humans. Anyway just my thought. Obviously some will disagree.

Please provide Scripture references for that? ;)

More than likely because I have no idea what I am talking about at this point. :=)

LOL! Read what I've said here and study for yourself! God bless! :hug:

[Lockheed]

Corporate election is the exact term.

Open theism belongs in the unorthodox theology forum, so please do attempt to "bait" anyone into answering such a question here.

But it seems to me that your view leads to open theism (just as Crashfreak begins to intimate.) Either God is truly Sovereign, in control and all that He desires comes to pass... or He's not. But that's an aside.

Please express your understanding of "Corporate Election" in light of the verses I've posted. Thanks!

[MbiaJc]

Can you have a forest without trees? Then how can you have a church without individual believers? :scratch:



Is the Church the building down on the corner or a groop of Baptized believers which are individuals? :thumbsup:

[Bingle]

Let me just blast limited atonement for a minute.

All the verses that Calvanists bring up to prove this point prove that Christ died for his church, agreed. Acts 20:28 A good example. But no kidding, of course Christ died for his church. He died for his church, for his sheep and 'in due time for the ungodly' as well. The verses L pointers use just show the partial picture. They never do explain such verses as 2 Peter 2:1 'But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying he Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.'

Notice Christ bought false prophets who are going to be damned. Yes Christ died for the non-elect, the ungodly. It just shows you that the love of Christ is greater than we can imagine.

[MbiaJc]

I would think that if predestination where true, it would negate free will. Because it would not be your will but God's will. And if this is true then God has done some really wierd stuff. If there is no free will, then it was not Hitler who Killed 6 million Jews but God. There would basically be no point for anything, if there was no free will....it would almost negate the cross. For God could instead just make people follow the Laws for the Old Covenant and then there would be no need for Christ to give his life, as everyone would be perfect according to the Law.

I am not sure if this is even the right topic, because it seems like a lot of the ideas are all over the place (as mine are). But I tried to explain it like this once. Because God knows what was, what is and what is to be, doesn't necessarily mean he choose it that way. You can look at it like this. We live in 4 dimensions (Height, width, depth and time) God doesn't live in the dimension of time, so each moment in history is not really a sequence of events like we know it but simultaneous events. This is not a great explanation as it is extremely difficult to try explain something that is pretty much incomprehensible to us as humans. Anyway just my thought. Obviously some will disagree.

More than likely because I have no idea what I am talking about at this point. :=)


The doctrine of Election is simple, God chose before the foundation of world, to give the ones that would believe in Jesus, the power to become the sons of God.

Did He know at that time who would and wouldn't? There is scripture that seems to confirm that He did. Does that eliminate free will? No because God lives outside of time He knows the beginning and the end. He also knows the heart of man, He knows the ones that truly believe. He has already seperated the tars form the wheat, because He sees from begining through all eternity. In other words as far as God is consurned it has already happened, because He has already seen it. However He still gives the unbeliever every opertunity to change his mind and believe same as He did with Pharoah.

[Lockheed]

All the verses that Calvanists bring up to prove this point prove that Christ died for his church, agreed. Acts 20:28 A good example. But no kidding, of course Christ died for his church. He died for his church, for his sheep and 'in due time for the ungodly' as well.

This seems to imply that the church and the sheep weren't ungodly, to the contrary it is the Church that He purchased with His blood, He purchased them because they were ungodly.

The verses L pointers use just show the partial picture. They never do explain such verses as 2 Peter 2:1 'But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying he Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.'

Notice Christ bought false prophets who are going to be damned. Yes Christ died for the non-elect, the ungodly. It just shows you that the love of Christ is greater than we can imagine.

Surely that's untrue, that Calvinists "never do explain such verses as 2 Peter 2:1", you may not accept the Calvinist view point, but to say they "never explain it" is simply untrue.



John Gill wrote:"...for could such be lost, or deceive, or be deceived finally and totally by damnable heresies, and bring on themselves swift destruction, Christ's purchase would be in vain, and the ransom price be paid for nought; but the word "bought" regards temporal mercies and deliverance, which these men enjoyed, and is used as an aggravation of their sin in denying the Lord; both by words, delivering out such tenets as are derogatory to the glory of the divine perfections, and which deny one or other of them, and of his purposes, providence, promises, and truths; and by works, turning the doctrine of the grace of God into lasciviousness, being disobedient and reprobate to every good work; that they should act this part against the Lord who had made them, and upheld them in their beings and took care of them in his providence, and had followed them with goodness and mercy all the days of their lives; just as Moses aggravates the ingratitude of the Jews in Deu_32:6 from whence this phrase is borrowed, and to which it manifestly refers: "do ye thus requite the Lord, O foolish people and unwise! is not he thy Father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?" nor is this the only place the apostle refers to in this chapter, see 2Pe_2:12 compared with Deu_32:5 and it is to be observed, that the persons he writes to were Jews, who were called the people the Lord had redeemed and purchased, Exo_15:13 and so were the first false teachers that rose up among them; and therefore this phrase is very applicable to them... " - John Gill, Commentary


The question really comes down to this, is Peter attempting to identify the extent and intention of atonement in this passage?


In seeking to understand any particular passage of Scripture we should note what the author is attempting to address. An excellent (Calvinistic) discussion of 2 Peter 2:1 can be found here: http://aomin.org/2PE21.html. To summarize: "the term is being used non-redemptively; hence Peter is not addressing the extent of the atonement, but is providing an OT example (similar to Deut. 32:5-6) of a sovereign master (despot) who had purchased slaves and on that basis commanded their allegiance."

Peter is not attempting to identify the extent or intent of atonement in this verse, and it is therefore improper to attempt to discern it therein, rather the passage says what it say: they deny the Master.

Therefore it is improper to say that Calvinists "never do explain such verses". We do, and we do so to harmonize Scripture, not to present a false-dichotomy.

[Beoga]

Let me just blast limited atonement for a minute.

All the verses that Calvanists bring up to prove this point prove that Christ died for his church, agreed. Acts 20:28 A good example. But no kidding, of course Christ died for his church. He died for his church, for his sheep and 'in due time for the ungodly' as well. The verses L pointers use just show the partial picture. They never do explain such verses as 2 Peter 2:1 'But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying he Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.'

Notice Christ bought false prophets who are going to be damned. Yes Christ died for the non-elect, the ungodly. It just shows you that the love of Christ is greater than we can imagine.

Christ must not be capable of holding on to His possesions then!!!!! :eek:

[Lockheed]

The doctrine of Election is simple, God chose before the foundation of world, to give the ones that would believe in Jesus, the power to become the sons of God.

Did He know at that time who would and wouldn't? There is scripture that seems to confirm that He did. Does that eliminate free will? No because God lives outside of time He knows the beginning and the end.

This view then makes man the elector, man the savior. For it therefore is man whose actions God sees and then acts upon. But this still doesn't actually answer the question. This seems to suggest that God set things in motion and 'foresaw' who would believe. Yet the Bible doesn't say that God knows the beginning and the end but rather: "declares the end from the beginning". He has called it into existance.
Isa 46:11 Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man of My purpose from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it.

Isa 14:24 The LORD of hosts has sworn saying, "Surely, just as I have intended so it has happened, and just as I have planned so it will stand,
Yet before we can even answer this question we have to go back to the earlier questions: If man is, as Jesus said, "a slave to sin" and, according to Romans 8 "unable to please God" and "enemies of God" what caused such a radical change in God's enemies that they turned to believing in God? In essence, what occured at the fall? Was man made 'neutral' to God, or did something even more drastic occur?

Did the "dead in transgressions" make themselves alive (Eph 2:3-5) so as to seek after God?

He also knows the heart of man, He knows the ones that truly believe.

God says, of the heart of man "The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?", does man change his own heart to believe?

Consider the words of the New Covenant prophecy:
Eze 36:26 "Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh."
How can the man whose heart is yet stone "walk in (His) statutes"?

He has already seperated the tars form the wheat, because He sees from begining through all eternity. In other words as far as God is consurned it has already happened, because He has already seen it.

Please show Scripture and explain how this is true, when Christ says:
Mat 13:29-30 "But he *said, 'No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn."'"

Do you believe this time has already come? Are you saying that this is not a picture of the church now, with believers and unbelievers side by side? If so, please explain and give references.

However He still gives the unbeliever every opertunity to change his mind and believe same as He did with Pharoah.

But what of Pharoh?
Rom 9:15-18 For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION." So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.
Does not God explain to us clearly about Pharoah? God raised him up for
this very purpose" and then He says that "He hardens whome He desires". Where was Pharoah's "free will" except doing what Pharoah's heart already desired to do?
Rom 9:20-21 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
For the sake of "free will" you deny the Potter the right to make what He wishes from His clay?

Just like the sinful acts of the people of Jersualem, who killed Christ:

Acts 4:27-28 "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur."
Let this sink in: " truly in this city there were gathered... both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur."

[Lockheed]

:eek: Christ must not be capable of holding on to His possesions then!!!!! :eek:

Exactly, Christ bought the Church and people from every tribe, nation and tongue but is unable to secure them as He promised God in John 6.

[ksen]

Either way you're not dealing with the text of how somone's name was REMOVED for the Book of Life, which both verses clearly show.

The verse doesn't say a name was removed. It said IF this event happens THEN this will other event will occur.

[ksen]

But the question I have is how did someone's name get removed from the book of Life IF any type of eternal security is true? because that would violate the very nature of eternal security.



PS. As one who has previously held to eternal security and now undecided, I don't have an answer.

I've heard some teach that there are two books of life:

1) a general book of life that contains everyone's names, and
2) the Lamb's book of life which contains the names of the saved.

[ksen]

The question then is what precedes Romans 1:2, the answer Paul's defense of general Revelation (went over this today in class). Showing that NO MAN is with out excuse of believing in God (Paul's words; my emphasis).

General revelation is enough to show someone there is a God but it is not enough to tell them the Gospel. Special revelation reveals the specifics of the Gospel.

[ksen]

....NOWHERE in the Bible does it deal with the names of individuals for salvation from eternity past.

From my signature:

II Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. - KJV

[Jeffrey A]

I've heard some teach that there are two books of life:

1) a general book of life that contains everyone's names, and
2) the Lamb's book of life which contains the names of the saved.

There is one book. Everyone's name who has lived or will ever live was written in it before the earth was even formed. If they call on the name of the Lord during their life, their name is "sealed (in the book of life) by the Holy Spirit" and can never from then on be removed. If they die without ever having given God acknowledgement for who he is, and thanks for being, but instead have said :P to God, their name is "blotted out" of the book.

Now sometimes, as in the case of Pharoah and Judas, God gives them 'extraordinary grace' to repent and call on him, by confronting them with the very face of God so they have absolutely no excuse not to fall down before him right then and there. He even gives them extreme mercy, extending it to them to the seveneth degree. But if they still "harden their heart" against him, he may blot their name out of the book of life right there and then, but preserve their miserable life for a little while so as to use them for some greater purpose, such as to show his great glory and mercy to everybody else.

That's how I read -- as an integrated whole -- the passages dealing with the issue at least.

Jeffrey A

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

But it seems to me that your view leads to open theism (just as Crashfreak begins to intimate.) Either God is truly Sovereign, in control and all that He desires comes to pass... or He's not. But that's an aside.

Please express your understanding of "Corporate Election" in light of the verses I've posted. Thanks!

If all God desires will come to pass please explain this:

23"Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked," declares the Lord GOD, "rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?

32"For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies," declares the Lord GOD. "Therefore, repent and live."
Ezekial 18 (NASB).


I'm no English, much less Hebrew scholar, but it appears to me that pleasure and will and desire are rather similar (in Greek they're the same word). However too many other passages negate the Calvinist theory of limited atonement.

Titus 2:11

11For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men (NASB)

What passages do you want me to explain (a reference will be sufficent)?

[Lockheed]

If all God desires will come to pass please explain this:

23"Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked," declares the Lord GOD, "rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?

32"For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies," declares the Lord GOD. "Therefore, repent and live."
Ezekial 18 (NASB).

The conundrum is yours... that God takes no "pleasure" in the death of the wicked doesn't mean He wants to save them, He simply dispenses justice to them. But God is also gracious to the wicked (you and me) by sending us the Gospel that we might trust in Christ and be saved.

Therefore, these two verses in no way suggest that God's "predetermined plan" will somehow fail.

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

[/color]

The conundrum is yours... that God takes no "pleasure" in the death of the wicked doesn't mean He wants to save them, He simply dispenses justice to them. But God is also gracious to the wicked (you and me) by sending us the Gospel that we might trust in Christ and be saved.

Therefore, these two verses in no way suggest that God's "predetermined plan" will somehow fail.

If your belief is that every desire or will of God has no choice but to come true, and adhere to the orthodoxy of the God incarnate Christ; how do you explain the strong desire and will of Christ in the garden of Gesethme (sp?) of NOT wanting the cross "Father not my will but yours be done."

Perhaps you would prefer to defend unconditional election against this verse:

2 Peter 1:10 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=68&chapter=1&verse=10&version=31&context=verse)
Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, (NIV)

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

But it seems to me that your view leads to open theism (just as Crashfreak begins to intimate.) Either God is truly Sovereign, in control and all that He desires comes to pass... or He's not. But that's an aside.


What have here is a differnce of the definition of the sovereignity of God, not open theism.

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

From my signature:

II Timothy 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. - KJV



you do realize in the Greek that all pronouns are singular or plural EVERY time the word election is ALWAYS with a plural pronoun, NEVER a singular pronoun.

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

This view then makes man the elector, man the savior. For it therefore is man whose actions God sees and then acts upon. But this still doesn't actually answer the question. This seems to suggest that God set things in motion and 'foresaw' who would believe. Yet the Bible doesn't say that God knows the beginning and the end but rather: "declares the end from the beginning". He has called it into existance. Isa 46:11 Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man of My purpose from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it.


Isa 14:24 The LORD of hosts has sworn saying, "Surely, just as I have intended so it has happened, and just as I have planned so it will stand,

Yet before we can even answer this question we have to go back to the earlier questions: If man is, as Jesus said, "a slave to sin" and, according to Romans 8 "unable to please God" and "enemies of God" what caused such a radical change in God's enemies that they turned to believing in God? In essence, what occured at the fall? Was man made 'neutral' to God, or did something even more drastic occur?


Did the "dead in transgressions" make themselves alive (Eph 2:3-5) so as to seek after God?



God says, of the heart of man "The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?", does man change his own heart to believe?



Consider the words of the New Covenant prophecy:Eze 36:26 "Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh."


How can the man whose heart is yet stone "walk in (His) statutes"?




Please show Scripture and explain how this is true, when Christ says:
Mat 13:29-30 "But he *said, 'No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn."'"

Do you believe this time has already come? Are you saying that this is not a picture of the church now, with believers and unbelievers side by side? If so, please explain and give references.





But what of Pharoh?Rom 9:15-18 For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION." So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.


Does not God explain to us clearly about Pharoah? God raised him up for



this very purpose" and then He says that "He hardens whome He desires". Where was Pharoah's "free will" except doing what Pharoah's heart already desired to do? Rom 9:20-21 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?


For the sake of "free will" you deny the Potter the right to make what He wishes from His clay?


Just like the sinful acts of the people of Jersualem, who killed Christ:


Acts 4:27-28 "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur."


Let this sink in: " truly in this city there were gathered... both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur."

put all the Scripture into context and I'll discuss with, but out of context to prove is your biased opinion is not fair to it.

[Lockheed]

If your belief is that every desire or will of God has no choice but to come true, and adhere to the orthodoxy of the God incarnate Christ; how do you explain the strong desire and will of Christ in the garden of Gesethme (sp?) of NOT wanting the cross "Father not my will but yours be done."

Christ "learned obedience through suffering", here He is showing that as a servant He did whatever the Father desired.

Are you really suggesting that Christ desired something other than the Father?

Perhaps you would prefer to defend unconditional election against this verse:

2 Peter 1:10 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=68&chapter=1&verse=10&version=31&context=verse)
Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, (NIV)

I see no problem with unconditional election here. Making one's 'calling and election sure' doesn't mean "earn your election" or "elect yourself."

God doesn't save people on the basis of deeds they've done in righteousness, right?

[Lockheed]

you do realize in the Greek that all pronouns are singular or plural EVERY time the word election is ALWAYS with a plural pronoun, NEVER a singular pronoun.

In every case the writing was to a body of believers and thus it always was plural, but it also a personal pronoun. Thus the writers were always saying "you" indicating the individuals reading the text. James White writes, in his debate with Darryl Barksdale:
In this context, it is unquestionably personal in its object, for again we find "us" as the direct object of the action of predestination. This is truly the key element of this debate, for grammatically there is no escape from the plain assertion here made: God the Father predestined us. He did not predestine a plan, He did not merely predestine a general conclusion to all things, but He chose us and predestined us. The "us" of Ephesians 1:5 is the "we" of Ephesians 1:11 and the "elect" of Romans 8:33 and those who are "given" by the Father to the Son in John 6:37.
http://aomin.org/JWDB1.html

[Lockheed]

put all the Scripture into context and I'll discuss with, but out of context to prove is your biased opinion is not fair to it.


Which verses specifically are you accusing me of using "out of context", do you care to explain where I erred contextually rather than dismissing my post out-of-hand?

[Bingle]

In answer to Lockhead:

This seems to imply that the church and the sheep weren't ungodly, to the contrary it is the Church that He purchased with His blood, He purchased them because they were ungodly.


You've missed my point badly on this one. Of course the church and sheep are ungodly but what about the lost world. The verse says Christ died for the ungodly. Does not that include the lost or are all the lost perfectly holy persons.

In regards to 1 Peter 2:1 , Yes I must admit Calvanists do have an answer for that verse. It always comes from that dead man's brains though. Gill's exposition of that verse is cramming a square peg in a round hole if I ever saw it.

(By the way I'm not a raving Arminian, I just try not to see the Bible through a narrow window.)

[ksen]

you do realize in the Greek that all pronouns are singular or plural EVERY time the word election is ALWAYS with a plural pronoun, NEVER a singular pronoun.

So? How does that change the fact that 2 Tim 1:9 tells us we (and "we" are made up of individuals) were elected before the foundation of the world.

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

Lockheed and ksen, after reading your previous replies I have noticed that the discussion is beginning to go into circular reasoning (like all discusions I have with Calvinists). So therefore I decided to longer engange in this discussion with you. I AM NOT,repeat I AM NOT conceding defeat (do not get the wrong idea). I already realize that no matter what is said or what material and Scripture is presented you will not change your mind, no matter how many times I disprove your beliefs with the Scripture you base them on. In closing I shall attempt to go to anther thread that will more benefical to myself and the others posting there. Please note that I am leaving before this turns into a name calling session.

[Lockheed]

In answer to Lockhead:

This seems to imply that the church and the sheep weren't ungodly, to the contrary it is the Church that He purchased with His blood, He purchased them because they were ungodly.


You've missed my point badly on this one. Of course the church and sheep are ungodly but what about the lost world. The verse says Christ died for the ungodly. Does not that include the lost or are all the lost perfectly holy persons.

Yes, Christ died for the ungodly, the "US" of Ephesians 1 and elsewhere... but that doesn't mean that Christ died for "each and every ungodly person who ever lived" no more than the sacrifices of made in the Old Covenant were for the sins of Egyptians. As God says, "I will atone for My people."

In regards to 1 Peter 2:1 , Yes I must admit Calvanists do have an answer for that verse. It always comes from that dead man's brains though. Gill's exposition of that verse is cramming a square peg in a round hole if I ever saw it.

Genetic fallacy, you're attacking the reply on the basis of who said it, and not the content.

(By the way I'm not a raving Arminian, I just try not to see the Bible through a narrow window.)

All Arminians are raving, they just don't know it. ;) (j/k)

[BBAS 64]

Lockheed and ksen, after reading your previous replies I have noticed that the discussion is beginning to go into circular reasoning (like all discusions I have with Calvinists). So therefore I decided to longer engange in this discussion with you. I AM NOT,repeat I AM NOT conceding defeat (do not get the wrong idea). I already realize that no matter what is said or what material and Scripture is presented you will not change your mind, no matter how many times I disprove your beliefs with the Scripture you base them on. In closing I shall attempt to go to anther thread that will more benefical to myself and the others posting there. Please note that I am leaving before this turns into a name calling session.

Good Day, Unimportant

Circular reasoning how so, I have not seen any of that from Lock,Ksen or you.... Maybe I do not understand Circular reasoning :scratch: :help:

Peace to u,

Bill

[Lockheed]

Lockheed and ksen, after reading your previous replies I have noticed that the discussion is beginning to go into circular reasoning (like all discusions I have with Calvinists).

Claiming circular reasoning and proving it are two different things.

So therefore I decided to longer engange in this discussion with you. I AM NOT,repeat I AM NOT conceding defeat (do not get the wrong idea).

Right, you've made an accusation, cannot defend it and are now leaving. I don't believe you've been 'defeated', as the Calvinist believes only God can defeat the heart of men. :)

May God bless you!

[MbiaJc]

=Lockheed



This view then makes man the elector, man the savior. For it therefore is man whose actions God sees and then acts upon.



I don't know from where you arrived at your view. For it is man action on the choices God has given him, nothing more or nothing less.



But this still doesn't actually answer the question.


I don't know what question you are looking for an answer to? However as far as Election it most certnly answers the question.








This seems to suggest that God set things in motion and 'foresaw' who would believe. Yet the Bible doesn't say that God knows the beginning and the end but rather: "declares the end from the beginning". He has called it into existance.Isa 46:11 Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man of My purpose from a far country. Truly I have spoken; truly I will bring it to pass. I have planned it, surely I will do it.


Isa 14:24 The LORD of hosts has sworn saying, "Surely, just as I have intended so it has happened, and just as I have planned so it will stand,











Well the verses you gave proves my point just fine when He says "Surely, just as I have intended so it has happened, and just as I have planned so it will stand",



Yet before we can even answer this question we have to go back to the earlier questions: If man is, as Jesus said, "a slave to sin" and, according to Romans 8 "unable to please God" and "enemies of God" what caused such a radical change in God's enemies that they turned to believing in God? In essence, what occured at the fall? Was man made 'neutral' to God, or did something even more drastic occur?



You must believe in the original sin doctrine? However I do not. The Bible teaches we are born into sin not born sinners. If we say we are born sinners then we are comdeming a baby that dies, that hasn't commited any sin?



Did the "dead in transgressions" make themselves alive (Eph 2:3-5) so as to seek after God?

Love is not a Spiritual Gift it is a froot of the Spirit. I believe every man ever born has a natural instinct to worship their creater including Paraoh. The only bad thing about that is some don't know even thoe they should who their creator is. For the bible says in essence that God's handywork is seen in all the earth so no man is without excuse to not know the true Creator. So if all men are caple of love(which even the most vile sinners are), his natural desire is to seek his Creator, his Creator is revealed in Creators handy work, then he is without excuse if he choose a false Creator.


God says, of the heart of man "The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?", does man change his own heart to believe?

True however when a man repents and says he believes in Jesus God is the only other person that knows whether his heart has truly been changed. I hope you are not saying a sinner cannot be changed.








Consider the words of the New Covenant prophecy:Eze 36:26 "Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh."






How can the man whose heart is yet stone "walk in (His) statutes"?

He cannot, however if he ever does repent and believe in Jesus God gives him a new heart. I hope you are not saying a sinner can never repent.


Please show Scripture and explain how this is true, when Christ says:
Mat 13:29-30 "But he *said, 'No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn."'"

Do you believe this time has already come? Are you saying that this is not a picture of the church now, with believers and unbelievers side by side? If so, please explain and give references.


You are the one chalenging me if you won't scriptures look them up yourself. However if you think I am wrong give scripture to prove it which you haven't so far.

No read what I did say. God has seen beginning to end, so by that He "considers" it already done. God is Alpha and Omega the beginning and the end. You can't be the beginning and end of something if you don't know what you are the beginning and end of.







But what of Pharoh?Rom 9:15-18 For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION." So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH." So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.









You as I did for a long time don't understand what God is saying about Pharoah. When He says I raised you up for this purpous. Doesn't menan God hardened his heart as a child and raised him for that purpous. No it means that as a king He raised\stood Pharoah up for that purpous.








Does not God explain to us clearly about Pharoah? God raised him up for this very purpose" and then He says that "He hardens whome He desires". Where was Pharoah's "free will" except doing what Pharoah's heart already desired to do?Rom 9:20-21 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?



God raised up Phroah as king for that verry purpous. Not raised him from a child. God after Phroah continually refused to repent and believe. God hardened his heart and stood him up as king for that verry purpous.



For the sake of "free will" you deny the Potter the right to make what He wishes from His clay?


On the conturary you are doing that, God can make that lump either a vessel of hounor or dishoner which ever He chooses.



Just like the sinful acts of the people of Jersualem, who killed Christ:




Acts 4:27-28 "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur."




Let this sink in: " truly in this city there were gathered... both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur."



Same seranio as with Pharoah

[BT]

You're probably expecting this verse, but here you go anyway:

The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. - Rev 17:8 (KJV)
This says there is a group of individuals who have had their names in the Lamb's book of life since the foundation of the world.

I don't have time right now to post some other verses that support this argument, but I look forward to reading what you have to say about Rev 17:8.

Hey bro. Sorry for the delay. I'm wrapping up a course right now, "Manners and Customs II" and it is a beast! So all my time is devoted to it lately. Nevertheless, amid the flurry of posts I'll talk to this portion..

Revelation 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

The argument was the the names were "not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world".

First of all you have to be very careful when trying to squeeze doctrine out of a book that is not teaching doctrine.. like Acts and especially Revelation which is a prophetic/apocalyptic writing.

Second this still says nothing about "being chosen from the foundations of the world for salvation or perdition". If anything, it could be used to present a case for foreknowledge, but election? No I don't think so.

Then if you wanted to get real deep with it, the concept of man's will and the necessity of belief on man's part is scattered throughout Revelation. So we come back to the argument that I used in my paper on Hebrews: why in the world would the writer contradict himself in his own book. But worse than that since this book is a direct revelation from God you'd have God contradicting Himself in His Revelation. Doesn't that seem odd to you, or is it just me? Here are a couple of examples of what I mean:

Revelation 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

Here God gives to him that is athirst, not he that was chosen by God before the foundations of the world.

Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Again this entire verse contradicts the notion of divine election from before the foundations of the world. Notice: Who does God say "come" to, the elect (chosen, picked)? No, to "him that heareth" now cross-reference that to Romans 10:14 "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?"
Now to whom else does God say "come" "him that is athirst" now cross-reference that to Matthew 5:6 "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled." And finally who else can drink of the water of life freely? Whosoever will again NOT those who were picked..

But again let me restate the fact that you must be very careful when looking for supporting verses from certain types of books. I nearly cringe sometimes when people (for other doctrines) take stuff from say the Psalms. You must be very careful...

[Bingle]

In answer to this statement from Lockhead

'Yes, Christ died for the ungodly, the "US" of Ephesians 1 and elsewhere... but that doesn't mean that Christ died for "each and every ungodly person who ever lived" no more than the sacrifices of made in the Old Covenant were for the sins of Egyptians. As God says, "I will atone for My people."'


What on earth are you saying here Lockhead. 'that doesn't mean that Christ died for each and every ungodly person who ever lived' YES IT DOES!!!

When Israel would make a sacrifice it would only cover either the individual's sins or the sins of their nation depending on the type of sacrifice but when Jesus came along he was the Lamb of God that 'taketh away the sin of the world.' THAT IS NOT THE SIN OF THE ELECT WORLD. That is the sin of the elect and the non-elect. 'When in due time Christ died for the ungodly' he died for EACH AND EVERY UNGODLY PERSON.

When he was the 'propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world' 1 John 2:2 He was indeed the atonement for the sins of the whole world not just the elect.

The fact is Christ died for sheep and he died for wolves (1 Peter 2:1) He died for the elect and the non-elect (1 John 2:2)

[R.J.S]

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

now where have I see this from before? Ah yes...e-sword :)

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

Seeing how I feel the need to defend my getting out of this thread: I sumbit the following thought.


As for anyone in the discussion and circular reasoning: I contend that if you go into a discussion/debate with assumption that the your opponent is already wrongg that you reasoning can only be circular. As for my defense of my own beliefs I agreed to discuss the show a different view of election other than Calvinism NOT for them to be put on trial by someone who has already condemned them. furthermore, I was asked to show how a verse was taken out of context, and I will submit that the verse "I will have mercy upon whom I will haev mercy" that was orginally quoted by Lockhed to concern pharaoh does not concern any Egyptian in its Exodus content, rather the nation of Israel when God threatened to destroy all of them and start again with Moses (after God and delivered them from Egypt and parted the Red Sea) and Moses pleaded with to spare them, that verse was God's response {that was the verse I had in mind with my context quote}. In closing let me say that at the end of the day that all any Christian has concerning the doctrine of election that is taught in the Bible is an opinion and interpretation, Calvinist and Arminian alike, myself included. The doctrine of election is not clearly taught and has been debated by very intelligent and Godly men for over 1600 years. If a Calvinist or any one else wants to claim "more spiritual knowlege and insight" I suggest they read 1 Corinthians very closely and see what Paul had to say about those who claimed to be "spiritual". What I'm saying is that we as Christians are all sinful men trying to understand a God that we can't begin to understand Albert Einstein (who I know was a deist) said it best:
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. (http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/3076.html)



PS If anyone disagrees with what I have said here do not bother to respond, as will NOT defend this post against any attack.

[BBAS 64]

Seeing how I feel the need to defend my getting out of this thread: I sumbit the following thought.


As for anyone in the discussion and circular reasoning: I contend that if you go into a discussion/debate with assumption that the your opponent is already wrongg that you reasoning can only be circular. As for my defense of my own beliefs I agreed to discuss the show a different view of election other than Calvinism NOT for them to be put on trial by someone who has already condemned them. furthermore, I was asked to show how a verse was taken out of context, and I will submit that the verse "I will have mercy upon whom I will haev mercy" that was orginally quoted by Lockhed to concern pharaoh does not concern any Egyptian in its Exodus content, rather the nation of Israel when God threatened to destroy all of them and start again with Moses (after God and delivered them from Egypt and parted the Red Sea) and Moses pleaded with to spare them, that verse was God's response {that was the verse I had in mind with my context quote}. In closing let me say that at the end of the day that all any Christian has concerning the doctrine of election that is taught in the Bible is an opinion and interpretation, Calvinist and Arminian alike, myself included. The doctrine of election is not clearly taught and has been debated by very intelligent and Godly men for over 1600 years. If a Calvinist or any one else wants to claim "more spiritual knowlege and insight" I suggest they read 1 Corinthians very closely and see what Paul had to say about those who claimed to be "spiritual". What I'm saying is that we as Christians are all sinful men trying to understand a God that we can't begin to understand Albert Einstein (who I know was a deist) said it best:
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. (http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/3076.html)



PS If anyone disagrees with what I have said here do not bother to respond, as will NOT defend this post against any attack.

Good Day, Unimportant

Do not see this as an attack and you do not have to respond. I just need to clear some thing up " Cicular reasoning" I posted on this issue when you first raised it and maintain no one here has used "cicular reasoning". I was unclear what it was and need to verify my understanding.


Fallacy: Circular Reasoning

What's the difference between a valid deductive argument (http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/deduc/deduc.html) and a fallacy? In the case of the fallacy of circular reasoning, the difference is not be as obvious as you might expect. In the fallacy of circular reasoning, which is often called begging the question, you assume to be true what you are supposed to be proving. But that's also true for all valid deductions, where the conclusion (what you are trying to prove) is derived from the premises or assumptions. This difference is that, in circular reasoning, the conclusion is contained in a single premise or assumption, while in a deductive argument the conclusion is derived from both premises. Consider the following exchanges:

Deductive Reasoning (Valid) Sports Fan #1: What makes you say Australian Rules Football is the most exciting sport in the world? Sports Fan #2: Because it is the fastest and highest scoring form of football, and whatever is the fastest and highest scoring form of football must be the most exciting sport in the world.

Circular Reasoning (Fallacious) Sports Fan #1: What makes you say Australian Rules Football is the most exciting sport in the world? Sports Fan #2: Because it is. Peace to u,

Bill

[Lockheed]

In answer to this statement from Lockhead

'Yes, Christ died for the ungodly, the "US" of Ephesians 1 and elsewhere... but that doesn't mean that Christ died for "each and every ungodly person who ever lived" no more than the sacrifices of made in the Old Covenant were for the sins of Egyptians. As God says, "I will atone for My people."'


What on earth are you saying here Lockhead. 'that doesn't mean that Christ died for each and every ungodly person who ever lived' YES IT DOES!!!

When Israel would make a sacrifice it would only cover either the individual's sins or the sins of their nation depending on the type of sacrifice but when Jesus came along he was the Lamb of God that 'taketh away the sin of the world.'

When John declares Christ to be the Lamb of God who "takes away the sin of the world" are you seriously suggesting that by His death Christ actually took away the sin of the world? Or only potentially took it away?

Did, or did not Christ actually "take away the sins of the world" (in your definition: "every one who ever lived", rather than "people from every tribe, nation and tongue")?

THAT IS NOT THE SIN OF THE ELECT WORLD. That is the sin of