Election's Historicity (Doctrinal Counter Perspective)

Hammster · May 11, 2024

Grip Docility said:
Colossians 1:13 He has rescued us from the domain of darkness and transferred us into the Kingdom of his dear Son.

14 It is through His Son that we have redemption — that is, our sins have been forgiven. 15 He is the visible image of the invisible God. He is supreme over all creation, 16 because in connection with Him were created all things — in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, lordships, rulers or authorities — they have all been created through Him and for him. 17 He existed before all things, and He holds everything together.

18 Also He is head of the Body, the Messianic Community — He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He might hold first place in everything. 19 For it pleased God to have his full being live in His Son 20 and through His Son to reconcile to Himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace through Him, through having his Son shed his blood by being executed on a stake (The Cross).

Who are the “us”?

Grip Docility · May 11, 2024

Clare73 said:
So that's what we're talking about. . .I missed it. . .I'm pretty literal, not good at reading between the lines.

Atonement for the unbelieving makes things like, "Make your calling and election sure (to yourself, by faithfulness, 2 Pe 1:10)" to be meaningless if atonement is applied to all.

God reconciled All. Colossians 1 prices this. I imagine the issue is not believing that Mankind can respond to the Fathers call through Jesus Christ.

Jesus is the Drawing of the Father towards all men. As in reprobate and all.

Grip Docility · May 11, 2024

Hammster said:
Who are the “us”?

Paul’s audience, directly per the Epistle to Colossae.

Next question?

Hammster · May 11, 2024

Grip Docility said:
Paul’s audience, directly per the Epistle to Colossae.

Next question?

So it only applies to the elect. :oldthumbsup:

Grip Docility · May 11, 2024

Hammster said:
So it only applies to the elect.

Actually 1 Peter 1 disagrees with you. “Diaspora”

Show me the word elect in the intro to Paul’s audiences. Not Peter’s… I’ll wait.

Also, nice dodge on Colossians.

Mark Quayle · May 11, 2024

Grip Docility said:
The entire OP is about John Calvin's doctrine of election. Perhaps yours is different.

To say that Jesus did not Die for All, per Colossians 1, is to literally reduce the scope of Christs cited authority over heaven and earth. It either means that Jesus is God, to which we know that God has ALL "Authority", though we have God given self sovereignty.... or... it means that Jesus is not God, because limiting His scope of Authority, would make Him not with full Sovereignty above all things.

The OP seemed (to me, at least) to posit the notion that the doctrine of Election was only Calvin's invention, as though it hadn't been known before that. But here you seem (to me, at least) to say that you were only talking of Calvin's version of it. If my version (or @Clare73 's version) resembles Calvin's very closely, did it therefore come from Calvin?

Where in Colossians 1 is it mentioned that Jesus Died for All? But to your point --I don't see how considering his atonement as being only "for" (which word needs definition in your statement, for cogency) the elect limits his authority or sovereignty. Can you demonstrate this, or at least, explain how you have demonstrated it here? I don't see it; only an assertion.

Clare73 · May 11, 2024

Grip Docility said:
God reconciled All.

According to Jesus, unbelievers are not reconciled to God (Jn 3:18).

Grip Docility said:
Colossians 1 prices this. I imagine the issue is not believing that Mankind can respond to the Fathers call through Jesus Christ.

Jesus is the Drawing of the Father towards all men. As in reprobate and all.

According to Jesus, all those whom the Father gives to Jesus will come to Jesus (Jn 6:37).

And not all men come.

Grip Docility · May 11, 2024

Mark Quayle said:
The OP seemed (to me, at least) to posit the notion that the doctrine of Election was only Calvin's invention, as though it hadn't been known before that. But here you seem (to me, at least) to say that you were only talking of Calvin's version of it. If my version (or @Clare73 's version) resembles Calvin's very closely, did it therefore come from Calvin?

Where in Colossians 1 is it mentioned that Jesus Died for All? But to your point --I don't see how considering his atonement as being only "for" (which word needs definition in your statement, for cogency) the elect limits his authority or sovereignty. Can you demonstrate this, or at least, explain how you have demonstrated it here? I don't see it; only an assertion.

Colossians 1 asserts it. It’s neat and clean.

Zero ability to limit atonement… when Colossians 1 is read.

Also… @Clare73 is the most patient debater that I have ever met!

We can do this. I’m watching a film, but we can open this dialogue. Look at the Alls, in Colossians 1, contained within the supremacy of Jesus Christ… bind them to the poetry and Greek.

All Love in The name of Jesus to you.

Grip Docility · May 11, 2024

Clare73 said:
According to Jesus, unbelievers are not reconciled to God (Jn 3:18).

According to Jesus, all those whom the Father gives to Jesus will come to Jesus (Jn 6:37).

And not all men come.

Your verses discuss people turning to Jesus. The issue is in the damage that limiting atonement does to the very Work of Jesus and character of God.

Clare73 · May 11, 2024

Grip Docility said:
Your verses discuss people turning to Jesus. The issue is in the damage that limiting atonement does to the very Work of Jesus and character of God.

Man's view of the supposed effects of these texts is not the measure of the truth of NT texts.

Only their grammar is the measure.

Likewise, consider also that the only representation we have for Jesus' sacrifice is the sacrifices of the OT.
Were those sacrifices for the whole world, or were they only for the people of (believers in) God'?
Only believers in Jesus Christ are the people of God, which is why unbelieving Jews have been cut off the one tree of the people of God (Ro 11).

Grip Docility · May 12, 2024

Clare73 said:
Man's view of the supposed effects of these texts is not the measure of NT texts.

Only their grammar is the measure.

Likewise, consider also that the only representation we have for Jesus' sacrifice is the sacrifices of the OT.
Were those sacrifices for the whole world, or were they only for the people of (believers in) God'?
Only believers in Jesus Christ are the people of God, which is why unbelieving Jews have been cut off the one tree of the people of God (Ro 11).

Colossians 1, discussed in posts 5-7, by the Greek… and grammar… makes the limiting of the word “all” impossible in respects to atonement.

There is no theological wicket that can deny it. I assert that scripture disagrees. It’s the end all to the semantics involving the word all… because it leaves no room for eiegeses.

But… I also recognize that your patience is beyond comprehension… and clearly the work of the Holy Spirit of Christ.

All Love in Jesus to you!

@Mark Quayle is amazingly patient, also!

@Hammster is… um… he’s… his avatar is really cool.

John Mullally · May 12, 2024

Clare73 said:
Logically, it seems not, for then the reprobates' judgment for sin would be paid twice, which would be injustice.

Jesus did make an atonement for all people (1 Timothy 2:6, 1 John 2:2, Hebrews 2:9), but not all receive it.

This "double payment" issue does not present a problem for those who hold to the provisional nature of the atonement as the payment is only received (or cashed) through faith.

From John 3:14-15: Just as the serpent lifted on the pole in the desert was provided for all, it only benefitted the ones who look to it for healing. No one would argue the serpent did not sufficiently provide the means for healing to all simply because some may have refused to look to the provision for healing. In similar manner, Christ's atonement is sufficient to provide the means for salvation to all, but is only received by those who believe.

John 3:14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.

From 1 Timothy 4:10: God is the savior of all people - which means everyone has a savior. God is not the savior of those He does not want to save. 1 Timothy 2:4 plainly states that God desires all people to be saved.

1 Timothy 4:10 That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.

1 Timothy 2:4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,

John Mullally · May 12, 2024

Clare73 said:
The spiritually dead (unregenerate drowned) can't reach up from the water.
Throwing the drowned a life preserver is futile.

They are already drowned, spiritually dead, only a spiritual resurrection (regeneration, Jn 3:3-5) will bring them to spiritual life.

Dead is an overloaded word - meaning it has many different meaning depending on the context. In the parable of the Prodigal Son, the son was said to have been "dead" (Luke 15:24), came to himself and returned to the Father.

Jesus says that believing (not a pre-faith regeneration that Calvinist's teach) transitions one from spiritual death into spiritual life. Although, John 3 says regeneration is required to enter the kingdom of God, scripture does not say that one must be regenerated in order to believe. If that were true, it would be plainly stated as it would be of utmost importance.

John 5:24 Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.

John Mullally · May 12, 2024

Mark Quayle said:
The OP seemed (to me, at least) to posit the notion that the doctrine of Election was only Calvin's invention, as though it hadn't been known before that. But here you seem (to me, at least) to say that you were only talking of Calvin's version of it. If my version (or @Clare73 's version) resembles Calvin's very closely, did it therefore come from Calvin?

Theological “election” deals with God’s choices. For instance, the Bible refers to an election of:

Christ (Isaiah 42:1; Luke 9:35; 1 Peter 2:6)
National Israel (Deuteronomy 7:6; Isaiah 45:4)
Jerusalem (1 Kings 11:13)
Disciples (John 13:18; John 15:16)
Christians (Ephesians 1:1-3; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14)

In Calvinism, election is labeled as Unconditional Election, in terms of God having decreed a total plan of all things from eternity, which includes a bifurcation of humanity into elect and non-elect camps, that is, fixed classes of sheep and goats. Individuals comprising the elect camp are unconditionally chosen by God for salvation prior to the Genesis creation, the basis of which being known only to Him, while the non-elect camp comprises those whom God never intended to spend eternity with Him in Heaven and thus passed by for salvific graces.

In non-Calvinism, election is labeled as Conditional Election, in which there are primarily two different views:

(1) The Wesleyan-Arminian “foresight of faith” model of Election and,

(2) the Corporate model of Election.

In the Wesleyan model, by God’s eternal foreknowledge, all whom He found that will ever positively respond to the gospel and persevere in the faith, He foreordained as members of “the elect.”

As for the Corporate model, which I hold to, the foundation is that Jesus Christ is the Elect One, resulting that all who come to be “in Him,” that is, identified with Him in His body and as His bride, jointly share in His election, and hence believers in Him may rightly also be called “the elect” or favored. In other words, Corporate Election is a class election of Christ’s family, and for His part, He would like to see everyone in it, which He made possible at Calvary.

Comparing and contrasting, Election in Calvinism means God choosing unbelievers, that is, of the elect kind, unto the gift of faith. Election in non-Calvinism means God choosing Christians, that is, unto salvation, service and blessings. Does God choose us or do we choose God? The answer is that many scriptures support that God chooses to show His favor on Christians and we choose whether or not to become a Christian.

Hammster · May 12, 2024

Grip Docility said:
Actually 1 Peter 1 disagrees with you. “Diaspora”

We are discussing Paul’s epistle. Why bring up Peter?

Grip Docility said:
Show me the word elect in the intro to Paul’s audiences. Not Peter’s… I’ll wait.

To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are at Colossae: Grace to you and peace from God our Father.
— Colossians 1:2

Grip Docility said:
Also, nice dodge on Colossians.

Don’t goad.

Grip Docility · May 12, 2024

Hammster said:
We are discussing Paul’s epistle. Why bring up Peter?

There is Election that is found in “Graftimg” into The Elect Jewish Messiah… Jesus

There are the Elect “All of the Diaspora.”

Gentiles are not “Elect” as individuals. 1 Peter 1 confirms this when Galatians is checked to see who Paul’s audience was and who Peter’s audience was.

Hammster said:
To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are at Colossae: Grace to you and peace from God our Father.
— Colossians 1:2

Saints is not the word elect. This is confirmed in Romans 11, while election is specified to, even, Enemy of the Gospel Jews.

Hammster said:
Don’t goad.

By no means was that meant to be a “goad”. It was a shorthand way of asking why you are ignoring the word all, that is within Colossians 1. If you interpret sportsman like debate terms as goading, I will strike them from my list, while in discussion. I saw “you want to play it like that” as a goad, but sympathized with your perspective on the matter.

Hammster · May 12, 2024

Grip Docility said:
There is Election that is found in “Graftimg” into The Elect Jewish Messiah… Jesus

There are the Elect “All of the Diaspora.”

Gentiles are not “Elect” as individuals. 1 Peter 1 confirms this when Galatians is checked to see who Paul’s audience was and who Peter’s audience was.

We were discussing Paul’s writing. You brought up Peter. Just like when we were discussing John, and you brought up Paul. You need to not wander.

Grip Docility said:
Saints is not the word elect. This is confirmed in Romans 11, while election is specified to, even, Enemy of the Gospel Jews.

I didn’t say that saints was the word for elect. It does mean separated for God. And he also calls them faithful brethren. And later calls them chosen. Put it all together and they are the elect.

Grip Docility said:
By no means was that meant to be a “goad”. It was a shorthand way of asking why you are ignoring the word all, that is within Colossians 1. If you interpret sportsman like debate terms as goading, I will strike them from my list, while in discussion. I saw “you want to play it like that” as a goad, but sympathized with your perspective on the matter.

I didn’t ignore Colossians 1.

Grip Docility · May 12, 2024

Hammster said:
We were discussing Paul’s writing. You brought up Peter. Just like when we were discussing John, and you brought up Paul. You need to not wander.

The matter is clear, concerning the word "Elect". You did not evaluate the usage of the word all, per the greek, within Colossians 1. Perhaps my lack of specifying that is to blame. I'll take that hit. I misunderstood you, when you posted the thumbs up next to colossians 1:2, and thought you were being humorous to not look at the word "all" as used within colossians.

The greek word for saint is 40 [e] hagiois, while the greek word for elect is 1588 [e] Eklektois Elect is a word to the Jews per the Greek

ἐκλεκτοῖς (eklektois) — 1 Occurrence

1 Peter 1:1 Adj-DMP
GRK: Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις διασπορᾶς
NAS: Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen
INT: of Jesus Christ to [the] elect exiles of [the] dispersion

Saint is a word that denotes the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of Christ.
Strong's Greek: 40. ἅγιος (hagios) — 235 Occurrences
Matthew 1:18 Adj-GNS
GRK: ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου
NAS: to be with child by the Holy Spirit.
KJV: with child of the Holy Ghost.
INT: through [the] Spirit Holy

The exact text within scripture states that Peter is to the Jews (Diaspora), while Paul is to the Gentiles. This is important because it logically and forensically identifies scriptures usage of the word "Elect". There is no way to shoehorn any other perspective into this, without referring to outside biblical sources. Scripture forensically defines the term. Romans 11, also further makes this clear, when election is denoted to Christ rejecting Jews.

Hammster said:
I didn’t say that saints was the word for elect. It does mean separated for God. And he also calls them faithful brethren. And later calls them chosen. Put it all together and they are the elect.

Scripturally, it doesn't. The word Elect is to Jesus Christ, who is Jewish. The word elect is directly to the Diaspora. The Greek of the matter, well, it matters.

Hammster said:
I didn’t ignore Colossians 1.

Are you willing to address the usage of the word all that is used more than once, within Colossians 1, in regards to the supremacy of Jesus Christ?

Hammster · May 12, 2024

Grip Docility said:
The matter is clear, concerning the word "Elect". You did not evaluate the usage of the word all, per the greek, within Colossians 1. Perhaps my lack of specifying that is to blame. I'll take that hit. I misunderstood you, when you posted the thumbs up next to colossians 1:2, and thought you were being humorous to not look at the word "all" as used within colossians.

The greek word for saint is 40 [e] hagiois, while the greek word for elect is 1588 [e] Eklektois Elect is a word to the Jews per the Greek

ἐκλεκτοῖς (eklektois) — 1 Occurrence
1 Peter 1:1 Adj-DMP
GRK: Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις διασπορᾶς
NAS: Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen
INT: of Jesus Christ to [the] elect exiles of [the] dispersion

Saint is a word that denotes the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of Christ.
Strong's Greek: 40. ἅγιος (hagios) — 235 Occurrences
Matthew 1:18 Adj-GNS
GRK: ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου
NAS: to be with child by the Holy Spirit.
KJV: with child of the Holy Ghost.
INT: through [the] Spirit Holy

The exact text within scripture states that Peter is to the Jews (Diaspora), while Paul is to the Gentiles. This is important because it logically and forensically identifies scriptures usage of the word "Elect". There is no way to shoehorn any other perspective into this, without referring to outside biblical sources. Scripture forensically defines the term. Romans 11, also further makes this clear, when election is denoted to Christ rejecting Jews.

Scripturally, it doesn't. The word Elect is to Jesus Christ, who is Jewish. The word elect is directly to the Diaspora. The Greek of the matter, well, it matters.

So, as those who have been chosen [elect] of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience;
— Colossians 3:12

That’s not Jesus. He’s referring to his audience

Grip Docility said:
Are you willing to address the usage of the word all that is used more than once, within Colossians 1, in regards to the supremacy of Jesus Christ?

Jesus is Supreme. I’m not sure why you’d think I’d argue against that.

Grip Docility · May 12, 2024

Hammster said:
So, as those who have been chosen [elect] of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience;
— Colossians 3:12

I am forced to agree with you on scripture in this matter. Would you be willing to address why Paul opens his epistles, not to the elect, as he is to Gentiles... while Peter who is to the Jews, opens to the elect?

Hammster said:
That’s not Jesus. He’s referring to his audience

I agree, per the greek and the passage.

Hammster said:
Jesus is Supreme. I’m not sure why you’d think I’d argue against that.

Is the word all used to show what scope Jesus Christ's blood is intended, within that same passage?

Election's Historicity (Doctrinal Counter Perspective)

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

Well-Known Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

Well-Known Member

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

Well-Known Member

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

Well-Known Member

Similar threads