God's election

[Carico]

I've argued this same point here over the years, that these phrases preceded by time language are actually anthropomorphic in nature given to finite beings bound by time. I've been called a Methodist There is no "fore" or "pre" with an omnipresent God, but this is how we must view God as we cannot fathom anyone existing in all points in time at the same time.

So you don't think that God has the right to mold out of the same lump of clay some pottery for common use. Is that correct?

Perhaps you don't believe Romans 9:18 that God hardnes hearts either.

Or perhaps you'd like to change MT. 11;25-27 to, "I thank you, good Father, Lord of heaven and earth for revealing your word to everyone, not just to little children."

You can change 1 Corinthians 1:29 as well too, "For God chose everyone, the wise and the foolish." I bet that sounds good to itching ears.

Sorry but the phrase; God's elect are all over scripture. So you've got a lot of re-writing scripture to do to suit your itching ears.

Or how about Christ's words, "You did not choose me, I chose you" into, "You chose me because God chooses everyone."

[Personal attack removed]

 

[webdog]

So you don't think that God has the right to mold out of the same lump of clay some pottery for common use. Is that correct?

Perhaps you don't believe Romans 9:18 that God hardnes hearts either.

Or perhaps you'd like to change MT. 11;25-27 to, "I thank you, good Father, Lord of heaven and earth for revealing your word to everyone, not just to little children."

Yu can change 1 Corinthians 1:29 as well too, "For God chose everyone, the wise and the foolish. I bet that sounds good to itching ears.

Sorry but the phrase; God's elect are all over scripture. So you've got a lot of re-writing scripture to do to suit your itching ears.

When you're done re-writing those verses I have some more that you can re-write to way what you want them to say.

Do you just regurgitate the same strawmen questions time and time again, Carico?
I think the "itching ears" would more aptly apply to yourself. I have witnessed your misuse of the Scripture to support your theology, even when it is put into context for you. I know it's hard to let go of something you think is true, but you blatantly dismiss anything that doesn't fit your theological view.

 

[Carico]

Do you just regurgitate the same strawmen questions time and time again, Carico?
I think the "itching ears" would more aptly apply to yourself. I have witnessed your misuse of the Scripture to support your theology, even when it is put into context for you. I know it's hard to let go of something you think is true, but you blatantly dismiss anything that doesn't fit your theological view.

They have to deal with those verses if they claim that God doesn't elect. So they need to hop to it. So please provide a verse that I have changed into the opposite of what it says. Otherwise your claims are nothing but slander.

 

[webdog]

They have to deal with those verses if they claim that God doesn't elect. So they need to hop to it. So please provide a verse that I have changed into the opposite of what it says. Otherwise your claims are nothing but slander.

Dude, you seriously need to stop. I have never claimed "God doesn't elect". Debate what I say, not what you want to hear. I have also never claimed you change the Scripture to "the opposite of what it says"...that is the accusation you have thrown around to those who are not reformed. Seriously...stop.

 

[Carico]

Dude, you seriously need to stop. I have never claimed "God doesn't elect". Debate what I say, not what you want to hear. I have also never claimed you change the Scripture to "the opposite of what it says"...that is the accusation you have thrown around to those who are not reformed. Seriously...stop.

Then your attacks against me in the last 2 posts were unwarranted since my post you were attacking defends God's election and rebuts the post who claimed that God doesn't elect.


So it's you who needs to STOP the personal attacks and claims of strawmen for the very posts with which you claim to agree! It's nothing but destructive.

 

[webdog]

Then your attacks against me in the last 2 posts were unwarranted since my post you were attacking defends God's election and rebuts the post who claimed that God doesn't elect.


So it's you who needs to STOP the personal attacks and claims of strawmen for the very posts with which you claim to agree! It's nothing but destructive.

I see you have also now redefined "attack" as well

 

[Carico]

I see you have also now redefined "attack" as well

Calling my arguments strawmen when you not only can't disprove them but claim the you agree wit them is an attack because it's a false statement.

"Our struggle is not against flesh and blood." I'm sorry that you think it is. I'm here to discuss the bible, not play verbal volleyball. Since the latter seems to be your came of choice, you can't play it alone. So I'm no longer responding to your posts.

 

[OldRegular]

Besides, the whole "foreknew" argument means nothing: it only says God knew them. It does not say God based his predestination of them upon some facts about them: it does not even imply it. In fact, the example with Jacob and Esau is meant to specifically exclude this possibility. God hated Esau, and loved Jacob, and not for anything that they later did, including "choosing" to have faith.

Something that would work much better, would be the simple interpretation that God "knew" who he was going to pick.

I tried to make this same point earlier. Obviously God "foreknew" but that has nothing to do with the sovereign choice by GOD of some to salvation in Jesus Christ to the exclusion of others. I have a difficult time understanding why anyone who is saved would have any qualms about giving all the glory to GOD.

 

[Havensdad]

:laugh: Uh.. wrong. Look it up.

Not wrong. There was no such thing in the Hebrew Culture, of a s*xual act apart from a spiritual joining.

I'm not misconstruing anything but it is apparent you wish to add to the definition that which never has been apart of it.

Not adding to anything. You are trying to interpret a scripture with a 21st century mindset.

The word as a s*xual idiom is used to refer to a s*xual union/act btween two people.

No such thing to a 1st Century Hebrew. It is referring to an act of deep spiritual bonding. This same spiritual/s*xual union is used to refer to our union with Christ Notice:

1Co 6:16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, "The two will become one flesh."
1Co 6:17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.

Though it 'could' infer the spiritual aspect, it must be remebered that it is only due to the s*xual act that had been committed.

Not at all. Again, no such thing to the Hebrew. S*x WAS a spiritual act, rather than a physical one (which is related to our union with Christ...)

Again remember it was used as s*xaul idiom and not as a spiritual inference.

No, it wasn't.

However it is more important to note that it never has historically been used or translated to mean 'love' or even your new defintion of 'spiritual union'.

Yes, it has.

Strongs:
A primitive root; to know (properly to ascertain by seeing); used in a great variety of senses, figuratively, literally, euphemistically and inferentially (including observation, care...familiar friend...

Tell me what this means:

Mat 7:23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'

Is Christ saying that he was never aware of this person? Or that he did not know in the sense that he did not have aan intimate, saving relationship with them? Certainly you are not claiming that Christ, who is glorified and sitting at the right hand of the father, was unaware of these persons?

 

[Winman]

I tried to make this same point earlier. Obviously God "foreknew" but that has nothing to do with the sovereign choice by GOD of some to salvation in Jesus Christ to the exclusion of others. I have a difficult time understanding why anyone who is saved would have any qualms about giving all the glory to GOD.

How does a man choosing Christ of his own free will dishonor God? It is exactly like marriage. When a man asks a woman to marry him and she chooses to do so, this is the greatest honor that can be bestowed upon a man. She is choosing him above all others. It is the greatest honor known to man.

But it is the same in scripture. Salvation itself is described as a marriage.

Matt 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,

Rev 19:7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.
8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.
9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

Notice it says Christ's wife "hath made herself ready". This is a person coming to Christ for salvation. And in the next verse her request is granted, and she is washed clean in the blood of Christ and his righteousness is imputed to her. Salvation is shown in these verses.

Notice also that honor is given to Christ by this marriage in verse 7.

The church itself is called the bride of Christ. Salvation is directly compared to a marriage.

So how does a person choosing Christ dishonor God? I say that it absolutely honors God.

And what honor is shown to Christ if God imposes believe upon a man? Then we are not choosing Jesus because we love him and want to be with him, we are being forced to marry him.

Maybe you folks are different from me, but I would never want someone to marry me unless it was their own free choice, otherwise it is not even real.

No, the scriptures say we love God, because he first loved us.

1 John 4: 19 We love him, because he first loved us.

I do not see love in the Calvinistic view of salvation. A man is not given a choice to choose Christ of his own free will. There is no love in this, you are merely a robot.

 

[kyredneck]

..... I have a difficult time understanding why anyone who is saved would have any qualms about giving all the glory to GOD.

Amen OR. I've many times wondered the same thing.

 

[webdog]

Amen OR. I've many times wondered the same thing.

I have never seen a true believer (cal and non alike) give credit to anyone besides God. Classic strawman of the BB...

 

[Havensdad]

How does a man choosing Christ of his own free will dishonor God? It is exactly like marriage. When a man asks a woman to marry him and she chooses to do so, this is the greatest honor that can be bestowed upon a man. She is choosing him above all others. It is the greatest honor known to man.

But it is the same in scripture. Salvation itself is described as a marriage.

Matt 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,

Rev 19:7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.
8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.
9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

Notice it says Christ's wife "hath made herself ready". This is a person coming to Christ for salvation. And in the next verse her request is granted, and she is washed clean in the blood of Christ and his righteousness is imputed to her. Salvation is shown in these verses.

The church itself is called the bride of Christ. Salvation is directly compared to a marriage.

So how does a person choosing Christ dishonor God? I say that it absolutely honors God.

Ahem.

Marriage in 1st Century Palestine/Judea, was arranged. The Bride did not "Choose" to marry the Groom (at least, this was not the norm). The marriage was an arrangement by the parents: the Bride was "given" to the groom, by the Groom's Father. In some cases, a "Marriage broker" was even hired by the Groom's father, or the Brides father, to seek out an acceptable mate 1

1. J. Julius Scott Jr. Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009.

 

[Winman]

Ahem yourself. A woman could refuse.

Gen 24:5 And the servant said unto him, Peradventure the woman will not be willing to follow me unto this land: must I needs bring thy son again unto the land from whence thou camest?

Gen 24:8 And if the woman will not be willing to follow thee, then thou shalt be clear from this my oath: only bring not my son thither again.

 

[Winman]

And I know you Calvinist's do not believe in free will, but that is not what the scriptures teach. And many times God spoke of people serving him with their own free will.

1 Chron 28:9 And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind: for the LORD searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever.

Isa 1:16 Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil;
17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.
18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:
20 But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

Once again, verses that make absolutely no sense if Calvinism is true. Here God tells men to cease from evil, and seek judgment. Then he says "IF" they be willing.

What does God mean by IF they be willing?? This makes no sense whatsover if Calvinism is true. If Calvinism is true men have no control over whether they be willing or not, their very wills are controlled by God.

But you go on believeing what you will.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot you do not have a will. :laugh:

 

[Havensdad]

Ahem yourself. A woman could refuse.

Gen 24:5 And the servant said unto him, Peradventure the woman will not be willing to follow me unto this land: must I needs bring thy son again unto the land from whence thou camest?

Gen 24:8 And if the woman will not be willing to follow thee, then thou shalt be clear from this my oath: only bring not my son thither again.

Please do not compare writings in a culture several thousand years B.C., to the A.D., partially Hellenized culture to which Christ and the Apostles were communicating.

 

[Havensdad]

And I know you Calvinist's do not believe in free will, but that is not what the scriptures teach. And many times God spoke of people serving him with their own free will.

This is completely false. We do not believe in a Libertarian free will. A man is free to choose what he desires, in the circumstances which a Sovereign God has placed him.

But I know you Arminians do not believe in a Sovereign God, but that is not what the scriptures teach>

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

Scripture also denies we are able to choose contrary to our evil desires; it thereby denies, explicitly, the concept of "Libertarian" free will.

Mat 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. (The implied answer in the Greek, is that you cannot).

Mat 15:19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.

Scripture assures that without the enabling hand of God, mankind will choose sin and death every time: because they, in their evil desire, WANT it.

 

[Winman]

Please do not compare writings in a culture several thousand years B.C., to the A.D., partially Hellenized culture to which Christ and the Apostles were communicating.

I can't help it. You see I am a slave of sin and cannot control what I do.

When Joseph was espoused to Mary and discovered she was pregnant, he had the option of breaking it off, but being a just man and warned of God in a dream did not.

Yes, marriages were often arranged. But not always.

Jud 14:1 And Samson went down to Timnath, and saw a woman in Timnath of the daughters of the Philistines.
2 And he came up, and told his father and his mother, and said, I have seen a woman in Timnath of the daughters of the Philistines: now therefore get her for me to wife.
3 Then his father and his mother said unto him, Is there never a woman among the daughters of thy brethren, or among all my people, that thou goest to take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines? And Samson said unto his father, Get her for me; for she pleaseth me well.

Samson's parents did not want him to marry Timnath the Phillistine girl. But he did it anyway.

 

[Winman]

This is completely false. We do not believe in a Libertarian free will. A man is free to choose what he desires, in the circumstances which a Sovereign God has placed him.

But I know you Arminians do not believe in a Sovereign God, but that is not what the scriptures teach>

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

Scripture also denies we are able to choose contrary to our evil desires; it thereby denies, explicitly, the concept of "Libertarian" free will.

Mat 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. (The implied answer in the Greek, is that you cannot).

Mat 15:19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.

Scripture assures that without the enabling hand of God, mankind will choose sin and death every time: because they, in their evil desire, WANT it.

Scripture also shows that the unsaved man can seek God.

Matt 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

This has to be the unsaved, because Jesus said those that come to him will never hunger or thirst.

John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

Paul said that unsaved men seek God.

Acts 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

It's amazing, every single point of TULIP is unscriptural.

 

[Havensdad]

Yes, marriages were often arranged. But not always.

.

Marriage as used to refer to Christ and the believers, is of the normal arranged variety.

Joh 10:29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.

This, also, is part of a traditional arranged Jewish marriage...


Joh 14:2 In my Father's house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?
Joh 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.


The Father and Bridegroom, would come, at an hour determined by the father, to come and retrieve the Bride. They would take the bride back to a bridechamber, built onto the Father's house.

Jesus is certainly not referring to the culturally odd exceptions to which you refer.