The concept of the Elect.

Van, Just wanted to reiterate that last passage I found, which I think touches pretty directly on your whole thesis:

(Acts 13:48 NASB) When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

But I'll go ahead and comment on your other recent posts as well:

Mark, I think you overlooked the fact that Paul was chosen from the womb to be a prophet, he was not chosen at that time for salvation.

You were the one that brought up Paul's being chosen from the womb, to bolster your own position regarding God's choice taking place only after a person is alive. So now you're saying he was only chosen to be a prophet from the womb - would that be a prophet that wasn't elect for Salvation. Clearly he would have to be chosen for salvation if chosen to be a prophet. But even despite being chosen from the womb he was still subsequently in his sins until the encounter with Christ on the Road to Damascus. This explains how someone could previously be "chosen" and yet still be in their sins.

Romans 8:33 applies to those chosen for salvation, and so no charge can be brought against the saved.

I think one should always weigh very carefully exactly how something is phrased in scripture:

(Rom 8:33) Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies;

First of all its asking a rhetorical question - its not making a statement. You should ask yourself why a question is asked there. It certainly did not make a declarative statement along the lines of,

(Rom 8:33) Even God himself could never at any time in the past have brought a charge against God elect, by virtue of them being elect.

Clearly, the referent of "who" in the actual verse is "who other than God". The verse says God is the one who justifies, clearly he's the one who can condemn too:

(Heb 10:30 NKJV) For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people."

So, for example, Paul still being in his sins positionally before God at some point during his life does not rule out (for me anyway) him being "chosen" before birth.


Does this say God planned for David to become a murder?

Was there a plan for Christ to be murdered? The illegitimate offspring of David and Bathsheba - whose husband David murdered - was Solomon, the builder of first temple in Jerusalem and the writer of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.

In summary, according to my understanding of scripture, God only chooses individuals for salvation after they have lived without mercy and after He credits their faith in Christ as righteousness.

It was previously suggested by someone that you advocated Open Theology. The central tenant of that is that the future is not set - so therefore God cannot know it completely. For open theologists its like asking can God know about square circles - the future is not within the bounds of something that can be completely known by anyone, including God. God knows it better than anyone in open theology, but there are things about it that even he doesn't know. So, I'm not absolutely clear if you categorically denied believing that. But it seems like Open Theology is the only context in which your thesis has any meaning.

In Orthodox Christian understanding, God knows everything about the future, and has known everything that will ever happen for eternity. Even if God could or does voluntarily suspend his foreknowledge for whatever reason, the fact remains that if God can in fact know everything about the future, then the future is set in stone.

This means that who will sin, who will be murdered, who will accept Christ, and who God will "choose" and when, has all been set in stone for eternity past. This, to the best of my understanding is the Orthodox Christian view and has been for the last two thousand years or so.

So, if you want to say that someone accepting Christ is God "choosing" them (right then), I don't even have a particular problem with that, except that Reality itself chose them from eternity past, because it has always been set in stone that they would accept Christ, (in the orthodox Christian view).

But in Open Theology, someone accepting Christ could be a truly novel event, unanticipated by God or anything else and uncaused by anything preceding it, just a mysterious godlike, unexplained, uniliateral exercise of a person's libertarian free will, altering the future in a way that even God cannot control. So, I would ask you again, do you or do you not largely subscribe to Open Theology.

As far as reconciling evil with God's omnipotence and omniscience, that is done by observing that evil has a limited lifespan. We know that God has allowed it for say, a few million years or so. But the Bible indicates there will be a time when finally evil has died out and gone forever. So a million divided by infinity is 0, so it will be like evil never existed at all.

Have you thought about the implications of James 2:5. God chose folks who were poor to the world, rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love Him. If a person was chosen before creation, they could not be poor in the eyes of the world, they could not be rich in faith, and they would not be heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love Him.

If their life conditions directly led them to God, and it was known by God from time immemorial that they would live in these conditions and that they would turn to him for Salvation, then it was always set in stone they would be saved, so they were chosen from time immemorial. (If God didn't know all this, and in fact it could not be known with certainty by God or anyone, then that is Open Theology, which at the moment I do not know if you subscribe to it or not.) .

 

But, despite all that, I cannot absolutely unequivocally rule out Open Theology - maybe the Church has got it wrong for the last 2000 years.

 

Then you have a very poor understanding of God as declared in the Bible!

 

OldRegular - All I meant was that maybe True Randomness ( i.e.phenomenona such as "libertarian free will" that cannot be predicted even in theory) actually exists, but that God is even sovereign over True Randomness ultimately, in some mysterious way. So maybe randomness represents chaos originating from Satan, so whatever random garbage Satan creates God is able to create something good out of it.

 

Psalms 139:6-12 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it. Where shall I go from your Spirit? or where shall I flee from your presence? If I ascend up into heaven, you are there: if I make my bed in Sheol, behold, you are there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Even there shall your hand lead me, and your right hand shall hold me. If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me. Yea, the darkness hides not from you; but the night shines as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to you.


There is nothing or nowhere that God is not aware of at all times. He is outside of time.

Even Satan is subordinate to God. He can do nothing apart from God's permission. God is in control.

Open theism is heresy as it denies the omniscience and omnipresence of God, which when combined deny the omnipotence of God.

 

Good response there Amy, thanks

 

Boy, folks sure can overcomplicate the simple.

1 Pet 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Scripture is clear that election is based upon God's foreknowledge. In other words, God chooses persons according to something he knew in advance about that person.

God simply can see who will choose to trust Christ in their lifetime before they are born. God's foreknowledge does not determine who will choose to trust Christ, but God infallibly knows in advance who will.

We have examples in scripture.

Jhn 1:44 Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.
45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
46 And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.
47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
50 Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.
51 And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

When Philip met Jesus and believed he was the Christ, he went and found his brother Nathanael. Jesus "saw Nathanael coming to him". There is a double meaning here. Jesus saw Nathanael literally coming to him, but this is also speaking of Jesus knowing beforehand that Nathanael would come and believe. How do I know this? Because Jesus himself says he had seen Nathanael before he was "called". Only after this did Nathanael believe (vs. 49).

This foreknowledge is shown in the parable of the prodigal son.

Luk 15:20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.

Before the prodigal son actually came to his father and asked forgiveness, his father "saw him" coming. This is foreknowledge.

Another example is found in the story of when Gideon went against the Midianites.

Jud 7:1 Then Jerubbaal, who is Gideon, and all the people that were with him, rose up early, and pitched beside the well of Harod: so that the host of the Midianites were on the north side of them, by the hill of Moreh, in the valley.
2 And the LORD said unto Gideon, The people that are with thee are too many for me to give the Midianites into their hands, lest Israel vaunt themselves against me, saying, Mine own hand hath saved me.
3 Now therefore go to, proclaim in the ears of the people, saying, Whosoever is fearful and afraid, let him return and depart early from mount Gilead. And there returned of the people twenty and two thousand; and there remained ten thousand.
4 And the LORD said unto Gideon, The people are yet too many; bring them down unto the water, and I will try them for thee there: and it shall be, that of whom I say unto thee, This shall go with thee, the same shall go with thee; and of whomsoever I say unto thee, This shall not go with thee, the same shall not go.
5 So he brought down the people unto the water: and the LORD said unto Gideon, Every one that lappeth of the water with his tongue, as a dog lappeth, him shalt thou set by himself; likewise every one that boweth down upon his knees to drink.
6 And the number of them that lapped, putting their hand to their mouth, were three hundred men: but all the rest of the people bowed down upon their knees to drink water.
7 And the LORD said unto Gideon, By the three hundred men that lapped will I save you, and deliver the Midianites into thine hand: and let all the other people go every man unto his place.

This story answers the great objection of Calvinism against non-Cal theology that men save themselves. Note in vs. 2 that God says he will pick a few men to save Israel lest they "vaunt themselves against me, saying, Mine own hand hath saved me". It is almost as if this scripture were written to answer this objection by Calvinists.

Note that God commanded Gideon to bring the ten thousand men down to a body of water and observe how they drink. Gideon was told to separate those who lapped water like a dog from those who kneeled down to drink.

Three hundred men put their hand to their mouth and lapped like a dog, all the rest kneeled down to drink. God chose these three hundred men to go with Gideon against the Midianites, and they defeated the Midianites.

Did God know beforehand which men would drink like a dog and which would kneel down to drink? Of course, in fact it was God that brought about the very means of the test, commanding Gideon to bring the men down to the water and observe how they drank.

It is the same with salvation. God has determined the means, he has sent his prophets into the world proclaiming the gospel. Men are presented the gospel as these men were presented the water to drink. Those who drink like a dog, which I believe is a figure of humility, are those whom God chose. The scriptures say God has chosen the poor, the weak, the foolish, to confound the mighty and the wise. He has chosen the dogs.

1 Cor 1: 26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

God choosing people according to his foreknowedge is shown in scripture if folks would only see.

 

winman:

"God simply can see who will choose to trust Christ in their lifetime before they are born. God's foreknowledge does not determine who will choose to trust Christ, but God infallibly knows in advance who will. "

I completely disagree - God's foreknowledge DOES determine who will choose to trust Christ. God's foreknowledge of anything means it will DEFINITELY happen. Thus, people are born with a definite eternal destiny already set in stone, because everything about them is already known.

Also God's sovereignty is not illustrated in the parable of the prodigal son by the father seeing his some coming from a distance away and running out to meet him (as you asserted.)

Rather, it is the real God bringing upon such economic privation on the prodigal son, that he had NPTIONS LEFT in his own mind but to return. The whole point in the parable of the famine occurring is that is something that only God controls. So, circumstances of life force someone in a certain direction (towards God or away from God). Such circumstances are not controlled by the effected individual, they are controlled ultimately by God. If people are not responding to their external environment then their behavior is random. People seem to think you're an automaton if your actions are dictated by your external environment, but on the contrary your behavior is random if they aren't. People talk about "Foxhole christians" "Deathbed conversions" or what have you - that's most likely the norm.

--------------------
(edit)

As far as a person's destiny, if its not set a birth, as a result of God's Omniscience and Omnipotence, then its a result of completely random events that happen subsequently. But if there are such truly random events, that even God doesn't control, then a human being doesn't control them either. So one way or another, your destiny is not your own making. Someone could say, "alright my destiny is not my own making - I will walk out in traffic or die." But for most people self-preservation itself is such a strong primal instinct (which they simply were born with) that they will do no such thing. But anyway, from what I understand of Open Theology that is a third option which simply ascribes Godlike attributes to mans own will, i.e. not directed or random, but instead godlike. But even Solomon says in Ecclesiastes man is just like the beasts. We can go round and round with this. People through the millenia have thought deeper about these things than any of us in this forum.

 

I too believe whatever God foresees will happen, because he is infallible.

If God only knows what he has determined to happen, there is nothing special about that.

All analogies fail, but suppose there are horse races tomorrow, 7 races in all (I know almost nothing about horse-racing). I correctly predict who will win, show, and place in all 7 races. Now that would be an astounding feat would it not?

But suppose it is all fixed. Suppose I bribed all the jockey's in all 7 races so that they finished just as I had predicted. Would that be some astounding feat? No, in fact it would be cheating. I would be lying if I presented myself as a prophet when in reality I was a cheater and it was all fixed, no?

To say God can only foreknow what is determined is to deny God's power and basically say everything is fixed. That is nothing but fatalism, although I know you will deny it.

Sure it is, it was the father's will that the boy repent and come home. The father was overjoyed that he came home.

Look, does everybody perform God's will? When people murder, steal, lie, etc..., is that God's will? So, you must understand that people are absolutely disobeying God's will, or you must believe it is God's will that people sin.

 

"Look, does everybody perform God's will? When people murder, steal, lie, etc..., is that God's will? So, you must understand that people are absolutely disobeying God's will, or you must believe it is God's will that people sin."

It is his will ultimately - his will that evil exists - for a season. Whether he directed it through behaviorial imperatives in individuals, sex drives, hunger driving one to steal, sleep deprivation or chemical imbalances leading to outbursts of wrath, or whether such suboptimal anomalies to God's perfection arose through utterly random processes which God is allowing to run their course for a season.

 

Again, an analogy. I sort of see it like a game of chess (I do play chess on occasion). In chess, both players are free within limits to move where they wish. Now, if I am a good player, I can to a great degree control what my opponent will do. I can threaten his Queen so that I can move to a position of checkmate two moves later. But my opponent can choose to surrender his Queen if he desires. He can make any move he wishes whether it is wise or unwise. If my opponent decides to surrender his Queen, then I adapt to that and bring about checkmate some other way.

This is shown in the book of Esther.

Est 4:13 Then Mordecai commanded to answer Esther, Think not with thyself that thou shalt escape in the king's house, more than all the Jews.
14 For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place; but thou and thy father's house shall be destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?

If you know the story, evil Haman had tricked the king into signing a law that would allow all the Jews to be killed in one day. Mordecai requested that his neice Queen Esther would go before the king and intercede for the Jews.

But note what Mordecai said to Esther. He said that if Esther refused to go before the king that God would deliver the Jews some other way.

God is not fixed in stone. If the Marines can "adapt and overcome", so can God, and even more so.

 

This is false and a slander against God. Jesus said sin is necessary, that is a HUGE difference from what you have been falsely taught.

Mat 18:7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

Jesus said "for it must needs be that offences come". In other words, sin is necessary, it cannot be avoided, even by God. Why? Several reasons. First, it is immoral to control another person's will. If a fellow slips a drug in a girl's drink so that she loses all inhibition and he can take advantage of her, we all rightly recognize that as a crime. It is the same for God.

Second, love cannot exist without choice. You cannot possibly force someone to love you no matter what you do. It is impossible and everyone knows this.

God wants people who love him and willingly choose him. He does not dope us like a date rapist. And no sane man wants a girl who does not sincerely want him. Would you want to marry a girl who hates you? Or would you rather marry a girl that sincerely loves you and chooses you over every other man in the world?

So, love requires free will, and free will necessitates risk. If you give someone the free will to love you, you must also risk that they will hate you and reject you.

This is how it is, God has given us free will. Therefore we can choose to love and obey him if we so desire. But we can also choose to hate him and disobey him, it cannot be avoided, "it must needs be".

Your doctrine slanders God, God never wills or desires that any man sins.

 

"In chess, both players are free within limits to move where they wish. Now, if I am a good player, I can to a great degree control what my opponent will do. I can threaten his Queen so that I can move to a position of checkmate two moves later. But my opponent can choose to surrender his Queen if he desires."

So a person decides not to surrender. That decision is completely predictable with enough prior knowledge - regarding their physical makeup and physical surroundings - unless you think a human also requires exalted spiritual godlike attributes to play chess. (Chickens can actually play a mean game of tic-tac-toe.) How tired or fatigued is the person? What are his personality traits and chemical makeup as to beligerence or acquiesence, What is his history in past games. And these set factors, whatever they are, are just as constraining on that individual as the rules of chess, neither of which the player controls. And if you cannot predict with enough knowledge what the player will do, then his actions are just pure randomness. So is that what free will is - randomness?

I don't want this to get too far afield before Van gets a chance to respond to my last post to him so I will cut it short here.

 

Well, in chess you or your opponent can choose to make whatever move you desire, it is that simple. It all comes down to the will.

Got to get off to bed, I get up at 4 AM.

 

It is IMMORAL FOR GOD TO CONTROL SOMEONE'S WILL?????

Where is Skandelon and Quantum and DHK and others now? Why don't you guys reign in this nonsense?

I guarantee you that you cannot get a reputable "non-cal" on this board to agree with this madness.

What do you mean by choice. Do you mean the power to choose one thing as well as the other?

If you do, then God the Son does not love God the Father and God the Holy Spirit does not love either one.

No one person of the godhead can choose to not love any other person in the godhead.

Is the love among the persons of the godhead non-existent??

Prove it.

There it is. In your effort to resist the scriptural teaching of the doctrines of grace you have just undermined the eternal love of the Triune Godhead.

Amazing.

Where does this desire come from?

 

I think it's quite entertaining and interesting how you're brand new and all around here mark_13 and have taken an immediate liking to van, dialoguing with him relentlessly and almost exclusively.

Very interesting indeed. :love2:

 

Bro, things like this, there is a pretense that they just don't go on. You can provide quotes, and the common response is "Where? Who? Who said that!? Prove it! I doubt anyone said that! You're taking it out of context!" when a simple cut and paste search would prove otherwise, and that the quotes are completely valid and used in context. It's ostrich syndrome bro. It must be part of the package deal with arm/non-cal theology.

(by the way, I wouldn't be surprised to see others come along who believe winmans errant views)

It's interesting that winman can't see that God does control other persons wills, and uses things to do so, even that He gives us our desires, wills, for He works in us to work and to will of His good pleasure, Philippians 2:13. He even afflicts His own to change their course, to bring them to Him, Psalm 119:67.

On to the fact about "forced love" winnies example sounds reminiscent of one who had a crush on a girl in HS who never reciprocated that love.

But to the point of love, or, the point of loving God, and the absurdity of weak logic that assumes the forced love concept into anothers theology.

We love Him because He first loved us; 1 John 4:19.

Also, God demonstrated His love to us while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us; Romans 5:8.

And this; our minds were blinded by the Gospel, so until we could see we could make no choice, not being free or even being able to see to do so; 2 Corinthians 4:4.

To continue, we were enslaved to sin, and our wills were not free, John 8:34-36.

"But God" quickened us from our sins, loving us before we loved Him Ephesians 2:1-4, and the light of the Gospel shone in, and the God of love we could not help but love, being set free from our enslavement to sin.

There was no forced love to be seen at all. It was all supernatural, and in our darkness, bound in our wills, loving sin, we could not love Him in this state. It was not by our will that we loved Him, but by His grace that we are able to love Him and know Him. We could not have loved Him without these operations of His upon our hearts. Our love is a supernatural response of Him loving us first, His elect cannot help but love Him.

 

Hey Brother Luke, Glad to see you again! :thumbs:

Its "Humanism" pure & simple. The age old doctrine of Total Inability which declares that people are dead in sin has little or no relevance with these type. Face it, this is the age of the humanists, where the only absolute is there is no absolutes. So their natural "repeated issue" is at all costs to preserve a place for human agency in every life process including the process of salvation. I beg to differ & will fight for the doctrines of grace irrespective of what they teach & believe. So "You Go " brother & keep preaching orthodox doctrine .... I'm glad we still have believers that do! :smilewinkgrin: