Corporate Election

you see, by your own words, you acknowledge that all humans have FREE WILL!

 

Thank you for your concern, but I am at peace because I know that me salvation did not and does not depend on me, but upon God who does all things well. Titus 3:3-7.

 

If I visit your house and you offer me tea or coffee, do I have free will to choose, or is my will overridden by the fact that I prefer coffee to tea? 'And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil' (John 3:19). Men freely reject Christ because they have wicked unbelieving hearts and they will always do so unless God in His mercy gives them a new heart and a new spirit and causes them freely to seek and to find the Saviour) Ezekiel 36:26, 31). 'Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power' (Psalm 110:3)

This is not something new from me; it can be found especially in Jonathan Edwards and Andrew Fuller.

 

I think you don't really understand the concept of "free will", or the English language! Again, your own words show that your reasoning is wrong! Your example about tea and coffee. You may prefer coffee, but this does not mean that you can NEVER have tea? You CHOOSE (FREE WILL), because you PREFER (FREE WILL), coffee over tea. But it is not that you CANNOT CHOOSE tea, but what you PREFER. The whole idea of "preference" is based on the ability to CHOOSE!

You quote from Ezekiel, but fail to see what else this Prophet says:

"“But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done he shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? But when a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice and does the same abominations that the wicked person does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds that he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, for them he shall die." (18:21-24)

You see, from the above passage, both the "righteous" and "unrighteous" person, is seen to have the God-given "ability" to either DO "right", or "wrong". It is seen as THEIR CHOICE! God wants them to CHOOSE "good" over "bad", and thereby live and not die, which is with regard to the after life. The language used here and elsewhere, clearly shows that God demands that we humans make the RIGHT CHOICE, something that He could not expect of US, if He thought that it were not possible. Calvinism/Reformed theology takes the "bondage of the will", or "ability", to an extreme that the Bible does not teach. It comes from people like Augustine and Luther, but this does not make it right, when the Bible is clearly against what they say!

 

So, you are a machine, pre-programmed to do ALL that God wants of you? What about your sins, are they also pre-ordained? Such is the folly of Calvinism!

 

Calvinists will claim that unbelievers are walking corpses, dead to the things of God and the gospel. Yet time and time again we hear of "dead men" actively rejecting the gospel. Jesus used parables so that some would not understand him. Paul said that God's message was sent to the Gentiles and they will listen (Acts 28:28) So there is scriptural evidence that "dead men" can hear and understand the gospel.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

The doctrine of Total Depravity does not mean that people are as bad as they can possibly be or that they can never do anything good. By all accounts Hitler was kind to animals. What the Doctrine means is that every facet of mankind is fallen and men will always fall short of the glory of God.

Well you go and find this wicked person who will turn and live a perfect life keeping all of God's statutes. He doesn't exist! (Romans 3:9-18). Go and read Jeremiah 13:23 and maybe you will understand why we need a Saviour.

I'm sorry, but your view is the purest Pelagianism. God does indeed demand righteousness (Deuteronomy 27:26), but fallen humans cannot manage it, not because God prevents us from doing so, but because we are sinners by nature and by choice.

 

Another false statement! "your view is the purest Pelagianism".

"Pelagianism derives its name from Pelagius who lived in the 5th century A.D. and was a teacher in Rome, though he was British by birth. It is a heresy dealing with the nature of man. Pelagius, whose family name was Morgan, taught that people had the ability to fulfill the commands of God by exercising the freedom of human will apart from the grace of God"

Pelagianism | CARM.org

In case you cannot read. This is what I said: "the God-given "ability" to either DO "right", or "wrong".

 

Every person, ever born, is a sinner. Every person is "dead in trespasses and sins". That means he is spiritually separated from God; In other words, he has no fellowship with God and no knowledge of the things of God because they are "spiritually discerned". Because of this his heart is "desperately wicked". However, when the Holy Ghost deals with a man's heart, "convincing him of sin, righteousness and judgement", that man, any man has the ABILITY to effectively TRUST or REJECT the Gospel; to "choose life" and live, or choose death and go to Hell. You choose life by admitting that you are on your way to HELL and DESERVE it and at the same time casting your soul at the feet of Jesus. That is NOT of works and there is no human "merit" in it. It's a totally selfish act on your part because YOU don't want to fry in HELL for the rest of eternity. The "total inability" stuff is totally unbiblical and totally untrue.

 

indeed, well written!

 

Where does the bible state to us that sinners have innate faith within themselves though?

 

Strange that you cannot or do not "defend" the "truth of scripture." But you quickly can accuse others that you "fully understand ... errant position(s)."

Why not wade in with some actual Scriptures showing just how you would display the "errant position(s)" and how you might attempt to show the truth?

Would that not be exampled by the Lord's confronting the religious rulers? He did not leave them unanswered.

 

This is true.

It is that natural state of the fallen, unsaved, destined for hell, heathen, unbeliever. There is "NO fellowship with God and NO knowledge of the things of God." (capital emphasis mine).

"...he is spiritually separated from God" and is already condemned (as John 3 states) because of unbelief.

The "However" is necessary. The work of the Holy Spirit is intricate to salvation and salvation cannot occur outside of that work. It is totally of the Grace of God that the Holy Spirit works, it is not in any human capacity or authority to expect that work, but to acknowledge that work.

The crux of the difference between those who hold a more calvinistic view, and those who hold a more pelagian view is this work of the Scriptures is not accomplished without the Holy Spirit using the Word. The Holy Spirit using the Word of God produces faith (Romans), that ability is not innate and not a "freedom of expression" or "freedom of the will," for there is no life (faith/belief) to be found outside of the Scriptures being used by the Holy Spirit.

Both the arminian and the calvinistic views take a scriptural stand that the Holy Spirit is involved from the start, creating the life.

The Wesley's put in a middle grace, in which some unthoughtful Baptists endorse called prevenient/preceding grace. But such is just not found in the Scriptures either by statement or by example. The Wesley's schooled as Calvinistic thinking, recognizing the truth of that thinking, yet attempted to bridge between Pelagian and Calvinistic thinking by forming some intermediary work of God's grace.

Therefore, both the Arminian and the Calvinistic view hold to total depravity.

What the Pelagian view holds is that from the natural unsaved state, the person may out of their own freedom of expression will themselves into salvation. That the faith is not given by God, but a human attribute in which the human may freely express in acceptance or rejection of salvation.

Therefore, in your last part of the post, you present what is more Pelagian then even Arminian for at least many of the Baptists adopted a Wesley approach of some endowment by God of a grace to lift that person into such a state in which that person could choose.

However, again it must be emphasized that no such grace exists either in statement of or exampled as a type in the Scriptures. It was and remains a totally human contrivance and a blight against what the Scriptures present as faithful.

What is TRUE?

1) No person has innate ability or even the will to accept, for all have turned and gone their own way.
2) The Holy Spirit awakens the person as Christ said (and you posted).
3) The person that is awaken has been given to the Son by the Father and will be raised to eternal life.
4) Those that are not awakened and not given will spend eternity separated from the Father for such have turned from any light given, even the very evidences of God written on their heart. (Romans 1,2). Such are already condemned (John 3) and have only the desire to avoid and mock the light.
5) That God chooses from among those already condemned and gives to the Son those that are to be saved is not unfair, nor should it not be a concern for the believers to argue. He is the Sovereign and not humankind.
6) Believers are not given permission to ask the Sovereign, "Why," (Romans 9) but are given a mission to deliver the gospel to all the world.

 

NONE of us saved here just choose to come to Jesus by ourselves, as all of us were saved on that appointed day when God had decreed that the Spirit would wake us up and grant us saving grce and faith.

 

Scriptures? Why do you think that God has chosen you? Are you any better than the next person? Israel were also "chosen" by God as His people, and look what happened to these "elect"! Too much theology has been assumed about the "elect" in the New Testament, most of which is nothing more than just "theology", with little or no Bible support. The "Reformed" keep harping on about Ephesians 1 and Romans 9, neither of which say anything about God "electing to salvation"!

 

It is true.

The grievousness of the Pelagian "freewill" thinking cannot be truly found in the Calvinistic thinking and only found in Arminian thinking IF and only IF one considers the teaching of preceding/prevenient grace is truthful.

As I pointed out, such grace is not found by name or by type (example) in the Scriptures. But, it remains a human contrivance in which some attempt to give humanity a freedom of righteousness that is also not found in Scriptures.

Where some might show that all seek god evidenced by every culture worshiping a god, the Calvinistic thinking demonstrates the truth that none seek God, but appoint to themselves the god they desire to worship.

The Arminian thinking can be more aligned with Pelagian thinking as the teaching becomes more reactionary against the truth of Calvinistic view(s). This is seen even on the BB as one drifts into even embracing error trying to refute something a Calvinistic thinking holds, often getting their facts confused with the emotionalism of their objections.

One cannot truthfully read and study John, Romans, and Ephesians without coming to terms that four of the five points of that Calvinistic view is true to the Scripture presentation. The fifth being "limit of atonement" rather then properly the limit of belief.

What is remarkable (to me) is that often the most conservative Arminian thinking is very close to total depravity, unconditional election, irresistible grace, preservation (perseverance) of the saints; however, the more moderate to liberal the Arminian drifts (Hebrews 2 drifting) the more they will adopt some human capacity, some corporate election, some resisting the grace, and even no true preservation (perseverance). These are typical of the more emotional driven groups (church of God, Pentecostal, Quaker, Mennonite, Papists, ...)

 

I really don't see how you or anyone else use the term "Five Point Calvinism", and include "Limited Atonement", when John Calvin himself never believed or taught this! This is very clear from his comments on passages like Mark 14:24; John 3:16; Colossians 1:14, etc. So to us this phrase is really an abuse of the facts!

 

I think it unfortunate that you do not see that "corporate election" was that in which the people of Israel were elected, but the assembly of the NT is not "corporate" but individuals individually saved as a result of the Word and work of the Holy Spirit who gather as an assembly.

The corporate election thinking applied to the church (Imo) is wrong.

I also see it unfortunate that you do not realize that of all views, the one you are rejecting has the greatest amount of Scripture support. You desire to mock, but are apparently unaware that the statement is basically erroneous.

Moving on to another area of wrong thinking, I have given the example in at least to posts on this thread of the "prevenient/preceding grace" thinking found in the typical arminian view.

No place does the Scripture state nor does the Scripture even give an example of such grace. It is not found, yet it is taught as if it is the truth, and the lie of the teaching is just so very bad!

But such as what you post makes the BB at least an interesting read.

If you do not see the truth as presented in the Romans and Ephesians, then post those passages and demonstrate that you actually have ability to discern the truth.

At least that way the topic would have something other then your opinion on which to occupy the band width.

 

So, why is "election" as when a sinner is converted and becomes part of the invisible Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, wrong? Our English word "Church" is from the Greek, "ἐκκλησία", which means the "called-out-ones", which is akin to "ἔκκλητος" (elect). There is nothing in the entire New Testament that I am aware of (unless you can show me), that forbids the same pattern by God, where in the Old Testament it was the nation Israel, as a people "elected" by God to Himself; and in the New Testament, the Church, the New Israel, takes its place?