-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Jesus Christ is NOT God's criterion for election?!
- Thread starter George Antonios
- Start date
- Status
Dave G
Well-Known Member
It's the Scriptural answer.
Exodus 33:19.
Romans 9:14-18.
I do.
I maintain that the good pleasure of His will is the criterion...not His Son or His Son's will.
His Son is only given those who are chosen by His Father ( John 6:65, John 17:2 ).
All according to the good pleasure of His Father's will.
Particular
Well-Known Member
Though Calvinism has some sorry apologists on this board (no bad ones in this thread thus far), I don't think you're accurately representing what Calvinist's have told you.
You've been told by more than one in this thread that God's will is the only condition for election. And though you find it inadequate, that's the answer God has given. And though you and others rail against what you're calling determinism, let your first birth be a clue. What did you contribute to your first birth? How much of your will was involved in that choice? What was God's criteria for bringing you, or, in a much less divine sense, allowing you, to be brought into existence in the first place—especially knowing whether or not you would choose salvation? You have no better answer than the counsel of His own will.
You weren't trusted with the event of your first birth, yet your second birth is wholly up to you?
Kick all you want. The Scriptural answer has been given.
Now, as to your criterion..
It sounds all faithful and holy for you to say Jesus Christ is the criterion, but what you really mean is that the criterion is one's presumed choice of Jesus. That's just a way of saying that God's election of you is based on some merit that you possess that another does not. If one chooses Christ, and another does not, one has done better than another. And if God is not the one that elected you to your choice, it only remains that you did better than another because you are better.
Praise you!
And you tell me i don't understand take a good look at your self.
MB
What does the physical birth have to do with spirituality?. They are not similar. So why do you compare the spiritual with the physical.. Seems you try to show an impossible example. Babies don't remember being born yet I remember being saved. How about you do you remember when you were saved?
Though Calvinism has some sorry apologists on this board (no bad ones in this thread thus far), I don't think you're accurately representing what Calvinist's have told you.
You've been told by more than one in this thread that God's will is the only condition for election. And though you find it inadequate, that's the answer God has given. And though you and others rail against what you're calling determinism, let your first birth be a clue. What did you contribute to your first birth? How much of your will was involved in that choice? What was God's criteria for bringing you, or, in a much less divine sense, allowing you, to be brought into existence in the first place—especially knowing whether or not you would choose salvation? You have no better answer than the counsel of His own will.
You weren't trusted with the event of your first birth, yet your second birth is wholly up to you?
Kick all you want. The Scriptural answer has been given.
Now, as to your criterion..
It sounds all faithful and holy for you to say Jesus Christ is the criterion, but what you really mean is that the criterion is one's presumed choice of Jesus. That's just a way of saying that God's election of you is based on some merit that you possess that another does not. If one chooses Christ, and another does not, one has done better than another. And if God is not the one that elected you to your choice, it only remains that you did better than another because you are better.
Praise you!
How did you find out you were saved since you had nothing to do with it.
Since your so knowledgeable about election can you prove you are elect with scripture?. Where does scripture say that we have to be elected to be saved. Are you Jewish? Because there is not one gentile in scripture that was ever called elect. What proof of election do you have?
MB
Mb
Let me ask you a question.
What if you do not understand?
Why do you discount this?
Your responses show you do not understand what is being taught. That does not mean you are a bad person. It means your understanding is defective.
Rather than explore it, you call names instead.
Evidently George thinks your responses are peachy keen.
If you want, I can show why even though you say you do not believe what I say
How is it that you think I don't understand? Is it because I do not accept Calvinism as truth? Should I say you don't understand because you don't believe that man can reject Salvation or accept it? Now you may not believe this yet you understand it don't you. You either accept it as truth or you don't this not a matter of understanding but is a matter of choice of what you accept as truth.
I am taught by the Holy Spirit not by what I read here.
MB
I am taught by the Holy Spirit not by what I read here.
MB
#19
#5 in my list of faulty arguments used by Calvinists is:
#5. YOU ARE NOT SMART ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THE DOCTRINES OF GRACE
What does your #19 signify?
Particular
Well-Known Member
You are silly, ITL.
It seems your list is your crutch for not engaging with scripture.
George Antonios
Well-Known Member
Though Calvinism has some sorry apologists on this board (no bad ones in this thread thus far), I don't think you're accurately representing what Calvinist's have told you.
You've been told by more than one in this thread that God's will is the only condition for election. And though you find it inadequate, that's the answer God has given. And though you and others rail against what you're calling determinism, let your first birth be a clue. What did you contribute to your first birth? How much of your will was involved in that choice? What was God's criteria for bringing you, or, in a much less divine sense, allowing you, to be brought into existence in the first place—especially knowing whether or not you would choose salvation? You have no better answer than the counsel of His own will.
You weren't trusted with the event of your first birth, yet your second birth is wholly up to you?
Kick all you want. The Scriptural answer has been given.
Now, as to your criterion..
It sounds all faithful and holy for you to say Jesus Christ is the criterion, but what you really mean is that the criterion is one's presumed choice of Jesus. That's just a way of saying that God's election of you is based on some merit that you possess that another does not. If one chooses Christ, and another does not, one has done better than another. And if God is not the one that elected you to your choice, it only remains that you did better than another because you are better.
Praise you!
Non-scriptural, more-royal-than-the-King, falsely-humble, sanctimoniousness. This kind of stuff is smoke in God's nose.
Point is: so far you all agree - Jesus Christ is not God's criterion for election.
To prop up your great humility, you all ascribe to a blasphemous doctrine that has God choosing you apart from Christ as the reason for the choice. So much for our Lord Jesus Christ having the preeminence in all things - he certainly doesn't have it in election! But at least you're humble!
Praise you for your great humility!
No, my list is shorthand for describing Calvinist's cliched arguments about scripture, specifically #1, #2, and #3. Countless times Calvinists will argue some variation of these three points to lamely counteract scripture I (or other) non-Calvinists will offer.
After being here for 9 years I find it much easier to simply identify the faulty arguments with a summary bullet point. Why go through all the trouble of presenting my case for the ten-thousandth time only to get:
• THE WORD IN THAT VERSE ACTUALLY MEANS SOMETHING ELSE
• THAT VERSE IS TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT
• THAT VERSE WAS NOT WRITTEN TO THE PEOPLE YOU ARE CLAIMING
because, obviously, I think that word means exactly what it says, I think my use of that verse IS in context, and I think that verse IS written to the people I am claiming.
I do not believe so this is the election of the Jews. God did not foreknow the Gentiles. Though He knew of there presents.. He fore knew the Jews because the Jews are His people The brethren of Christ were the Jews. Not Gentiles. Why do you think that being a Gentile you have replaced the Jews? The Gentiles had no means of Salvation until after Christ had been crucified, buried, and, risen again. If God would have known us as He did the Jews then we would have been part of His plan for Salvation. Christ came to save His people the Jews not the Gentiles. The Gentiles didn't become eligible for Salvation until after the crucifixion burial and resurrection. The Gentiles became eligible when the Jews rejected Christ and God granted repentance to the Gentiles. I believe that Gentiles soon became Christians. Oh I believe there were some Gentiles that believed before this but they weren't saved until afterwards. The reason is there is no forgiveness of sins with out the shedding of blood.
MB
MB,
Hello MB. I think this is fair for you to ask for clarification. You seem to think I am trying to demean you which is not my intent. I am going to try and do a few things on this post.
I am going to go back through this thread and list those statements you made that cause a reaction and suggest a lack of understanding. I will endeavor to show it clearly.
I will offer some helpful links to point in the direction of mainline thought on the topic.
I will continue to respond to any sincere questions you have. That's my plan.
No. It is because you do not have a solid basic understanding of a substantial doctrine which is a blessing to the Church. That you do not believe what is known as Calvinism is a warning sign to me personally, but many are afflicted with that on BB, and in some of the churches.
Hello MB. I think this is fair for you to ask for clarification. You seem to think I am trying to demean you which is not my intent. I am going to try and do a few things on this post.
I am going to go back through this thread and list those statements you made that cause a reaction and suggest a lack of understanding. I will endeavor to show it clearly.
I will offer some helpful links to point in the direction of mainline thought on the topic.
I will continue to respond to any sincere questions you have. That's my plan.
No. It is because you do not have a solid basic understanding of a substantial doctrine which is a blessing to the Church. That you do not believe what is known as Calvinism is a warning sign to me personally, but many are afflicted with that on BB, and in some of the churches.
Non-calvinistic beliefs are "an affliction". Thank you for your diagnosis, Doctor Calvin.
Particular
Well-Known Member
So you don't or can't argue your point to show you have a valid interpretation and you simply lean on the crutch of your self made numbering system. Call me unimpressed.
Non-scriptural, more-royal-than-the-King, falsely-humble, sanctimoniousness. This kind of stuff is smoke in God's nose.
Point is: so far you all agree - Jesus Christ is not God's criterion for election.
To prop up your great humility, you all ascribe to a blasphemous doctrine that has God choosing you apart from Christ as the reason for the choice. So much for our Lord Jesus Christ having the preeminence in all things - he certainly doesn't have it in election! But at least you're humble!
Praise you for your great humility!
Which, being interpreted, meaneth, "I have no rebuttal for your penetrating questions."
Again, we don't share your meaning. You can throw the jargon, 'chosen in Christ' at there all you want. It's what you mean by it.
- Status