Featured God's "Chosen People"

This will go as wonderfully as a mouse at the circus.


***Inserts Jeopardy theme music***

 

Brother Brian, all ppl have to do is read Leviticus 16 and the scapegoat. Ppl misconstrue Aaron's confession of all of Israel's sins and iniquities as universal redemption, yet where was the other ppl's scapegoat? The hivvites, hittites, Jebusites, philistines, Egyptians, et al? There wasn't one, fyi...

 

Election?

Hear this word that the LORD hath spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying, You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities. Amos 3:1,2

Stated by the God, through Amos around 750 BC.
In 750 BC who made up the whole family which God had brought out of Egypt?

Did they lose their Election? Or were they just punished by being scattered?

Exactly when did the God begin to know other families?

 

I haven't seen one yet...from the other side of the debate, that is.

 

Basically others see God's sovereign election as unfair so they develop unbiblical doctrines to make God appear fair in their own minds. It's nothing less than idolatry.

 

"Israel" ("Jacob") is earth-centered (ie: earth-based); not so with the Body of Christ, which is heaven-centered.

"all the peoples who are on the face of the earth."
"among all the families of the earth"
etc. etc. etc.

 

Good post brother! I have never thought of it from that perspective. I don't expect you will get many challenges to your post from the other side however, but hope I am wrong.

 

"Ever and anon the noncalvinist cries, Why doth He yet find fault?" Aaron

 

I agree with your perspective Brian but what you don't realize it that most brethren on the other side don't argue from the view of the OT they let that stand but according to my experience their argument comes from the NT... Take these verses for example, do they teach the doctrine of election?... Especially verse 48... and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed... Because their argument will start from this point... but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles... Brother Glen

Acts 13:44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.

13:45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.

13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

13:47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

13:49 And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region.

 

Looks like no takers on your challenging post to those who reject the individual election of specific gentiles.

 

Bumping this to hopefully garner a hearty debate. Any takers?

 

Sorry, din't want to interrupt all of the high fives and victory laps you guys were enjoying. Biggrin



But back on topic, I am not sure that I entirely understand the question. Is it the position in the OP that every Jew in the OT was saved? Or did the elect nation still have some members which weren't elect themselves?

I saw this posted in a different thread, and thought that it also applied to this topic:

Which, of course, made me think of the father of the elect nation: Then Abraham believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.

As always, I await your opinions and instruction. Please be gentle.

 

And here I thought the fact that God chose the Hebrews to be His chosen people and yet didn't destine them all to salvation would be a bigger problem for the cal view, what with the whole irresistible part of tulip. Unless, of course, it's an apples to oranges comparison.

But I would hate to reduce your slam dunk hypocrisy case against arminianism to just being a faulty comparison.