Is it possible?

I don't see a NBA championship for Dallasites to celebrate this June, but I do see one for Texas - in San Antonio.

But I do see another Stanley Cup championship coming this June for Dallasites to celebrate.

Go Stars!

 

It has been given ad nauseum both on this board and in the writings of Arminians. (See how that works both ways?)

The idea of chosen is very different - agreed. But the nature of the group being chosen is the same. You haven't addressed that.

I Chronicles 7 says that the purpose of Israel's being chosen is to redeem them. The nation of Israel was chosen to be a light to the nations. (Isa. 60:1-3; Isa. 49:3,6) They were chosen to be of God (Deuteronomy 7:6-8). He chose them so that His name would be magnified (2 Samuel 7:23-27). Deuteronomy 28 states that their establishment as holy people was contingent on their belief and on their works. Romans 11 says very clearly that those "chosen" who did not believe were cut off of the main branch.

So this answers what they were chosen for: Redemption, To be a light to the rest of the world, and to magnify God's name. Clear parallel with the Church.

This also answers what their being chosen was contingent upon - their belief and their obedience in following the commands of the Lord.

There is your Scripture. We see that God chose a nation of people - the Jews. God chose them to redeem them, just as he chose the Church to provide redemption for them. A true Jew was marked by belief and obedience - those who did not were cursed and cast out. God chose the body of Christ to redeem them, have them be the light of the world, and to magnify the name of Jesus Christ. To enter into the Chruch, one must believe and obey.

Is that clear enough for ya?

 

But the question is which conforms to all the truth? Only our side does that so it really doesn't work both ways.

This isn't true. Israel was chosen as a nation. The church is chosen as a body. The nature is very different. One depended on national heritage. The other depends on spiritual belief.

Not sure what your reference is here.

But that is not being chosen to be saved necessarily.

Actually it says that their establishment in the land was contigent on that.

[qutoe]Romans 11 says very clearly that those "chosen" who did not believe were cut off of the main branch. [/quote]But not at issue here.

Not at all. I already refuted that and did so here again. I am not denying that there is some parallels. The point is that corporate election of a nation (Israel) is not the same as personal election to salvation. Both are clearly taught, but they are not the same. Israel's election, like believers, is unconditional. God chose Israel not because they were greater in number but because he chose them (Deut 7). He remained faithful to them in both righteousness and judgment because he chose them.

I didn't see that at all. I didn't see even one verse that remotely says that election to salvation is the result of belief.

Nope, becuase you didn't meet the objective which was to show from Scripture what you are trying to tell us. I remain unconvinced. Where does Scripture say that election is theresult of belief? We have seen Ray say and we have seen you say it. However, we want to see God say it.

 

God never said this, why would He? Why would God choose to grant someone entrance into his covenant through the means of faith because they have faith? That is silly. It's like saying, "You can join the club if you have a membership."

God chooses them and then they have the ability to enter. In the eyes of the OT Jews, the Gentiles weren't being granted this ability because God wasn't making the offer to them. In the NT He was, thus the Gentiles were elected to hear the message just as the Jews were previously (Acts 28:28)

Everyone has been chosen to hear the message. First, it went to the Jews and then the Gentiles. Last time I checked that covered EVERYONE.

 

Then why have relatively few people gotten to hear the gospel message during their lifetime on this earth? I thought you just said that EVERYONE is chosen to hear the message. But since we know that a whole bunch of that EVERYONE haven't heard the gospel message since about 30 A.D., how do you explain how EVERYONE is chosen to hear the gospel?

 

With that rationale, it is clear to me that the same ratio of "the elect" would not hear either! You cannot point to any one individual and say that person is elect or not elect, you simply do not know, therefore your statements about the elect are just as vague as you accuse the non-Calvinist point of view of being.

 

Before a person is saved you are spot on, Yelsew. That is why we are to proclaim the gospel to all people, in addition to the simple fact that we are commanded by God to do so.

After we repent and believe, then we know we are among the elect according to 2 Peter 1:10.

 

Before a person is saved you are spot on, Yelsew. That is why we are to proclaim the gospel to all people, in addition to the simple fact that we are commanded by God to do so.

After we repent and believe, then we know we are among the elect according to 2 Peter 1:10. </font>[/QUOTE]If they are elect, why is it necessary to preach to them?

 

It is the means God has chosen. Just as God has chosen to use people in preaching instead of using angels or some other means.

 

It is the means God has chosen. Just as God has chosen to use people in preaching instead of using angels or some other means. </font>[/QUOTE]So what you are saying is that the elect cannot know they are elect until elected by God in this natural lifetime. Golly, Gee Whiz, that is what the Armenians have been saying all along!

 

Nope. Election took place way on back in eternity. Calling takes place in time. I am afraid you are confusing election and calling. I hope this helps in unconfusing you.

 

That brings us back to, why, if one is elect, is it necessary for the elect to appear just like all others?

If one is elect, it is not necessary for them to hear the word and believe, because as I've seen posted by Calvinist adherents on a thread of this forum, the elect "shall be saved". If that is the case, then the elect need not come from unbelief to belief.

Furthermore, the Non-elect cannot come to belief because they are not elected to salvation.

Both are untenable to me, because God is no respecter of man, thus man cannot tell God who he must save, and God will save those whom he will, and Jesus, who is God the Son, said, "whosoever believeth in Him..."

All mankind are able to hear and believe. More will not than will. That does not mean that those who will are the elect from the foundation of the world but that they are the "whosoever believeth..."

 

1)Actually it is necessary. God uses means whether you appreciate the fact that He does or not.

2)That is why Calvinism is Biblical and your scheme is not. Your scheme makes God very much a respecter of persons, as you teach that salvation is based on something man does that shows he is smarter, wiser, luckier, etc. than those that do not repent and believe. Calvinism teaches the Biblical doctrine that salvation of the Lord.

3)Exactly what Calvinism teaches. On the other hand, your scheme teaches that man tells God, in essence, whom He must save. You have man saying, "I believed and You, God, are obligated to save me because of what I did."

4)Again, exactly what Calvinism teaches and what your scheme doesn't teach. See 3) above.

5)Actually, the Bible does not teach that every can believe. Regeneration by the Holy Spirit before saving faith takes place and we know that everyone on earth is not regenerated.

6)Actually, the Bible teaches that all of the elect eventually believe and all of those who believe are elect. But it is your choice, Yelsew, if you want to argue with the Bible.