A.W. Pink - The Doctrine of Election

[markwaltermd]

Or you can send Guy Frederick to do your speaking for you since he is your mouthpiece..... you forget, I reached out to you & you just were not available.

I invited you to have direct dialog, gave you my phone # but you cant do that either. Oh yes, I forgot.... you cant have confrontation.... well to bad, that's life. But of course cant deal through that either apparently. Do me a big favor & erase me totally from your Forum as I 1st asked you to do because I want no affiliations with you or that thing.

Sad to see you haven't changed.

 

[Iconoclast]

Please don't make the mistake of equating your exegesis to sound exegesis, for to make your point, you have placed 2 Thessalonians 2:13 in opposition to Ephesians 1:4, and that is your own doing. That is, they both refer to a time before the foundation of the world, in past eternity. On this point, I agree with many great commentators who have gone before us. This predestination in eternity past -- before we are born, called, justified, sanctified and glorified -- agrees with the whole counsel of Scripture, and most clearly with Romans 8.

We are not sanctified before we are predestined, and we are not predestined because of an outward holiness. We also don't become predestined at some moment that we exhibit saving faith. Still, it is our inward holiness and sanctification that must be present before we make any assumptions about the condition of our own election, before the foundation of the world. Frightening prospect, I know, but better to be shaken up a bit than to find some new avenue to insert our merits into God's eternal decrees.

Yes...exactly...:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Sad to see you haven't changed.

Hey ....grow a set & become a man instead of the passive aggressive creature you are right now. Took me a little time to see it.... but it is your persona unfortunately... that of a weak phony who cant even pick up a phone to resolve an issue. Frankly thats whats so sad & pathetic if the truth be known.

 

[markwaltermd]

More "Christian" posturing from you. Possess your vessel.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

More "Christian" posturing from you. Possess your vessel.

Ah yes, "The Calvinist" speaks! LOL! isnt that your chosen name on your "Calvinist Cafe Forum"?!? ..... I would think you'd want to stay in your own chosen & self made vessel rather than slumming with us. And it should be apparent why youve taken a sudden interest in posting in a forum that you abandoned previously... it is pretty transparent. I for one do not care what you do .... I dont buy into your little ego trip, like all the religious Ive seen who focus on their own narrow belief systems while claiming the Blood of Christ & telling everyone they are wrong. Your the kinda guy who keeps people out of union with one another & Im not buying into it anymore. So I will just make the choice to ignore you & focus on real Kingdom experience.... the heart of Matthew's gospel. Have a good life.

 

[webdog]

Pink is correct on this. Rejection of the Biblical truth of election is man-fabricated carnal doctrine.

You may disagree with the observations that Pink has made, but his arguments are not shoddy.

The problem you seem to be having with this is not with Pink, for Pink is not the first to expound on the doctrine of election. You seem to be having a problem with the acceptance of the eternal decrees of God. That's a more encompassing issue.

Its actually not his problem. In the deterministic existence you and Pink push God hasn't allowed Van the choice to believe differently nor has He graced him with the understanding. See, your problem is not with Van it is with God.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Its actually not his problem. In the deterministic existence you and Pink push God hasn't allowed Van the choice to believe differently nor has He graced him with the understanding. See, your problem is not with Van it is with God.

How do you figure that?

 

[markwaltermd]

Its actually not his problem. In the deterministic existence you and Pink push God hasn't allowed Van the choice to believe differently nor has He graced him with the understanding. See, your problem is not with Van it is with God.

It's not a position that I authored or Pink authored. It's actually taught -- plainly shown -- in Scripture. It came from the apostle Paul and other of our Bible authors; it is there in the Old Testament as well as the New. Later, it is believed -- as it should have been -- by our Protestant forefathers. It is present in our most well-constructed confessions of faith.

It is discarded in the tragic mishandling of Scripture by American churches beginning in the late 19th century. It is subtracted by many of the modern Protestant churches who insert again their own works-righteousness, their own self-willed meritorious act which brings about their salvation. It is no surprise, as we are well into the time "when they will not endure sound doctrine."

Deterministic? Utterly, if you believe that what God wills = what God decrees = what comes to pass. But not my determination or Pink's determination.

"I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You. For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me. I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours." (John 17. 6-9)

"For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?" (Rom. 8. 29-31)

"But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? (Rom 9. 20-21).

Unmistakable. I don't have a problem with God concerning this. I accept what He has revealed in His Word, even if it challenges me and discomforts my carnal mind. The Biblical doctrine of election is not one that appeals to the flesh; that is why it is so quickly rebelled against.

 

[webdog]

It's not a position that I authored or Pink authored. It's actually taught -- plainly shown -- in Scripture. It came from the apostle Paul and other of our Bible authors; it is there in the Old Testament as well as the New. Later, it is believed -- as it should have been -- by our Protestant forefathers. It is present in our most well-constructed confessions of faith.

It is discarded in the tragic mishandling of Scripture by American churches beginning in the late 19th century. It is subtracted by many of the modern Protestant churches who insert again their own works-righteousness, their own self-willed meritorious act which brings about their salvation. It is no surprise, as we are well into the time "when they will not endure sound doctrine."

Deterministic? Utterly, if you believe that what God wills = what God decrees = what comes to pass. But not my determination or Pink's determination.

"I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You. For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me. I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours." (John 17. 6-9)

"For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?" (Rom. 8. 29-31)

"But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? (Rom 9. 20-21).

Unmistakable. I don't have a problem with God concerning this. I accept what He has revealed in His Word, even if it challenges me and discomforts my carnal mind. The Biblical doctrine of election is not one that appeals to the flesh; that is why it is so quickly rebelled against.

Question Begging. Neither you nor Van accept or reject anything in your deterministic model. You are merely clay vessels. My pointt stands, you cannot take umbgrage with Van's views, they have been determined already.

 

[markwaltermd]

Question Begging. Neither you nor Van accept or reject anything in your deterministic model. You are merely clay vessels. My pointt stands, you cannot take umbgrage with Van's views, they have been determined already.

That's an unwarranted extrapolation, misplaced hyperbole. I say that because you equate the doctrine of election with a divine predetermination of all of our other lifetime thoughts and reasonings. That is unwarranted because the Scripture speaks of the calling of God's elect. It doesn't speak to an absolute determination that someone will vote Democrat vs. Republican, or that they will prefer chocolate over vanilla ice cream. Van's views -- all of our views -- and our understanding are subject to change or improve. We are given the faculties to search out, seek, question, reason.

The Bible is clear that we are to put these faculties to use in our study of the Scripture...

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Tim 2.15)

That we are to put our faculties to the test concerning it is also demonstrated in the functions of Scripture (which aren't realized if we don't put our faculties to it):

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (2 Tim 3.16)

The danger comes in when we choose not to apply our faculties to the Scripture, erasing all prejudices and removing self as a barrier to that instruction.

 

[Iconoclast]

That's an unwarranted extrapolation, misplaced hyperbole. I say that because you equate the doctrine of election with a divine predetermination of all of our other lifetime thoughts and reasonings. That is unwarranted because the Scripture speaks of the calling of God's elect. It doesn't speak to an absolute determination that someone will vote Democrat vs. Republican, or that they will prefer chocolate over vanilla ice cream. Van's views -- all of our views -- and our understanding are subject to change or improve. We are given the faculties to search out, seek, question, reason.

The Bible is clear that we are to put these faculties to use in our study of the Scripture...

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Tim 2.15)

That we are to put our faculties to the test concerning it is also demonstrated in the functions of Scripture (which aren't realized if we don't put our faculties to it):

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (2 Tim 3.16)

The danger comes in when we choose not to apply our faculties to the Scripture, erasing all prejudices and removing self as a barrier to that instruction.

:applause::applause::applause::thumbsup:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

And so as practicing Christians (of every stripe) we must recognize that the foundation of the free offering of the gospel, is not election...it is Christ's promise to save all who come to Him. And so our charge of the great commission is to preach Christ crucified to all who will listen & to go out to the world to do so.

 

[Van]

Please don't make the mistake of equating your exegesis to sound exegesis, for to make your point, you have placed 2 Thessalonians 2:13 in opposition to Ephesians 1:4, and that is your own doing. That is, they both refer to a time before the foundation of the world, in past eternity. On this point, I agree with many great commentators who have gone before us. This predestination in eternity past -- before we are born, called, justified, sanctified and glorified -- agrees with the whole counsel of Scripture, and most clearly with Romans 8.

We are not sanctified before we are predestined, and we are not predestined because of an outward holiness. We also don't become predestined at some moment that we exhibit saving faith. Still, it is our inward holiness and sanctification that must be present before we make any assumptions about the condition of our own election, before the foundation of the world. Frightening prospect, I know, but better to be shaken up a bit than to find some new avenue to insert our merits into God's eternal decrees.

LOL, you are questioning my exegesis, by equating before the foundation of the world with from the foundation of the world. Absurd.

Next two strawman arguments. Only those in Christ are predestined. This is what all three references teach. Predestined to be conformed, adopted, and to receive an inheritance. Then the outright misrepresentation, that we are chosen based on merit.

Now let me go over it again by the numbers.

(1)Were we chosen in Him BEFORE the foundation of the Word? Yes, Ephesians 1:3-4. When God chose His Redeemer to be His Lamb, His redemption plan was to redeem believers and conform them to His Redeemer's image, and to adopt (resurrect) them bodily at His second coming, and for them to thus inherit eternal life. This was a corporate election.

(2) During our lifetime, after we have lived without mercy, we are individually chosen and placed in Christ, and therefore we are then individually predestined to be conformed, adopted and to inherit eternal life. This election occurs from the beginning not before the foundation of the world.

This view is consistent with all scripture, Calvinism alters the meaning of "from" to say it must mean before because that is what Calvinism claims.

 

[Van]

When are names written in the Lamb's book of life, before the foundation of the world or from the foundation of the world. What does the "shoddy" exegesis of Calvinism claim. Folks just open your eyes.

Revelation 17:8 "...And those who dwell on the earth will wonder, whose name has not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world...."

Revelation 13:8 "...Everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb, who has been slain." (NASB)

Pink offer shoddy argumentation, simply a clever story of men. Do not be deceived.

 

[Van]

Romans 8 is fully consistent with our corporate election before creation, and our individual election during our lifetime. Just read it!

 

[Van]

For whom He foreknew [corporately elected before the foundation of world] He also [corporately] predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; and whom He [corporately] predestined, these He also called [individually during their lifetime] and whom He called, these He also justified [through the washing of regeneration after setting them apart in Christ] and whom He justified, these He also [spiritually] glorified [by indwelling them with the Holy Spirit.]

 

[markwaltermd]

For whom He foreknew [corporately elected before the foundation of world] He also [corporately] predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; and whom He [corporately] predestined, these He also called [individually during their lifetime] and whom He called, these He also justified [through the washing of regeneration after setting them apart in Christ] and whom He justified, these He also [spiritually] glorified [by indwelling them with the Holy Spirit.]

Van,

It's interesting that those bracketed comments that you just quoted don't appear in my Bible. Your exegesis constist consists of reading in the meaning -- and the very words -- that you desire to be there. You should stop making willy nilly distinctions between individual and corporate election. Based upon your definition of exegesis, I don't think that you're safe in attempting it.

I'm only responding to this in the interest of truth.

Rev 13.8: The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. If you're prone to take the literal sense, this does not mean that Christ was crucified during or at the end of the creation week. The interpretation is clearly that the Lamb, or Christ, was slain in the eternal counsels of God.

You want the whole counsel of Scripture on this?

" But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you." (1 Peter 1:19-20)

Likewise in Rev. 17:8, the names not-written (the non-elect) in the eternal counsels of God.

The belief that you are promoting, that God, Who's decrees are immutable and Whose will determines all the rest...

"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures." (James 1:17-18)

is not one that can be defended by Scripture. The idea that man -- and not just man, but man who is fallen -- can by his own will override the will of God or change the course of God's eternal decrees, is no more than a failed attempt to dethrone God. A god that can be dethroned in that way is not the God of Scripture.

 

[Van]

Again, you try to find fault with "my" exegesis, rather than with my view. Twaddle.

I was not adding my words, I was explaining the meaning of the prior word in the text so you could understand how I understand the text. You do the same thing. Here is how you read it, "for whom He foreknew [individually elected before the foundation of the world] and so forth. Therefore you attempt to claim I am doing something you are not doing is without merit.

Your doctrinal support from Revelation 13:8 is based on misrepresentation, not exegesis. It does not say the Lamb was slain before creation, from "apo" means "out of" or after or since. Your "exegesis" requires you redefine the meaning of words. You seem to try to support this shoddy exegesis by saying lots of uninspired commentators have thought this was true. That argument is without merit.

Next, you redefine foreknowledge as foreordain. Calvinism is based on rewriting the text.

And you simply ignore that Revelation 17:8 says from, apo not pro. Please address the actual text.

I am the one defending my view from scripture, you are rewriting it.

And finally you make yet another false charge, I am not saying God's plan can be thwarted, I am saying God's plan differs from the man-made plan you are pushing by rewriting the text.

 

[TCGreek]

It's simply a matter of interpretation.

 

[markwaltermd]

You should ask yourself -- personally, for no one needs to hear your response -- why you are so shaken by the truth in front of you.

Again, please don't consider what you are doing sound exegesis.

What you have done is this...

If you like what you read in a passage and it supports your current, fixed understanding, you call it personal election.

If, on the other hand, you don't like what the passage says concerning the matter, you shift and call it corporate election.

It's not a matter of interpretation, but reading what is in front of you with open eyes and an honest heart.