Acts 2:48 Apointed or Disposed

[Darrenss1]

Conditional election is God's imposing a condition on his election of an individual. The condition is imposed on the individual. It is faith. In the foreseen faith view, Good sees that the individual will exercise saving fath, and elects him because of it. In the view, election requires something from the potential electee. His election hinges on it. Once that person completes the requirement, God responds. It's like, you picked God so God picked you. That's why some will say you elected yourself.

Since this process happens in eternity, the outcome is fixed. There is no possibility that you will not exercise faith. And the number is fixed. No one else will have a chance to be saved.

Of course, I hold the other view.

Thanks for explaining it Tom. I wouldn't quite put it like man picks God so God picked man, rather God draws all men and knew whom of their own choosing would accept and be saved. God wills and draws men to be saved that will actually not end up being saved (they resist, reject and rebel). The result is that those whom did believe God foreknew and had already elected them even through allowing the events of the lives and choices of those individuals to play out, God knew that they would believe and what it would take to persaude them to believe.

That does not mean God decided not to attempt to draw some knowing they wouldn't believe because the scripture teaches God loved the world, Holy Spirit convicting the world, desired all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, the gospel preached to every creature...etc

Taking your point into account I still think God does the electing from eternity past.

Darren

 

[Carico]

h t t p : // w w w . theologyweb . com / campus / showthread . php?t=48230

Disposed here

Sorry it should have been Acts 13:48

All you have to do is reconcile scripture with other scripture. The bible makes it crystal clear that only those God chose before the creation of the world are going to heaven. John 15:16, MT. 22:14, MT. 11:25-27, Ephesians 1:4, Romans 9:11-25 and many more verses tell us that God does the choosing, not people.

God chose Israel to whom He would reveal himself and to no other nation as Psalm 147:19-20 explains. Israel are God's chosen people.

But as Romans 9:6-9 explains, Israel isn't the biological children of israel, but children of the promise. that means that the real israel are the Jews and gentiles chosen before the creation of the world to be God's elect.

So God absolutely does the choosing. So it doesn't do any good to quarrel about words as 2 Timothy 2:14 explains, especially if you don't reconcile one verse with the rest of scripture.

 

[Amy.G]

to no other nation[/B] as Psalm 147:19-20 explains. Israel are God's chosen people.

Yes. God chose Israel as the people through whom He would reveal Himself, but anyone could become a Jew. God never forbid anyone to come to Him. In fact there were many proselytes.

 

[Carico]

Yes. God chose Israel as the people through whom He would reveal Himself, but anyone could become a Jew. God never forbid anyone to come to Him. In fact there were many proselytes.

You missed my point. Again, the real Israel are both Jews and Gentiles chosen before the creation of the world. So no one knows who the elect are but God. That means that salvation is open to anyone who wants it because those whom God has chosen are being drawn by God. The rest don't seek him.

 

[Darrenss1]

Darren,

The Biblical model is that God is always is the Initiator and man is the responder.

I agree.

1. God called Abraham (Abram) when he was an idol worshiper:

Abraham had not "repented" first; God took Abraham first and Abraham then responded.

Ok I agree AND yet components that exist in the NT did not exist at the time of Abraham. This to me is a significant fact. Christ in the world, the Holy Spirit convicting the world, the preaching of the gospel/Word of God, testimony of christians, existence of the church..etc those things God uses to draw sinners to faith in the NT did NOT exist at the time of Abraham. There was no expectation or hint that God should choose anyone let alone Abraham and yet Abraham's primary election/covenant was not to Salvation but to be God's chosen earthy nation, Abraham's offspring through Isaac, Jacob..etc this is why I don't think Romans 9 fits soteriological election but obviously the idea is that God's earthy people might be God's spiritual children, those whom believe God, live by faith..etc (spiritual children in life and death - OT saints) God exalts nations and bring down nations..etc

2. In the Exodus, God never approached Moses to say "Here's my Law. Tell those Israelites to clean-up their acts and then, maybe when I see enough faith, I'll save them." No, God first saves/delivers the Israelites from their slavery and then gives them the Law to which the Israelites respond.

Agreed BUT the law was not designed to save, never was. Election in the NT is to Salvation. Still there is a significant difference.

3. In John 3:3 Nicodemus was told he must be Born Again. To be Born Again is something God does, especially because that is in the Passive voice."

Agreed but there is no reason to assume being Born Again precedes Salvation. I am saved then I become Born Again, an adopted spiritual child of God. Take this back into the OT, did it apply? Were OT saints living by faith Born Again? Regenerated?

Two things run concurrent in Scripture--God's absolute sovereignty and man's necessity to respond to God in repentance and faith. These are not at odds. Since the Bible tells us that man is "dead" in trespasses and sins, it must be the case that God acts to remove the deadness. That's what we call regeneration.

I agree as well except I call it drawing, God's intervention over man to save them, instead of saying it is regeneration.

4. The so-called Golden Chain of salvation in Romans 8 clearly shows that Salvation is God's doing from start to end, yet from other passages we see that man is still called to repent and believe. The regenerated ones respond favorably to God's command to repent and believe; the unregenerate ones do not. But, Romans 8 is clear--God, ultimately, chooses.

Agreed God does the saving from start to end, man responds, believes is saved then is born again and regenerated, new creation..etc

There are strains of both corporate election and individual election. However, we do know that Israel was "God's Elect" nation, yet not all Israel was truly Israel. So, even in a group, the individuals are called to individual faith. This can be seen clearly in the Old Testament sacrificial system too.

Agreed. However that corporate election of Israel was according to God's covenant God made with Israel at Mt Sinai yet there was no basis to think God would choose any other nation or that being God's earthy nation is the same as being Saved according to the NT covenant through Christ. In the NT God wills that ALL be saved whom believe. God draws ALL only some respond. Those whom responded were elected by the foreknowledge of God from eternity past. There still are significant differences bewteen the old and new covenants that impact the contrast of OT/NT election to nation/salvation.

The conditional election model is contrary to the Biblical model because God responds to man.

I don't see it that way but I appreciate that you have taken the time to reply. God bless.

Darren

 

[Tom Butler]

Thanks for explaining it Tom. I wouldn't quite put it like man picks God so God picked man, rather God draws all men and knew whom of their own choosing would accept and be saved. God wills and draws men to be saved that will actually not end up being saved (they resist, reject and rebel). The result is that those whom did believe God foreknew and had already elected them even through allowing the events of the lives and choices of those individuals to play out, God knew that they would believe and what it would take to persaude them to believe.

That does not mean God decided not to attempt to draw some knowing they wouldn't believe because the scripture teaches God loved the world, Holy Spirit convicting the world, desired all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, the gospel preached to every creature...etc

Taking your point into account I still think God does the electing from eternity past.

Darren

I agree, so our difference is over the ground of election, not when it takes place.

I understand that you would prefer some other description than I picked God, so he picked me. The alternative, though is, God picked me, and so I picked God. And that is Calvinism. So that won't work for you, either.

But honestly, I don't know of a more succinct way to put it. The foreseen faith view demands that you act before God does in election. It demands that you choose Christ before God elects you. That's why you called it conditional election. Conditional election means God can't act until you do.

Now you might respond, well, it's not that God can't act; it is that he won't act, and there's a difference. Yes, but the result is the same.

 

[Tom Butler]

Please understand that when I speak of God's seeing ones faith in the future, then elects him, I'm not suggesting that there is any time when God doesn't see all and know all. God does not walk around on the clouds, and one day it pops into his mind that I'm going to trust Christ in, say, 1947. So, God thinks, I'll elect him.

So it's not a chronological sequence; instead it's a logical sequence that non-Cals are arguing.

Which, of course, I don't buy. I'm just trying to accurately state the view, and point out the implications of holding that opinion.

Never fear, my non-Cal brothers will jump on this pretty fast.

 

[Darrenss1]

I agree, so our difference is over the ground of election, not when it takes place.

I understand that you would prefer some other description than I picked God, so he picked me. The alternative, though is, God picked me, and so I picked God. And that is Calvinism. So that won't work for you, either.

But honestly, I don't know of a more succinct way to put it. The foreseen faith view demands that you act before God does in election. It demands that you choose Christ before God elects you. That's why you called it conditional election. Conditional election means God can't act until you do.

Now you might respond, well, it's not that God can't act; it is that he won't act, and there's a difference. Yes, but the result is the same.

Well at least we agree that no one is saved unless they respond, no one responds without first being drawn. One view has that man is regenerated and cannot refuse to be drawn which says that is ALL God and the other is that man is able to respond to God's drawing them but can also refuse, reject or rebel but how that is man centred I honestly can't compute?? God is the initiator, man responds, God saves man, God knew man whom would be saved from eternity past thus God elected that man beforehand. Man had the choice, God knew the choice man would make, God drew both those that would be saved as well as those that refused. Therefore God is the one that saves, redeems, justifies, transforms..etc Man simply entered into what God was drawing man to.

Darren

 

[The Archangel]

Darren,

I really appreciate your thoughtful response. I don't agree with some of what you say, but I am finding myself enjoying our exchange very much.

A few things you brought up:

1. You mention "Foreknowledge." I take that you mean this in the typical non-reformed view--that God looked through time and saw who would have faith and then elected them. If this is what you mean, where do you see this in Scripture?

2. Even in the Old Testament there is an "elect" Israel inside of corporate Israel (kind of like the visible church and the invisible church). This can be plainly seen in 1 Kings 19:18 where God says to Elijah "Yet I will leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him." The Hebrew (of the verb will leave, if memory serves) is a Niphal stem which is reflexive. So, God is keeping for Himself 7,000 non-Baal worshipers. In fact, Paul in Romans 11:4 quotes this passage and puts the Hebrew Niphal into plain Greek.

3. The Passive voice of "Born Again" (and many of the other verbs too) suggest that this is something God does. The nature of the conversation Jesus is having with Nicodemus and what Jesus refers to (a reference to Ezekiel 36:26) shows the initializing work of redemption to be God's doing.

4. Even with the Law (and you're right it can't/doesn't save), salvation was always based on faith. Faith is counted as righteousness in the Old and New Testaments--although Jesus is the object of the faith in the NT whereas God the Father was the object in the OT.

The keeping of the law in the OT was a fruit of faith; the Law did not instill faith. So, there are fruits of faith in the Old and New Testaments. So, I don't think the differences are nearly as wide as you seem to think.

I'll think more and try to articulate things better.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Darrenss1]

Darren,

I really appreciate your thoughtful response. I don't agree with some of what you say, but I am finding myself enjoying our exchange very much.

A few things you brought up:

1. You mention "Foreknowledge." I take that you mean this in the typical non-reformed view--that God looked through time and saw who would have faith and then elected them. If this is what you mean, where do you see this in Scripture?

OK, I think that's what I mean, yes BUT I actually don't know how God knows the future. God is omnipotent and omniscient, yes but I don't exactly know HOW God exercises His sovereignty, will and purpose over the universe and everything within.

eg. Isa 41:4, 46:10 - Cyrus Isa 41:4, Jeremiah Jer 1:5, the Crucifixion (Isa 53), Revelations of future events..etc How exactly? Predestination, foreknowledge, election, God's purposes coming to pass.. Yes but how God does those things specifically I don't know. I'm sure there are possible explanations such as the above (looking ahead through time), I can't say I'm certain either way if the bible has a definite answer on that.

2. Even in the Old Testament there is an "elect" Israel inside of corporate Israel (kind of like the visible church and the invisible church). This can be plainly seen in 1 Kings 19:18 where God says to Elijah "Yet I will leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him." The Hebrew (of the verb will leave, if memory serves) is a Niphal stem which is reflexive. So, God is keeping for Himself 7,000 non-Baal worshipers. In fact, Paul in Romans 11:4 quotes this passage and puts the Hebrew Niphal into plain Greek.

I agree here as well but I see Rom 11:4 as part of Paul's explanation on God's plan for the future of Israel, or specifically God's chosen earthy nation through the lineage of Abraham (OT covenant for the sake of Abraham).

3. The Passive voice of "Born Again" (and many of the other verbs too) suggest that this is something God does. The nature of the conversation Jesus is having with Nicodemus and what Jesus refers to (a reference to Ezekiel 36:26) shows the initializing work of redemption to be God's doing.

Agree 100%. Just when (in the path of Salvation - before or after) does God regenerate the sinner whom is/will be drawn to Christ.

4. Even with the Law (and you're right it can't/doesn't save), salvation was always based on faith. Faith is counted as righteousness in the Old and New Testaments--although Jesus is the object of the faith in the NT whereas God the Father was the object in the OT.

I agree as well. I'm wondering though, for those OT saints, did they need to be regenerated to have that faith in God? I can accept that they were saved by faith in God even though their Messiah had not yet come.

The keeping of the law in the OT was a fruit of faith; the Law did not instill faith. So, there are fruits of faith in the Old and New Testaments. So, I don't think the differences are nearly as wide as you seem to think.

Ok, what I was thinking about is in respect to the 2 covenants, the first was by lineage as the primary means that "qualifies" the right of the individual to be counted as one of God's chosen nation (Israel). The NT covenant the qualification is on a different basis, since whether Jews or Gentiles their nationality is not going to be the factor in hand. Yet through faith the individual enters into the New Covenant. So back to the contrast, the way into each covenant is not only different but God used as well different means of bringing "new members" into each respective covenant. For example I can't see God "drawing" OT Testament Jews to believe in Him as God would do for the NT sinner. For the Jew they were raised as believers to follow the law of Moses (that was the idea anyway - thus you have Jews/believers, Gentiles/unbelievers or many cases, heathen) for the christian they can't be "naturally" born to believe (all are sinners) they have a different way of entry into the NT covenant, by faith, by the drawing of God, whereas the OT covenant as far as I can see did not function that way. Those that did believe and lived by faith were Jews whom were born Jews.

So to make a short story long, I think OT "election" has a different implication and usage than the election for the sinner to be saved through the New Covenant.

Apologies because of my lack of ability in explaining my point.

God bless.

Darren

 

[Carico]

OK, I think that's what I mean, yes BUT I actually don't know how God knows the future. God is omnipotent and omniscient, yes but I don't exactly know HOW God exercises His sovereignty, will and purpose over the universe and everything within.

eg. Isa 41:4, 46:10 - Cyrus Isa 41:4, Jeremiah Jer 1:5, the Crucifixion (Isa 53), Revelations of future events..etc How exactly? Predestination, foreknowledge, election, God's purposes coming to pass.. Yes but how God does those things specifically I don't know. I'm sure there are possible explanations such as the above (looking ahead through time), I can't say I'm certain either way if the bible has a definite answer on that.



I agree here as well but I see Rom 11:4 as part of Paul's explanation on God's plan for the future of Israel, or specifically God's chosen earthy nation through the lineage of Abraham (OT covenant for the sake of Abraham).



Agree 100%. Just when (in the path of Salvation - before or after) does God regenerate the sinner whom is/will be drawn to Christ.



I agree as well. I'm wondering though, for those OT saints, did they need to be regenerated to have that faith in God? I can accept that they were saved by faith in God even though their Messiah had not yet come.



Ok, what I was thinking about is in respect to the 2 covenants, the first was by lineage as the primary means that "qualifies" the right of the individual to be counted as one of God's chosen nation (Israel). The NT covenant the qualification is on a different basis, since whether Jews or Gentiles their nationality is not going to be the factor in hand. Yet through faith the individual enters into the New Covenant. So back to the contrast, the way into each covenant is not only different but God used as well different means of bringing "new members" into each respective covenant. For example I can't see God "drawing" OT Testament Jews to believe in Him as God would do for the NT sinner. For the Jew they were raised as believers to follow the law of Moses (that was the idea anyway - thus you have Jews/believers, Gentiles/unbelievers or many cases, heathen) for the christian they can't be "naturally" born to believe (all are sinners) they have a different way of entry into the NT covenant, by faith, by the drawing of God, whereas the OT covenant as far as I can see did not function that way. Those that did believe and lived by faith were Jews whom were born Jews.

So to make a short story long, I think OT "election" has a different implication and usage than the election for the sinner to be saved through the New Covenant.

Apologies because of my lack of ability in explaining my point.

God bless.

Darren

You've almost gotten it right. God favored the second son over the first; Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, the prodigal son over the firstborn and Jesus over Adam.

The firstborn represents the old covenant, the second born represents the new. that's because the firstborn was born in the natural way and the 2nd sons were born as the result of a promise.

That means as Romans 9:6-9 explains, it is not the biological children of Israel who are Israel, it's the children of the promise. The first sons represented the letter of the law, i.e., circumcision, inheritance rights, but the second sons were chosen by God.

So the first sons were born of the flesh, the second sons became born of the B] Spirit[/B].

That's explaining that those whom God chooses for salvation whether today or in ancient times are chosen by HIM, which shows that it's GOD'S SOVEREIGN CHOICE WHOM HE CHOOSES AND WHOM HE DOES NOT, as Romans 9:16 explains. John 15:16, "You did not choose me, I chose you."

 

[HankD]

What is our basic problem?

This is what I believe it is and I suppose it's a statement of the obvious:

There is something missing in our understanding of God's Sovereignty and man's responsibility within the scope of His sovereignty.
Further, I don't believe it's an entity that is completely revealed.

For one thing, we are caught up in this thing called the time continuum trying to understand and explain something that was a "done deal" before we even existed and it even passed through said time stream.

How can we say something antecedes or postcedes something else which has a schema and reality developed in eternity before the world of space, time and matter even existed?

ASV Ecclesiastes 3:11 He hath made everything beautiful in its time: also he hath set eternity in their heart, yet so that man cannot find out the work that God hath done from the beginning even to the end.​

Personally, after decades of off an on contemplation of the salvation provided the human race throught the Blood Atonement of Jesus Christ, I reject both the human names of the conflicting sides of "how He did it".

Rather (and for now) I categorize it under something the Scripture calls:

1 Timothy 3:9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.​

My beef is not so much with calvinism or arminianism so much as it is with their divisiveness. Both are honest but inadequate (IMO) human attemps to understand our eternal Father and His works.​

To be honest, I find more comfort with the TULIP view (4.5).
Which is based upon both certain Scripture.​

However, and to be honest, I see and understand the other side as well.
Which is also based upon Scripture.​

I suppose therefore that I am of two minds (understandably not a good place to be according to the Book of James).​

But my conscience is clear as I have (for the most part) taken off the gloves and stepped out of the ring as I know many others have done.

For those things I don't understand, there is a Scripture as well:

Psalm 46:10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.​

HankD​

 

[Darrenss1]

So the first sons were born of the flesh, the second sons became born of the B] Spirit[/B].

That's explaining that those whom God chooses for salvation whether today or in ancient times are chosen by HIM, which shows that it's GOD'S SOVEREIGN CHOICE WHOM HE CHOOSES AND WHOM HE DOES NOT, as Romans 9:16 explains. John 15:16, "You did not choose me, I chose you."

I almost feel helpless in making my point clear. Its never in dispute that God in His Sovereignty has chosen to elect and save, man simply need but to respond. When I read John 15:16, you have not chose Me but I chose you there is nothing in that statement I disagree with. So far no one has commented; NT election to "salvation" requiring mans response has specific means God uses in drawing out that response that God did NOT use in the OT. God chosing to have mercy on whom He will has both earthy implications as well as spiritual implications. God having mercy on Israel but choosing to destroy Pharoah and his army/judging nations. God having mercy in the spiritual context, God in compassion and love saving lost sinners for the purpose of His will through the means of the New Covenant. The natural election with God's mercy (nations exalted or destroyed/judged) does not equal the spiritual election (saving lost depraved sinners from eternal judgement and wrath) simply because the means, applications, terms/paths are different.

And as I ask repeatedly, were OT saints regenerated, given a new heart and born again in order to believe God and follow the law? I can't see that as a fact taught in scripture, so even God's election for OT salvation of the faithful few still functioned through different means to that of the NT election to salvation. None of that bypasses man's freedom of choice in responding when God intervenes. Even Israelites were rebellious throughout history which shows that the Old covenant did not change man on the inside, yet many Jews did love and follow God of their choosing, they were faithful by their own free will.

Joshua 24:22 And Joshua said unto the people, Ye are witnesses against yourselves that ye have chosen you the LORD, to serve him. And they said, We are witnesses.

How God runs His universe I don't know BUT He does. How God can be Sovereign over man whom has their own will, I don't know BUT He is. How God knows the future and can decree future events to occur accordng to His purpose, I don't know....

Darren

 

[Darrenss1]

What is our basic problem?

This is what I believe it is and I suppose it's a statement of the obvious:

There is something missing in our understanding of God's Sovereignty and man's responsibility within the scope of His sovereignty.
Further, I don't believe it's an entity that is completely revealed.

For one thing, we are caught up in this thing called the time continuum trying to understand and explain something that was a "done deal" before we even existed and it even passed through said time stream.

How can we say something antecedes or postcedes something else which has a schema and reality developed in eternity before the world of space, time and matter even existed?

Amen!! My Thoughts exactly. :thumbs:

Darren