An articulate well balanced approach. What say you?

[quantumfaith]

Election is a wonderful doctrine. However, it is not a call to favoritism, but a call to be a channel, a tool or means of others’ redemption! In the Old Testament the term was used primarily for service; in the New Testament it is used primarily for salvation which issues in service. The Bible never reconciles the seeming contradiction between God’s sovereignty and mankind’s free will, but affirms them both! A good example of the biblical tension would be Romans 9 on God’s sovereign choice and Romans 10 on mankind’s necessary response (cf. 10:11,13).
The key to this theological tension may be found in Eph. 1:4. Jesus is God’s elect man and all are potentially elect in Him (Karl Barth). Jesus is God’s “yes” to fallen mankind’s need (Karl Barth). Eph. 1:4 also helps clarify the issue by asserting that the goal of predestination is not heaven, but holiness (Christlikeness). We are often attracted to the benefits of the gospel and ignore the responsibilities! God’s call (election) is for time as well as eternity!
Doctrines come in relation to other truths, not as single, unrelated truths. A good analogy would be a constellation versus a single star. God presents truth in eastern, not western, genres. We must not remove the tension caused by dialectical (paradoxical) pairs of doctrinal truths:
1. Predestination vs. human free will
2. Security of the believers vs. the need for perseverance
3. Original sin vs. volitional sin
4. Sinlessness (perfectionism) vs. sinning less
5. Initial instantaneous justification and sanctification vs. progressive sanctification
6. Christian freedom vs. Christian responsibility
7. God’s transcendence vs. God’s immanence
8. God as ultimately unknowable vs. God as knowable in Scripture
9. The Kingdom of God as present vs. future consummation
10. Repentance as a gift of God vs. repentance as a necessary human covenantal response
11. Jesus as divine vs. Jesus as human
12. Jesus is equal to the Father vs. Jesus as subservient to the Father
The theological concept of “covenant” unites the sovereignty of God (who always takes the initiative and sets the agenda) with a mandatory initial and continuing repentant, faith response from humans. Be careful of proof-texting one side of the paradox and depreciating the other! Be careful of asserting only your favorite doctrine or system of theology.

http://www.ibiblio.org/freebiblecommentary/OTSpecialTopics.htm#Election/predestination

 

[Greektim]

Election is a wonderful doctrine. However, it is not a call to favoritism, but a call to be a channel, a tool or means of others’ redemption! In the Old Testament the term was used primarily for service; in the New Testament it is used primarily for salvation which issues in service. The Bible never reconciles the seeming contradiction between God’s sovereignty and mankind’s free will, but affirms them both! A good example of the biblical tension would be Romans 9 on God’s sovereign choice and Romans 10 on mankind’s necessary response (cf. 10:11,13).
The key to this theological tension may be found in Eph. 1:4. Jesus is God’s elect man and all are potentially elect in Him (Karl Barth). Jesus is God’s “yes” to fallen mankind’s need (Karl Barth). Eph. 1:4 also helps clarify the issue by asserting that the goal of predestination is not heaven, but holiness (Christlikeness). We are often attracted to the benefits of the gospel and ignore the responsibilities! God’s call (election) is for time as well as eternity!
Doctrines come in relation to other truths, not as single, unrelated truths. A good analogy would be a constellation versus a single star. God presents truth in eastern, not western, genres. We must not remove the tension caused by dialectical (paradoxical) pairs of doctrinal truths:
1. Predestination vs. human free will
2. Security of the believers vs. the need for perseverance
3. Original sin vs. volitional sin
4. Sinlessness (perfectionism) vs. sinning less
5. Initial instantaneous justification and sanctification vs. progressive sanctification
6. Christian freedom vs. Christian responsibility
7. God’s transcendence vs. God’s immanence
8. God as ultimately unknowable vs. God as knowable in Scripture
9. The Kingdom of God as present vs. future consummation
10. Repentance as a gift of God vs. repentance as a necessary human covenantal response
11. Jesus as divine vs. Jesus as human
12. Jesus is equal to the Father vs. Jesus as subservient to the Father
The theological concept of “covenant” unites the sovereignty of God (who always takes the initiative and sets the agenda) with a mandatory initial and continuing repentant, faith response from humans. Be careful of proof-texting one side of the paradox and depreciating the other! Be careful of asserting only your favorite doctrine or system of theology.

http://www.ibiblio.org/freebiblecommentary/OTSpecialTopics.htm#Election/predestination

Aside from a few terms I would have avoided, this was an excellent post and I enjoyed reading it. (the bolded sections are my fav's)

 

[quantumfaith]

Aside from a few terms I would have avoided, this was an excellent post and I enjoyed reading it. (the bolded sections are my fav's)

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

I really liked what you highlighted.

 

[Iconoclast]

This is not at all what the text teaches

The key to this theological tension may be found in Eph. 1:4. Jesus is God’s elect man and all are potentially elect in Him (Karl Barth).

Not all are "potentially" elected anywhere.
Jesus is the elect servant......but The elect are actually chosen in Him.Not potentially ...but actually.

What is trying to be passed off as balanced ...is an out right denial of biblical truth .

The Bible never reconciles the seeming contradiction between God’s sovereignty and mankind’s free will, but affirms them both

There is no contradiction. The bible clearly declares the truth of the covenant redemption that was accomplished at the cross.
Some are still learning about it...others oppose themselves in unbelief of this truth.

Some look to these explanations that are unbib;ical compromise...so as to avoid what they think are emotionally hard sayings of scripture. They try to avoid, or shrink back from the verses.

 

[preacher4truth]

This is not at all what the text teaches


Not all are "potentially" elected anywhere.
Jesus is the elect servant......but The elect are actually chosen in Him.Not potentially ...but actually.

What is trying to be passed off as balanced ...is an out right denial of biblical truth .



There is no contradiction. The bible clearly declares the truth of the covenant redemption that was accomplished at the cross.
Some are still learning about it...others oppose themselves in unbelief of this truth.

Some look to these explanations that are unbib;ical compromise...so as to avoid what they think are emotionally hard sayings of scripture. They try to avoid, or shrink back from the verses.

...and then one comes along with the truth to line out a flowery sermonette laden with error.

Thanks Icon for exposing the fallacies here. I'm amazed at the attempts of the non-cals, arminians and their perpetual and relentless endeavor on the BB to attempt to discredit the truths of Scripture held within reformed theology, only to fail time and again, and remain incorrect.

:thumbsup:

 

[quantumfaith]

...and then one comes along with the truth to line out a flowery sermonette laden with error.

Thanks Icon for exposing the fallacies here. I'm amazed at the attempts of the non-cals, arminians and their perpetual and relentless endeavor on the BB to attempt to discredit the truths of Scripture held within reformed theology, only to fail time and again, and remain incorrect.

:thumbsup:

Well, I dont think it is laden with error brother, you keep your position and I will keep mine.

 

[quantumfaith]

This is not at all what the text teaches


Not all are "potentially" elected anywhere.
Jesus is the elect servant......but The elect are actually chosen in Him.Not potentially ...but actually.

What is trying to be passed off as balanced ...is an out right denial of biblical truth .



There is no contradiction. The bible clearly declares the truth of the covenant redemption that was accomplished at the cross.
Some are still learning about it...others oppose themselves in unbelief of this truth.

Some look to these explanations that are unbib;ical compromise...so as to avoid what they think are emotionally hard sayings of scripture. They try to avoid, or shrink back from the verses.

YOUR opinion, relative to how YOU read scripture. But thanks for sharing it.

 

[12strings]

1. As brilliant as Barth was, I do think it does a disservice to the text to talk about people being "potentially Elect" in Christ. "He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him..." and "...In love he predestined us for adoption as sons." I don't see anything potential in this. I agree that the bible teaches both election based on God's choice, AND that humans have a will that makes real decisions that matter. There is some tension and hard questions to ask when reconciling certain passages with other passages. However, God clearly has the ability to turn a man's will, and to regenerate a dead heart that would not have otherwise chosen God (Eph. 2:1-10). So I would say again, mostly a good post, though I would not use the word potentially to describe something that God planned before the foundation of the world.

2. A quote from Arminian John Wesley:

-John Calvin was a pious, learned, sensible man; and so was James Harmens. Many Calvinists are pious, learned, sensible men; and so are many Arminians. Only the former hold absolute predestination; the latter, conditional.

-One word more: Is it not the duty of every Arminian Preacher, First, never, in public or in private, to use the word Calvinist as a term of reproach; seeing it is neither better nor worse than calling names? -- a practice no more consistent with good sense or good manners, than it is with Christianity. Secondly. To do all that in him lies to prevent his hearers from doing it, by showing them the sin and folly of it? And is it not equally the duty of every Calvinist Preacher, First, never in public or in private, in preaching or in conversation, to use the word Arminian as a term of reproach? Secondly. To do all that in him lies to prevent his hearers from doing it, by showing them the sin and folly thereof; and that the more earnestly and diligently, if they have been accustomed so to do? perhaps encouraged therein by his own example!

Andy, the happy 4.95 pt. Calvinist

 

[quantumfaith]

1. As brilliant as Barth was, I do think it does a disservice to the text to talk about people being "potentially Elect" in Christ. "He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him..." and "...In love he predestined us for adoption as sons." I don't see anything potential in this. I agree that the bible teaches both election based on God's choice, AND that humans have a will that makes real decisions that matter. There is some tension and hard questions to ask when reconciling certain passages with other passages. However, God clearly has the ability to turn a man's will, and to regenerate a dead heart that would not have otherwise chosen God (Eph. 2:1-10). So I would say again, mostly a good post, though I would not use the word potentially to describe something that God planned before the foundation of the world.

2. A quote from Arminian John Wesley:




Andy, the happy 4.95 pt. Calvinist

A fair, well thought out, and reasoned point made. And your "attitude" is appreciated. I personally know little about Barth, have only encountered mentions of him in some of my reading. I do know he was (is) a respected scholar, but I have sensed some "controversy" with regard to some of his ideas.

 

[Iconoclast]

YOUR opinion, relative to how YOU read scripture. But thanks for sharing it.

QF,
My opinion or yours has nothing to do with the plain teaching of scripture.

which part is potential here?
4according as He did choose us in him before the foundation of the world, for our being holy and unblemished before Him, in love, 5having foreordained us to the adoption of sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,

6to the praise of the glory of His grace, in which He did make us accepted in the beloved,
7in whom we have the redemption through his blood, the remission of the trespasses, according to the riches of His grace,

 

[DHK]

QF,
My opinion or yours has nothing to do with the plain teaching of scripture.

which part is potential here?
4according as He did choose us in him before the foundation of the world, for our being holy and unblemished before Him, in love, 5having foreordained us to the adoption of sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,

6to the praise of the glory of His grace, in which He did make us accepted in the beloved,
7in whom we have the redemption through his blood, the remission of the trespasses, according to the riches of His grace,

But why not just forget about reading those verses for a moment and read:

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10:13)

Now that is what the Scriptures teach!!

 

[The Archangel]

I find myself in much agreement with the OP--except for a huge and notable issue which I will address momentarily.

There are tensions in the Bible. Usually, they are left unresolved. The list of 12 that quantumfaith posted is a good and representative list--those tensions are, indeed, palpable and likely a struggle for every believer at one time or another.

Further, the phrase: "Election is a wonderful doctrine. However, it is not a call to favoritism, but a call to be a channel, a tool or means of others’ redemption!" is an important corrective to many who rest in election and do not, therefore, rest in Christ. The same could be said for those who rest in their faith, rather than resting in Christ.

The one point (and it is a big one) that I take exception to is this:

The key to this theological tension may be found in Eph. 1:4. Jesus is God’s elect man and all are potentially elect in Him (Karl Barth). Jesus is God’s “yes” to fallen mankind’s need (Karl Barth). Eph. 1:4 also helps clarify the issue by asserting that the goal of predestination is not heaven, but holiness (Christlikeness). We are often attracted to the benefits of the gospel and ignore the responsibilities! God’s call (election) is for time as well as eternity!

http://www.ibiblio.org/freebiblecommentary/OTSpecialTopics.htm#Election/predestination

The author of the piece does not handle Ephesians 1:4 correctly. Instead, he leans on Barth, who, if the quote is correct, doesn't handle the passage correctly either.

Ephesians 1:4 does not say nor does it imply that Jesus is God's elect man and it never suggests "potentiality" in election.

First, looking at v. 3, who are the ones God has blessed? "Us;" believers.

Turning to v. 4, who was chosen? "Us;" believers, not Christ.

Continuing to v. 5, who were predestined? "Us;" believers.

Barth's conclusions--again, if properly represented in the article--are not correct.

The entire point of Ephesians 1 is God's electing purposes--which focus on the saints (e.g. believers). The passage states what God has emphatically done, not what He potentially did or might do.

So, while the original article has much good stuff, this element is wrongly handled.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

But why not just forget about reading those verses for a moment and read:

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10:13)

Now that is what the Scriptures teach!!

The problem here, friend, is that you are setting up a false dichotomy between the scriptures. You suggest disparity where none exists.

Romans 10:13 is not more true than the Ephesians passage that Iconoclast posted.

Of course we can all affirm that "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." However, God has not remained silent on the reason some call and some do not. So, the "inner workings" of salvation (and the mystery therein) are not lesser than the "outward workings" of salvation when someone calls on Christ and is saved.

The Archangel

 

[Iconoclast]

But why not just forget about reading those verses for a moment and read:

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10:13)

Now that is what the Scriptures teach!!

Yes DHK..... They are great verses and wonderfully true. any sinner calling upon the name of the Lord will be saved....:thumbs::thumbs::applause:

I believe that 100 percent. God loves sinners In Christ.

Dhk.....if every living sinner would repent and believe the gospel right now..i would rejoice with the angels in heaven!

 

[DHK]

The problem here, friend, is that you are setting up a false dichotomy between the scriptures. You suggest disparity where none exists.

Romans 10:13 is not more true than the Ephesians passage that Iconoclast posted.

The Archangel

I knew that when I posted it. I wanted him to reconcile the passages.

 

[DHK]

Yes DHK..... They are great verses and wonderfully true. any sinner calling upon the name of the Lord will be saved....:thumbs::thumbs::applause:

I believe that 100 percent. God loves sinners In Christ.

Dhk.....if every living sinner would repent and believe the gospel right now..i would rejoice with the angels in heaven!

At least we agree on something. :thumbs:

 

[Iconoclast]

At least we agree on something. :thumbs:

:laugh::applause::laugh;

It's a start.

We do agree on a few other areas, in between our disagreements DHK.

Your stand for the word of God I am supportive of,especially with those who believe in continuing revelation....trinity....literal return of Our Lord.

 

[Iconoclast]

I knew that when I posted it. I wanted him to reconcile the passages.

DHK,

A biblical calvinists believe men have to repent and believe the gospel as much or more than anyone else.

Spurgeon one time said you do not have to reconcile friends. That is why he preached and urged sinners to repent and believe,

In a forum like this ...keep in mind that the non cals are usually trying to bait the calvinist into denying mans full responsibility before God.
They want one proof text or magic bullet, that they can use to say the whole system is only man-made...or ...that is your opinion.
Because it is the teaching of scripture,the calvinist has the whole bible to use. ... as there are no texts that are off limits to this truth.
The frustration comes from the non cal who then usually says....calvinists are so "arrogant"......this takes place when the correct biblical answers are given ....so when there is no way out...there is always..the arrogant card.

The calvinist comes off as arrogant...because they are fully confident that God is a promise keeping God.....he cannot deny Himself...so salvation of the elect is certain.... a biblical calvinist...has seen and believed this truth from the word...and there is no turning back from it....The verses are everywhere!
So all the verses that speak of what men are responsible to do...are not a problem, because we know God works in His people to do all His good pleasure. He has already done it in us who at one time were complete rebels against God and His truth.

 

[Robert Snow]

DHK,

A biblical calvinists believe men have to repent and believe the gospel as much or more than anyone else.

Spurgeon one time said you do not have to reconcile friends. That is why he preached and urged sinners to repent and believe,

In a forum like this ...keep in mind that the non cals are usually trying to bait the calvinist into denying mans full responsibility before God.
They want one proof text or magic bullet, that they can use to say the whole system is only man-made...or ...that is your opinion.
Because it is the teaching of scripture,the calvinist has the whole bible to use. ... as there are no texts that are off limits to this truth.
The frustration comes from the non cal who then usually says....calvinists are so "arrogant"......this takes place when the correct biblical answers are given ....so when there is no way out...there is always..the arrogant card.

The calvinist comes off as arrogant...because they are fully confident that God is a promise keeping God.....he cannot deny Himself...so salvation of the elect is certain.... a biblical calvinist...has seen and believed this truth from the word...and there is no turning back from it....The verses are everywhere!
So all the verses that speak of what men are responsible to do...are not a problem, because we know God works in His people to do all His good pleasure. He has already done it in us who at one time were complete rebels against God and His truth.

Until you realize that everyone doesn't agree with your interpretation of what the Scripture means, you will continue to have this inflated sense of superiority in your Biblical understanding.

 

[Iconoclast]

Until you realize that everyone doesn't agree with your interpretation of what the Scripture means, you will continue to have this inflated sense of superiority in your Biblical understanding.

Robert ,
It is not my interpretation but the scriptural teaching. Doctrine is not like a poem in high school english class where the teacher says....now robert how do you "feel" about this poem....what does it mean"to you".....and then see what the next person Feels that it means to them.
The scriture says and teaches an exact objective truth...not a subjective truth. All the verses fit together without contradiction. These truths were written before you and I were born. many others have seen them also.

Robert....God's truth is meant to be believed and enjoyed by God's people...all of them...not just half.

There is not an inflated sense of superiority as there is a humble realization that without God's mercy we would be on the express train to the second death in hell...
Despite what you might think...no cal is eager for anyone to go there.
We are eager to obey the great commission.....to whom much is given, much is required.....we become zealous for truth and the spread of the gospel.
Robert....unless I am laid aside sick in bed...there is not a day that goes by where I do not speak with several people about the gospel and their responsibility before God. Does what you believe enable you to do the same thing?