"Calvinist teach false doctrine".

[Helen]

Gentiles are not elect by just being a Gentile. Believers are elect, whether Jew or Gentile. This view of the elect only referring to Jews is brand new to me. It probably deserves a new thread. It appears to be a huge stretch that tries to avoid Biblical words that don't fit one's theology. Even non-Cals still refer to all believers as elect - they just disagree with the Cal position on what election entails. Like I said, I've never encountered this line of thinking before.

This argument has gone round a lot of blocks, Andy. Some time ago I looked up 'elect' every time it was used in the NT. Here is what I found:
http://www.setterfield.org/elect.htm

 

[webdog]

Gentiles are not elect by just being a Gentile. Believers are elect, whether Jew or Gentile. This view of the elect only referring to Jews is brand new to me. It probably deserves a new thread. It appears to be a huge stretch that tries to avoid Biblical words that don't fit one's theology. Even non-Cals still refer to all believers as elect - they just disagree with the Cal position on what election entails. Like I said, I've never encountered this line of thinking before.

Since this is new to you, who are the "rest" in verse 7? Who are "their" in verse 11? Are the "elect" and the "rest" in verse 7... gentiles?

Rom 11:7 What then? Israel did not find what it was looking for, but the elect did find it. The rest were hardened,
Rom 11:8 as it is written: God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that cannot see and ears that cannot hear, to this day.
Rom 11:9 And David says: Let their feasting become a snare and a trap, a pitfall and a retribution to them.
Rom 11:10 Let their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent continually.
Rom 11:11 I ask, then, have they stumbled so as to fall? Absolutely not! On the contrary, by their stumbling, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel jealous.

 

[Andy T.]

Jewish believers are referred to as the elect in v. 7. What does that prove? That's like saying Jewish believers are Christians. But not all Christians are Jewish. And neither are all the elect only Jewish.

I read through Helen's article; and along with your reasoning, all I can say is that you can no longer ridicule Cals for their contortions defining "world". There's plenty of contortioning going on here. It should make you pause that the vast majority of Christian intepretation on the word "elect" differs from your view. Now that doesn't make you wrong, but it still should give you pause.

 

[webdog]

Jewish believers are referred to as the elect in v. 7. What does that prove?

Just what I stated, the elect are believing jews.

That's like saying Jewish believers are Christians.

They're not?!?

But not all Christians are Jewish.

True. And not all Christians are believing jews (elect).

I read through Helen's article; and along with your reasoning, all I can say is that you can no longer ridicule Cals for their contortions defining "world".

Whether I'm right or not on who I feel Scripture refers to as the elect, I can still ridicule the cal's reasoning of world

It should make you pause that the vast majority of Christian intepretation on the word "elect" differs from your view.

If the majority view is the right view...why are you a calvinist?!? Calvinism is not the majority view. That argument is silly.

 

[MB]

Hi Andy;

Gentiles are not elect by just being a Gentile. Believers are elect, whether Jew or Gentile. This view of the elect only referring to Jews is brand new to me. It probably deserves a new thread. It appears to be a huge stretch that tries to avoid Biblical words that don't fit one's theology. Even non-Cals still refer to all believers as elect - they just disagree with the Cal position on what election entails. Like I said, I've never encountered this line of thinking before.

If you will look for it, not one Gentile is ever described as elected. However, everyone one has been chosen because Christ died for the whole world. Whether or not Calvinism likes it there is not anything in scripture that proves "Particular Election" or that election is only for a few lucky individuals leaving all others on there way to Hell. It's just as reasonable to conclude that only Jews are elected, simply because they are the only ones ever mentioned to be elected. The rest of us are chosen for Salvation in Christ dying for us all. Is His dying for us all, election? I believe it is. Election in scripture is never spoken of as a gaurantee for Salvation as far as I know. We are elected to and for Salvation but never through it.
MB

 

[Andy T.]

Webdog,

Jewish believers are elect, and Gentile believers are elect, notwithstanding yours and anyone else's contortions around the words elect and chosen used throughout Scripture.

You left out part of my quote - I said that being in the small, tiny minority does not make you wrong. Only it should give you pause. If you can show me that Calvinism is in the small, tiny minority over the whole of Christian history, then I too will give pause.

 

[Allan]

Jewish believers are referred to as the elect in v. 7. What does that prove? That's like saying Jewish believers are Christians. But not all Christians are Jewish. And neither are all the elect only Jewish.

I read through Helen's article; and along with your reasoning, all I can say is that you can no longer ridicule Cals for their contortions defining "world". There's plenty of contortioning going on here. It should make you pause that the vast majority of Christian intepretation on the word "elect" differs from your view. Now that doesn't make you wrong, but it still should give you pause.

I don't want to get into this discussion specifically, but you stated a point being contended on another thread contending what the word "world" means (by Rippon).

I would like to hear your responce. I contend that world in EVERY instance for the OT through the NT means either our world or planet and the other is that 'world' is specific ONLY to sinners. In the OT "world is ALWAYS equated with the wicked and non-Jewish. The NT hold the exact same in EVERY instance. We are told not to be of the world but in it...Christ came into the world to save sinners...ext. ext.

There is not one instance in scripture where the bible states the world is speaking towards Gods people. The world is established in the OT as the sinful world and is expounded upon in the NT. God does not set forth a word that is consistantly established in the OT to have a new meaning in the NT as the NT writers who are lead by the Same Spirit who set forth that word and it determined meaning would use it in the same manner.

Yet, when you understand the established definitions of 'world' set forth in scripture, you have a little bit of a issue with "for God so loved the 'world' that He sent His son..."

That is the gist of what I have set forth on the that thread, but would like to hear you comments as well on it. :wavey:

 

[DQuixote]

As Helen points out, a great study of "elect" is found here:

http://www.setterfield.org/elect.htm

As I and others have pointed out so many times, Romans 9:1 thru Romans 11:36 is "the Jewish Interlude." In chapters 9, 10, and 11 Paul writes to Christians in Rome expressing his concern for his brethren in the flesh, the Jews. His prayer for them is that they might be saved. One reads these three chapters with great care, asking the usual questions: Who is writing, to whom is he writing, what is he writing about? The answer is clear in that context. Take good notes!

A born-again Christian can quite easily read Romans chapter 8, culminating in that awesome, tremendous crescendo in 33-39, skip over to Romans 12:1, without missing a beat. It's a great way to finally understand not only this particular section of the Book of Romans, but the ministry of Jesus Christ first to the Jews, and thru Paul, to the Gentiles, his heart breaking for Israel who rejected their Messiah.

I don't think I need to repeat here those times that Jesus said he came only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel. If you don't understand that, flip over to 1 Corinthians 2:1-16 for a refresher in spiritual discernment of Holy Writ. Where it says "the mind of Christ," insert a little asterisk by mind, and in your notes write *"spiritual wisdom and understanding."

 

[webdog]

Jewish believers are elect, and Gentile believers are elect

biblical proof, please.

If you can show me that Calvinism is in the small, tiny minority over the whole of Christian history, then I too will give pause.

Can you supply proof that calvinism is NOT the minority today? I've seen polls on here showing it to be the minority. Heck, even calvinists cannot agree on all 5 points of tulip.

 

[AAA]

The Calvinist view of predestination and foreknowledge, Regeneration, depravity, particular election, the atonement and , the irresistiblity of Grace. perseverance of the Saints. None of which are ever clearly explained with scripture but, by man's own logic, which is not harmony with scripture.
MB

Do you believe in Once Saved Always Saved?

 

[Jarthur001]

As Helen points out, a great study of "elect" is found here:

http://www.setterfield.org/elect.htm

As I and others have pointed out so many times, Romans 9:1 thru Romans 11:36 is "the Jewish Interlude." In chapters 9, 10, and 11 Paul writes to Christians in Rome expressing his concern for his brethren in the flesh, the Jews. His prayer for them is that they might be saved. One reads these three chapters with great care, asking the usual questions: Who is writing, to whom is he writing, what is he writing about? The answer is clear in that context. Take good notes!

A born-again Christian can quite easily read Romans chapter 8, culminating in that awesome, tremendous crescendo in 33-39, skip over to Romans 12:1, without missing a beat. It's a great way to finally understand not only this particular section of the Book of Romans, but the ministry of Jesus Christ first to the Jews, and thru Paul, to the Gentiles, his heart breaking for Israel who rejected their Messiah.

I don't think I need to repeat here those times that Jesus said he came only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel. If you don't understand that, flip over to 1 Corinthians 2:1-16 for a refresher in spiritual discernment of Holy Writ. Where it says "the mind of Christ," insert a little asterisk by mind, and in your notes write *"spiritual wisdom and understanding."

Hold on....

Did you just loss the truth. On the last page, you claimed ...

And the winner is............................................. _______________.

I keep waiting for a voice from Heaven to yell,

HEY! All youse guys! Come out from among them!

Truth is not debateable!!!!

If you persist in debate, you reveal the absence of Truth!!!!

Now you have changed.

humm..

Once again we see a free-will person that does not believe one should study Gods Word.

Bible study leads to Calvinism. If you do not want to be a Calvinist, say out of the Word and follow your own ideas.

 

[Allan]

Bible study leads to Calvinism. If you do not want to be a Calvinist, say out of the Word and follow your own ideas.

WRONG!!

I have been studing the scriptures for 16 years and it was about 6 years ago I cam across Calvinism. In those 10 years of PERSONAL study I never found anything that accerted a Calvinistic veiw except Eternal Security/Perservence of the saints (on the whole of Tulip points). And after coming in contact with that doctrine and researching it then in the last 2 and half years debating it I still don't see the Calvinism in scriptures.

When I say personal study I don't just mean I studied what I knew already. But that I actually studied specifically against my own view point - literally. I wanted to know if I could disprove my own view or at least give me pause in it that I may know for myself what is truth. Open thesim was the easiest to discard. :laugh: Calvism was the only one to give me pause but (IMO) never measured up to the scriptures themselves. I would be a fool to think I have it all figured out and know the best of them all. I only know what God has revealed to me and that is all that "I" know. But like many of the great theologians and men of God from the past, I to admit that I am but in the kiddy pool concerning the wonderous and exaulted knowledge of Almighty God.

 

[Jarthur001]

WRONG!!

I have been studing the scriptures for 16 years and it was about 6 years ago I cam across Calvinism. In those 10 years of PERSONAL study I never found anything that accerted a Calvinistic veiw except Eternal Security/Perservence of the saints (on the whole of Tulip points). And after coming in contact with that doctrine and researching it then in the last 2 and half years debating it I still don't see the Calvinism in scriptures.

When I say personal study I don't just mean I studied what I knew already. But that I actually studied specifically against my own view point - literally. I wanted to know if I could disprove my own view or at least give me pause in it that I may know for myself what is truth. Open thesim was the easiest to discard. :laugh: Calvism was the only one to give me pause but (IMO) never measured up to the scriptures themselves. I would be a fool to think I have it all figured out and know the best of them all. I only know what God has revealed to me and that is all that "I" know. But like many of the great theologians and men of God from the past, I to admit that I am but in the kiddy pool concerning the wonderous and exaulted knowledge of Almighty God.

I never said we don't have free-willers that read and even study the Bible. Let me put it this way...

I know of NO Calvinist weak in Bible study. NONE. In fact, one could not be a Calvinist without Bible study. It can't happen!!!!! However when it comes to freewillism, ...this man is born with this idea, God is just added to it later.


And besides...the point was...

Each time a "new comer" comes on the board and claims..." can't we all just get along"...Stop debating....just believe the Word.

each time,,,these people end up being a free will person. Now I know you will have to agree with that. And...within weeks of their "peace keeping" they are in the debate.

Or...we have the ones that are here to educate the poor dumb Calvinist. They last a month or two...and you never see them again.

Then we have you... ...some day I have a feeling you will be one of us.

 

[webdog]

I know of NO Calvinist weak in Bible study. NONE. In fact, one could not be a Calvinist without Bible study. It can't happen!!!!! However when it comes to freewillism, ...this man is born with this idea, God is just added to it later.

Is "weak in Bible study" the same thing as weak Bible study? Do you think exegeting from Bible study that God is the author of sin is not weak?

 

[Jarthur001]

Is "weak in Bible study" the same thing as weak Bible study? Do you think exegeting from Bible study that God is the author of sin is not weak?

The Bible stands on its own. Bible study leads to greater understanding, where as looking at John 3:16 and John 3:16 only leads to exaggeration of Gods love and limits Gods power and control...which is what we see so much on this board.

Exigent studies of Gods Word or I should say all of Gods Word, leads to proper understanding of God and not a lack of understanding. Each man will answer to God for their lack of study. I do not see how a person can claim to worship God, and only read His Word when they have time. This should be a desire within us that burns to the point we can not wait to get back into the Word. But what we find, is people saying Bible study is a thing of the past, and only limits time with God they claim to worship to a few hours a week.

I just finished another set of books on church history. Each time I read on the early church I feel ashamed. Any one that reads what the early church went through, would be ashamed of our churches today for the most part. I'm not talking about the perseuction only. I'm talking about how much they were not in love with the world, but rather God. We spend more time trying to be like the world, then to be as Christ. We now spend less time as a whole in the Word, then in any other time.

 

[dwmoeller1]

This argument has gone round a lot of blocks, Andy. Some time ago I looked up 'elect' every time it was used in the NT. Here is what I found:
http://www.setterfield.org/elect.htm

Question for you:
You conclude that 'elect' always refers to Jewish believers. However you seem to contradict this when you admit that Rom 8:31-33 and Col 3:12 (in both cases the greek word is 'eklektos') are in reference to all believers. Can you resolve this apparent contradiction?

Also, it seems you fail to deal with I Thes 1:4. Did I somehow miss that? If not, can you explain how that fits in as well?

 

[dwmoeller1]

...through your theological bent, yes.

And so far, you have only attempted to negate 'my theological bent' with your own. Please demonstrate how my view is wrong or yours is correct. Simply continuing to assert your position does not constitute a defense.

Now, how do I reach my 'theological bent'? Lets look at the chapters and see what we can agree on at least.

Is the primary audience of Romans to Jewish believers, Gentile believers or both?

How about chapter 8 in specific?

Even though the audience was both jew and gentile, the "elect" is clearly the jews. Remember, the jews threw Paul out of Thessalonica.

How is it clearly the jews in this passage? Please explain. He starts out by addressing the whole church which we both agree includes gentile and jewish believers. He then says 'brethern' and says they are elect. What indication is there, IN CONTEXT, that he is addressing only the jewish believers in this verse and not his whole audience?


Also, if you could, please address Rev 17:14 as well.

 

[Andy T.]

biblical proof, please.

Can you supply proof that calvinism is NOT the minority today? I've seen polls on here showing it to be the minority. Heck, even calvinists cannot agree on all 5 points of tulip.

As dwmoeller points out in posts #56 and 57, you (or Helen) still haven't proved that 'elect' or 'chosen' only refers to Jewish believers. We have the proof: Every time elect is used, it is in reference to believers. Sometimes those believers are Jewish and sometimes they are Gentiles. But they are always believers.

I agree that Calvinism is in the minority, but it is not in the small, tiny minority. If I recall that recent poll on TULIP, it appeared that around 45% held to Limited Atonement and Irrestible Grace (the two most controversial points). Again, I'm not saying that truth is determined by popular vote. But if I hold to a doctrine that is held by very few people today and across the whole of church history, then it should give me pause to reexamine that doctrine more closely. And after reexamination, if I still believe that doctrine, then I need to shout from the rooftops that the Church has been wrong on this issue and needs a radical reformation/revival of the truth, if the issue is sotieriological in nature. It's all or nothing.

 

[webdog]

We have the proof: Every time elect is used, it is in reference to believers. Sometimes those believers are Jewish and sometimes they are Gentiles.

OK...you say you have "proof" they are sometimes gentile believers...where's the "proof"?

 

[webdog]

Is the primary audience of Romans to Jewish believers, Gentile believers or both?

If I'm explaining russian history to a group of chinese...does the russian history apply to my chinese audience?

How is it clearly the jews in this passage? Please explain.

In the same way it's used elsewhere in the NT.
Rom 11:1 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin.
Rom 11:2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel?
Rom 11:3 "Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life."
Rom 11:4 But what is God's reply to him? "I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal."
Rom 11:5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace.
Rom 11:6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
Rom 11:7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened,

He then says 'brethern' and says they are elect. What indication is there, IN CONTEXT, that he is addressing only the jewish believers in this verse and not his whole audience?

Are you not aware that jews commonly referred to each other as "brother", whether they were beleivers or not? You cannot base Paul calling them "brothers" as meaning gentile believers. Research Pauls writing patterns.

Also, if you could, please address Rev 17:14 as well.

What about it? I don't see "elect" anywhere in there. Chosen doesn't mean "elect". If it did, Pharaoh and Judas would be lumped into that group since they were "chosen" by God for His purposes.