Choosing

[DocTrinsoGrace]

"You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you..." (John 15:16a NASB)

I understand the Historic Baptist interpretation of Christ's statement, but I am confused about how the Pelagian/Arminian/Finneyian Baptist -- sorry, I do not know how to rightly distinguish you -- interprets this statement. I hear from these Baptists a high regard for personal human choice. Therefore, would this assertion by the Master indicate that everyone excepting the disciples had/have/will-have a choice?

Note: I do not intend to initiate a polemic debate on the question. Nor do I care to hear from any that are not actually members in good standing and in regular attendance of a Baptist church (i.e., one with an ordained pastor). If possible, just explain it irenically and simply, as you would to a child asking the question in your own congregation. I will not challenge the interpretation, but I may ask additional questions if I do not rightly understand. Thank you for your time and attention.

 

[Yeshua1]

I understand the Historic Baptist interpretation of Christ's statement, but I am confused about how the Pelagian/Arminian/Finneyian Baptist -- sorry, I do not know how to rightly distinguish you -- interprets this statement. I hear from these Baptists a high regard for personal human choice. Therefore, would this assertion by the Master indicate that everyone excepting the disciples had/have/will-have a choice?

Note: I do not intend to initiate a polemic debate on the question. Nor do I care to hear from any that are not actually members in good standing and in regular attendance of a Baptist church (i.e., one with an ordained pastor). If possible, just explain it irenically and simply, as you would to a child asking the question in your own congregation. I will not challenge the interpretation, but I may ask additional questions if I do not rightly understand. Thank you for your time and attention.

think that some would hold that God during time of Jesus intentioanlly blinded the nation of isreal to reject Jesus as messiah, and He just gave grace towards His faithful remanant, yet those same folks say that was just temporary, as now he calls to ALL to repent and get saved!

 

[preacher4truth]

I understand the Historic Baptist interpretation of Christ's statement, but I am confused about how the Pelagian/Arminian/Finneyian Baptist -- sorry, I do not know how to rightly distinguish you

You distinguished it alright bro.

-- interprets this statement. I hear from these Baptists a high regard for personal human choice.

Having been here for a while most of us know how they answer this. What happens with them is they take this passage to mean it was only for the disciples, but when it comes to other passages that they like int eh Gospel accounts, things directly stated to the disciples, their hermeneutic changes, and that becomes 'for them' as well, so long as it does't shake the foundation of their free willy theology.

Plainly if it shakes the foundations of their free willy doctrine it isn't for them, if it doesn't it is for them.

Therefore, would this assertion by the Master indicate that everyone excepting the disciples had/have/will-have a choice?

Brother, on here they equate faith as the same in sitting on a chair, crossing a bridge &c. It is not supernatural. One has claimed even a dog has this faith (winman).

Note: I do not intend to initiate a polemic debate on the question. Nor do I care to hear from any that are not actually members in good standing and in regular attendance of a Baptist church (i.e., one with an ordained pastor). If possible, just explain it irenically and simply, as you would to a child asking the question in your own congregation. I will not challenge the interpretation, but I may ask additional questions if I do not rightly understand. Thank you for your time and attention.

From the link:

Not but that they had made choice of him as their Lord and Master, Saviour and Redeemer; but not first, he was before hand with them; he chose them, before they chose him; so that his choice of them was entirely free, did not arise from any character, motive, or condition in them:

As to that statement above from the link, there are some on here that claim they've always loved God, sought him, &c &c &c &c and thus believe in CONDITIONAL election and reject the indictment of Romans 3 and more. In fact a couple of them have started threads alluding to the error that God HAD to have a reason (in us) that He chose us.

 

[Skandelon]

I understand the Historic Baptist interpretation of Christ's statement, but I am confused about how the Pelagian/Arminian/Finneyian Baptist -- sorry, I do not know how to rightly distinguish you -- interprets this statement. I hear from these Baptists a high regard for personal human choice. Therefore, would this assertion by the Master indicate that everyone excepting the disciples had/have/will-have a choice?

Note: I do not intend to initiate a polemic debate on the question. Nor do I care to hear from any that are not actually members in good standing and in regular attendance of a Baptist church (i.e., one with an ordained pastor). If possible, just explain it irenically and simply, as you would to a child asking the question in your own congregation. I will not challenge the interpretation, but I may ask additional questions if I do not rightly understand. Thank you for your time and attention.

In those days it would have been customary for the student to choose their rabbi, not the other way around.

The apostles were given to Christ by God (John 17)...He chose them. And this type of language establishes their authority as divinely inspired apostles...those reserved from the hardening of Israel for the noble purpose of bringing the message of reconciliation to the rest of the world.

Likewise, God chose Jonah to take the message to Ninevah, but such truth does not support the concept of God choosing who would or would not respond to his message.

 

[Yeshua1]

You distinguished it alright bro.



Having been here for a while most of us know how they answer this. What happens with them is they take this passage to mean it was only for the disciples, but when it comes to other passages that they like int eh Gospel accounts, things directly stated to the disciples, their hermeneutic changes, and that becomes 'for them' as well, so long as it does't shake the foundation of their free willy theology.

Plainly if it shakes the foundations of their free willy doctrine it isn't for them, if it doesn't it is for them.




Brother, on here they equate faith as the same in sitting on a chair, crossing a bridge &c. It is not supernatural. One has claimed even a dog has this faith (winman).



From the link:



As to that statement above from the link, there are some on here that claim they've always loved God, sought him, &c &c &c &c and thus believe in CONDITIONAL election and reject the indictment of Romans 3 and more. In fact a couple of them have started threads alluding to the error that God HAD to have a reason (in us) that He chose us.

their theology worked really weel befor ethe fall. as Asam then HAD "real free will", but since the fall, not so much!

 

[Winman]

Yes, Jesus first chose them, but they also chose Jesus. They did not HAVE to follow him, they chose to do so.

It is not unlike our jobs. If you have a job, your employer first chose you. You cannot just walk in and start working there without their permission, you cannot hire yourself.

At the same time, you chose your employer. You did not have to take the job where you work, that was your choice.

Or suppose you got an invitation to have dinner with Barack Obama at the White House. You could not go there and have dinner with him unless he first chose you. If you try to invite yourself you would be arrested, possibly shot.

But you do not have to attend, that is your choice. I am not a big fan of Obama, I would likely refuse to attend his dinner. But perhaps not, I would have to think about it.

 

[The Biblicist]

In those days it would have been customary for the student to choose their rabbi, not the other way around.

The apostles were given to Christ by God (John 17)...He chose them. And this type of language establishes their authority as divinely inspired apostles...those reserved from the hardening of Israel for the noble purpose of bringing the message of reconciliation to the rest of the world.

Likewise, God chose Jonah to take the message to Ninevah, but such truth does not support the concept of God choosing who would or would not respond to his message.

I don't think you are addressing this text according to what it actually is saying. The context is salvation (v. 3) manifested by fruit production (vv. 4-7). The context is not about the apostolic office or the Great Commission but is in regard to PERSONAL INTIMATE fellowship with both the Father and the Son through the Spirit. It is in this connection that they did not choose Christ but Christ chose them that their "fruit should remain" (reference to proof of individual salvation).

Please don't try to take later parts of this discourse and attempt to read it back in to this context as the discourse covers several different subjects.

 

[preacher4truth]

I don't think you are addressing this text according to what it actually is saying. The context is salvation (v. 3) manifested by fruit production (vv. 4-7). The context is not about the apostolic office or the Great Commission but is in regard to PERSONAL INTIMATE fellowship with both the Father and the Son through the Spirit. It is in this connection that they did not choose Christ but Christ chose them that their "fruit should remain" (reference to proof of individual salvation).

Please don't try to take later parts of this discourse and attempt to read it back in to this context as the discourse covers several different subjects.

It's good to see another brother using candor and honesty to expose what is going on here and to stand against it and for truth. I've seen too much of this pick and choose theology that when Christ said something to the apostles in one place it is for them, yet in another pace it is not for them since it dismantles their theology. Doing so is smug, deceitful and sanctimonious.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It's good to see another brother using candor and honesty to expose what is going on here and to stand against it and for truth. I've seen too much of this pick and choose theology that when Christ said something to the apostles in one place it is for them, yet in another pace it is not for them since it dismantles their theology. Doing so is smug, deceitful and sanctimonious.

Amen...:thumbs:

 

[preacher4truth]

Amen...:thumbs:

It's refreshing that you and I can take our calling one another on the carpet and still maintain brotherly support. That's good mettle on your part above and indwelling grace. Thanks. Proverbs 27:17

 

[Skandelon]

I don't think you are addressing this text according to what it actually is saying. The context is salvation (v. 3) manifested by fruit production (vv. 4-7).

Who said it wasn't?

The biblical authors rarely, if ever, separated salvation from its fruit. I'm not sure why you feel this is an appropriate rebuttal to my comment. As Winman correctly pointed out, acknowledging God's initiative in choosing the apostles doesn't somehow support the concept that their is no 'response-ability' on the part of the one chosen. That is merely something you read into the text based on your system's claims.

The context is not about the apostolic office or the Great Commission but is in regard to PERSONAL INTIMATE fellowship with both the Father and the Son through the Spirit.

Again, I don't see these as in opposition to each other, but as one in the same... Do you suppose an apostle can be an apostle without 'personal intimate fellowship'...or do you imagine that someone with a personal intimate fellowship wouldn't willingly be an apostle if asked? I'm not sure why you feel this distinction is necessary to make in defense of your doctrine, because it certainly doesn't address mine.

It is in this connection that they did not choose Christ but Christ chose them that their "fruit should remain" (reference to proof of individual salvation).

So, the fact that God used normative means like a big fish and a storm to convince Jonah to follow God's will is proof to you that God using supernatural inward effectual means to make his hearers follow God's will? That makes no sense. Why wouldn't God just use supernatural effectual inward means to convince his own child, Jonah, to do His Will? It makes no sense for God to use normative means to convince Jonah's will only to use effectual supernatural means to convince his audience's will.

Proof that God uses convincing means to ensure his message is sent (blinding lights, storms, fish, etc) is NOT PROOF that God uses supernaturally effectual means to ensure his message is believed by a preselected few. That is an unfounded assumption without any biblical support.

 

[The Biblicist]

Who said it wasn't?

You did by forcing the verse in question to emphasize authorized apostleship when the immediate context has not one thing to say about apostleship. You are shifting the emphasis of context to something completely absent in the immediate context. That is simply dishonest and pure eisgesis.

The biblical authors rarely, if ever, separated salvation from its fruit.

First, the fruit in question is nowhere stated in the immediate context as having anything to do with authorized apostleship as you have forced as the PRIMARY meaning of this text. That is simply eisgesis clear and simple.

I'm not sure why you feel this is an appropriate rebuttal to my comment. As Winman correctly pointed out, acknowledging God's initiative in choosing the apostles doesn't somehow support the concept that their is no 'response-ability' on the part of the one chosen. That is merely something you read into the text based on your system's claims.

Both of you are forcing your interpetation upon this text by READING INTO IT the function, authority or mission of apostleship when no immediate preceding context warrants such a PRIMARY emphasis on that! You are doing that to avoid the obvious - in their salvation (v. 3) AND service God's choice preceeded and was caustive to their choice.

So, the fact that God used normative means like a big fish and a storm to convince Jonah to follow God's will is proof to you that God using supernatural inward effectual means to make his hearers follow God's will? That makes no sense. Why wouldn't God just use supernatural effectual inward means to convince his own child, Jonah, to do His Will? It makes no sense for God to use normative means to convince Jonah's will only to use effectual supernatural means to convince his audience's will.

Did I say anything about Jonah? Is this text about Jonah? You are simply attempting to change the subject. Sorry but I will not bite. However, have you forgotten Philippians 2:13 "For it is God that worketh in you both TO WILL and TO DO of His good pleasure"????? Why do you see a need to pit one against the other when BOTH are true. Let's stop the run jump and pit routine and stick with the text.

 

[webdog]

It's good to see another brother using candor and honesty to expose what is going on here and to stand against it and for truth. I've seen too much of this pick and choose theology that when Christ said something to the apostles in one place it is for them, yet in another pace it is not for them since it dismantles their theology. Doing so is smug, deceitful and sanctimonious.

You prove that for someone who likes to throw the word 'hermeneutic' around every other post, you have no iota what it even means. Any alleged pastor having attending a seminary would understand how silly it is for you to label it as 'pick and choose' theology.

I recall one doctrine doing this with every passage dealing with 'world' and 'all'. The irony.

True hypocrisy.

 

[The Biblicist]

You prove that for someone who likes to throw the word 'hermeneutic' around every other post, you have no iota what it even means. Any alleged pastor having attending a seminary would understand how silly it is for you to label it as 'pick and choose' theology.

I read what he said and it is easy to understood what he meant. He is referring to picking and choosing texts according to a preset bias to form and/or defend their theological position. That does fall under "hermeneutics" and is a principle of eisgesis. You may not agree with his particular application but what he says is very valid. That is precisely what I am accusing Skandelon of doing. John 15:13 according to its preceding context has nothing whatsoever to do with the authority or character of the apostolic office. The context is referring to the personal relationship of a believer to Christ in salvation (v. 3) and in manifesting the Christ life through union with the vine (vv. 4-12) in order that their personal joy might be full and a closer more intimate relationship between them and Jesus and the Father. NOTHING to do with the apostolic office, its authority or its mission.

 

[Yeshua1]

You did by forcing the verse in question to emphasize authorized apostleship when the immediate context has not one thing to say about apostleship. You are shifting the emphasis of context to something completely absent in the immediate context. That is simply dishonest and pure eisgesis.



First, the fruit in question is nowhere stated in the immediate context as having anything to do with authorized apostleship as you have forced as the PRIMARY meaning of this text. That is simply eisgesis clear and simple.






Both of you are forcing your interpetation upon this text by READING INTO IT the function, authority or mission of apostleship when no immediate preceding context warrants such a PRIMARY emphasis on that! You are doing that to avoid the obvious - in their salvation (v. 3) AND service God's choice preceeded and was caustive to their choice.





Did I say anything about Jonah? Is this text about Jonah? You are simply attempting to change the subject. Sorry but I will not bite. However, have you forgotten Philippians 2:13 "For it is God that worketh in you both TO WILL and TO DO of His good pleasure"????? Why do you see a need to pit one against the other when BOTH are true. Let's stop the run jump and pit routine and stick with the text.

I doubt that Jesus Himself said all the records words in the Gospel of John with intent to have us years later find some "hidden/extra meaning" in his words to his Apostles, seems pretty literal and straight forward ... he was not thinking atthe time to answer our calvrs arm questions!

NONE of the Apostles exercised their 'free will" to accept jesus, its that he chose all of them to follow Him, even Judas!

We accept him at face value, ewhy can't Skan and others here posting though?

So why not take that truth at face value ?

 

[quantumfaith]

In those days it would have been customary for the student to choose their rabbi, not the other way around.

The apostles were given to Christ by God (John 17)...He chose them. And this type of language establishes their authority as divinely inspired apostles...those reserved from the hardening of Israel for the noble purpose of bringing the message of reconciliation to the rest of the world.

Likewise, God chose Jonah to take the message to Ninevah, but such truth does not support the concept of God choosing who would or would not respond to his message.

Thank you Skan for your eloquence. Also thanks for your example of solicitude in the face of some "cantankerous" pontificators. OM goodnes....one of them is rubbing off on me.

 

[Skandelon]

You did by forcing the verse in question to emphasize authorized apostleship when the immediate context has not one thing to say about apostleship.

He is addressing apostles. That itself speaks to the "audience," which is one of primary considerations in establishing the context of the passage and thus a proper hermeneutic. You cannot conclusively claim that the context is not about apostleship when the audience is made up only of apostles. Plus, this rebuttal still fails to address the point that both Winman and I pointed out to you regarding the chosen one's response-ability after being chosen.

You are shifting the emphasis of context to something completely absent in the immediate context.

So, you are asking us to ignore who the audience is in this context and you then have the audacity to suggest I'm not using a proper hermeneutic?

First, the fruit in question is nowhere stated in the immediate context as having anything to do with authorized apostleship as you have forced as the PRIMARY meaning of this text.

What does the text tell us? That God chose his apostles, those trained by Christ himself from the nation of Israel. They didn't choose him as their rabbi, as would have been the Jewish custom of that day, but HE INITIATED that relationship with them. That is all this texts establishes. You hear that and decide it means that God unconditionally chooses a preselected number of people who He will effectually cause to believe this apostle's message....and again you accuse me of reading something into the text??? Really??

Did I say anything about Jonah? Is this text about Jonah? You are simply attempting to change the subject.

It is called a "parallel" or an "example." Jonah, like the apostles, were chosen messengers of God. How does that not relate to our discussion? It only is unrelated IF YOU'RE IGNORING who the audience is in the text...divinely appointed messengers.

Again, you avoided answer the question regarding Jonah's story. Why do you suppose God would use outward normative means, like a storm and a big fish, to convince Jonah, a believer, to change his will, all the while using irresistible, inward, supernatural means to convince Jonah's sinful audience to believe his message? Can you answer that?

 

[webdog]

I read what he said and it is easy to understood what he meant. He is referring to picking and choosing texts according to a preset bias to form and/or defend their theological position. That does fall under "hermeneutics" and is a principle of eisgesis. You may not agree with his particular application but what he says is very valid. That is precisely what I am accusing Skandelon of doing. John 15:13 according to its preceding context has nothing whatsoever to do with the authority or character of the apostolic office. The context is referring to the personal relationship of a believer to Christ in salvation (v. 3) and in manifesting the Christ life through union with the vine (vv. 4-12) in order that their personal joy might be full and a closer more intimate relationship between them and Jesus and the Father. NOTHING to do with the apostolic office, its authority or its mission.

I'm sorry, his reply was directly related to Skan's exegesis...done using the proper context. He (nor you) do not care for his understanding, so it is dismissed in typical fashion.

 

[preacher4truth]

I read what he said and it is easy to understood what he meant. He is referring to picking and choosing texts according to a preset bias to form and/or defend their theological position. That does fall under "hermeneutics" and is a principle of eisgesis. You may not agree with his particular application but what he says is very valid. That is precisely what I am accusing Skandelon of doing. John 15:13 according to its preceding context has nothing whatsoever to do with the authority or character of the apostolic office. The context is referring to the personal relationship of a believer to Christ in salvation (v. 3) and in manifesting the Christ life through union with the vine (vv. 4-12) in order that their personal joy might be full and a closer more intimate relationship between them and Jesus and the Father. NOTHING to do with the apostolic office, its authority or its mission.

Exactly, it's apparent what he does and others as well. It's disingenuous and frankly handling the word of God inconsistently which is rebuked in 2 Cor. 4:2.

Thanks brother, I appreciate truth here and standing for others when they are correct no matter the audience. God bless. :thumbs:

 

[Winman]

I doubt that Jesus Himself said all the records words in the Gospel of John with intent to have us years later find some "hidden/extra meaning" in his words to his Apostles, seems pretty literal and straight forward ... he was not thinking atthe time to answer our calvrs arm questions!

NONE of the Apostles exercised their 'free will" to accept jesus, its that he chose all of them to follow Him, even Judas!

We accept him at face value, ewhy can't Skan and others here posting though?

So why not take that truth at face value ?

Baloney, every believer chooses to hear and believe in Jesus.

Luk 10:42 But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.

Martha was upset that her sister Mary did not help her serve when Jesus came to her home, Jesus told her that to hear God's word and be saved was more important and needful, and that Mary had CHOSEN this.

The scriptures do not teach that a person loses their free will, Jesus himself said Mary had CHOSEN to hear him.