Featured Conditional Election

Why did you stop at verse 8?

Deuteronomy 7:6-9 With verse 9 added:

6 For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

7 The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:

8 But because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

9 Know therefore that the Lord thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

And even when you look at the context of God choosing Israel, it was also because He was keeping a promise to their fathers. But why did God promise anything to the fathers in the first place? Abrahams blessings were CONDITIONED on him demonstrating his faith. James 2:21-24, Romans 4:3, Hebrews 11:8.

Furthermore, that fact that Israel was set aside as God's elect (Romans 11:25-26) BECAUSE OF disobedience and unbelief (Matt 23:39, Hebrews 3:18-19) shows that the covenant was conditioned upon obedience. Key word there-CONDITIONED.

 

So this is not an absolute axiom? If this only applies to believers does God then exalt the proud and give grace to the arrogant?

This speaking to believers is precisely why it would have relevance otherwise you are arguing that God would unconditionally elect and save someone who is in direct rebellion to God and arrogantly believes he can save himself. I get that your argument would have God granting this person repentance and faith, and this is exactly why such a notion is erroneous because it has God imposing faith WHILE IN A STATE OF REBELLION AND ARROGANCE. To hold that God imposes repentance and faith, and unconditionally elects in the midst of demonstrated rebellion, unrepentant heart and lack of humility towards God is no different than Universalism.

 

Ach

It does not mention faith.....[so you did not use it correctly]

what it does mention is the election of grace....

5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

 

The whole post that you are quoting out of context was about the difference between faith and works. Just because Romans 11:6 doesn't mention faith is irrelevant. I was not using Romans 11:6 to prove that grace is faith, I was using Romans 11:6 to show that works are works since that was the context of my argument. Following that is a period. That period means it ends the thought of the first paragraph and begins another. After stating why I used Romans 11:6, I stopped, and then declared that grace is grace, faith is faith, and work is work.

Not only was it used correctly, but you still did not address the problem that it gives Calvinists if interpreted consistently with Calvinist thought on faith being a work.

 

Ach

We can look anywhere you want....i could post the whole book..but let's see.

Deuteronomy 7:6-9 With verse 9 added:

6 For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

7 The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:

8 But because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

9 Know therefore that the Lord thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

This of course is wrong,absolutely. It was not conditioned on anything in man.....The Mosaic Covenant had conditions to...the enjoyment of the blessings of the land...

However the Covenant with Abraham was not a conditional covenant at all.
13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,

14 Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.

Rather than Israel being "set aside'as God's elect....Jesus actually begins the new exodus...Mt 2;15...and all believers IN HIM.
You have no biblical understanding of election as it pertains to salvation, so your error continues here....
Unbelieving Israel was broken off in unbelief...The believing remnant of Israel .as well as saved gentiles form the Christian Israel.Mt21:43

43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
Several posters have offered you correction on this the other day and you do not welcome the truth. You try and wrongly explain it away as replacement theology. they explained why it is a fulfillment and expansion but you are unable to welcome it.:sleeping_2::sleeping_2:

 

Yes. It's called rightly handling the Word of truth. To your foolish conclusion above? Hmmm. That's you, twisting things and doing so with the name of God in it.

It has no relevance outside of context which is where you are attempting to take the Word so you can twist its real and true meaning.

No God is arguing that. He actually does it too. It's called unconditional election. You? You are arguing against it -- looks to me you're arguing God saves on the basis of your goodness to me, or on conditional election. You know, the actual election (some) non-calvies LOVE to speak of, that God chose based on merit -- funny aint it? Well, really it isn't its actually rather disturbing. In contrast hatred is spewed over Gods real, Biblical electing grace from the same party.

Back to the highlighted, OK? You mean those like Paul? That describes him excellently. You mean like Ephesians in describing all the lost '...like the rest?' You mean people like in the Sermon on the Mount who know their lost state in chapter 5:3ff? The ones to whom He worked an act of grace and changed them on no basis of merit? You know, like, those who are lost, hostile toward God, enemies in their mind, children of wrath, those in whom there is no good thing? You know those actual real sinners?

That's all He has to work with, pal. :thumbsup:

I certainly hoped you knew this being a 'dr' and all, but looking at your post I am in doubts even more about your understanding of Spiritual things.

Then you try to twist my giving sound doctrine, rightly handling the Word into something else? It is all you can do to combat truth presented -- twist it into error and something completely different, which is why I snipped off the baloney ending of your rant.

Unbelievable.

smh.

 

If you boiled down all the rhetoric your post probably could have been written in about 2 sentences.

The point the other brother was making is that Calvinist say that God GIVES grace. You arguing that this text is written to Christians (what New Testament book ISN'T???) does not help your argument. If God GIVES grace, but that grace is GIVEN based upon a persons humility, then it is in fact CONDITIONAL. But I see, as most Calvinists, instead of actually dealing with the text, you go off on some tangent about how stupid someone is for believing what they believe and never actually deal with the verse.

Next, this is where the term straw man argument actually fits because you have consistently accused Non Calvinists of saying that we save ourselves and that we believe merit saves us. The only reason you conclude that is because you believe faith is a work. Now I can call you just as stupid for believing that because that is a fallacy that is not supported by scripture. If faith is a work, then Ephesians 2:8 would hold that we are saved through works.

And when you argue, you merely use circular reasoning and continue to resort back to your premise and then claim the other person is wrong because they disagree with your premise, and why is that wrong, because the premise simply must be right. You're wagging the dog (or DoG).

However, I can't speak for ALL of the Non Cals because there are many that are non Calvinists that I disagree on in other areas. I do not believe, nor have I ever held or stated that salvation is by works or merit. Not only can you not BE saved by merit, you can't STAY saved by merit. The entire salvation process is solely God's work. Me being a receiver does not rob God of His glory. That is a simple Biblical concept that Calvinists obviously just don't get.

Calvinism would have everyone believe that none of the early church leaders knew what salvation was since you can't find anything that looks or smells like Calvinism until at least 300 years after the church was started. Common sense tells me that when such notions were not found by disciples of John and Paul, were not elaborated on until Augustine, and all of the churches that succeeded from the early churches rejected Augustine, and such views were only made popular 1500 years later, that something is wrong with building ones theology on such an erroneous foundation.

According to Calvinism, nobody had the gospel until John Calvin resurrected Augustine's crap. Kind of the same as the Roman Catholic Church saying nobody had the gospel outside of the papacy. According to Calvinism, God used a murdering, baby sprinkling, prophecy illiterate heretic who committed all of his crimes AFTER his profession to produce the REAL gospel. And Calvinists swallow that hook, line, and sinker.

 

Van:

It's obvious you won't get a discussion if you write something that has more than one Bible verse. I think in the future when Non Calvinists write something about Calvinism, we should go slow, and deal with one verse at a time, because Calvinists can not multi-verse

For example, post just one thread on Ephesians 2:8, and make them deal with JUST THAT VERSE until they figure out that faith is not works, and that faith is not a gift.

 

Weak, weak, weak! Of course Jesus was talking about his Apostles, not Christians in general.

 

I too agree with you here on John 15:16.
Jesus chose them as friends and Apostles for a work He had for them and God the Father would answer their requests in order to accomplish that mission. Look at verse 19 it shows that He chose them.

 

I'll return your program back to you so you can buy a good dictionary. You can try to put the emphasis on whatever word you want in 'unconditional election', but words still carry meanings.

 

Ye shall not [need] to fight in this [battle]: set yourselves, stand ye [still], and see the salvation of the LORD with you, O Judah and Jerusalem: fear not, nor be dismayed; to morrow go out against them: for the LORD [will be] with you. And Jehoshaphat bowed his head with [his] face to the ground: and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem fell before the LORD, worshipping the LORD. And the Levites, of the children of the Kohathites, and of the children of the Korhites, stood up to praise the LORD God of Israel with a loud voice on high. And they rose early in the morning, and went forth into the wilderness of Tekoa: and as they went forth, Jehoshaphat stood and said, Hear me, O Judah, and ye inhabitants of Jerusalem; Believe in the LORD your God, so shall ye be established; believe his prophets, so shall ye prosper. And when he had consulted with the people, he appointed singers unto the LORD, and that should praise the beauty of holiness, as they went out before the army, and to say, Praise the LORD; for his mercy [endureth] for ever. And when they began to sing and to praise, the LORD set ambushments against the children of Ammon, Moab, and mount Seir, which were come against Judah; and they were smitten. For the children of Ammon and Moab stood up against the inhabitants of mount Seir, utterly to slay and destroy [them]: and when they had made an end of the inhabitants of Seir, every one helped to destroy another. And when Judah came toward the watch tower in the wilderness, they looked unto the multitude, and, behold, they [were] dead bodies fallen to the earth, and none escaped. 2 Chro 20:17-24


And Moses said unto the people, Fear ye not, stand still, and see the salvation of the LORD, which he will shew to you to day: for the Egyptians whom ye have seen to day, ye shall see them again no more for ever. Ex 14:13


Do not do nor think anything, anything, Be still and see:

The evidence of things not seen. Faith.

There faith in the first was they saw the evidence the dead bodies, and therefore believed.

There faith in the second was they saw the evidence, the sea parted they went over on dry ground and the Egyptians were drowned.

In both their salvation was by grace through faith, the faithfulness of God.

The substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen; Through the resurrected Son of God, God the Father gives his Spirit unconditionally setting apart unto salvation. Believers, those who have seen the faith through the Spirit.

For by grace are ye saved through the faith; Eph 2:8
that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through the faith. Last part Gal 3:14

Through the works of God. Unconditionally

Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. Romans 11:5 ----- Be still and see

 

"And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am". So was Jesus talking about the Apostles here too and not Christian's in general?

 

The silence is deafening. :thumbs:

 

:laugh:

You are so out of your league. :type:

 

Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :smilewinkgrin: :type:

 

Van vs The People of Geneva

And through all of the hodge-podge of rabbits trails, derails, and chem-trails, the OP has yet to be refuted or even addressed squarely on the specific content addressed.

In the legal system, when the plaintiff makes a claim, the defendant normally has 20-30 days to file what's called an "Answer" or "Demur". Sometimes a defendant will give a RESPONSE but not an ANSWER, and the plaintiff then moves for default judgment.

The plaintiff having filed his original complaint, and the defendants having failed to give an answer either efficiently or timely, the plaintiff is therefore entitled to judgment by default.

JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

 

Ooh! Another newbie thinks these points haven't been debated on the BB ad nauseum.

Noncalvinist: Pigs have wings.

Calivinist: (no response)

DJA: Calvinists have no answer!​