-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Dispensationalism and the Doctrine of Election
- Thread starter Dr. L.T. Ketchum
- Start date
- Status
Dr. L.T. Ketchum
New Member
Brother J.D.,J.D. said:
I thought you had said that I said:
That was what you said about what I said.
I am sorry for the confusion.
You were referring to:
This I did say.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Lance Ketchum
You have stated several times that election is vocational, not salvational.
It seems to me that scriptue teaches it is both. To be elected to salvation is to be elected to be comformed to the image of His Son and to do good works, the very works God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. You seem to be making a distinction when there is no difference.
As to your statement that God foresaw who would believe in Christ and based His election of them on that knowledge I will say this.
If God is responding to what men do, then Grace is not Grace (unmerited favor). Men have earned God's election of them (vocationally or salvifically), because God is responding to what they do.
If men respond to what God has done in their lives (according to His will and His purpose), then God has shown Grace.
peace to you
raying:
You have stated several times that election is vocational, not salvational.
It seems to me that scriptue teaches it is both. To be elected to salvation is to be elected to be comformed to the image of His Son and to do good works, the very works God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. You seem to be making a distinction when there is no difference.
As to your statement that God foresaw who would believe in Christ and based His election of them on that knowledge I will say this.
If God is responding to what men do, then Grace is not Grace (unmerited favor). Men have earned God's election of them (vocationally or salvifically), because God is responding to what they do.
If men respond to what God has done in their lives (according to His will and His purpose), then God has shown Grace.
peace to you
raying:Dr. L.T. Ketchum
New Member
Brother,canadyjd said:Lance Ketchum
You have stated several times that election is vocational, not salvational.
It seems to me that scriptue teaches it is both. To be elected to salvation is to be elected to be comformed to the image of His Son and to do good works, the very works God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. You seem to be making a distinction when there is no difference.
As to your statement that God foresaw who would believe in Christ and based His election of them on that knowledge I will say this.
If God is responding to what men do, then Grace is not Grace (unmerited favor). Men have earned God's election of them (vocationally or salvifically), because God is responding to what they do.
If men respond to what God has done in their lives (according to His will and His purpose), then God has shown Grace.
peace to you
Thank you for your inquiry and comments.
Have you read any of the chapters that I have been putting up on my Web Site for the last 3+ months?
http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/Pages/Dispensationalism/DispensationalismIndex.htm
If you do not have time to read them all (although they build "line upon line"), start here:
http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/Pages/Dispensationalism/ElectionDefined.htm
If you do not read the articles, all you are reading is the summations made from the exegesis. Therefore, you really do not know what I have said.
Jarthur001
Active Member
Dr. L.T. Ketchum said:
Doctor,
I want all to read the post you gave above. I want others to read how you misuse the theological principles of Biblical hermeneuticsc to make it fit your thinking. I tell you one thing, you act is if this idea would be backed by Scofield, but Scofield would be upset the way you have wrote this.
But lets play ago with this silly idea. Please notice what the good Doc says....
From the link given by the doctor
It should 1st be noted that this is not the 1st time the word is used. The word is 1st used in Gen 6.
2nd, even before this the idea of election is given in Gen 4.
God had regard for Abel's offering
God had no regrad for Cain's offering
Who made this choice? It was God. This is election.
Could God have taken the fruit from Cain and say thanks for the offering? Yes
Did God? No
No doubt, Cain brought the very best of the fruit to God. Did Cain know before hand that it must be a blood offering? We are not told if he knew. So why not take the fruit and then ask for the blood as well? Well...it was God that choose to reject Cains offering.
Hebrews tells us that it was because of faith...
Hebrews 11:4
By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks.
Pink says...
**********
Now lets look at the "Principle of First Mention"
PFM is the idea that when God indicates in the first mention of a subject the truth found in that passage gives true meaning of the subject.
So how do we use this?
Well..lets not forget the the Golden Rule of Hermeneutics
"If the Plain Sense Makes Common Sense, Seek No Other Sense.
If a passage meaning is given we NEVER NEVER need to use the PFM. To use it only misuses the principle and places more rule on the PFM then the context of the passage.
Many passage could be given to show why we should never do this, but I'll save that for another time.
************
Next we need to see it is when GOD first mentions the truth. We must remember this for it is God that reveals the truth. Therefore if it is the first mention that rules, we must understand when the first mention of the truth to mankind is.
So...we must go by the chronological order of revealed truth to man by God and not the order of the books which man has placed them in the Bible
Job is the 1st book given to man and written down that is found in the Bible.
Check out Job 33...
T
**********
12Behold, in this thou art not just: I will answer thee, that God is greater than man.
13Why dost thou strive against him? for he giveth not account of any of his matters.
14For God speaketh once, yea twice, yet man perceiveth it not.
15In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed;
U
*********
16Then he openeth the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction,
17That he may withdraw man from his purpose, and hide pride from man.
18He keepeth back his soul from the pit, and his life from perishing by the sword.
19He is chastened also with pain upon his bed, and the multitude of his bones with strong pain:
20So that his life abhorreth bread, and his soul dainty meat.
21His flesh is consumed away, that it cannot be seen; and his bones that were not seen stick out.
22Yea, his soul draweth near unto the grave, and his life to the destroyers.
L
**********
23If there be a messenger (Christ) with him, an interpreter,(Holy Spirit) one among a thousand, to shew unto man his uprightness:
24Then he (god the Father) is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit: I have found a ransom. (atonement)
I
***************
25His flesh shall be fresher than a child's: he shall return to the days of his youth:
26He shall pray unto God, and he will be favourable unto him: and he shall see his face with joy: for he will render unto man his righteousness.
27He looketh upon men, and if any say, I have sinned, and perverted that which was right, and it profited me not;
P
*********
28He will deliver his soul from going into the pit, and his life shall see the light.
29Lo, all these things worketh God oftentimes with man,
30To bring back his soul from the pit, to be enlightened with the light of the living.
*****************
Now lets look at your verse...
You said Numbers 16:4, but I'm sure you meant 16:5
Num 16:4 ¶ And when Moses heard [it], he fell upon his face:
Num 16:5 And he spake unto Korah and unto all his company, saying, Even to morrow the LORD will shew who [are] his, and [who is] holy; and will cause [him] to come near unto him: even [him] whom he hath chosen will he cause to come near unto him.
Please note that this verse does indeed show it is Gods choice and it was priesthood. However it does not replace the fact found in this verse...
Isa 43:10 Ye [are] my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I [am] he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
Chosen to believe in God.
Bartimaeus
New Member
Dispen. and the Doct. of Election
"nd, even before this the idea of election is given in Gen 4.
God had regard for Abel's offering
God had no regrad for Cain's offering"
I am so thrilled that you point out the ideas of the scripture.
Here's one I have posted many times and I am so happy that you have at least set a foundational position for it.
God "drove" Adam from the garden. Adam was choosing to stay. You don't have to "drive" someone who does not have a will. The first use of the will of man after the fall. He wanted to stay where he knew God was.
Bartimaeus
"nd, even before this the idea of election is given in Gen 4.
God had regard for Abel's offering
God had no regrad for Cain's offering"
I am so thrilled that you point out the ideas of the scripture.
Here's one I have posted many times and I am so happy that you have at least set a foundational position for it.
God "drove" Adam from the garden. Adam was choosing to stay. You don't have to "drive" someone who does not have a will. The first use of the will of man after the fall. He wanted to stay where he knew God was.
Bartimaeus
OK, so he edits his book to say "first use in connection with God choosing." No big whoop!Jarthur001 said:
It was Cain who CHOSE, James. God laid the rule down -- Cain chose to disobey. Otherwise Cain would have been "chosen" as well as Abel -- just like when we choose Christ.
No, because He would have had to make Himself a liar.
Perfect example of men choosing God -- even of a rudimntary "sinner's prayer -- not in any way of God choosing man! Perhaps this is a concept that aludes you?
You said Numbers 16:4, but I'm sure you meant 16:5
That is, to service, just as the good doctor said.
"Witnessing" is also service, James. And furthermore, the passage speaks of Israel being called to this service of "witnesses."
You're not "scoring any points" here, James.
skypair
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
I was responding to what you have said on this board, and I notice you did not address my comments directly.Dr. L.T. Ketchum said:
I almost never follow links given in threads, especially if they are to websites of the BB member.
Nothing personal, I simply find it unseemly to link to yourself as a source or authority. I can't imagine there is anything on your website that you cannot say here.
It may save you time for me to link to your website. That, however, is not one of the reason I post on this board.
peace to you
raying:
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Jarthur001, I appreciate your taking the time to search through Dr. K's website and expose the errors of his methodology.Jarthur001 said:
It always seem the one who accuses everyone else of lacking expertise in understanding the Word of God, are themselves floating in a sea of self-deception.
peace to you
raying:If you were just a little more familiar with scripture, you would know that the 'servant' that God chose in that verse is ISRAEL. As a matter of fact, Jesus, in His "kingdom of heaven" parables to the Jews (Matthew is addressed primarily to the Jews), always uses "servants" when He is speaking of ISRAEL in those parables.canadyjd said:
But you should first have been alerted to that because God equates "My witnesses" (pl) with "My servant" (sing) showing that they are the same one people, ISRAEL. Again "chosen" or "elected," if you must, to His purpose which is to know and believe and understand Me. God didn't save all Israel, all these people Isaiah was talking to, did He?
This is also where Israel comes up with the idea that they will be the "suffering servant" to bring the world to salvation in God, BTW.
skypair
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. L.T. Ketchum
New Member
"Unseemly"? Like criticizing something you have not read? You criticize me for something I’m am not doing, while you do what you criticize me for????canadyjd said:I was responding to what you have said on this board, and I notice you did not address my comments directly.
I almost never follow links given in threads, especially if they are to websites of the BB member.
Nothing personal, I simply find it unseemly to link to yourself as a source or authority. I can't imagine there is anything on your website that you cannot say here.
It may save you time for me to link to your website. That, however, is not one of the reason I post on this board.
peace to you
I refer you to what I have already written, because it is lengthy and detailed (as true exegesis is). The Milk and cookies crowd want everything in 15 words or less.
Then you refer to another post that refers to some nonsense about Cain and Abel, twisting the text completely away from its plain meaning, while accusing me of the doing the same thing.
The answer to the nonsense about Abel & Cain is that God said to Cain, “Sin {a sin offering, probably a Lamb} lieth at the door.” Cain could easily correct the problem of offering the wrong sacrifice by simply CHOOSING to offer the right sacrifice. This is the common understanding of the text by every major commentator I know of.
“sin lieth at the door--sin, that is, a sin offering--a common meaning of the word in Scripture (as in Ho 4:8; 2Co 5:21; Heb 9:28). The purport of the divine rebuke to Cain was this, "Why art thou angry, as if unjustly treated? If thou doest well (that is, wert innocent and sinless) a thank offering would have been accepted as a token of thy dependence as a creature. But as thou doest not well (that is, art a sinner), a sin offering is necessary, by bringing which thou wouldest have met with acceptance and retained the honors of thy birthright." This language implies that previous instructions had been given as to the mode of worship; Abel offered through faith (Heb 11:4).” (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary)
“Or, sin-offering. In Hebrew the same word is used for ‘sin,’ and ‘sin- offering,’ thus emphasizing in a remarkable way the complete identification of the believer's sin with his sin offering (cf) Joh 3:14; 2Co 5:21.
Here both meanings are brought together. ‘Sin lieth at the door,’ but so also ‘a sin-offering croucheth at the tent door.’ It is ‘where sin abounded’ that ‘grace did much more abound’ Ro 5:20.
Abel’s offering implies a previous instruction (cf) Ge 3:21 for it was ‘by faith’ Heb 11:4 and faith is taking God at His word; so that Cain’s unbloody offering was a refusal of the divine way. But Jehovah made a last appeal to Cain Ge 4:7 even yet to bring the required offering.” (Scofield Reference Bible, 1917 Edition)
(And I could give you many, many more.)
You criticize my “methodology” without even really knowing or understanding what it is.
I give you every instance in the OT (see link below) where God’s choosing or electing is used and show unequivocally that every usage is vocational, and NOT ONE usage is salvational, and you concur with another post, although you have not read, and will not read, the post I made because it is on my Web Site?
http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/Pages/Dispensationalism/ElectionDefined.htm
I am trying to be kind here, but don’t you guys realize how ridiculous these kinds of arguments are?
Last edited by a moderator:
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
If you understood scripture a little better, you would know that Israel means the "One who wrestles (or strives) with God".skypair said:
You would also know that Paul addresses this very issue, making the point that God considers those He has chosen among the Gentiles to be included in His Israel and that many who are Jews by birth are not considered to be among His Israel.
You would then come to the inescapable conclusion that God does not have a separate plan for "national Israel", but that God has joined those He has chosen from among the Jews and those He has chosen among the Gentiles to comprise His "ONE" people, His chosen, His elect, the Body of Christ, the Temple of Christ, the Bride of Christ. God has placed both Jews and Gentiles together as part of His church.
And what God has bound together, no man can tear asunder.....unless he doesn't understand scripture very well.
peace to you
raying:Leaving aside your "one people" error -- then you have decided that "election" IS to service or purpose and not to salvation? You don't appear to be denying that issue. Have you changed your mind?canadyjd said:If you understood scripture a little better, you would know that Israel means the "One who wrestles (or strives) with God".
You would also know that Paul addresses this very issue, making the point that God considers those He has chosen among the Gentiles to be included in His Israel and that many who are Jews by birth are not considered to be among His Israel.
You would then come to the inescapable conclusion that God does not have a separate plan for "national Israel", but that God has joined those He has chosen from among the Jews and those He has chosen among the Gentiles to comprise His "ONE" people, His chosen, His elect, the Body of Christ, the Temple of Christ, the Bride of Christ. God has placed both Jews and Gentiles together as part of His church.
And what God has bound together, no man can tear asunder.....unless he doesn't understand scripture very well.
peace to you
skypair
Dr. L.T. Ketchum
New Member
Israel (Yisra'el; yis-raw-ale') does not mean "One who wrestles (or strives) with God".canadyjd said:If you understood scripture a little better, you would know that Israel means the "One who wrestles (or strives) with God".
You would also know that Paul addresses this very issue, making the point that God considers those He has chosen among the Gentiles to be included in His Israel and that many who are Jews by birth are not considered to be among His Israel.
You would then come to the inescapable conclusion that God does not have a separate plan for "national Israel", but that God has joined those He has chosen from among the Jews and those He has chosen among the Gentiles to comprise His "ONE" people, His chosen, His elect, the Body of Christ, the Temple of Christ, the Bride of Christ. God has placed both Jews and Gentiles together as part of His church.
And what God has bound together, no man can tear asunder.....unless he doesn't understand scripture very well.
peace to you
It means “he shall rule as God.”
Jacob is typical of Christ. It refers to Israel, under the Kingdom reign of Messiah, will rule the world theocratically and theonomically.
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1][/SIZE]
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
I find it unseemly, and somewhat arrogant, to link to yourself as a source or authority. You have not proven yourself to be an authority on this subject, in my view anyway.Dr. L.T. Ketchum said:
I commented on what you have posted on this board. You, again, have not addressed my comments. It must be that you cannot answer.
You are not laying a good foundation as an authority on this issue when you can't answer questions directly.
I don't care how much you write. Just write it here on the BB. You obviously know how to use a computer.
The passage is not referring to a "sin offering". God is warning Cain. God personifies sin in the passage as someone ready to overpower and rule Cain through his anger. That cannot be referring to a "sin offering".
I criticized your "methodology" based on your statements on this board concerning the "golden rule of hermenutics" and your statement that the first use of a word determines its meaning throughout scripture.
Neither statement lays a solid foundation of hermenutics. The golden rule of hermenutics is that context determines meaning. "Any text out of context is a pretext for a prooftext" (D.A. Carson)
Since context determines meaning, your second statement concerning first use is plainly flawed.
I know of no serious scholar that does not acknoweldge the wide range of semantic meaning of words, according to use at the time of the writing.
To assume that Moses's first use of a word like "chose" (in Hebrew) determines every meaning of the word, through various authors and over many centuries, is plainly flawed.
BTW: As JArthur pointed out above, you can't even accurately find the first use of the word you claim determines the meaning for the rest of scripture. You built your entire argument on a mistake. How embarassing.
How embarassing for a man claiming to be a scholar and arrogantly declaring that others don't know what they are talking about, to make an error common to lazy freshmen.
If you are making so many errors here, where we babes in Christ only desire milk and cookies, I can only imagine the horror and embarassment (for you) that I will find should I follow the link. No thank you.
If that is the best you can do when "trying to be kind", you don't do "kind" very well. Nevertheless...
peace to you
raying:
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
You continue to read into words meanings that support your theology. That is not a good foundation to lay for someone wanting to present themselves as an expert on an issue.Dr. L.T. Ketchum said:
http://www.christinyou.net/pages/israel.html
http://www.christinyou.net/pages/israel.htmlhttp://www.christinyou.net/pages/israel.htmlhttp://www.christinyou.net/pages/israel.htmlhttp://www.christinyou.net/pages/israel.htmlhttp://www.christinyou.net/pages/israel.html
http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm
http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htmhttp://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htmhttp://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm
peace to you
raying: Dr. L.T. Ketchum
New Member
The definition is right out of Strong's Hebrew Dictionary.canadyjd said:You continue to read into words meanings that support your theology. That is not a good foundation to lay for someone wanting to present themselves as an expert on an issue.
peace to you
So I guess you mean, Strong "read into words meanings that support" his theology.
- Status