Election spoken of in scripture...like this-

[SovereignGrace]

Not at all... Not bowing the knee to Baal in this text is the result of a direct intervention by God to keep for Himself certain people who will remain faithful to Him. Your argument was something like "God doesn't do that," and this text clearly states that God overcomes the wills of some. In this case the "choice" not to worship Baal is not a result of the 7,000's "volition;" it is a result of God's "determinism."

The Archangel

He’s like his hero Leighton. Dr. Flowers is stuck on contra-casual and he is stuck on determinism and logical fallacy.

 

[Yeshua1]

He’s like his hero Leighton. Dr. Flowers is stuck on contra-casual and he is stuck on determinism and logical fallacy.

Good news is that God Himself gave His viewpoint in Romans 9!

 

[Benjamin]

Not at all... Not bowing the knee to Baal in this text is the result of a direct intervention by God to keep for Himself certain people who will remain faithful to Him. Your argument was something like "God doesn't do that," and this text clearly states that God overcomes the wills of some. In this case the "choice" not to worship Baal is not a result of the 7,000's "volition;" it is a result of God's "determinism."

The Archangel

You’re close sometimes, but here’s the thing, God’s intervention is not by way of strict Determinism and voiding His divinely designed creature’s attributes, such as sense, reason, intellect and human volition because He has no choice but to force some to be faithful to Him. Nope, “God doesn’t do that” , and this text clearly demonstrates that His volitional creatures do not always respond favorably to God’s providential interventions. In fact, if they did irresistibly respond it would violate the truth that all His are judgment in any logical sense.

 

[Benjamin]

He’s like his hero Leighton. Dr. Flowers is stuck on contra-casual and he is stuck on determinism and logical fallacy.

I just hope you realize that your response consisting of nothing but a personal attack is viewed as pure and rather juvenile logical fallacy.

I’ll take that as a compliment though. Thanks!

BTW, on this personal note, Leighton, he’s aight, but I think he drops logical proof arguments too easily and often has a personality trait of pussyfooting around with many words on subjects like telling a Calvinist, as he would put it, they should be aware that they are so used to looking for certain conclusions in scripture that they are not open to seeing other views while at the same time repeating this (message that in truth they/you probably should hear and consider) in several different ways, over and over – wherein I’d simply just get to the point and tell them they need to remove the blinders and take off the Calvie glasses because they are force fitting their systematic theology into the text. But, I get the impression he seems to feel he is more righteous for his softer, loooong, almost passive aggressive approach in saying the same thing, - except when he doesn’t. I’ve told him that I can appreciate his patience at times though. He’s a smart guy, a great thinker and more scholarly than I could ever be and I like him but to be a hero of mine he’d have to at least occasionally stand up and boldly tell it like it is without all the pussyfooting around and especially doing away with the sense I get that he condemns others if they have a less sensitive approach than him. ...which all just amounts to difference in perspective on how people are motivated to react and rather or not one caters to it.

 

[Rockson]

I think this fits in with the theme of the thread...Election....as according to Calvinists it's supposed to connect to God imparting irresistible grace. If that be the case why would Paul say in 2 Cor 5:20

"We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God.(NIV)


So we are Christ's ambassadors; God is making his appeal through us. We speak for Christ when we plead, "Come back to God!" (NLT)

Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. (NAS)

Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God. (KJV)

So Paul is saying he speaks for God (Christ) when he uses terms such as I implore you (to be saved) I plead with you, I beg you and I beseech you! What else could be said except God is demonstrating they have the free will to choose? Would God even need to plead, implore, beg or beseech if they weren't given a choice and if it was just going to be irresistible grace anyway? I'd suggest this causes major damage to a Calvinists position and quite frankly can't see you have anyway out of it.

 

[Benjamin]

You mean that aspect that holds with salvation being from start to finish the work of the Lord?

Nah, I mean force fitting strict deterministic viewpoints in order to hold up one's systematic theology which will unavoidably logically take them down the road to theological fatalism.

 

[TCassidy]

strict deterministic

Name one person on the BB who holds to a "strict deterministic" position.

 

[Benjamin]

Name one person on the BB who holds to a "strict deterministic" position.

I’ll stick to logical conclusions on a person’s views rather than be drawn into whatever you are looking for by trying to direct my arguments toward the person. Thanks.

 

[Iconoclast]

Benjamin,

Thank you for offering scripture as the OP has requested. While we do not agree on what the verses mean, I do thank you for respecting scripture enough to offer your view,

To understand Romans 8:28 and predestination one must not cherry pick out a verse but compare scriptures.

Yes that is true. In another thread AA. offered why it is essential to check the biblical usage of the words.

Now Archangel and SG, have offered you solid biblical reasons why you should reexamine your views...I would like to offer something on your verses and your concerns.

To Israel, the subject of those predestined it is said in Romans 10:21,

Benjamin....you need to be very careful if you want to sort this out correctly..you link Israel, and predestination here...does the text do this?
21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.
Notice...this verse says nothing about all of Israel being predestined...it says no such thing.
You trying to conflate what the scripture does not only increases your missing the real meaning offered.

“But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.” – these unbelievers were doing the opposite from supposedly being predetermined to respond in a certain way,

These unbelievers were doing what they wanted to do, and Paul is in the process of explaining why they were part of those broken off in unbelief...
rom11
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.

the opposite of the true way to salvation of those who believed in THEIR hearts and confessed with THEIR mouths. (Rom 10:9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

You highlight the words..Their2x thou2x,thy and thine......okay. You are concerned with human responsibility. That is fine....all believers are concerned with human responsibility. Calvinists also believe and highlight the same words here in romans.

We see the subject (Israel/predestined)revisited

No we do not Benjamin...you are missing it right here....The only predestination in romans 8 is elect believers being conformed to the image of the SON....
Unbelievers are not to be predestined to be conformed to the Image of the Son.
Unbelieving branches were not predestined to be conformed to the Image of the Son.
You would need to show verses that indicate such an idea. You have not.
Do you notice none of your Arminian buddies get involved in these verses?

God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.

Yes...He kept an elect remnant....

isa1;
3 The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider.

4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward.

5 Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint.

6 From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment.

7 Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers.

8 And the daughter of Zion is left as a cottage in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city.

9 Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.

- We are told God did not reject those He foreknew but we see, Romans 10:21, 11:2, they had the volitional ability to reject Him.

Archangel and SG. have pointed out this has to do with the elect remnant.

This all has to do with the revelation that God will do the same for those that love the truth and are called,

No...God set His love on us that while we were yet sinners...God chose us.

believers have the same benefits and are emboldened by God’s providence (not determinism) during their own trails upon which He will judge their choices in real time

.
Sorry...but this is directly against scripture....2tim1:9

Thanks for using scripture...

 

[Iconoclast]

Paul was chosen and called by God while stillsomeone destroying the Church, so God would have called Him to be Apostle for jesus, and then Paul would have said, "no thanks?"

Could the Apostles, especial Paul, rejected their call from the Lord then?

The foreknowledge of God involves Him actually determining to save His own people out, so not that passive viewing the future events.

Those who want to following the view of God seeing the future result, but not directly involved in that decision process, hold to that not due to the scriptures, but to their need to maintain full free will, and "fairness."

You mean that aspect that holds with salvation being from start to finish the work of the Lord?

Y1...You have been asked many times to stop tweeting in the middle of the treads like this second list i am posting of your tweets. Stop it
The tread is about scriptural teaching of election...Scriptural? election...not you tweets and thoughts...NNE CARES WHAT YOU THINK IF YOU CANNOT BACK IT UP SCRIPTURALLY.
If you must tweet...fine...start your own thread that is just looking for tweets...stay out of Scripture based threads.

 

[TCassidy]

I’ll stick to logical conclusions on a person’s views rather than be drawn into whatever you are looking for by trying to direct my arguments toward the person. Thanks.

In other words, you can't. I thought so.

 

[The Archangel]

You’re close sometimes, but here’s the thing, God’s intervention is not by way of strict Determinism and voiding His divinely designed creature’s attributes, such as sense, reason, intellect and human volition because He has no choice but to force some to be faithful to Him. Nope, “God doesn’t do that” , and this text clearly demonstrates that His volitional creatures do not always respond favorably to God’s providential interventions. In fact, if they did irresistibly respond it would violate the truth that all His are judgment in any logical sense.

The problem here is that you're completely discounting what the text says. It isn't as if 7,000 had saved themselves for God; God had saved 7,000 for Himself. Now, it may be possible to discuss why all but 7,000 believed, but the text is absolutely clear as to why those 7,000 did--it was God's doing. God insured (or determined) to save these people.

The Archangel

 

[Rockson]

The problem here is that you're completely discounting what the text says. It isn't as if 7,000 had saved themselves for God; God had saved 7,000 for Himself. Now, it may be possible to discuss why all but 7,000 believed, but the text is absolutely clear as to why those 7,000 did--it was God's doing. God insured (or determined) to save these people.

The Archangel

Hold on here a minute. Read the whole passage and not one mere verse. In 1 Kings 19 Elijah is fearing for his life believing he was going to be killed by Jezebel and Ahab. God speaks to him and reveals things were going to change and to go back and anoint Jeru King over Israel. God comforts him with the fact that he had preserved or reserved 7,000 Israelite (and the important part) who had not bowed their knees to Baal.

In other words not everyone has been persecuted to death as Elijah was thinking and God wanted him to know that. There is no way one can force an interpretation that God set up for these people to be saved and others not and I'm taking about for eternal life salvation. These 7,000 were faithful and loyal to God as they did not bow their knew to Baal.....and God was going for his own sovereign purposed preserve these individuals from being physically killed.

It has nothing to do with God having already decided all these people would be saved spiritually speaking by some irresistible grace. There are times in God's sovereignty where he'll allow his children to become martyrs. There are other times he curtails it or stops it as in Saul before Paul....he was persecuting Christians and God stepped in and as far as Paul's measure of persecuting he was doing it was curtailed. So God wasn't going to allow all the faithful who hadn't worshiped Baal to be killed. He reserved them and protected them until the new King would take control. Not choosing for eternal life spiritual salvation! Such would be a forced interpretation without merit.

 

[Iconoclast]

Rockson....you keep using the term irresistible grace.
Can you define that term as it relates to scripture and election?

 

[Yeshua1]

Nah, I mean force fitting strict deterministic viewpoints in order to hold up one's systematic theology which will unavoidably logically take them down the road to theological fatalism.

The same way that free willers takes the salvation plan of God, and end up making us the final say on salvation?

 

[Yeshua1]

I’ll stick to logical conclusions on a person’s views rather than be drawn into whatever you are looking for by trying to direct my arguments toward the person. Thanks.

Do you see 5 point Calvinists as being "strict determinants?"

 

[Yeshua1]

Y1...You have been asked many times to stop tweeting in the middle of the treads like this second list i am posting of your tweets. Stop it
The tread is about scriptural teaching of election...Scriptural? election...not you tweets and thoughts...NNE CARES WHAT YOU THINK IF YOU CANNOT BACK IT UP SCRIPTURALLY.
If you must tweet...fine...start your own thread that is just looking for tweets...stay out of Scripture based threads.

Galatians 1:1
Philippians 2:13
Romans 8
I was just suggesting that the scriptures speak of foreknowledge in a manner consistent with Calvinistic view on Election, and not as those holding to a free will Grace viewpoint see it!

 

[Yeshua1]

The problem here is that you're completely discounting what the text says. It isn't as if 7,000 had saved themselves for God; God had saved 7,000 for Himself. Now, it may be possible to discuss why all but 7,000 believed, but the text is absolutely clear as to why those 7,000 did--it was God's doing. God insured (or determined) to save these people.

The Archangel

The same process of Electing out individual Jews and Gentiles to be called and set apart for His use would be the same as what he did back then in national Israel, correct?

 

[Iconoclast]

Galatians 1:1
Philippians 2:13
Romans 8
I was just suggesting that the scriptures speak of foreknowledge in a manner consistent with Calvinistic view on Election, and not as those holding to a free will Grace viewpoint see it!

All of your tweets together could be in one or two full size posts...it is already on page 7...each tweet shortens each thread you go on...

 

[Benjamin]

Do you see 5 point Calvinists as being "strict determinants?"

Hey, I like that word "Determinants" don't think I've ever used it before, will have to keep it in mind, ...but as for your question, ...you don't want know! ...and I think you should probably respect Icon's request to stay on topic.

..it is already on page 7...each tweet shortens each thread you go on

Well, as for me, I got an inquiry about not having completed some documentation on a patient and I couldn't really tell them I was too bust playing on the Baptist Board, so...