Individual Election Revisited

[Dave G]

From is as in Luke 11:50.
Before is before God made man.

I'll agree with you in that instance.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Next we pile on 2 Thessalonians 2:13 which says we are chosen through faith in the truth. Faith comes from hearing. So we must be alive, living somewhere to hear and put our trust in Christ in order to be chosen through faith in the truth.

Bogus argument. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 that God chose us for salvation 'from the beginning,' but we were set apart by the Spirit and thereby believed the truth in time.

Next we pile on 1 Corinthians 1:26-30. God puts us in Christ, it is His doing, we do not do it. But He puts us in Christ during our lifetime, choosing those that disregard the world's value system for God's value system, opposing the proud but giving grace to the humble.

Bogus argument. God chose us in eternity, but effectually called us in time, causing us to believe and to be united in Christ.

Next, we have 1 Peter 2:9-10 which says we are chosen, i.e. receive mercy, after we have lived without mercy. Once we were not a people, but now we are a people. Again this puts our individual election during our lifetime after we have lived without mercy.

Bogus argument. The verses say nothing about when we were chosen, but 'known to God from eternity are all His acts' (Acts 15:18). But until we believed we were still under God's judicial wrath, and it was not until we believed that we obtained mercy, although that mercy had been decreed from the beginning.

Next, we are by nature, children of wrath, Ephesians 2:3. But no charge (the cause of wrath) can be brought against the elect, Romans 8:33. So again, we are chosen, elected after we have lived without mercy as a child of wrath.

Bogus argument. In our nature, we are sinners, and the act of election does not change that. God's mercy was decreed in eternity past, but did not come to us until we believed.

I hope now that you see how changing what Keach wrote was such a calumny against him. We are absolutely not saved in eternity; we are chosen for salvation in eternity but saved in time.

I also hope you now see how irritating the constant use of the word 'bogus' is and will stop using it as a cover for the vacuity of your own arguments.

 

[George Antonios]

Simple yes; fair no. There are some questions that do not lend themselves to yes or no answers. I did not tell you how to ask your question; you do not get to tell me how to answer it.

And that's the part where you get to say why the question is not fair. If you're going to be snappy about it, at least point out the evil.
What you really mean is "That question is embarrassingly difficult to answer".

I was in Christ at that point in the same way that I am even now seated in the heavenly places

And what way is that, pray tell.

 

[Van]

The idea that we do not address the doctrine is ridiculous. How many times have I pointed out Ephesians 1:4? How many times have I pointed out the ENTIRE GOSPEL OF JOHN? How many times have I pointed out Romans 3, 8, 9, and 11? How many times have I pointed out the taking of verses, such as 2 Peter 3:9, out of context? Many, many times.

How many times have you misrepresented scripture such as denying the men of Matthew 23:13 were seeking God in their natural unregenerate state? Endlessly

 

[Van]

Not at all. I shared Matthew 23 with you and everyone else rather than make a poor claim regarding one verse like you did...and you didn't even quote the verse.
I let the reader decide what Matthew is saying in the 23rd chapter as we read about the many prophetic woes Jesus places upon the religious leaders in Israel. Prophetic word that came true.

Boilerplate post, non-specific and never mentioning the men were seeking God in an unregenerate state.

 

[Van]

To me, Scripture is not ambiguous Van.
SNIP
"From the foundation of the world" is exactly the same as Ephesians 1:4 states...
"Before the foundation of the world".

To me ( at least in many cases ), they are one and the same.

Right, you say white is the same as black, one is the same as two, and before is the same as after. This is the mindset of all Calvinists who simply rewrite scripture to mean what they want it to mean.

 

[Van]

Van,
That has been done many times.

Many times God's word has been presented, and many times threads like this devolve into attack and counter-attack.
The bashing usually doesn't start until one side ( or the other ) starts it, and then it tends to spiral upwards.

Yet, people have indeed carefully presented the Scriptures and addressed doctrine;
Which you have rejected ( and that is your prerogative ).

But I myself have not bashed you in any way that I know of.

Complete fiction with no reference to specific posts.

Matthew 23:13 teaches unregenerate men were seeking God. Full stop. And the rebuttal? "Taint so."

 

[Van]

Van?
Would you please stop characterizing those who disagree with you as "bullies", and then behaving badly towards those who disagree with you, yourself?
SNIP

Here is the quote: "This is a bogus quotation from Keach and you should be doubly ashamed of yourself for not only perpetrating a deception upon the readers of this thread, but then repeating it."

The OP did not claim the content was quoting Keach. It explicity said it was a reformed and revised version using only the valid parts of a prior article. So the charge was false and represented an attempt to bully me by claiming I did what I did not.
I made no attempt to deceive, but instead attempted to present truth.

But did you or any Calvinist call out the poster? Nope, so you Sir are an enabler.

 

[AustinC]

Boilerplate post, non-specific and never mentioning the men were seeking God in an unregenerate state.

False, I provided the entire dialogue Jesus had with the religious leaders in Matthew 23. Be very honest...you refuse to consider that you may be wrong and therefore you will not look at the whole passage. You will only look at the one verse and then you will demand that your interpretation of the one verse is correct. Van, you are as stubborn as the Pharisees Jesus addresses in Matthew 23. Deal with your self.

 

[Van]

Bogus argument. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 that God chose us for salvation 'from the beginning,' but we were set apart by the Spirit and thereby believed the truth in time. From the beginning refers to from the beginning of the New Covenant in His Blood.

Bogus argument. God chose us in eternity, but effectually called us in time, causing us to believe and to be united in Christ. Scripture, 1 Peter 2:9-10 precludes our individual election because we lived before we were a chosen people.

Bogus argument. The verses say nothing about when we were chosen, but 'known to God from eternity are all His acts' (Acts 15:18). But until we believed we were still under God's judicial wrath, and it was not until we believed that we obtained mercy, although that mercy had been decreed from the beginning. Here we get the claim we were a chosen people but since we did not know it, we were not a chosen people. Hogwash folks, hogwash.

Bogus argument. In our nature, we are sinners, and the act of election does not change that. God's mercy was decreed in eternity past, but did not come to us until we believed. Ditto, we were chosen, thus obtained mercy, but did not know it so we had not obtained mercy. Absurd obfuscation.

I hope now that you see how changing what Keach wrote was such a calumny against him. We are absolutely not saved in eternity; we are chosen for salvation in eternity but saved in time. Correcting disinformation from 400 years ago was necessary to present truth. And we were not chosen individually for salvation before creation, but from the beginning, thus after the beginning of the New Covenant. That is why the OT saints had to wait.

I also hope you now see how irritating the constant use of the word 'bogus' is and will stop using it as a cover for the vacuity of your own arguments.

When you stop posting bogus arguments and absurd nonsense in defense of obviously false doctrine, I will praise it.

 

[Van]

False, I provided the entire dialogue Jesus had with the religious leaders in Matthew 23. Be very honest...you refuse to consider that you may be wrong and therefore you will not look at the whole passage. You will only look at the one verse and then you will demand that your interpretation of the one verse is correct. Van, you are as stubborn as the Pharisees Jesus addresses in Matthew 23. Deal with your self.

Yet another "attack" post, with You, you, you throughout. And of course this poster claims to be able to mind read, telling others I do not consider alternative views. And finally, name calling "Van is as stubborn as the Pharisees."

But not a whisper concerning the thread topic.

 

[Reformed1689]

How many times have you misrepresented scripture such as denying the men of Matthew 23:13 were seeking God in their natural unregenerate state? Endlessly

How many times do I have to tell you that you are reading that into Matthew 23:13? It doesn't actually state that.

 

[Reformed1689]

When you stop posting bogus arguments and absurd nonsense in defense of obviously false doctrine, I will praise it.

And you do the very thing you accuse others of doing, don't deal with the arguments.

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This will be closed no sooner than 1230 am EDT- (Fri) / 930 pm PDT (Thur)

This thread is closed