Let's discuss the differing views of Biblical Election

[quantumfaith]

And anyone wanting the CORRECT view of election IN SCRIPTURE should read here:

http://www.schooleyfiles.com/2006/10/arminian-perspective-on-election-gods.html

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

Thanks for the link, interesting reading. Despite the claims of "some" you are not carelessly tossing ad hominem attacks and you are definitely NOT being "ant-cal" ( I find it so incredibly immature (intellectually) that some conclude because one does not see things as they do, the immediately assert that you are "anti-them") Thank you for your articulate, eloquent, intelligent and humble theological counter weight to (our friends and brothers) on the reformed side of the aisle. Blessings Skan

 

[DaChaser1]

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

Thanks for the link, interesting reading. Despite the claims of "some" you are not carelessly tossing ad hominem attacks and you are definitely NOT being "ant-cal" ( I find it so incredibly immature (intellectually) that some conclude because one does not see things as they do, the immediately assert that you are "anti-them") Thank you for your articulate, eloquent, intelligent and humble theological counter weight to (our friends and brothers) on the reformed side of the aisle. Blessings Skan

have to understand that from our side of the aisle here....
Skan keeps on asking the questions regarding cal theology in the mind set, at leastit comes across as being, that it obvious that cal theology is biblical wrong and here is the reason why!

Setting up a "no win", as either Cal beliefs are wrong as per the Bible, or else we are "mean spirited/bibically wrong!"

Asking not in honest fashion, but to assume wrong, and prove that is the truth!

 

[Skandelon]

I understand, but the Bible refers to people as "elect" and those whom.

True, it was a title often used in reference to a Jew.

God loves people, individuals.

Surely you are not denying that I believe this, are you? After all, my view reveals a great love of God for all individuals rather than the 'select few' of your system.

The entire passage of Ephesians 1 is about salvation. He has predestined some to be adopted.

Have you been fully adopted yet? According to Paul in Romans 8 we await our adoption. We, believers, have been predestined to BE ADOPTED but how does that prove you individually were predestined to believe?

He chosen some to be holy(sanctified) and blameless(justified). All parts of salvation.

No, it says he has chosen US (believers) to be holy and blameless. It says nothing about choosing some to be believers. That is something Calvinists read into the text. It never actually says that.

Individuals are saved.

Right, individuals who believe. And those who believe will be (1) sealed by his Spirit (2) conformed to Christs image and (3) adopted as His child, according to his predetermined plan.

What many fail to see is that the major issue of that day was the concept that non-Jews could be saved through faith. If we heard a NEW doctrine today wouldn't we attack it and be very suspicious of it? That is what is happening to Paul, and a part of his defense is to point to the fact that this has been God's plan all along. This is not NEW because God predetermined to adopt whosoever believes, EVEN NON-JEWS. That is what Paul is arguing here.

 

[Skandelon]

After replying to Amy, I think I remembered something. It's a problem because of many people's faulty view of what a Calvinist believes with election. Some view it as many come to him, but God only selects his few and rejects the rest. That's what the issue is.

I can understand that, but please note that is not the point I brought up. I know and have acknowledged that Cals don't believe people are wanting in and being turned away at the door.

I mentioned earlier about the few vs many. There is the couple of places where Jesus used few vs many

Enough said. There should be no objection then to my use of the same word. And there certainly shouldn't be accusation of ad hominem.

but there are also places where it's refereed to as "many." Romans 8:29 is one of them.

And did I not acknowledge in my replies that the number of those saved is many, but that still is a relative few in comparison to those not saved? Yet, did not the accusations continue to the neglect of the topic presented?

 

[Skandelon]

Your friend......schooley.....has the classic wrong understanding of biblical foreknowledge

What a well thought out and thorough argument. I didn't know that all we needed to do was deem others views as "wrong" so as to dismiss them and move on. And here I thought we actually needed to address the actual claims and make sound arguments. :smilewinkgrin:

I am glad you posted it alongside of Dagg and Boyce,,,as it will showcase the clear truth and show itself defective....

I could have posted links to Adam Clarke, AW Tozer, or some other known old dead scholar that speaks in Old English so as to make their concepts sound more intelligent, but I figured this link would be more likely read and understood.

Also ...which verse do you believe has Jesus saying their are few in reference to election?

Cals often refer to the verse "Many are called but few are chosen" in support of their view of election. Do you deny this?

 

[Skandelon]

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

Thanks for the link, interesting reading. Despite the claims of "some" you are not carelessly tossing ad hominem attacks and you are definitely NOT being "ant-cal" ( I find it so incredibly immature (intellectually) that some conclude because one does not see things as they do, the immediately assert that you are "anti-them") Thank you for your articulate, eloquent, intelligent and humble theological counter weight to (our friends and brothers) on the reformed side of the aisle. Blessings Skan

:wavey: Thanks quantum!

 

[Aaron]

Why do some choose . . . KJVO over sanity?

See? You can't escape it. Even though said partly in jest, you don't really believe that the KJVO adherent is as rational as you are. One you think is simply devoid of knowledge, and the other has some kind of defect that does not allow him to receive the benefit of the knowledge you think should set him free.

You appeal to some reason or motive for his choice, and you do so unconsciously, because, like the constant and relentless force of gravity at work on us and around us, and with which we unconsciously interact and overcome every second of the day, there is always a reason, always a motive for the thoughts and intents of the heart. That premise is the foundation of all rational thought, and the establishment of justice.

There is a motive for every choice, and the motive resides in the heart of an individual, and the word of God is a discerner of those thoughts and intents. Good thoughts and intents flow from a good heart. Corrupt thoughts and intents flow from a corrupt heart. And so again, you're left with the only logical conclusion of your doctrine, that men choose to receive God's gift because they are less corrupt than those who don't.

You have no alternative.

But you MUST deny it in order to maintain your irrational (if not dishonest) insistence that some choices are just willy nilly, unexplanable, random choices with no determining factor (which renders it something other than a choice). You're like an engineer who denies the law of gravity in his design of a bridge, and is too proud or stupid to admit that his bridge will fall if one attempts to walk accross it.

 

[Aaron]

The fact that you can't define or explain what 'determines' their choice doesn't mean its just 'chance,' it only means it is beyond our full understanding. Just like when you are asked why God might choose to save you rather than someone else. Is that chance just because you don't know how it was determined? No, you appeal to the mystery of God's free choice.

And here again, you raise men to the level of God. Men's choices are not mysterious in any way. They're perfectly comprehendible, because men's ways are not above other men's ways, and their thoughts are our thoughts. Add to that the light of the Scriptures, and men are naked and opened.

No mystery.

It's only God's ways that are beyond our understanding because His ways are infinitely higher than our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts.

Your appeal to mystery no more like the Calvinist's than the first grader's addition page is like Newton's calculus. Less, actually.

 

[Skandelon]

See? You can't escape it. Even though said partly in jest, you don't really believe that the KJVO adherent is as rational as you are.

It was just a joke.

An individual's rational is what makes them an individual and truly autonomous. The alternative is that God made KJVO adherents purposely less rational so as to make them unable to do otherwise, which is truly unreasonable.

You appeal to some reason or motive for his choice, and you do so unconsciously, because, like the constant and relentless force of gravity at work on us and around us, and with which we unconsciously interact and overcome every second of the day, there is always a reason, always a motive for the thoughts and intents of the heart.

The fact that you THINK I have denied that there are reasons, motives, thoughts and intents only once again reveals you have yet to engage with our actual view. We openly affirm such influences, but we just deny their determinative nature...(i.e. John Doe rejected God because his God given nature was created so it could not do otherwise). A chooser determines his choice. This is the difference between self-determination, versus divine-determiniation of all things. However, don't forget that our view acknowledges it was God's determination to allow for self-determiniation, so spare us the accusations about God not having any power.

That premise is the foundation of all rational thought, and the establishment of justice.

Kind of like the flat earthers reasoning years ago...

Question beg much?

There is a motive for every choice, and the motive resides in the heart of an individual, and the word of God is a discerner of those thoughts and intents.

Discerner or determiner?

Good thoughts and intents flow from a good heart. Corrupt thoughts and intents flow from a corrupt heart. And so again, you're left with the only logical conclusion of your doctrine, that men choose to receive God's gift because they are less corrupt than those who don't.

As apposed to because God made some less corrupt? What exactly do you think this argument is avoiding Aaron?

But you MUST deny it in order to maintain your irrational (if not dishonest) insistence that some choices are just willy nilly, unexplanable, random choices with no determining factor (which renders it something other than a choice).

Oh, is that how you define God's choice to save you? Was that 'willy nilly' and 'random' too? :love2:

You're like an engineer who denies the law of gravity in his design of a bridge, and is too proud or stupid to admit that his bridge will fall if one attempts to walk accross it.

And you're like a flat earther that thinks everything must be in accordance with what is seen and measured by human ability.


I look forward to your full explanation as to how God's choices are determined.

 

[Skandelon]

And here again, you raise men to the level of God.

Our view is that GOD chose to create free moral creatures, not that WE created them so spare us this non-sense.

It's only God's ways that are beyond our understanding because His ways are infinitely higher than our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts.

And he created us in his image and DIFFERENT from the animals who make choices determined by instinct. You're view of man's moral and reasoned determinations has no real distinction from animal instinct.

 

[Aaron]

An individual's rational[e] is what makes them an individual and truly autonomous.

One's rationale is a quality. One who makes the choice to receive a gift is wiser than the one who foolishly rejects it.

You can't escape it. You are saying God has elected a quality of individual.

Question beg much?

It's not question-begging. There must be a reason no any longer pays you to teach debate skills, but I digress . . .

Let me respond in the manner you constantly employ: To say this is question begging presumes that question begging is a logical fallacy. You have yet to prove that.

Discerner or determiner?

A discerner. Great Caesar's Ghost, are you able to comprehend written words?

As apposed to because God made some less corrupt? What exactly do you think this argument is avoiding Aaron?

Me? :laugh: This is the argument you keep attempting to skirt.

Oh, is that how you define God's choice to save you? Was that 'willy nilly' and 'random' too?

Not at all. This is your description of man's choice.

I look forward to your full explanation as to how God's choices are determined.

Why do you continue to choose this doctrine over the sanity of Calvinism?

 

[Aaron]

Our view is that GOD chose to create free moral creatures, not that WE created them so spare us this non-sense.

And he created us in his image and DIFFERENT from the animals who make choices determined by instinct. You're view of man's moral and reasoned determinations has no real distinction from animal instinct.

How long will you kick against the Scriptures?

Men love darkness rather than light, because . . .

The Scriptures illuminate the determining factors in men's choices.

Getting stuffy in that hole you've dug?

 

[Aaron]

Let's discuss the differing views of Biblical Election

And so my first post stands. Calvinists affirm that God elects individuals. Noncalvinists affirm God elects a quality.

 

[Skandelon]

One's rationale is a quality. One who makes the choice to receive a gift is wiser than the one who foolishly rejects it.

Maybe but I'm not the one arguing that God's predetermined level of wisdom dictates what choices he will make, are you?

In my view, wisdom, which can grow or diminish based on previous choices, circumstances etc, which can influence how one chooses, but the person as whole is the one who make the choice, not just some divinely predetermined quality about that person.

You can't escape it.

Can't escape what? The Determinism you presume upon an infinite God based upon your finite logic? Yeah, that is a tough one to let go of...:smilewinkgrin:

It's not question-begging. There must be a reason no any longer pays you to teach debate skills, but I digress . . .

:laugh:

Anyone who presumes the premise up for debate must be accepted is question begging. How else should I interpret your "you can't escape it" accusations, Aaron?

If my argument over and over was, "You can't escape free will, it is like gravity." You would be right to label it Question Begging because that is what it is and its the lowest form of debate. Very elementary. I'm pressing you to do better.

A discerner. Great Caesar's Ghost, are you able to comprehend written words?

Apparently not, but whose fault is that? I'm just doing as God determined.

So, God is discerning that which he determined. Interesting.

I noticed that you didn't explain how God determined his choice to save you. It must have been willy nilly and random, right?

 

[Skandelon]

How long will you kick against the Scriptures?

Depends upon how long God has predetermined me to kick against them I suppose. :sleep:

Getting stuffy in that hole you've dug?

I dug? Or the one God dug through secondary causes? Stop giving me so much credit for all the stuff God is doing and be consistent.

How do you like debating with God? After all, my stubborn and other inferior qualities (predetermined by God) have clearly predisposed me to disagree with you and debate you, so in reality you are debating God. How are you doing? Oh wait, you are actually only doing what God predetermined you to do as well, so really God is debating himself here. I wonder who will win?

I can't wait to see how God is going to beat himself in this debate! :laugh:

 

[Aaron]

This is fun. :laugh:

It's kind of like taunting an octopus to see his ink cloud. You're ejecting flak in an attempt to confuse the missile lock.

Don't you see? You're left with making God either a respecter of persons or an elector. You don't get both.

 

[jbh28]

I can understand that, but please note that is not the point I brought up. I know and have acknowledged that Cals don't believe people are wanting in and being turned away at the door.

Maybe not you, but typically this is what is meant when people say "select few."

Enough said. There should be no objection then to my use of the same word. And there certainly shouldn't be accusation of ad hominem.

Maybe my "ad hominem" was over the top. I don't beleive you were purposefully doing it.

And did I not acknowledge in my replies that the number of those saved is many, but that still is a relative few in comparison to those not saved? Yet, did not the accusations continue to the neglect of the topic presented?

 

[preacher4truth]

Depends upon how long God has predetermined me to kick against them I suppose. :sleep:
I can't wait to see how God is going to beat himself in this debate! :laugh:

There is more truth in your first response above than you'll ever realize.

The emoticons and the last statement? Wow, just wow.

 

[Aaron]

Anyone who presumes the premise up for debate must be accepted is question begging. How else should I interpret your "you can't escape it" accusations.

Nothing was presumed. That's the point. I simply made logic the premise up for debate in my mockery of you, which is how you escape having to answer the evidence I drew from nature and the Scriptures.

This is what you do. You want someone to prove that two plus two is four. So when he lays out two marbles on one side of the desk, and two on the other side, brings them together and counts them out 1, 2, 3, 4, you reject it saying, he just used Math. Math is the topic of for debate. No, Math is not the topic up for debate.

What you do to win your argument is put reason itself in the balance. Talk of your logical fallacies! But that is the only way you can maintain your position.

 

[Aaron]

The emoticons and the last statement? Wow, just wow.

The pride and arrogance is a bit overwhelming, but pride cannot bear to be mocked. He got squeezed and this is what came out.