New view, or same old view?

[webdog]

Whether one is a dispensationalist or not, the Bible is clearly dispensational. OT saints were not indwelt with the Holy Spirit...the Church is. Not all believers are "the elect". Not all of those chosen are "the elect", but all of "the elect" are chosen.

 

[Andy T.]

Whether one is a dispensationalist or not, the Bible is clearly dispensational. OT saints were not indwelt with the Holy Spirit...the Church is. Not all believers are "the elect". Not all of those chosen are "the elect", but all of "the elect" are chosen.

So how is this different that what I originally said in post #13? I am not trying to trap you or anything. What I said in #13 was a good-faith interpretation of what I thought you believed. You said no, and have not given me any reason that is different than what I said in #13, which is: Election applies to Jewish believers, while it does not apply to Gentiles.

 

[webdog]

So how is this different that what I originally said in post #13? I am not trying to trap you or anything. What I said in #13 was a good-faith interpretation of what I thought you believed. You said no, and have not given me any reason that is different than what I said in #13, which is: Election applies to Jewish believers, while it does not apply to Gentiles.

You have basically said that no gentile has been chosen by God for any reason.

 

[Andy T.]

You have basically said that no gentile has been chosen by God for any reason.

So is this down to semantics? I think the words elect and chosen are interchangeable. I've never seen exegesis that suggests these words mean different things. So when you say that only Jewish believers are referred to as the 'elect', then how can I not conclude that you think election only applies to them and not to Gentiles? Again, I thought that was a fair assessment of your view on election. I wasn't trying to stir anything up.

 

[webdog]

So is this down to semantics? I think the words elect and chosen are interchangeable. I've never seen exegesis that suggests these words mean different things.

Since Judas and Pharaoh were chosen by God, are they "the elect" then? If they are interchangeable, as you say, the answer has to be yes.

A classification of a group of people (the elect) is plainly different than simply interchanging the words elect and chosen. God has a remnant of angels He refers to as "elect" as well as humans (His chosen people...the "of Israel" group, "the elect"...
Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel, who are of Israel:

 

[Andy T.]

Well of course the words elect and chosen can have different objects, but the words themselves still mean essentially the same thing. (I'm thinking of them as verbs.) When they are used as nouns, the words elect or chosen are only used to denote God's people or his angels.

You know, after several posts, I have no clearer picture as to what you believe about election. Maybe I'm just slow. Maybe you don't care (either that I'm slow or that you have not clearly communicated). But it might be helpful if you posted a summary of your view on election.

 

[webdog]

There was a thread going a little while ago where this was all outlined. I will see if I can go back and search for the link.

 

[webdog]

When they are used as nouns, the words elect or chosen are only used to denote God's people or his angels.

This caught my eye. You are correct here. Now the key is to see which of God's people are being referred to in context when that phrase "the elect" is used.

 

[Jarthur001]

It would really help first to actually read the links, no?

It's another view of calvinism from outside of calvinism.

This is unreal.

As I have said..I have read your links.

Now I ask again...for the last time, for it is clear you do not want to answer this have asked many times, and you dodge each time.

Under "U" from the links.....please look at these quotes..

QUOTE 1

Quote:
God’s choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world was based upon His foreseeing that they would respond to His call. He selected only those whom He knew would of themselves freely believe the gospel. Election therefore was determined by or conditioned upon what man would do. The faith which God foresaw and upon which He based his choice was not given to the sinner by God (it was not created by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit) but resulted solely from man’s will. It was left entirely up to man as to who would believe and therefore as to who would be elected unto salvation. God chose those whom He knew would, of their own free will, choose Christ. Thus, the sinner’s choice of Christ, not God’s choice of the sinner, is the ultimate cause of salvation.

QUOTE 2 <<< the new view

Quote:
What God knows He determines, and what He determines He knows. This being so, those who God eternally and unmistakably knows as believers He chooses. Consequently, those who believe are those who He chooses or elects. There need be no before or after, no logical or chronological progression in His eternal knowledge, no decision to elect based on anything except for the carrying out of His eternal decree, which decree was always in place. Therefore, there is no need to
1) postulate an eternal covenant between the members of the Godhead,
2) propose a logical order in relation to whether God’s decisions followed one or the other,
3) ask the question whether or not election is based on foreknowledge or whether foreknowledge of one’s salvation is based on election.

As God elects, from His eternal, present tense perspective, He also works out His sovereign purpose within the framework of history on a moment- by-moment basis. His eternal electing activity is applied throughout the progression of history, which He is controlling, and He does so in accord with the ability of men to believe (and without coercion) when the gospel message is clearly presented, when we perceive the free offer of eternal life as most valuable and beneficial to us, and when we are fully assured and convinced by His Spirit that what God has promised, He is able to perform (cf. Rom 4:21).

Do you agree with both?

Do you disagree with both?

If one is right, and the other wrong, why is one wrong and the other right?


I have never had such a hard time, getting someone to share their faith.

What do you believe? These are your links...why do you not want to talk about them???

Addressing th OP would be nice.
Thanks...


In Christ..James

 

[webdog]

Quote:
God’s choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world was based upon His foreseeing that they would respond to His call. He selected only those whom He knew would of themselves freely believe the gospel. Election therefore was determined by or conditioned upon what man would do. The faith which God foresaw and upon which He based his choice was not given to the sinner by God (it was not created by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit) but resulted solely from man’s will. It was left entirely up to man as to who would believe and therefore as to who would be elected unto salvation. God chose those whom He knew would, of their own free will, choose Christ. Thus, the sinner’s choice of Christ, not God’s choice of the sinner, is the ultimate cause of salvation.

I'm sure you already know what I believe about this. I don't know why you are acting like you don't. I don't believe the above because of the highlighted. You know my stance on the whole "looking into the future" scenario.

Quote:
What God knows He determines, and what He determines He knows. This being so, those who God eternally and unmistakably knows as believers He chooses. Consequently, those who believe are those who He chooses or elects. There need be no before or after, no logical or chronological progression in His eternal knowledge, no decision to elect based on anything except for the carrying out of His eternal decree, which decree was always in place. Therefore, there is no need to
1) postulate an eternal covenant between the members of the Godhead,
2) propose a logical order in relation to whether God’s decisions followed one or the other,
3) ask the question whether or not election is based on foreknowledge or whether foreknowledge of one’s salvation is based on election.

As God elects, from His eternal, present tense perspective, He also works out His sovereign purpose within the framework of history on a moment- by-moment basis. His eternal electing activity is applied throughout the progression of history, which He is controlling, and He does so in accord with the ability of men to believe (and without coercion) when the gospel message is clearly presented, when we perceive the free offer of eternal life as most valuable and beneficial to us, and when we are fully assured and convinced by His Spirit that what God has promised, He is able to perform (cf. Rom 4:21).

Some aspects of the free grace perspective I agree with, and some I don't. The highlighted I agree with.

 

[Jarthur001]

I'm sure you already know what I believe about this. I don't know why you are acting like you don't. I don't believe the above because of the highlighted. You know my stance on the whole "looking into the future" scenario.

Some aspects of the free grace perspective I agree with, and some I don't. The highlighted I agree with.

If i knew what your doctrine was, I would not ask.

So you disagree with the time factor..."looking into the future".
This leads me to ask...
Do you agree with the free grace view of why a person is elected by God?

If you disagree...then please share your views, for understanding

 

[webdog]

Do you agree with the free grace view of why a person is elected by God?

I don't understand your question. We are all "elected" for salvation according to Ephesians 2:8-9. I haven't seen anything from the free grace perspective that disagrees with this.

As God elects, from His eternal, present tense perspective, He also works out His sovereign purpose within the framework of history on a moment- by-moment basis.