Hi ya Bob,
Originally posted by BobRyan:
Here is a simple case of miscommunication
Although I agree with the "I don't know" solution for many cases - the scenario above is missing a critical point that is key to the entire debate.
James..
I’ll give you this. My post had no details, nor proof, or even argument for that matter. It was simple in its approach to show that both sides do in fact go beyond specifics of Bible doctrine and into a world as they see it. I brought this up, only for you act as if only Calvinist are the only ones that do this. You called it ..”being a little god”. It is clear that any one that holds to any doctrine can cross this line and should not be limited to Calvinist.
*************************
Bob..
INSTEAD of that what we REALLY see is the Arminian saying "Hey look at all these Bible texts SHOWING God to be impartial and being the saviour of the world - dying not only for our sins but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD. Truly God so loved the WORLD not just the arbitrarily select FEW of Matt 7!!"
James…
Yes we do see Arminian’s pointing out these verses. Many, many verse they are. You are also right in your claim that they use the words “Impartial” as speaking to who God is….and Arbitrarily selecting would be NOTHING God would do. This is Arminianism 101. Look at Gods Love. Gods love is Great. I say this not in jest, but as fact. Gods love is great and These verses prove it. One other thing you will see from the Aminian camp is this…THE WHOLE WORLD. This is always in bold…or underlined like a Calvinist can not read it. I think this maybe the verse you had in mind Bob..
John 2,2
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
If this is the verse, this is also why I disagree with what you said Bob. More on that later. But because you misused one verse does not mean Gods love is not great…and has Come that ALL…YES ALL BOB can be saved…if they trust in Him.
********************
Bob..
While the Calvinist says "yes but if you ignore those texts I have found a couple of places where it looks like God is saying that He simply picks out a select few and not for any reason that can be found IN the person selected. Nothing about what they choose or like or who they are etc. God just innexplicably picks one".
James…
Bob again you mislead. Ignoring the Bible is not a trend of Calvinist as you claim. Can you find some that say this? Yes I’m sure you can. For the most part Calvinist uphold the whole Bible. You have brought these verse up to me before and I addressed them the best I could. I have also seen others address them for you Bob. Now, it maybe that you do not like how that it can be shown how the Bible fits together, for then it leaves some of what you hold dearly to in the rain. Ignore? No, that is wrong Bob.
Texts in a couple of places? Two places, is that it Bob? Is this also misleading? How many times does the Bible say God choose a nation? More then one time. Wait you may claim, “God does choose groups, but never people”. Lets stay on that subject for a bit. Does God choose a nation? Yes indeed. Is this as you call it…” Arbitrarily”? Did God have other men to chose from other then Abarham. Yes! He had the pool of mankind to choose from. So he did pick a person over another to start a nation, a choosen people. Even if it is only a nation, we have shown that God can choose one, and leave another and a nation started with one person which God chose. You have said God could never do this for this is out of Gods character. We need only show this is part of Gods character. But again, this is not Arbitrarily as you claim. The Bible tells us why God does this choosing. So stop saying it is arbitrarily. You would not want to mislead would you Bob?
Now we have just talked about a nation, but we both know there is more to election then a nation. This (nation) as said before is also known as Group election or Corporate election.
Have you heard this phase before..
”the word “elect” was used, only groups were in view; ergo, election is only corporate.”
That view has been regarded by linguists and biblical scholars as linguistically naive. James Barr in his Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford, 1961) makes a lengthy and devastating critique of Kittel’s ten-volume Theological Dictionary of the New Testament for its numerous linguistic fallacies. Among them is this conceptual-lexical equation.
Conceptual-lexical equation means that one does not find the concept unless he sees the words. However, where else do we argue this? Would we not say that the concept of fellowship occurs everwhere in the New Testament?
Yet the word koinwniva is found only twenty times.
Now consider the deity of Christ….
If we could only speak of Christ’s deity in passages where he is explicitly called “God,” then we are shut up to no more than about half a dozen texts. Yet the New Testament WREAKS of the deity of Christ—via his actions, attributes that are ascribed to him, Old Testament quotations made of him, implicit and explicit statements made about him.
Going back to the conceptual-lexical equation for a moment: let’s look at the evidence.
Mark 13:20—“but for the sake of the elect whom he chose he has cut short those days.” If we take only a corporate view of election, this would mean “but for the sake of all humanity he has cut short those days.” That hardly makes any sense in the passage; further, election is doubly emphasized: the elect whom he chose. It would be hard to make any clearer the idea that election is of individuals.
Luke 6:13; John 6:70—Jesus chose twelve of his disciples out of a larger pool. True, he chose more than one; but this also was of particular individuals. Jesus named them individually, indicating that his choice of them was individual. This election was not toward salvation, as we see in John 6:70. But this election was entirely initiated by Jesus (“you did not choose me, but I chose you”). Initiation and selection are the prerogatives of the Lord. Group election makes absolutely no sense in this context; and further, the elective purposes and methods of God incarnate are the same, whether it is of his apostles for service or of sinners for salvation.
Luke 9:35—“This is my Son, my Chosen One.” Certainly election of Christ is both individual and corporate: Christ as the elect of God (see also at John 1:34 the textual variant that is most likely original, and is the text reading of the NET Bible) is the vehicle through whom God effects his elective purposes today. That is, God chooses those who would be saved, but he also chooses the means of that salvation: it is in Christ (see also Eph 1:4).
John 15:16—“You did not choose me, but I chose you.” Again, we see that election is done by the initiative of God. Further, those who are chosen become what they are chosen for (in this case, apostles). A view of group election that allows a large pool of applicants to be “chosen” then permits a self-selection to narrow the candidates seems to ignore both God’s initiative and the efficacy of God’s choice: all those who are chosen become what they are chosen for.
John 15:19—“I chose you out of the world.” The same theme is repeated: election may have many individuals in view, but the initiative and efficacy belong to the Lord.
Acts 1:2—same idea as above.
Acts 1:24—This text reveals a choice of one individual as opposed to another. The apostles vote on which of two candidates they had put in the pool would fill Judas’ spot. But even their choice is dictated by the mandate of heaven: “Show us which one you have chosen.”
Acts 15:7—Peter notes that God had selected him to bring the good news to the Gentiles. Again, though this is not election to salvation, it is election that is initiated by God and effected by God (for, as you recall, Peter was quite resistant to the idea).
Election is seen to be initiated by God and effected by God. Those who are chosen...whether individuals or groups...become what they are chosen for. Corporate election simply ignores this consistent biblical emphasis.
When we look at the broader issue and involve words other than from the ejkleg— word-group, we see that the concept of God’s initiation and efficacy is very clear. For example, in Acts 13:48 we read that .....“as many as had been appointed for eternal life believed.” This is a group within the group that heard the message. The passive pluperfect periphrastic hsan tetagmevnoi indicates both that the initiative belonged to someone else and that it had already been accomplished before they believed.
This leads to the issue of election in relation to depravity. The basic point is that if we cannot take one step toward God (Rom 3:10-13), if we are unable to respond to anything outside the realm of sin (Eph 2:1), then if anyone is ever to get saved, God must take the initiative. This initiative cannot be simply corporate; he must initiate in the case of each individual. Eph 2:1-10 is explicitly about God’s initiation in the case of individual believers; this sets the stage for 2:11-22 in which corporate election is seen. But there can be no corporate election unless there is first individual election. Corporate election, at bottom, is a denial of total depravity. Or, to put it another way, if corporate election is true and if total depravity is true, then no one will ever get saved because no one will ever freely choose to be in Christ. Only by the gracious initiative of God does anyone ever choose Christ.
This only addresses Groups for this is what you hold to if I remember right. This in no way shows all verses that tell us about God's election. But still, this is more then 2 places right? And again, mainly addressing groups.
In Christ…James
)
