Repentence and the elect

[webdog]

Paul's emphasis goes even further. He completely eliminates faith being the basis for becoming a part of the remnant. It faith were the requirement to become part of the remnant and we, to be elected as part of the remnant, must demonstrate faith, then faith would be a "work" and nullify God's grace. Instead, the point Paul is making is this: God chooses and He does so on the basis of grace (where nothing is deserved).

Not bowing one's knee to baal demonstrates a prior faith. It is clear the 7000 who did not bow their knee to baal had already put their faith in God, and these were the ones set aside by God...the ones who already had faith. This demonstrates conditional election.

 

[The Archangel]

Not bowing one's knee to baal demonstrates a prior faith. It is clear the 7000 who did not bow their knee to baal had already put their faith in God, and these were the ones set aside by God...the ones who already had faith. This demonstrates conditional election.

Webdog (By the way, nice avatar picture)

I understand your theological presuppositions and you have a right to them. However the text does not support your interpretation. Paul clearly states, by way of analogy, the remnant in Elijah's time were chosen by God's grace, not by their faith.

Now, something I should have said earlier: The faithful remnant would have been expected to live right--a life of repentance and faith. But, their willingness to do so would have been in response to God's prior electing action.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Jarthur001]

Brother Allen,
You may not have a Doctorate, but I will give you an honorary one for this post. I think you nailed it!

Doc,

I notice you never address me. You may want to reread chapter 43. Look for more then one movement.

1st...tell me what you think of verse 4.

 

[Dr. L.T. Ketchum]

Lance,

This is not a huge leap and it is not based on suppositions. In fact, my "Supposition" is that the Apostle Paul, who cites this passage and uses it as an example, is correct in his interpretation. After all, he is the Apostle Paul! He writes:

Romans 11:2-6
God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? 3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.” 4 But what is God's reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

Paul is saying what I am saying--God keeps for Himself a faithful remnant. He personally ensures their faith and subsequent faithfulness. Paul's statement, in Greek, includes the reflexive pronoun translated "for myself."

Furthermore, to make his point (any my point too) he goes on to say the remnant was chosen by grace. He says there was a remnant in Elijah's time and now (his time). Both were chosen by grace. They were not chosen to be a remnant because of their faith. No, they were chosen, by grace, and because of God's choice to choose them, they are the remnant.

Paul's emphasis goes even further. He completely eliminates faith being the basis for becoming a part of the remnant. It faith were the requirement to become part of the remnant and we, to be elected as part of the remnant, must demonstrate faith, then faith would be a "work" and nullify God's grace. Instead, the point Paul is making is this: God chooses and He does so on the basis of grace (where nothing is deserved).

You continued:


Now it is your presuppositions that are showing. Paul actually addresses this later in the remainder of Romans 11.

Romans 11:7-10
7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, 8 as it is written,

“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that would not see
and ears that would not hear,
down to this very day.”


9 And David says,

“Let their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them;
10 let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see,
and bend their backs forever.”

Paul says the elect obtained what it was seeking. The rest were hardened--by God. Notice who "gave the spirit of stupor, the eyes not seeing, and the ears not hearing," it was God who did this.

So, I would say God chose the elect to the necessary exclusion of those not chosen because that is exactly what Paul is saying.



Blessings,

The Archangel

Brother,

I sure appreciate the fact that you at least are trying to keep this discussion on an exegetical basis. Romans chapter 11 and the text you quote reveals that New Covenant BELIEVERS (the Church) are the present day remnant of Israel. This is the continuation of the parenthesis in the epistle to the Romans that begins in chapter nine. There are a number of things that must be understood regarding the seven-fold Abrahamic Covenant before Romans chapters 9-11 can be understood within the context of the whole epistle.

There are three truths essential to understanding what God is saying in Romans chapters 9, 10, and 11.

1. The Old Testament teaching (doctrine) of election
2. The seven folds of the Abrahamic Covenant and the fact that the promises of God to Israel are primarily earthly and temporal
3. The Old (Mosaic) Covenant Priesthood being cast away and a new Priesthood being called and prepared for the Kingdom Age in all born again believers of the Church Age



​

Without a shadow of a doubt, election refers primarily to the nation of Israel through which Messiah would come, and with His coming, the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant and the promise of the New Genesis “in Christ.” It is to the second essential truth regarding the seven folds of the Abrahamic Covenant that we must preoccupy ourselves before we study through Romans chapters nine through eleven. The fact of the seven folds of the Abrahamic Covenant is the fact that the promises of God to National Israel are primarily earthly and temporal.

To understand the doctrine of election as spoken of in Romans chapters eight through eleven, we must understand the place of the New Covenant Church of Jesus Christ within the Abrahamic Covenant. This is expanded upon in Romans chapter eleven and in Ephesians chapter two. This refers to the third essential in understanding the doctrine of election; i.e., the Old (Mosaic) Covenant Priesthood being cast away and a new Priesthood being called and prepared for the Kingdom Age in all born again believers of the Church Age. This concept was a “mystery” to the Jews, but is revealed thoroughly in the New Covenant epistles.


The unfolding nature of “the regeneration” is revealed more extensively in the unfolding of the Abrahamic Covenant throughout Scripture. “The regeneration” unfolds as Scripture reveals the election of a nation in Abraham through which the “firstborn” of “the regeneration” would be born. The unfolding nature of the Abrahamic Covenant reveals the election of God in “the firstborn” that leads to the birth of the ultimate “firstborn,” i.e. Christ. This unfolds from the election of the nation of Israel as the “firstborn” to the election of the tribe of Levi as the “firstborn.” Then it unfolds in the casting away of that Old Covenant Priesthood (Malachi chapters two and three) and the establishment of a New Covenant Priesthood with Christ as the High Priest, Prophet and King of the nation of Israel. This new priesthood of the elect nation of Israel will be comprised of all “born again” believers from the Day of Pentecost through the Tribulation (including only those martyred and resurrected at the second coming of Christ).


In order to understand this we must understand two things:

Ø The unfolding nature of the Abrahamic Covenant
Ø That the reality that the Old Covenant type in the Aaronic Priesthood is fulfilled in the “body of Christ” is the new, Holy/Royal Priesthood of all Church Age believers under our Prophet/King/High Priest Christ Jesus in the Millennial Kingdom on Earth


​

The New Covenant is actually part of the unfolding Abrahamic Covenant. There are seven folds of the Abrahamic Covenant as it unfolds in history (past and future) culminating in the Millennial Kingdom with a restored nation of Israel and the Church Age Saints serving in glorified bodies as the Zadokien Kings/Priests/Judges of the world under Christ. If we fail to see the Church as part of the unfolding Abrahamic Covenant, we will fail to see the New Covenant as part of its fulfillment. None of the folds of the Abrahamic Covenant are salvific in scope or application. In other words, there are no salvational conditions in the Abrahamic Covenant. Again, in each fold we will see that the promises of God to Israel are primarily earthly and temporal. That does not mean there are no heavenly and eternal aspects to God’s covenant promises to Israel, but that those promises are primarily earthly and temporal.

 

[Salamander]

Dr. K: "Two questions must be answered from the context of God's choosing:"

1. Who is it being chosen?

From the text: "brethren beloved of the Lord"

2. What is it they are being chosen for?

Again, from the text: "salvation".

Let me add a third question:

3. WHEN were they chosen?

Again, from the text: "from the beginning"


2 Thessalonians 2:13 (KJV) But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

14 Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The word "to" indicates a destination.
The word "through" indicates a path.
The destination is salvation, the path is sanctification and belief.

Where has God chosen to take his chosen ones? A: Salvation.

How will God get them there? A: through the sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

How did they get on the path? A: "he called you"

How were they called? A: "by our gospel"



​

See JArthur's response above, and the following text might give someone a lot of reason to believe that God elects people to be delivered from condemnation.

Romans 8:33 (KJV) Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.





​

Um, I am afraid you misunderstand that God chose those "in him" to be holy and without blame, this isn't speaking of salvation, but the after effect being sanctification.

I am no longer condemned because I am saved, Because I am saved I am elect to become sanctified unto service.

I am no longer condemned because before I was in Christ I was under condemnation because I had yet excersied the measure of faith which action progressed me from unbelief into believing unto salvation. This is entirely the WORK of grace, not initiated by me, but by the Lord.

I must respond to the call to salvation to accept Christ, or fail of the action of the grace of God and reject Christ and be lost for eternity.

To believe that God creates souls that would never have a chance to respond positively to his efforts of grace makes Him a tyrant, which he is not, and also makes him a respector of persons, which He is not.

The introduction of the theology of irrestible grace didn't take all these things into consideration.

 

[Salamander]

Not bowing one's knee to baal demonstrates a prior faith. It is clear the 7000 who did not bow their knee to baal had already put their faith in God, and these were the ones set aside by God...the ones who already had faith. This demonstrates conditional election.

Can I request that yall take your theme that hijacked this thread to another thread?

 

[The Archangel]

Lance,

This is not going to be as in-depth as I usually go.

First, from your post, I now see the great difference between us--you are, I think, a dispensationalist. So, it is almost as if we are speaking different languages. Unfortunately, dispensationalism has many issues because its proponents "see" things in the text (divisions or dispensations, etc) that simply aren't there (Especially in Hebrew).

Be that as it may, there are still some unresolved questions.

The New Covenant is actually part of the unfolding Abrahamic Covenant.

No. This simply cannot be. Hebrews 8:13 says "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."

The author of Hebrews is quite clear. The old covenant and the new covenant are definitely distinct. That is why the New Testament refers to the New Covenant as "New" (I don't intend that to be a mean-spirited statement). If, as you say, the "New" were a part of the "Old," it would have been referred to as something other than "New." Perhaps it would have been the "reformed" covenant or something. It was never God's intent to reform the old covenant; it was His intent to replace it (thus the new wine in old wine skins argument).

Unfortunately, you did not answer my questions about the Romans 11 passage. I'll say what I said again:

Paul is saying what I am saying--God keeps for Himself a faithful remnant. He personally ensures their faith and subsequent faithfulness. Paul's statement, in Greek, includes the reflexive pronoun translated "for myself."

Furthermore, to make his point (any my point too) he goes on to say the remnant was chosen by grace. He says there was a remnant in Elijah's time and now (his time). Both were chosen by grace. They were not chosen to be a remnant because of their faith. No, they were chosen, by grace, and because of God's choice to choose them, they are the remnant.

Paul's emphasis goes even further. He completely eliminates faith being the basis for becoming a part of the remnant. It faith were the requirement to become part of the remnant and we, to be elected as part of the remnant, must demonstrate faith, then faith would be a "work" and nullify God's grace. Instead, the point Paul is making is this: God chooses and He does so on the basis of grace (where nothing is deserved).

Paul says the elect obtained what it was seeking. The rest were hardened--by God. Notice who "gave the spirit of stupor, the eyes not seeing, and the ears not hearing," it was God who did this.

So, I would say God chose the elect to the necessary exclusion of those not chosen because that is exactly what Paul is saying.

If Paul is not saying this, then what is he saying?

I'm not trying to be "nasty" with this next comment, please believe me, so please don't take it that way. I find it Ironic that you say I'm am "at least" trying to be exegetical in this discussion and then go onto detail a system of theology and side-step the text in question. Now, you are free to interpret Romans as you choose. But the text in question does link the Old Testament to Paul's present time and it does talk about election (in both the past and the present).

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[webdog]

Can I request that yall take your theme that hijacked this thread to another thread?

It's dealing with repentance and the elect...so it is not a hijack, and pertains to the OP.

 

[Dr. L.T. Ketchum]

Lance,

This is not going to be as in-depth as I usually go.

First, from your post, I now see the great difference between us--you are, I think, a dispensationalist. So, it is almost as if we are speaking different languages. Unfortunately, dispensationalism has many issues because its proponents "see" things in the text (divisions or dispensations, etc) that simply aren't there (Especially in Hebrew).

Be that as it may, there are still some unresolved questions.


No. This simply cannot be. Hebrews 8:13 says "In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."

The author of Hebrews is quite clear. The old covenant and the new covenant are definitely distinct. That is why the New Testament refers to the New Covenant as "New" (I don't intend that to be a mean-spirited statement). If, as you say, the "New" were a part of the "Old," it would have been referred to as something other than "New." Perhaps it would have been the "reformed" covenant or something. It was never God's intent to reform the old covenant; it was His intent to replace it (thus the new wine in old wine skins argument).

The New Covenant does not replace the Abrahamic Covenant. The New Covenant replaces the Mosaic Covenant (the Law).

Clearly the New Covenant is another fold of the Abrahamic Covenant that replaces the abrogated Mosaic Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant was a covenant WITHIN the Abrahamic Covenant. Galatians 3:6-18 alone is enough to show this error of Covenant Theology.

“6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. 10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. 13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. 15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. 16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. 18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise” (Galatians 3:6-18).

Unfortunately, you did not answer my questions about the Romans 11 passage. I'll say what I said again:


If Paul is not saying this, then what is he saying?

I'm not trying to be "nasty" with this next comment, please believe me, so please don't take it that way. I find it Ironic that you say I'm am "at least" trying to be exegetical in this discussion and then go onto detail a system of theology and side-step the text in question. Now, you are free to interpret Romans as you choose. But the text in question does link the Old Testament to Paul's present time and it does talk about election (in both the past and the present).

Blessings,

The Archangel

I did answer your question and I did tell you what Paul is saying.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1175255&postcount=104

Even most leading Covenant Theologians will admit that their Covenant Theology is based upon eisegesis (suppositional ideas imposed upon interpretation), not exegesis.

Covenant Theology is a METHOD of Biblical interpretation (deductive methodology, [FONT=&quot]Aristotelian Syllogism, and proof texting).

Dispensationalism is the RESULT of Biblical interpretation resulting from an inductive methodology.

http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/Pictures/Dispensational%20Chart.pdf

That is why I said you were at least trying to be exegetical in your responses. I was not trying to be rude or to ridicule you in anyway. I believe you are honestly trying to represent the Scriptures according to your understanding.[/FONT]

 

[The Archangel]

The New Covenant does not replace the Abrahamic Covenant. The New Covenant replaces the Mosaic Covenant (the Law).

Clearly the New Covenant is another fold of the Abrahamic Covenant that replaces the abrogated Mosaic Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant was a covenant WITHIN the Abrahamic Covenant. Galatians 3:6-18 alone is enough to show this error of Covenant Theology.

“6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. 10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. 13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. 15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. 16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. 18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise” (Galatians 3:6-18).


I did answer your question and I did tell you what Paul is saying.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1175255&postcount=104

Even most leading Covenant Theologians will admit that their Covenant Theology is based upon eisegesis (suppositional ideas imposed upon interpretation), not exegesis.

Covenant Theology is a METHOD of Biblical interpretation (deductive methodology, [FONT=&quot]Aristotelian Syllogism, and proof texting).

Dispensationalism is the RESULT of Biblical interpretation resulting from an inductive methodology.

http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/Pictures/Dispensational%20Chart.pdf

That is why I said you were at least trying to be exegetical in your responses. I was not trying to be rude or to ridicule you in anyway. I believe you are honestly trying to represent the Scriptures according to your understanding.[/FONT]

Lance,

Now this is just silly. Dispensationalism is an outside system for it doesn't necessarily take the plain meaning of the the text. Which is to say things must be invented to explain things--like 7-fold covenant. When reformed theologians speak of things like Radical Depravity it is because Ephesians calls us "Dead in our sins" before Christ.

We are obviously at an impasse because you will not look past the dispensational system (which has issues because it seems to create, for example, a false dichotomy between the method of salvation between the OT and the NT when salvation has always been by grace).

Further, rather than engage the text itself, you insist on putting on your "Dispensational glasses" (now I do see the Bible through reformed glasses, I'll admit).

Additionally, your system must, then, argue that Abraham must have done something to be chosen by God. I asked you specifically what about Abraham and what about Israel. They did nothing to be chosen. How do you explain that?

For the record, you did not answer my original question. Sure you posted an answer but it did not deal with the text (which is true exposition, not systems like Covenant Theology or Dispensationalism), it dealt with your system. So, if you are unwilling to engage in a discussion of the text, it would probably be best to discontinue this particular discussion, lest we degenerate into less-than-brotherly statements and accusations.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[J.D.]

Um, I am afraid you misunderstand that God chose those "in him" to be holy and without blame, this isn't speaking of salvation, but the after effect being sanctification.

I am no longer condemned because I am saved, Because I am saved I am elect to become sanctified unto service.

I am no longer condemned because before I was in Christ I was under condemnation because I had yet excersied the measure of faith which action progressed me from unbelief into believing unto salvation. This is entirely the WORK of grace, not initiated by me, but by the Lord.

I must respond to the call to salvation to accept Christ, or fail of the action of the grace of God and reject Christ and be lost for eternity.

To believe that God creates souls that would never have a chance to respond positively to his efforts of grace makes Him a tyrant, which he is not, and also makes him a respector of persons, which He is not.

The introduction of the theology of irrestible grace didn't take all these things into consideration.

God has both the power and the right to do as he pleases. If you think that makes Him a tyrant, you'll have to take that up with Him. Are you going to step up to the throne and say "what doest thou?"

It is unspeakably gracious for the Holy Omnipotent God to forgive millions of sinners of their rebellious hatred - whom He could rightly cast into Hell if He so desired.

 

[Allan]

Glad you find us bottom feeders amusing, DOCTOR Allan.
lol

Hey , if you noticed, I stated I was amused at the interactions of which I stayed out of FOR ONCE (paraphrase - sort of).

But, I do like the ring of Dr. Allan :laugh:

 

[Allan]

Allan, thank you for your reply.

.....

I know you don’t like that interpretation (more on that in a minute). You continued:

.....

I do grasp what you are saying. Unfortunately, how you are reading the verse is not how the original Hebrew presents the verse. Please allow me to explain.

In Hebrew there are different verbal “stems.” These stems show quite a bit of nuance. The most basic stem is called Qal. It shows simple action (usually in the past tense) like “I saw,” “I knew,” “he walked,” etc.

In the 1 Kings passage the first word is [FONT=&quot]וְהִשְׁאַרְתִּ֥י[/FONT] The word (without the conjunction “vav”) is [FONT=&quot]הִשְׁאַרְתִּ֥י[/FONT] In Hebrew the verb usually starts the sentence and this sentence is not an exception.

The verb is [FONT=&quot]שָׁאַר[/FONT] and it means is the same root that gives us the noun “remnant.” This verb, however, is not in the Qal stem; it is a Hiphil. The Hiphil stem is reflexive where the subject is the one causing the action.

So, the better translation would be “I have kept for myself 7,000…” Notice that God is doing the action, He is causing His desired outcome. In conjunction with the context of the passage, it is clear what the text is saying: These were people God had already chosen to be His faithful remnant.

Why? Because 1. The condition of Israel at that time was atrocious, 2. Elijah thought himself to be the last remaining believer. Couple that with the Hiphil verb and it is clear that God has kept for Himself a faithful people (a true Israel inside the apostate Israel).

I know you don’t like this interpretation—that God does the keeping. However it is the clear from the text that this is the passage’s intended meaning.

May God richly bless you! (even as you work at night in SD!)

The Archangel

Hello again Arch.

First let me start of by saying I do have a rather good gasp of both the Hebrew and Greek Languages, just so you know. I'm not offended either that you took the time to spell out certain things but in all seriousness I don't think you understanding WHAT I am saying. Why? Because we are talking about the SAME THING :laugh: God is keeping them. If God is 'keeping them' it is because they are already His, and is the same thing you state here:

Couple that with the Hiphil verb and it is clear that God has kept for Himself a faithful people

I have not contended anything different nor contrary to your accertion. This has been the very thing I have been stating.

Now, about your comment with regard to "you don’t like this interpretation—that God does the keeping". You are COMPLETELY confusing me. There isn't a non-Cal I know of who doesn't believe that it is God who does the keeping and as I stated earlier in this post, is exactly what I have been saying. Maybe it is THIS you might elaborate on for me please.

 

[The Archangel]

Hello again Arch.

First let me start of by saying I do have a rather good gasp of both the Hebrew and Greek Languages, just so you know. I'm not offended either that you took the time to spell out certain things but in all seriousness I don't think you understanding WHAT I am saying. Why? Because we are talking about the SAME THING :laugh: God is keeping them. If God is 'keeping them' it is because they are already His, and is the same thing you state here:

I have not contended anything different nor contrary to your accertion. This has been the very thing I have been stating.

Now, about your comment with regard to "you don’t like this interpretation—that God does the keeping". You are COMPLETELY confusing me. There isn't a non-Cal I know of who doesn't believe that it is God who does the keeping and as I stated earlier in this post, is exactly what I have been saying. Maybe it is THIS you might elaborate on for me please.

Hey there Allan! How are things in SD tonight? Where is Huron, anyway? I've been to the Black Hills, to Mt. Rushmore, but I couldn't find that on a map without Google.

I'm sorry if I was unclear. I know you believe in God's keeping the remnant in the OT and the believers in the NT. I should have been clear on stating that we agree on that point and I wasn't, I apologize for my oversight.

Where we do have a disagreement, I think, is how the ones being kept got to their position in the first place.

My argument has been that the remnant of 7,000 in Elijah's day were faithful because God had chosen them to be so--that they were a remnant (and would, therefore, be preserved faithful) is a result of God's first choosing them to be so, not because they first responded and as a result God kept them. That's what I was getting at.

I hope I am not still misunderstanding you. Do you agree with the above paragraph? I'll be pleasantly surprised if you do, but I'm not holding my breath.

I wish you well tonight as you work (if you are working).

Blessings,

The Archangel

PS. Where did you study Greek and Hebrew?

 

[Allan]

Hey there Allan! How are things in SD tonight? Where is Huron, anyway? I've been to the Black Hills, to Mt. Rushmore, but I couldn't find that on a map without Google.

I'm sorry if I was unclear. I know you believe in God's keeping the remnant in the OT and the believers in the NT. I should have been clear on stating that we agree on that point and I wasn't, I apologize for my oversight.

Where we do have a disagreement, I think, is how the ones being kept got to their position in the first place.

My argument has been that the remnant of 7,000 in Elijah's day were faithful because God had chosen them to be so--that they were a remnant (and would, therefore, be preserved faithful) is a result of God's first choosing them to be so, not because they first responded and as a result God kept them. That's what I was getting at.

I hope I am not still misunderstanding you. Do you agree with the above paragraph? I'll be pleasantly surprised if you do, but I'm not holding my breath.

I wish you well tonight as you work (if you are working).

Blessings,

The Archangel

PS. Where did you study Greek and Hebrew?

Not trying to shorten our conversation but I wrote a post TWICE for this and BOTH times it was erased :tonofbricks:

I am just 60 miles West of Sioux Falls and 60 miles North from there.

With regard to you above clarificaiton, I have one question first:
When did we start talking about 'why' God chose?

Yes, we do differ on some of the mechanics. I will simply state that I hold God's decrees and (fore)knowledge work in conjuction one with another. However, both views with regard to the how, and why of God's choosing are speculations on our part based upon systems of understanding. The only thing we know without question is that ''those whom He foreknew He did predestinate..."

It is somewhat simplified but I am currently miffed at this computer and do not feel like trying to write it all over again.

With respect to my learning of Greek and Hebrew:
I learned primarily by myself and through others - pastors (my pastor while I was in a secular college was the one who got me started in Greek and some Hebrew - but mostly Greek). My friends (helping them study) while attending TTU and SEBTS (the College side of it). A large portion of my learning came through the purchusing of those books and doing my own studies while I could not continue to attend credit classes due to finances. I audited classes as I have had time over the years. Dr. Carson (The Wheel as he is affectionately known by his students) was one of my favorite profs at SEBTS (the college side).
Anyway, no specifically 'formal' training in that I have credit hours behind me. But don't let that fool you . Formal training has great merit but it does not negate the fact one can learn just as much without it. And as I have said, I had many formally trained teachers, friends, and pastors who have helped me along greatly.

 

[The Archangel]

Not trying to shorten our conversation but I wrote a post TWICE for this and BOTH times it was erased :tonofbricks:

I am just 60 miles West of Sioux Falls and 60 miles North from there.

With regard to you above clarificaiton, I have one question first:
When did we start talking about 'why' God chose?

Yes, we do differ on some of the mechanics. I will simply state that I hold God's decrees and (fore)knowledge work in conjuction one with another. However, both views with regard to the how, and why of God's choosing are speculations on our part based upon systems of understanding. The only thing we know without question is that ''those whom He foreknew He did predestinate..."

It is somewhat simplified but I am currently miffed at this computer and do not feel like trying to write it all over again.

With respect to my learning of Greek and Hebrew:
I learned primarily by myself and through others - pastors (my pastor while I was in a secular college was the one who got me started in Greek and some Hebrew - but mostly Greek). My friends (helping them study) while attending TTU and SEBTS (the College side of it). A large portion of my learning came through the purchusing of those books and doing my own studies while I could not continue to attend credit classes due to finances. I audited classes as I have had time over the years. Dr. Carson (The Wheel as he is affectionately known by his students) was one of my favorite profs at SEBTS (the college side).
Anyway, no specifically 'formal' training in that I have credit hours behind me. But don't let that fool you . Formal training has great merit but it does not negate the fact one can learn just as much without it. And as I have said, I had many formally trained teachers, friends, and pastors who have helped me along greatly.

Allan,

I'm sorry about your computer issues. I hate when I write things only to have them lost by my stupid computer (I usually post from a PC; my MAC has never had that issue).

I visited Custer, SD (the whole Mt. Rushmore thing) in the summer of 1988, I think. The beauty of SD is almost unparalleled. SD is one of my favorite places on the planet (right up there with Los Cabos, Mexico; Cuenca, Spain; and Edinburgh, Scotland.)

You asked " When did we start talking about 'why' God chose?"

I guess that is a crucial issue and why I assumed it was at the bottom of the conversation.

If I am understanding your thoughts on our ongoing conversation, I would estimate you believe that "election" is based on foreseen faith. That is to say God knew you would believe and then (Because of seeing your future choice) elected you to salvation. Is that a fair estimation?

As I'm sure you know, this goes to the idea of "Conditional Election" or "Unconditional Election." I think this is important because most people I talk to (or see here on the board) seem to think that there is a Condition on our election. It would seem people operate under the presupposition that we must believe in order to be elected--we must act in such a way (faith) so that God will respond by giving us something (grace). I firmly believe this order upsets the Biblical order. The order of things (not only salvation things) is this: God acts and we respond. I believe the Bible shows that God acts (gives grace--and faith, but that is a different discussion) and we respond to Him (in repentance and faith).

I think this to be an important discussion, especially in the OT. Because most people do not think about God's choice of Abraham (he was an idol worshiper when God called him) and Israel (He didn't offer his choosing to any other nations).

Anyway...that's my story. Thus far, I have avoided the "Blue Screen of Death," knock on wood.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Isaiah40:28]

Allan,
If I am understanding your thoughts on our ongoing conversation, I would estimate you believe that "election" is based on foreseen faith. That is to say God knew you would believe and then (Because of seeing your future choice) elected you to salvation. Is that a fair estimation?

There are several non-Calvinists on here who say they do not believe in "foreseen faith".
Allan is one of them.

Your as bad as Dave Hunt, do you know that?
Your 1 is false - foresees (no has declared this)
Your 2 is false - God does not decree all believers to believe (that is YOUR view)
Your 3 is false - since it is based on your #2 which is in fact your own view and not ours.

IF an order could be assumed, since there IS NO BIBLICAL ORDER. It might be put in general:
1) God decrees He will save man by His grace through faith.
2) God saves by election those God knows WILL believe as He gives the choice.
3) Once decreed the knowledge of their choice is established and is in perfect harmony with God's ALL of God other decrees.

The choice is made BECAUSE of His decree and not the decree made becaus of choice. In so being it REMAINS a choice regardless of God's knowledge and decreeing it to be just as He Knows (as opposed to it now being a non-choice). It is only a non-choice when you have no other option. In your view even the saved do not have choice. As a sinner you will not believe because God will not make him, and as one born again (in your view) one does not have a choice NOT to beleive. There IS NO choice in your view because God does not give a choice. Again, One is bound for heaven because God makes him believe and that other is bound for hell because (as you say) God will not make man believe.

Perhaps you can pick through that and come up with some clarifying questions for Allan.

 

[skypair]

My argument has been that the remnant of 7,000 in Elijah's day were faithful because God had chosen them to be so...

Uh? Then how come OT saints weren't regenerated first?

skypair

 

[Dr. L.T. Ketchum]

Lance,

Now this is just silly. Dispensationalism is an outside system for it doesn't necessarily take the plain meaning of the the text. Which is to say things must be invented to explain things--like 7-fold covenant. When reformed theologians speak of things like Radical Depravity it is because Ephesians calls us "Dead in our sins" before Christ.

We are obviously at an impasse because you will not look past the dispensational system (which has issues because it seems to create, for example, a false dichotomy between the method of salvation between the OT and the NT when salvation has always been by grace).

Further, rather than engage the text itself, you insist on putting on your "Dispensational glasses" (now I do see the Bible through reformed glasses, I'll admit).

Additionally, your system must, then, argue that Abraham must have done something to be chosen by God. I asked you specifically what about Abraham and what about Israel. They did nothing to be chosen. How do you explain that?

For the record, you did not answer my original question. Sure you posted an answer but it did not deal with the text (which is true exposition, not systems like Covenant Theology or Dispensationalism), it dealt with your system. So, if you are unwilling to engage in a discussion of the text, it would probably be best to discontinue this particular discussion, lest we degenerate into less-than-brotherly statements and accusations.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Let me start off by saying I have no animosity towards you, so please do not read any into what I am about to say (this often happens in the virtual world of faceless communication bereft of knowing the personalities of those we are communicating). I am sure if we met, we could be friends. :love2:

You said, "Now this is just silly." Let me tell you what is "silly.":smilewinkgrin:

You said "the old covenant and the new covenant are definitely distinct. That is why the New Testament refers to the New Covenant as 'New' (I don't intend that to be a mean-spirited statement). If, as you say, the 'New' were a part of the 'Old,' it would have been referred to as something other than 'New.' "

By that you clearly meant that the Abrahamic Covenant was replaced by the New Covenant. I never said the New Covenant was part of the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant is the Mosaic Covenant. The New Covenant is an extension (and part of) of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Then, you totally sidestepped the reference to Gal. 3:6-18, which states emphatically that the conclusion you (and Covenant Theology) make is WRONG. It is the Mosaic Covenant (the Law) that is abrogated and replaced by the New Covenant ushering in a new governance for God's people (grace). Theonomy is gone. Sacerdotalism is gone. Sacrifices/sacraments are gone. Now there is only ONE MEDIATOR. Circumcision is gone (and is not replaced by infant baptism). And much more . . . that is part of the Mosaic Covenant.

“6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. 10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. 13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: 14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. 15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. 16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. 18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise” (Galatians 3:6-18).

Then you said,"a false dichotomy between the method of salvation between the OT and the NT when salvation has always been by grace" I do not know of any dispensationalist that does not believe salvation has always been "by grace" (including myself). The only difference is that we do not take away from God's Word as does Covenant Theology by taking grace out of the context of "by grace THROUGH faith." Every dispensationalist I have known in my 40 years of ministry believes that sinners are saved exactly the same way from Adam to the end of time; "by grace through faith."

Covenant Theology believes that God has cast away Israel. Scripture clearly say God has NOT cast away Israel.

“1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, 3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. 4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. 5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace . . . ” (Romans 11:1-2a).

Why was Abraham chosen? Abraham was chosen for God’s “eternal purpose” (Eph. 3:11) “in Christ Jesus” and, that in Abraham's Seed, all the nations of the earth could be blessed THROUGH the same open door of faith. That “eternal purpose” was for the birth, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ to open a “door” (John 10:7) from the fallen creation (Satan’s dominion) into the New Creation (“the regeneration”) through His (the "last Adam") death, burial, and resurrection to all who will believe/rest/trust in His “finished” work of redemption (the propitiation of God and the justification of believers) intent upon restoring “born again” believers to produce God-kind righteousness through there lives through the empowering if the indwelling Holy Spirit (“grace”). Through progressive sanctification, the “born again” believer can now (after Pentecost) glorify God by the production of the “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal. 5:22-23). The ultimate “purpose” of God is the restoration of believers to glorification when we will finally be able to glorify God as He deserves.

To say that dispensationalism is based upon eisegesis is nonsense. You seem like an educated man. Do you understand what an inductive methodology of exegesis is?

I agree, there is no purpose in you and I continuing this discussion. You do not read what I post and what you do read, you look at through Augustine's glasses.

 

[J.D.]

Doc,

I notice you never address me. You may want to reread chapter 43. Look for more then one movement.

1st...tell me what you think of verse 4.

Jim, I guess you better not hold your breath.