Summarizing the Mistakes of Calvinism

[OldRegular]

Original post by OldRegular
Winman you are grasping at straws in an attempt to refute my post. Look at what I said.

There is nothing there that says we are saved

Also please tell me the difference between the "Security of the Saints" and

Response by Winman
There is all the difference in the world between Perseverance and Preservation. Perseverance is something you do, you persevere. This is works salvation. Preservation is based upon God's faithfulness to keep his promises even when we are not faithful. I am not saved because I am perfectly faithful to Jesus, I assure you I am not. I am saved because Jesus is faithful to me. He promised if I come to him I will not be cast out. I did come to him, so I cannot be cast out, I am preserved. Big difference.

Winman it is a little disingenuous not to include all my remarks. Also you did not tell me the difference between "Security of the Saints" and "Preservation".

That being said consider the following Scripture:

Matthew 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Now consider the word "endure":

[υπομενω] hupomeno hoop-om-en'-o

from 5259 and 3306; TDNT - 4:581,581; v

KJV - endure 11, take patiently 2, tarry behind 1, abide 1, patient 1, suffer 1; 17

1) to remain
1a) to tarry behind
2) to remain i.e. abide, not recede or flee
2a) to preserve: under misfortunes and trials to hold fast to one's faith in Christ
2b) to endure, bear bravely and calmly: ill treatments

 

[OldRegular]

No, it is not regeneration, it is drawing and conviction, but both can be resisted. Paul (Saul) was present when Stephen preached and the crowd stoned him. He heard the preaching but resisted. It was only later when Jesus appeared to him that he submitted to God and was saved.

Have you considered that Paul was regenerated in the time lapse between the stoning of Stephen and the trip to Damascus! Perhaps while on the road!

 

[Winman]

Your post implies that my mom is actually all those things, that he was simply untactful to say so.

His post is more akin to:

a = x
a+a = a+x
2a = a+x
2a-2x = a+x-2x
2(a-x) = a+x-2x
2(a-x) = a-x
2 = 1

​

Looks right until the last step where he insists on dividing by zero. 2=1 is "mysterious," but must be the conclusion, because he obeyed all the rules of math to arrive at that conclusion. The Calvinists are trying to tell him that a-x is zero, and nothing can be divided by zero. The argument is as basic as arguing over whether or not 2 = 1.

That's where the self-destruct button is.

I don't know where you studied math, but if a equals x, then a minus x equals zero, and two times a minus x equals zero, not two or one.

 

[quantumfaith]

Your post implies that my mom is actually all those things, that he was simply untactful to say so.

His post is more akin to:

a = x
a+a = a+x
2a = a+x
2a-2x = a+x-2x
2(a-x) = a+x-2x
2(a-x) = a-x
2 = 1

​

Looks right until the last step where he insists on dividing by zero. 2=1 is "mysterious," but must be the conclusion, because he obeyed all the rules of math to arrive at that conclusion. The Calvinists are trying to tell him that a-x is zero, and nothing can be divided by zero. The argument is as basic as arguing over whether or not 2 = 1.

That's where the self-destruct button is.

No Aaron, there was no "insistence" on dividing by zero, but in actuality one cannot assume that it is not a possibility, that is why the mathematics here is not correct. And besides, God is most certainly able to divide by zero, would you not agree?

 

[quantumfaith]

The New Perspective and Romans 9: Introduction

The following continues my series on The New Perspective on Paul. I've previously discussed the New Perspective as it relates to the development of Reformed theology and applied it to Ephesians 1 and 2. Here we come to Romans 9. It's an intricate argument, so I'm breaking it up into a few blog posts.

Romans 9 is often cited as one of the clearest examples in Scripture of the Reformed doctrine of individual election. It discusses God’s sovereign choice of Isaac in preference to Ishmael and Jacob rather than Esau, without regard to any merit of the chosen or demerit of those who were not chosen. It counters what would later be the Arminian objection that unconditional election appears unjust to our human sense of justice, and uses Pharaoh as an example of someone whom God “raised up” for the express purpose of becoming a demonstration of God’s power. God bears with great patience these “objects of wrath,” in order to glorify himself before the “objects of his mercy,” that is, the elect (see Augustine, “To Prosper and Hilary” 14; Calvin, Institutes 3.22.4-6).

I would contend that this interpretation ignores the larger context of Romans 9-11, whose main theme is struggling with the implications of the Gospel for the nation of Israel. It also ignores the Old Testament contexts of Paul’s quotations, which when viewed in proper perspective shed a distinctly different light on Paul’s argument. Paul is struggling with the fact that God had made certain promises in the scriptures concerning the Israel, many of which he sees as fulfilled in and through Christ. Yet Israel as a whole has not come to Christ. What does this mean for Israel, for the veracity of the Scriptures, and for Paul’s gospel? These questions dominate Paul’s mind in Romans 9-11, and his statements about election in Romans 9 must be evaluated in terms of them.

Romans 9:1 makes a clear break with what has gone on before, and yet the chapters that follow are intimately related to those that precede. Paul has demonstrated in Romans 1-8 the fallenness of all humanity (both Jew and Gentile), justification not by the “works of the law” (ergon nomou, 3:20) but rather by “faith in Jesus Christ” (pisteos Iesou Christou, 3:22), Abraham as an example of justification by faith, and the practical implications of justification by faith. Paul’s theoretical argument is rather nicely wrapped up at the end of chapter 8, except for establishing the relationship between his doctrine of justification by faith in Christ and the historic relationship God has had with ethnic Israel. Even though Paul represents justification by faith not as a novelty but as something that began with Abraham, that does not answer the question of why God had related to His people Israel primarily on the basis of their descent from Abraham and on their keeping of the Law. Scripture makes clear that the Israelites viewed themselves as relating to God on the basis of those two things (descent from Abraham: Gen. 26:24; Dt. 4:37; Matt. 3:9; Lk. 1:72-74; keeping the Law: Ex. 20:6; Lev. 26:3ff; 1 Kings 9:4-5; Neh. 1:9; Dn. 9:4; Mt. 19:17; Ac. 15:5). The Jewish people, who had not been coming in great numbers to Christ, may well argue that if Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith were true, then God would have essentially broken His promises to Israel. If Israel sees inclusion in the covenant as based on descent from Abraham and keeping the Law, then how can God turn around and say, “No, inclusion in the covenant is not based on descent from Abraham or keeping the Law, but rather on faith in Christ”? It would seem to them that God’s word had failed (v. 6), which is what Paul is at pains to dispute in Romans 9-11.

In a nutshell, Paul’s argument begins by assaulting the two assumptions that had been made concerning God’s relationship to His people. Paul’s line of argumentation in Romans 9-11 is intended to answer the specific charge that if Paul’s gospel were true, God’s word would have failed regarding Israel. Much of the traditional interpretation of this passage seems to keep this emphasis in mind only for a few verses, but in fact this charge is the primary position against which Paul is writing throughout the three chapters. It is the essential position of the “hypothetical questioner” whom Paul invokes in 9:19-20, and is implied in a number of other verses (e.g., 9:6, 16, 32). In chapter 3, Paul has already demolished the possible contention that Jews can rely on keeping the Law; however, Jews may still rely on their descent from Abraham as indicating their inclusion in the covenant community. After all, the Old Testament promises regarding the restoration of Israel are not contingent upon perfect obedience to the Law; in some ways, it appears that adherence to the Law is actually one of the promises to be fulfilled (e.g., Jer. 31:33). So if Paul says that justification is by faith in Christ, and if this standard ends up excluding the majority of Jews, who have not come to faith in Christ, then he seems to void God’s promises to Israel.

Paul’s response is simply to demonstrate that God never chose descendants of Abraham, merely as descendants of Abraham, for inclusion in the covenant community. This is clear because not all the descendants of Abraham were included, but only the descendants of Isaac, and then of Jacob. In other words, the “attrition” (if we may be permitted to call it that) that occurs with the generations of Isaac and Jacob does not stop there, but progresses throughout the descendants of Israel. It is in this sense that “not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” (9:6)

 

[Amy.G]

Matthew 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Now consider the word "endure":

[υπομενω] hupomeno hoop-om-en'-o

from 5259 and 3306; TDNT - 4:581,581; v

KJV - endure 11, take patiently 2, tarry behind 1, abide 1, patient 1, suffer 1; 17

1) to remain
1a) to tarry behind
2) to remain i.e. abide, not recede or flee
2a) to preserve: under misfortunes and trials to hold fast to one's faith in Christ
2b) to endure, bear bravely and calmly: ill treatments

I don't mean to open a can of worms, but this verse is speaking of the Tribulation. It's not speaking about the church, but about those who endure to the end of the trib.

Not applicable to the Church.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I would have summarizing "Perceived" mistakes

 

[Skandelon]

wrong.....men are spiritually dead from conception.....judicial hardening has nothing whatsoever to do with that....You do not understand the T

You have drawn a difference with no distinction. What is the difference in the claims of one who is Totally depraved and one who is judicial hardened? Both are unable to see, hear, understand and repent, right?

Not according to eph2....same error...different explanation...you have a wounded adam...the bible has a dead Adam.

Being 'dead' is used as an analogy and Calvinists take that analogy too far....further than scripture does.

How do I know?

1. Because Paul uses the same analogy to say we, as believers, are 'dead to sin.' Should that mean believers can't sin?

2. Also, if the analogy of being 'spiritually dead' is suppose to mean they are so depraved they can't respond favorably to the gospel, then what enables the dead man to respond unfavorably? Dead is dead, isn't it? How does this so called 'dead corpse,' the Calvinist refers to, reject the gospel if indeed he is so dead that he can't accept the gospel? The corpse somehow has the capacity to rebel and reject it, but not humble himself and accept it?

3. The analogy of death is used by other writers of scripture differently: "12 Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him. 13 When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. Notice that in this use of the analogy of 'death' that it is not something we are born with, but something that comes over time as sin grows...almost more in line with someone who is HARDENED.

When a Calvinist is watching the Movie "GodFather" and they hear the line of the father saying to the son, "You are dead to me," do they assume it means the son is literally dead, or what? Do Calvinists think the father and son are now unable to be reconciled because the son has become like a corpse and can no longer even respond to a message from the father meant to bring reconciliation?

 

[Winman]

Have you considered that Paul was regenerated in the time lapse between the stoning of Stephen and the trip to Damascus! Perhaps while on the road!

I do not believe Paul was regenerated. To be regenerated means to be spiritually alive, and you cannot be spiritually alive while you are still dead in sins.

Acts 22:12 And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there,
13 Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him.
14 And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth.
15 For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard.
16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

There are two accounts of Paul and Ananias, and it is difficult to put together the exact sequence of events, but in verse 16 here Ananias told Paul he needed to call on the name of Jesus to have his sins washed away. Again, you cannot be regenerated or spiritually alive until your sins are forgiven. Until your sins are washed away, you are spiritually dead in trespasses and sins. But this is when I believe Paul was regenerated.

If this is the correct interpretation, then Paul knew that Jesus was Lord three days before he actually called on Jesus and had his sins forgiven. And it was this day that Ananias laid his hands on Paul and he received the Holy Ghost. It is receiving the Holy Ghost that regenerates you or makes you spiritually alive.

Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

1 Per 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

The word "quickened" means to make alive or produce life. So, I do not believe anyone is made spiritually alive until they receive the Holy Spirit, and the scriptures always show a person first believes, and then receives the Spirit.

Gal 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Paul's question demands the answer that these Galatians received the Spirit as a result or effect of believeing the word of God.

Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

Again, Paul's question implies that a person receives the Holy Spirit as a result or effect of believeing.

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

This verse directly says these Ephesians first heard the gospel, believed the gospel, and then afterward received the Spirit.

Jhn 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Here Jesus speaks of the Holy Ghost as "living water". It is the Spirit that regenerates and gives life. These people had believed on Jesus, but none of them had received the Spirit yet. The disciples believed on Jesus, but did not receive the Spirit until John 20:22.

Jhn 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

If we know the disciples and many other people believed on Jesus before he was crucified (and we do), and if we know it is the Spirit that quickens or makes alive (and we do), and we know that folks who believed on Jesus did not receive the Spirit until after Jesus rose and was glorified (and we do), then we know for a fact than man can believe without being regenerated.

This is why Jesus told Peter he would be "converted" after Jesus was crucified and sent the Spirit.

Luk 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

Peter was not yet converted, yet he had faith. And unless we are converted, we cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Peter was a believer, but he was not yet converted, and Jesus said unless we be converted, and become as little children we cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. Yet another verse that I believe refutes Original Sin.

The scriptures ALWAYS show faith preceding regeneration or being made spiritually alive (quickened). ALWAYS.

 

[Skandelon]

So are you saying that this blindness was only for the Jews of Jesus' day and only until they killed Him?

Well, the bible teaches two types of hardening. Self-Hardening and Judicial Hardening as is seen in most systematic theologies. HERE is a link if you want to read more on that.

So, to your question, the hardening of Israel has been going for a long time, in that they have freely chosen to rebel for years ("freely" meaning they could have done otherwise). At this time, however God is judicially hardening them, or sealing them in their already rebellious condition in order to accomplish two major things. One, the crucifixion and also the ingrafting of the Gentile which you reference below...

I don't find any scripture saying that God has lifted this blindness. In fact, the bible says that they will be blinded until the fullness of the Gentiles is complete.

There is no small amount of disagreement on this particular point among those in both soteriological camps, however in Romans 11 Paul does clearly state (1) the blinding/hardening is temporary, (2) is done for a greater redemptive purpose and (3) is actually merciful in that it might provoke some of those Hardened Jews to envy so as to graft them back in.

I believe The Message paraphrase of Romans 11:25 captures Paul's intent:

I want to lay all this out on the table as clearly as I can, friends. This is complicated. It would be easy to misinterpret what's going on and arrogantly assume that you're royalty and they're just rabble, out on their ears for good. But that's not it at all. This hardness on the part of insider Israel toward God is temporary. Its effect is to open things up to all the outsiders so that we end up with a full house.

One commentator explained that God desire to make sure the Gentiles, as a people, are solidly established within the church because the Jews (even believing ones) tended to take control and try to impose the LAW on them (i.e. the judizers). So, God didn't want the church to be full of Jews first who may have driven Gentiles away due to prejudice and thus corrupt the message of grace for all mankind. Make sense?

 

[Skandelon]

Sorry but God, the Apostle Peter, and the Apostle Paul disagree with you:

Acts 10:34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

Romans 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

This from someone who believes God has preselected certain persons to be effectually saved while leaving the rest under the wrath of the Fall? Sounds like God is a 'respecter' of the elect and no one else to me...

These versus mean he doesn't favor one man over another based upon their nationality (Jew or Greek). And I'm not sure what this has to do with the point we were discussing.

That is incorrect!

The Scripture reads: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: [Ephesians 4:1]

The verb "hath chosen" is the present perfect tense of the verb chose.

What does that tense have to do with what I said. The point is that the verse tells us what WE (all believers) have been predestined to become, and yes he decided he would do that for WHOSOEVER believed in Christ regardless of their nationality, that is Paul's point. IT says nothing about God preselecting individuals to become believers. You are reading that into the text.

You all have to understand that the whole Cal/Arm debate wasn't the issue of Paul's day. The issue was JEW/GENTILE or the Elect Nation and the Barbarians who have no nation. Thus, it was essential for Paul to establish God's foreordained and predetermined plan to save WHOSOEVER came to faith, regardless of their nationality. For Paul to argue that God predetermined to conform and adopt all believers, even Gentiles ones, is the BIG ISSUE of that day. Cals make the error of taking that point to bolster their incorrect conclusions and cause great confusion by over individualizing the intent of Paul's message to mean God has individually picked winners and losers before the world even started. I think he roll over in his grave if he knew what some have done to his words.

 

[kyredneck]

OR's left the scene Skan.

 

[kyredneck]

He has more pressing matters to attend to than addressing your relentless nonstop objections to God's Sovereign Grace.

 

[Skandelon]

There you go again. God elects an inherent quality, not an individual. It doesn't matter how you slice it, it comes up works.

You are still making the same mistake Aaron. You think I believe God looks down the corridors of time and sees who will have faith and then elects them. That is just wrong. That makes the same mistake Calvinists make by over individualizing Paul's intent.

Election is NOT about God individually picking winners and losers before the world begins as you seem to think. It's also not about God looking through time to see who will win, or who has some 'inherent quality' and then picking them. Both are equally in error and until you actually choose to debate MY views (which have been fully established and documented here for you numerous times) and not the straw-men you've erected in your mind, I'm not going to waste my time on you.

 

[Skandelon]

He has more pressing matters to attend to than addressing your relentless nonstop objections to God's Sovereign Grace.

Sounds like you (and maybe he) has more of an issue with the nature of this forum than with just me personally. After all, this is a soteriological debate forum and no one is forcing you to be here. :wavey:

 

[Skandelon]

Brother Skan,

There is MUCH that we are in agreement with, but a thread like this had the "self-destruct" button pressed from the get-go. A thread like this would be akin to "Your mommy is stupid, fat, lazy, and stanks, and here's why." Some things are better left unsaid. I am afraid that this was one of'em.

Did I make any personally demeaning remarks? No.

This is a theological debate forum Willis, what exactly are you expecting to see when you come here?

I'm not insulting anyone or their mother. I'm pointing out what I believe to be three key errors that Calvinists make in their interpretation of the scriptures which lead to our points of disagreement soterilogically.

So, unless their mothers are Calvinistic I have no issue with them, their fat, or their oder.

 

[Skandelon]

ICON, the following is something interesting I have come across. I have often "heard" of the NPP, but know little about it.

The New Perspective and Ephesians
This is the third installment of a series, the first two numbers being "The New Perspective on Paul" and "The New Perspective and the Development of Reformed Doctrine."

The New Perspective on Paul is generally associated with a reinterpretation of Romans and Galatians, inasmuch as these two books have been most closely associated with the Old Perspective and the traditional Protestant interpretation of justification being derived from these two epistles. However, the traditional (especially Reformed) interpretation of Ephesians 1 and 2 should also be reexamined in light of the New Perspective.

The message of the Gospel, available to anyone who believes, was a direct threat to the special status that Israel had held as the chosen people. According to the New Perspective, this opposition to the full inclusion of the Gentiles was the major issue against which Paul was arguing in Romans and Galatians. Ephesians is quite clearly about much the same issue, although not directed against Jewish opposition or Judaizers, but written to Gentile believers to assure them of their full inclusion with Jewish believers in the New Covenant. Ephesians 2:11-3:21, which forms the heart of the book, are quite explicitly about this issue: the "mystery of Christ," which is that "the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (3:4-6). However, in traditional Reformed interpretation, chapters 1 and 2 are read as though they had nothing to do with the Jew-Gentile problem, and instead read as though they are a treatise on individual election.

Who are the "you" and the "us"?

The key to understanding Ephesians 1-2 is to identify whom Paul means by “you” and by “us” and “we.” For example, when he states “he chose us . . . he predestined us” (1:4, 5), what exactly constitutes “us”? How does the context define “us”? What are the defining characteristics of the group of people to whom Paul is referring?

In the first verse of the epistle, Paul designates his readers as pistois en Christô Iēsou, "faithful [or believing] in Christ Jesus." In the rest of his epistles, Paul only addresses his readers as pistois one other time, in Colossians. This designation, then, has special significance to the readers of Ephesians. The prominent role of faith in subsequent verses highlights the fact that Paul's designation is intended to frame the self-perception of his readers.

In connection with “having been predestined” in v. 11, Paul identifies “we” in vv. 11 and 12 as “the first to hope in Christ.” In v. 13, he identifies “you” as having been “included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of salvation” and as “having believed.” He refers in v. 15 to “your faith,” in v. 19 to “us who believe,” and states in 2:10 that “you” have been saved “through faith.” Based on the above verses, one defining characteristic of both “you” and “us” throughout the passage would clearly seem to be that they are believers and have faith.

You Gentiles and We Jews

In 2:11, "you" is more explicitly identified as "you who are Gentiles by birth and called 'uncircumcised' by those who call themselves 'the circumcision' (that done in the body by the hands of men)...." It is probable that virtually all of Paul's readers were Gentiles, so this verse further defines the "you." Paul's identification of "we" as "the first to hope in Christ" in verse 13 now makes more sense: the first generation of Christians, including Paul himself, were Jewish believers; therefore where "we" is contrasted with "you," Paul is referring to Jewish believers. (When not contrasted with "you," Paul may mean either Jewish believers or Jewish and Gentile believers considered together.) This connects the early part of the epistle thematically with the central section, the main point of which is the union of Jewish and Gentile believers into one body (2:16, 3:6).

Taking this understanding back to the passages dealing with election helps to understand Paul's intent better. In 1:4-5, Paul discusses how God chose "us" and predestined "us"; here, he is writing of Jewish and Gentile believers considered together. He is including the Gentiles in the election that Israel was already understood as having. His point is that the Gentiles are not an afterthought in God's plan; they were chosen "before the creation of the world." 1:9-10 foreshadow 3:6: the "all things" that are to be brought "together under one head" are the Jewish and Gentile believers.

Verses 11-14 begin to make a distinction between "we" and "you." The "we" in verse 11 who were "predestined" are defined in verse 12 as "the first to hope in Christ"; i.e., Paul now means by "we" the first generation of believers, who were largely Jewish. Then "you also [Gentile believers] were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth.... Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal...." Paul is saying that just as we Jews who believed were chosen and predestined according to God's plan, even so you Gentile believers are also included in that same plan. The Gentiles are fully included in the plan that God had from the beginning.

At the beginning of chapter 2, Paul continues the comparison: just as "you were dead in your transgressions and sins" (2:1-2), even so "all of us also lived among them [the 'sons of disobedience'] at one time.... we were by nature objects of wrath" (2:3). The Jews, just like the Gentiles, had once been alienated from God--the same point he makes in Galatians 2:15-16, and reiterates explicitly with regard to the Gentiles in 2:12-13.

Because of the individualistic emphasis of the Old Perspective, Ephesians 1:1-2:10 has been interpreted as an exposition of individual unconditional election, total depravity, and regeneration prior to justification. Understanding the role of the Jew-Gentile issue in Ephesians leads to a different conception of Paul's message here--one that reaches out to Gentile believers and assures them that they are just as fundamentally a part of God's election and plan as Israel had been in the Old Testament. Although this understanding can still be fit into the Reformed framework, it does not require the Reformed understanding of unconditional, individual election. Gentile believers are being reassured that they are just as much "chosen" as Jewish believers had been--because God's choice is not based on whether they are Jews or Gentiles, but rather upon faith in Christ as the only necessary criterion.

I don't know if anyone took the time to read THIS article you posted Quantum, but it is worth the time... :thumbsup:

http://www.schooleyfiles.com/2006/08/new-perspective-and-ephesians.html

 

[gb93433]

Many are called few are chosen. There is a distinction between the called and chosen who are called out from the called.

 

[seekingthetruth]

You have been answered but you refuse to acknowledge it, unless of course you are simply blind to the truth. I won't claim to know which is the truth but I have a hard time believing you are honestly "seeking the truth" regardless of the reason. I will promise to pray the Lord reveals the truth to you. That is the nature of irresistible grace. We may make rejections for years, resisting God's grace, but at His appointed time His grace will overwhelm our ability to resist. Someone smarter than me referred to this process as the "Hounds of Heaven".

So? You being a smart aleck in your reply is supposed to help me understand a false doctrine?

Give me a break, and take your lectures elsewhere.

John

 

[MB]

Brother Skan,

There is MUCH that we are in agreement with, but a thread like this had the "self-destruct" button pressed from the get-go. A thread like this would be akin to "Your mommy is stupid, fat, lazy, and stanks, and here's why." Some things are better left unsaid. I am afraid that this was one of'em.

Never the less truth is what we are after isn't it?
MB