• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The concept of the Elect.

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Understanding Acts 13:48

Van, I can come back and hit your most recent points, but first could you address the following:

(Acts 13:48 NASB) When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

Lets ask a few basic questions.

1) What is the meaning of the Greek word translated "appointed." Does it mean to be unilaterally chosen for a task? Nope. It refers to a mutual agreement. So for the verse to mean what Calvinism claims, we have to redefine the meaning of the word.

2) According to the verse, who did the appointing? The truthful answer is the verse does not say, so we must look at the context to discern the most likely actor. Calvinism claims God did the appointing. But do you see that in the verse or in the context? Nope.

Who had presented the gospel requirements? Paul. Who accepted those requirements and agreed to the appointment? The Gentiles. Look back at verse 46 if you doubt the context is how folks reacted to the message of the gospel.

Now what is the requirement of the gospel, that all those who agreed to follow would obey? Believe!!
 

DaChaser1

New Member
Boy, folks sure can overcomplicate the simple.

1 Pet 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Scripture is clear that election is based upon God's foreknowledge. In other words, God chooses persons according to something he knew in advance about that person.

God simply can see who will choose to trust Christ in their lifetime before they are born. God's foreknowledge does not determine who will choose to trust Christ, but God infallibly knows in advance who will.

We have examples in scripture.

Jhn 1:44 Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.
45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
46 And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.
47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
50 Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.
51 And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

When Philip met Jesus and believed he was the Christ, he went and found his brother Nathanael. Jesus "saw Nathanael coming to him". There is a double meaning here. Jesus saw Nathanael literally coming to him, but this is also speaking of Jesus knowing beforehand that Nathanael would come and believe. How do I know this? Because Jesus himself says he had seen Nathanael before he was "called". Only after this did Nathanael believe (vs. 49).

This foreknowledge is shown in the parable of the prodigal son.

Luk 15:20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.

Before the prodigal son actually came to his father and asked forgiveness, his father "saw him" coming. This is foreknowledge.

Another example is found in the story of when Gideon went against the Midianites.

Jud 7:1 Then Jerubbaal, who is Gideon, and all the people that were with him, rose up early, and pitched beside the well of Harod: so that the host of the Midianites were on the north side of them, by the hill of Moreh, in the valley.
2 And the LORD said unto Gideon, The people that are with thee are too many for me to give the Midianites into their hands, lest Israel vaunt themselves against me, saying, Mine own hand hath saved me.
3 Now therefore go to, proclaim in the ears of the people, saying, Whosoever is fearful and afraid, let him return and depart early from mount Gilead. And there returned of the people twenty and two thousand; and there remained ten thousand.
4 And the LORD said unto Gideon, The people are yet too many; bring them down unto the water, and I will try them for thee there: and it shall be, that of whom I say unto thee, This shall go with thee, the same shall go with thee; and of whomsoever I say unto thee, This shall not go with thee, the same shall not go.
5 So he brought down the people unto the water: and the LORD said unto Gideon, Every one that lappeth of the water with his tongue, as a dog lappeth, him shalt thou set by himself; likewise every one that boweth down upon his knees to drink.
6 And the number of them that lapped, putting their hand to their mouth, were three hundred men: but all the rest of the people bowed down upon their knees to drink water.
7 And the LORD said unto Gideon, By the three hundred men that lapped will I save you, and deliver the Midianites into thine hand: and let all the other people go every man unto his place.

This story answers the great objection of Calvinism against non-Cal theology that men save themselves. Note in vs. 2 that God says he will pick a few men to save Israel lest they "vaunt themselves against me, saying, Mine own hand hath saved me". It is almost as if this scripture were written to answer this objection by Calvinists.

Note that God commanded Gideon to bring the ten thousand men down to a body of water and observe how they drink. Gideon was told to separate those who lapped water like a dog from those who kneeled down to drink.

Three hundred men put their hand to their mouth and lapped like a dog, all the rest kneeled down to drink. God chose these three hundred men to go with Gideon against the Midianites, and they defeated the Midianites.

Did God know beforehand which men would drink like a dog and which would kneel down to drink? Of course, in fact it was God that brought about the very means of the test, commanding Gideon to bring the men down to the water and observe how they drank.

It is the same with salvation. God has determined the means, he has sent his prophets into the world proclaiming the gospel. Men are presented the gospel as these men were presented the water to drink. Those who drink like a dog, which I believe is a figure of humility, are those whom God chose. The scriptures say God has chosen the poor, the weak, the foolish, to confound the mighty and the wise. He has chosen the dogs.

1 Cor 1: 26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

God choosing people according to his foreknowedge is shown in scripture if folks would only see.


God directly causes us to be elected, as was explained beforehand in Acts passage, God determined and marked us out before we even heard the gospel, and when we heard it, responded DUE to his election!

Election causes the faith, NOT faith causes election!
 

Mark_13

New Member
I think it's quite entertaining and interesting how you're brand new and all around here mark_13 and have taken an immediate liking to van, dialoguing with him relentlessly and almost exclusively.

Very interesting indeed. :love2:

Preacher4Truth, too bad you can't readily discern truth.

Van started this thread - its his thread. He had a very specific point from the inception - that is that God does not choose a person for salvation until they are alive, or until actually the person themselves makes a choice for God. IOW, in his reckoning God's "choice" is just a semantic label for a person's choice. But I have been attacking that idea of his, and wrote a long response to him on the previous page, and before the entire thread got sidetracked I was hoping to get a response back from him.

"Preacher4Truth" - is that like "Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's 1984, or the propaganda organ of the old Soviet Union, "Pravda" (i.e. "Truth")

Often when you have to invoke "truth" in your name, it means what you're promulgating probably isn't.

(No offense, I'll probably regret it later - but seemed like a good zinger.)
 

preacher4truth

Active Member
Preacher4Truth, too bad you can't readily discern truth.

Van started this thread - its his thread. He had a very specific point from the inception - that is that God does not choose a person for salvation until they are alive, or until actually the person themselves makes a choice for God. IOW, in his reckoning God's "choice" is just a semantic label for a person's choice. But I have been attacking that idea of his, and wrote a long response to him on the previous page, and before the entire thread got sidetracked I was hoping to get a response back from him.

"Preacher4Truth" - is that like "Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's 1984, or the propaganda organ of the old Soviet Union, "Pravda" (i.e. "Truth")

Often when you have to invoke "truth" in your name, it means what you're promulgating probably isn't.

(No offense, I'll probably regret it later - but seemed like a good zinger.)

I'll take your pejorative laden reply as proof that my assessment is correct.

Thanks.
 

quantumfaith

Active Member
I think it's quite entertaining and interesting how you're brand new and all around here mark_13 and have taken an immediate liking to van, dialoguing with him relentlessly and almost exclusively.

Very interesting indeed. :love2:

And what exactly is your point? Are you passing some sort of judgement upon him because he takes and interest in discussing, debating with another, that you do not agree with?
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Reply to Misrepresentation;

Preacher4Truth, too bad you can't readily discern truth.

Van started this thread - its his thread. He had a very specific point from the inception - that is that God does not choose a person for salvation until they are alive, or until actually the person themselves makes a choice for God. IOW, in his reckoning God's "choice" is just a semantic label for a person's choice. But I have been attacking that idea of his, and wrote a long response to him on the previous page, and before the entire thread got sidetracked I was hoping to get a response back from him.

"Preacher4Truth" - is that like "Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's 1984, or the propaganda organ of the old Soviet Union, "Pravda" (i.e. "Truth")

Often when you have to invoke "truth" in your name, it means what you're promulgating probably isn't.

(No offense, I'll probably regret it later - but seemed like a good zinger.)

In Matthew 7, we have folks proclaiming Christ, saying Lord, Lord. Since this choice is the same as God's choice, according to your misrepresentation of my view, they saved themselves. Fat Chance.

God told us what to do, believe in Him, and when we do in obedience to Him, that still does not save us, for it is God who credits or not our faith as being from the heart and whole hearted, and it is God who puts us in Christ or not.

Romans 9:16 clearly teaches salvation does not depend upon us willing to be saved, but at the same time it teaches men can will to be saved and yet not be saved. Just read it folks.
Calvinism denies Romans 9:16. On the one hand they say men cannot will to be saved, for they are dead, and on the other, that if men will to be saved, that automatically saves them. Wrong on both fronts, see Romans 9:16.
 

Mark_13

New Member
Lets ask a few basic questions.

1) What is the meaning of the Greek word translated "appointed." Does it mean to be unilaterally chosen for a task? Nope. It refers to a mutual agreement. So for the verse to mean what Calvinism claims, we have to redefine the meaning of the word.

2) According to the verse, who did the appointing? The truthful answer is the verse does not say, so we must look at the context to discern the most likely actor. Calvinism claims God did the appointing. But do you see that in the verse or in the context? Nope.

Who had presented the gospel requirements? Paul. Who accepted those requirements and agreed to the appointment? The Gentiles. Look back at verse 46 if you doubt the context is how folks reacted to the message of the gospel.

I'll accept your argument here regarding Acts 13:48 specifically.

Here are all the verses where "apponted" (Strong's G5021) is used in the NT:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5021&t=NASB

In the vast majority of them, no such mutual agreement as you suggest is in evidence. In the first one, Jesus appoints a mountain where he and the disciples will meet (No agreement from the mountain). In the second The good Centurion of the gospels talks about being appointed by someone over him and that he himself has men under him who he orders "Go" and they "Go".

The third occurrence is there in Act:13:48. But the fourth is in Act 15:2, and there clearly is the sort of mutual agreement that you suggest, as it says the bretheren appointed Paul and Barnabus and some others to do something.

So, point taken in regards to Acts 13:48.

But you have never responded to my point in #81 (and elsewhere) that the omnipotence and omniscience of God from eternity past makes your claim of God "choosing" people only after they are alive meaningless.

God knows from eternity past everything that will happen. But also, anything he doesn't want to happen he could prohibit (by virtue of his omnipotence.) Therefore, we are chosen from eternity past to be saved or unsaved.

I note that you admitted to believe that overall Open Theology is a false doctrine

So, I guess I've said all I want to say on this, but thanks for your time.

God Bless.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Reply to Mark,

I'll accept your argument here regarding Acts 13:48 specifically.

Here are all the verses where "apponted" (Strong's G5021) is used in the NT:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5021&t=NASB

In the vast majority of them, no such mutual agreement as you suggest is in evidence. In the first one, Jesus appoints a mountain where he and the disciples will meet (No agreement from the mountain). In the second The good Centurion of the gospels talks about being appointed by someone over him and that he himself has men under him who he orders "Go" and they "Go".

The third occurrence is there in Act:13:48. But the fourth is in Act 15:2, and there clearly is the sort of mutual agreement that you suggest, as it says the bretheren appointed Paul and Barnabus and some others to do something.

So, point taken in regards to Acts 13:48.

But you have never responded to my point in #81 (and elsewhere) that the omnipotence and omniscience of God from eternity past makes your claim of God "choosing" people only after they are alive meaningless.

God knows from eternity past everything that will happen. But also, anything he doesn't want to happen he could prohibit (by virtue of his omnipotence.) Therefore, we are chosen from eternity past to be saved or unsaved.

I note that you admitted to believe that overall Open Theology is a false doctrine

So, I guess I've said all I want to say on this, but thanks for your time.

God Bless.

Mark, I did not see where you addressed my points, but simply made arguments based on other verses. Well lets go over your last statements.

In the vast majority... no evidence of mutual agreement.

As I said, for Calvinism to be defended, words have to be redefined.

Lets consider appointed:

“Tasso appears in various forms eight times in the New Testament. Below is a list of the various English words used to translate the various forms of the root Greek word transliterated “tasso.”

Matthew 28:16 – “designated” (NASB); “told” (NIV); “directed” (ESV, HCSB); “appointed” (NKJV, YLT);
Luke 7:8 – “placed” (NASB, HCSB, NKJV and YLT); omitted (NIV); “set” (ESV);
Acts 13:48 – “appointed” (NASB, NIV, ESV, HCSB, NKJV and YLT);
Acts 15:2 – “determined” (NASB, NKJV); “appointed” (NIV, ESV); “arranged” (HCSB, YLT);
Acts 22:10 – “appointed” (NASB, ESV, NKJV, YLT); “assigned” (NIV, HCSB);
Acts 28:23 – “set” (NASB); “arranged” (NIV, HCSB); “appointed” (ESV, NKJV, YLT);
Romans 13:1 – “established” (NASB, NIV); “instituted” (ESV, HCSB); “appointed” (NKJV, YLT);
1 Corinthians 16:15 - "devoted themselves" (NASB, NIV, ESV, HCSB, NKJV); set themselves (YLT);

If we sum up the various English words used to translate the forms of “tasso” here is the result:

appointed nineteen times,
designated one time,
told one time
directed two times,
set two times
placed three times
determined two times
arranged four times
assigned four times
established two times
instituted two times
devoted themselves two times
set themselves one time.

From this we can conclude that most modern translations agree that “appointed” best translates the idea being conveyed by the use of the various forms of the Greek “tasso.” Now the English definition of “appoint” from the “American Heritage Dictionary” is (1) to select or designate to fill an office or position; (2) to fix or set by authority or mutual agreement. The person designated to the position becomes the “appointee.” And the act of appointing is an appointment. Those who agree with the designated arrangement are therefore appointed to whatever the arrangement is.


To appoint, therefore, is the result of someone in authority or otherwise respected telling someone willing what to do. This is the meaning in every case where the term is used in the New Testament. When the person does what they were told to do, they are fulfilling the appointed task. Now lets look at all the verses using the NASB translation choices.

In Matthew 28:16, scripture says the disciples proceeded to the mountain which Jesus had designated. The word translated designated is the Greek term that means appoint. Jesus had told the disciples where to go, and when they responded by accepting the direction then meeting at the location, the mountain, had been appointed. Another way to look at it is they had been appointed to the meeting location because they accepted Christ's direction.

In Luke 7:8, scripture says, "For I also am a man placed under authority...." The word translated as placed is the Greek term that means appoint. When the officer accepted the direction of His superiors, he was appointed under authority.

In Acts 13:48, scripture says "... and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed." The word translated "had been appointed" is the Greek term that means appoint. Paul had presented the gospel of Christ to the Gentiles and as many as received the gospel and took direction from Paul to eternal life, believed.

In Acts 15:2, scripture says "...the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others should go...." The word translated as determined is the Greek term that means appoint. When Paul and Barnabas and the others accepted the direction to go, then it was appointed for them to go.

In Acts 22:10, scripture says "... and there you will be told of all that has been appointed for you to do." The word translated as appointed is the Greek term that means appoint. When Ananias received direction as to what to tell Paul, then he was appointed to the task my mutual consent.

In Acts 28:23, scripture says, "And when they had set a day for Paul...." The word translated as set is the Greek term that means appoint. A group of Jews made an arrangement with Paul to meet on a certain day, so the thing appointed was the day.

In Romans 13:1, scripture says, "...for there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God." The word translated established is the Greek term that means appoint. God has said that government be established and provided rules and so the authorities that exist are the "things" appointed. As a side note, based on the meaning of the word, only that governance that is consistent with God's directions can be considered appointed by God.

In 1 Corinthians 16:15, scripture says, "...and that they have devoted themselves to ministry...." The word translated "devoted themselves" is the Greek term that means appoint. This version of the root word seems to indicate they told themselves what to do and then complied rather than receiving direction from someone else. But in any even, the word still carries with it, even in this form, the idea of entering an arrangement and the result is said to be appointed.

So in every usage an arrangement between people is in view. So rather than the vast majority, we are talking about 100% of the time!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
But you have never responded to my point in #81 (and elsewhere) that the omnipotence and omniscience of God from eternity past makes your claim of God "choosing" people only after they are alive meaningless.


First I have responded to this by pointing out this simply is a tool to rewrite scripture. Scripture says God chose you for salvation through sanctification and faith. We are chosen after we live without mercy. No charge can be brought against us once we are chosen for salvation.
You say all this is meaningless because scripture does not mean what it says. I say it does. My authority is scripture alone and not the clever stories of men used to make scripture to no effect, i.e. meaningless.

Here is a parting thought for you. You probably believe in Unconditional Election. Now according to your argument, quoted above, that doctrine is rendered meaningless because of God's total Omniscience. For if God can make choices without reliance on His Omniscience, as He would have to do to make unconditional elections, disregarding His perfect knowledge of the future before He made the election, then God can make conditional elections during our lifetime using the same capability. :)

Goodbye and God Bless

Van
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Winman

Active Member
It is IMMORAL FOR GOD TO CONTROL SOMEONE'S WILL?????

Where is Skandelon and Quantum and DHK and others now? Why don't you guys reign in this nonsense?

I guarantee you that you cannot get a reputable "non-cal" on this board to agree with this madness.

Unlike you, I am concerned with what is truth and not being "orthodox". You constantly speak of being orthodox, it seems to be a great fear of yours that you do not belong to the group. That is insecurity. It takes courage and boldness to stand for your convictions, especially when they are not viewed as orthodox by others.

What do you mean by choice. Do you mean the power to choose one thing as well as the other?

Of course, what else can choice mean?

If you do, then God the Son does not love God the Father and God the Holy Spirit does not love either one.

Where do you get this stuff? Why can''t the Father choose to love Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and why can't Jesus choose to love the Father and the Holy Spirit, and why can't the Holy Spirit choose to love the Father and Jesus?

Mat 12:18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.

Jesus said he chose us didn't he?

Jhn 15:9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.

Jhn 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.

Why would Jesus have to command us to love one another if it is automatic and irresistible?

No one person of the godhead can choose to not love any other person in the godhead.

Then God does not have free will.

Is the love among the persons of the godhead non-existent??

Of course it exists, it is the perfection of love.

Prove it.

Why would God want people that hate him? Would you want to be married to a girl that hates you? I sure wouldn't.

Jam 2:5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?

Looks to me that God has chosen those who love him. What say you?

There it is. In your effort to resist the scriptural teaching of the doctrines of grace you have just undermined the eternal love of the Triune Godhead.

Amazing.

I have only undermined your errant view.

Where does this desire come from?

You know the answer, we love him because he first loved us. When I read the scriptures and learned that Jesus loved me when I was a wicked sinner and died for me to save me, I could not help but love him back.
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Loose Ends

Van, Just wanted to reiterate that last passage I found, which I think touches pretty directly on your whole thesis:

(Acts 13:48 NASB) When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

But I'll go ahead and comment on your other recent posts as well:

Mark, I think you overlooked the fact that Paul was chosen from the womb to be a prophet, he was not chosen at that time for salvation.

You were the one that brought up Paul's being chosen from the womb, to bolster your own position regarding God's choice taking place only after a person is alive. So now you're saying he was only chosen to be a prophet from the womb - would that be a prophet that wasn't elect for Salvation. Clearly he would have to be chosen for salvation if chosen to be a prophet. But even despite being chosen from the womb he was still subsequently in his sins until the encounter with Christ on the Road to Damascus. This explains how someone could previously be "chosen" and yet still be in their sins.

Romans 8:33 applies to those chosen for salvation, and so no charge can be brought against the saved.

I think one should always weigh very carefully exactly how something is phrased in scripture:

(Rom 8:33) Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies;

First of all its asking a rhetorical question - its not making a statement. You should ask yourself why a question is asked there. It certainly did not make a declarative statement along the lines of,

(Rom 8:33) Even God himself could never at any time in the past have brought a charge against God elect, by virtue of them being elect.

Clearly, the referent of "who" in the actual verse is "who other than God". The verse says God is the one who justifies, clearly he's the one who can condemn too:

(Heb 10:30 NKJV) For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people."

So, for example, Paul still being in his sins positionally before God at some point during his life does not rule out (for me anyway) him being "chosen" before birth.


Does this say God planned for David to become a murder?

Was there a plan for Christ to be murdered? The illegitimate offspring of David and Bathsheba - whose husband David murdered - was Solomon, the builder of first temple in Jerusalem and the writer of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.

In summary, according to my understanding of scripture, God only chooses individuals for salvation after they have lived without mercy and after He credits their faith in Christ as righteousness.

It was previously suggested by someone that you advocated Open Theology. The central tenant of that is that the future is not set - so therefore God cannot know it completely. For open theologists its like asking can God know about square circles - the future is not within the bounds of something that can be completely known by anyone, including God. God knows it better than anyone in open theology, but there are things about it that even he doesn't know. So, I'm not absolutely clear if you categorically denied believing that. But it seems like Open Theology is the only context in which your thesis has any meaning.

In Orthodox Christian understanding, God knows everything about the future, and has known everything that will ever happen for eternity. Even if God could or does voluntarily suspend his foreknowledge for whatever reason, the fact remains that if God can in fact know everything about the future, then the future is set in stone.

This means that who will sin, who will be murdered, who will accept Christ, and who God will "choose" and when, has all been set in stone for eternity past. This, to the best of my understanding is the Orthodox Christian view and has been for the last two thousand years or so.

So, if you want to say that someone accepting Christ is God "choosing" them (right then), I don't even have a particular problem with that, except that Reality itself chose them from eternity past, because it has always been set in stone that they would accept Christ, (in the orthodox Christian view).

But in Open Theology, someone accepting Christ could be a truly novel event, unanticipated by God or anything else and uncaused by anything preceding it, just a mysterious godlike, unexplained, uniliateral exercise of a person's libertarian free will, altering the future in a way that even God cannot control. So, I would ask you again, do you or do you not largely subscribe to Open Theology.

As far as reconciling evil with God's omnipotence and omniscience, that is done by observing that evil has a limited lifespan. We know that God has allowed it for say, a few million years or so. But the Bible indicates there will be a time when finally evil has died out and gone forever. So a million divided by infinity is 0, so it will be like evil never existed at all.

Have you thought about the implications of James 2:5. God chose folks who were poor to the world, rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love Him. If a person was chosen before creation, they could not be poor in the eyes of the world, they could not be rich in faith, and they would not be heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love Him.

If their life conditions directly led them to God, and it was known by God from time immemorial that they would live in these conditions and that they would turn to him for Salvation, then it was always set in stone they would be saved, so they were chosen from time immemorial. (If God didn't know all this, and in fact it could not be known with certainty by God or anyone, then that is Open Theology, which at the moment I do not know if you subscribe to it or not.) .

I wanted to address so of the assertions contained in this post.

(1) God cannot elect someone for some purpose without also electing them for salvation. God chose Judas to be His betrayer but that election did not include salvation. It was for another purpose. Therefore the premise that when God chooses someone from the womb for a purpose, it must also include being chosen for salvation is without merit. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says God chooses individuals for salvation through (or by means of) faith. Paul did not have faith in Christ until he was knocked off his horse.

(2) Did I use the election of Paul to demonstrate election for salvation during our lifetime? Nope. I used 2 Thessalonians 2:13, James 2:5, 1 Corinthians 1:26-30, 1 Peter 2:9-10, Romans 8:33. I used the examples of from the womb elections to show elections during time, bolstering the idea that our election for salvation occurs also during time.

(3) Does Romans 8:33 allow God to bring charges against God's elect, nullifying the verse? No, the whole idea is the elect are justified by God, and therefore whatever wrong might be applied to us is null and void because God whose power overrides everything else has justified us. God is not a God of confusion, He is not for us and then against us. Therefore when Paul was chosen for salvation he (1) had lived without mercy and (2) his faith had been credited as righteousness. This precludes his election from the womb being for salvation.

(4) Did God plan for David to be a murderer? Of course not.
Recall the command, thou shall not murder? David was a sinner by his own volition, as are we all.

In summary, according to my (Van's) understanding of scripture, God only chooses individuals for salvation after they have lived without mercy and after He credits their faith in Christ as righteousness. Nothing has been put forward to say this is not what scripture actually says. What has been put forward is scripture does not mean what it says. Difficult to respond to that absurdity.

Finally, it is repeated said by everyone who disagrees with me that I advocate Open Theism. All these assertion are false, made by people who have read my posts where I shred Open Theism and show it is unbiblical.

Can God know the future exhaustively? Of course. He declares the end from the beginning so if He foreordained everything, He would know the future exhaustively.

In Orthodox Christian understanding, God knows everything about the future, and has known everything that will ever happen for eternity. Yes, that is not only the orthodox view, but the only view allowed to be expressed on this forum.

Since scripture says if they perhaps might grope for me, scripture does not mesh with the claim everything is set in stone.

This means that who will sin, who will be murdered, who will accept Christ, and who God will "choose" and when, has all been set in stone for eternity past. This, to the best of my understanding is the Orthodox Christian view and has been for the last two thousand years or so.

This is not the orthodox view, this is hyper-Calvinism and makes God the author of sin. The Orthodox view is God either causes or allows all things, and He allows mankind to choose to sin but does not compel him to sin, thus He is not the author of sin.

Does someone hear the gospel without someone preaching it? Is not the gospel the power of God for salvation. No one comes to Jesus unless drawn by the Father. But they not only have to hear and understand the gospel, they have to learn from the Father and put their trust in Christ.
 

DaChaser1

New Member
But you have never responded to my point in #81 (and elsewhere) that the omnipotence and omniscience of God from eternity past makes your claim of God "choosing" people only after they are alive meaningless.


First I have responded to this by pointing out this simply is a tool to rewrite scripture. Scripture says God chose you for salvation through sanctification and faith. We are chosen after we live without mercy. No charge can be brought against us once we are chosen for salvation.
You say all this is meaningless because scripture does not mean what it says. I say it does. My authority is scripture alone and not the clever stories of men used to make scripture to no effect, i.e. meaningless.

Here is a parting thought for you. You probably believe in Unconditional Election. Now according to your argument, quoted above, that doctrine is rendered meaningless because of God's total Omniscience. For if God can make choices without reliance on His Omniscience, as He would have to do to make unconditional elections, disregarding His perfect knowledge of the future before He made the election, then God can make conditional elections during our lifetime using the same capability. :)

Goodbye and God Bless

Van

Just remember that Election causes the faith to receive Christ, NOT our faith that gets us elected!

Also, that God is the one that calls things into existence from the dead, as if they were, NOT waiting on us first to make ourselves alive!

We become alive in and by Christ, NOT ourselves!
 

Van

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Reply to Absurdity

Just remember that Election causes the faith to receive Christ, NOT our faith that gets us elected!

Also, that God is the one that calls things into existence from the dead, as if they were, NOT waiting on us first to make ourselves alive!

We become alive in and by Christ, NOT ourselves!

Scripture teaches that God crediting our faith as righteousness results in election for salvation, 2 Thessalonians 2:13 Strike One!

Scripture teaches when God puts us "in Christ" we are made alive together with Christ. Thus not "in Christ" dead in our sins, but in Christ alive in God's kingdom. Strike two!

Being spiritually dead means we are separated from God, a condition we are conceived in. Calvinism redefines the term to mean unable to understand the gospel and respond affirmatively to it. This is false doctrine as can be see in Matthew 23:13 where "spiritually dead" men are "entering heaven" so they have responded sufficiently to enter heaven, yet are blocked by false teaching. Matthew 13:1-30 also shows that three of the four soils can hear and understand and respond to the gospel. And they were all "spiritually" dead, unsaved, unregenerated and not yet "in Christ." Strike three!

The concept of election is the concept that God chooses people for His purpose. He can choose them individually before creation as a foreseen individual or choose them corporately as the target group of His redemption plan. He can chose them from the beginning, i.e. after creation from the womb, such as Paul, or after they have trusted in God, such as the apostles and everyone God causes to be born anew.

Because many passages clearly teach God chooses individuals during their life, after they have lived without mercy and based on their faith in the truth, i.e. 1 Peter 2:9-10; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, the election of Ephesians 1:4 must be corporate.
 
Top