The Double Election of Scripture

[Yeshua1]

your thinking it's absurd or not doesn't matter. Election for Gentiles is as false as it gets. It's extra biblical IOW's created by Gentiles who are jealous of the Jews. By men who wish they could replace the Jews.
MB

Only elected sinners are the saved out ones by God!

 

[Yeshua1]

Hence the problem. The OP'er doesn't understand Calvinism, Arminianism, or the biblical teachings on election. Referring to the premise of your owns posts is circular reasoning by definition.

Van should write his own systematic theology, would be very interesting!

 

[Yeshua1]

Van, you make no points of any value. You claim corporate election, which is not supported hermeneutically. Just claiming you have Bible verses is irrelevant. Many wrong doctrines are formed from poor hermeneutics derived from reading the Bible. Joseph Smith and Charles Taze Russell had Bible verses for their claims.
Van, I and others have already refuted your claims regarding your corporate election theory. We have shown that you are wrong. There is nothing more to say.

Only way to get to corporate election would be to deny Individual penal substitution, and affirm Jesus died for the plan and not for the individual sinner!

 

[Yeshua1]

2 Thess. 2:13 is crystal clear, we are chosen individually through or on the basis of "faith in the truth."

God chose us way before we chose Jesus as Lord!

 

[atpollard]

Note, no effort to address the doctrine, but calling it names, and changing the subject are once again on display.

No names were called and no attempt to change the subject was made.
He simply and succinctly stated his disagreement with your stated opinion.

 

[atpollard]

2 Thess. 2:13 is crystal clear, we are chosen individually through or on the basis of "faith in the truth."

What bible are you reading?

[2 Thessalonians 2:13-15 NASB]
13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.
14 It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word [of mouth] or by letter from us.

• Who did the choosing? God.
• When as the choosing made? In the beginning, which was before we were born.
• What were we chosen for? salvation.
• How was this "salvation" going to be accomplished? through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.
• I forget, who was it again that was the "subject" in this sentence that was performing the action described by the "verb"? Oh yeah, GOD!

So 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says that God uses the Spirit and faith in the truth as the means of our sanctification to achieve God's "from the beginning" chosen goal of the salvation of we who are "brethren beloved by the Lord".

Jesus said the exact same thing in John 10:

• My Father has given them to Me
• My sheep hear My voice
• I know them
• they follow Me
• I give eternal life to them
• they will never perish
• no one will snatch them out of My hand.

It all starts with the Father and ends with the Son loving those the Father has given Him.

 

[atpollard]

The five articles of remonstrance
1. God has decreed to save through Jesus Christ those of the fallen and sinful race who through the grace of the Holy Spirit believe in Him, but leaves in sin the incorrigible and unbelieving. (In other words predestination is said to be conditioned by God's foreknowledge of who would respond to the gospel)
2. Christ died for all men (not just for the elect), but no one except the believer has remission of sin.
3. Man can neither of himself nor of his free will do anything truly good until he is born again of God, in Christ, through the Holy Spirit. (Though accused of such, Arminius and his followers were not Pelagians.)
4. All good deeds or movements in the regenerate must be ascribed to the grace of God but his grace is not irresistible.
5. Those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith have power given them through the assisting grace of the Holy Spirit to persevere in the faith. But it is possible for a believer to fall from grace.

The five points of Calvinism (TULIP)
1. That fallen man is totally unable to seek God, understand spiritual things, or trust fully in Christ. (Total Spiritual Inability)
2. That God's electing purpose was not conditioned by anything in man (Unconditional Election)
3. That Christ's atoning death was sufficient to save all men, but Christ died only for the elect (Limited Atonement)
4. That the gift of faith, given by God's Holy Spirit, cannot be resisted by the elect (Irresistible Grace)
5. That those who are regenerated and justified will persevere in the faith (Perseverance of the Saints)

That was actually a pretty good summary of Classic Arminianism and the Doctrines of Grace (T.U.L.I.P.).
The issue quickly becomes muddied by the fact that most modern Arminians derive their beliefs from Weslyeanism and the Holiness Movement (the roots of the Methodist Church and the Church of God, among others), so they do not accept the Remonstrances as their starting point. The issue with TULIP is that it is immediately associated with Jon Calvin, whose writings were influential, but were never the source of Reformed Beliefs, and we are Particular Baptists on this board, so we have different roots than our Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed brothers and disagree on much beyond basic sotieriology (the theory of how God saves people).

Just offering positive feedback where I can.

 

[atpollard]

The Double Election doctrine can be compared with the Arminianism articles of Remonstrance, and with the points of Calvinism (TULIP) using the acronym ELECT.

You have set yourself up for difficulty right from the start.
The term "Double Election" instantly conjures thoughts of "Double Predestination" which is already a very well defined concept that is both unpopular and radically different from what you want to talk about. On the chance that you think it unreasonable of me to immediately jump from "Double Election" to "Double Predestination", I suggest a small experiment ... Google "Double Election" and see what comes up.

 

[Yeshua1]

That was actually a pretty good summary of Classic Arminianism and the Doctrines of Grace (T.U.L.I.P.).
The issue quickly becomes muddied by the fact that most modern Arminians derive their beliefs from Weslyeanism and the Holiness Movement (the roots of the Methodist Church and the Church of God, among others), so they do not accept the Remonstrances as their starting point. The issue with TULIP is that it is immediately associated with Jon Calvin, whose writings were influential, but were never the source of Reformed Beliefs, and we are Particular Baptists on this board, so we have different roots than our Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed brothers and disagree on much beyond basic sotieriology (the theory of how God saves people).

Just offering positive feedback where I can.

We do have spirited and interesting discussions between reformed proper and particular baptists like ourselves!

 

[atpollard]

2. Love overcomes depravity - Mankind is depraved from conception, separated from God by being in a state of sin with a corrupt flesh and a corrupt human spirit. But God, who understands the heart, accepts the faith, as depraved as it may be, of those who love and trust in His Son.

Could you explain how Point #2 differs from "Semi-Pelagianism"?

(Here is a definition of "Semi-Pelagianism" from "Got Questions?")

Both Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism deny the biblical doctrine of total depravity, which says that every part of man—his mind, will, emotions, and flesh—has been corrupted by sin. Being totally depraved, mankind is incapable of coming to God on his own. The unregenerate mind is “hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is unable to do so” (Romans 8:7). We are, by nature, enemies of God (Romans 5:10).

Semi-Pelagianism was promulgated in the fifth century AD by John Cassian and some other church leaders in France. It took a middle-of-the-road approach to depravity; we are depraved, but not totally so. Semi-Pelagianism allows that humanity is tainted by sin, but not to the extent that we cannot cooperate with God’s grace on our own. Semi-Pelagianism is, in essence, partial depravity as opposed to total depravity. We are sinful, but we can still recognize the truth, cooperate with God’s grace, and choose to seek Christ. We need God’s grace to be saved, but we can take the first step toward Christ on our own, apart from grace.​

 

[agedman]

Could you explain how Point #2 differs from "Semi-Pelagianism"?

(Here is a definition of "Semi-Pelagianism" from "Got Questions?")

Both Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism deny the biblical doctrine of total depravity, which says that every part of man—his mind, will, emotions, and flesh—has been corrupted by sin. Being totally depraved, mankind is incapable of coming to God on his own. The unregenerate mind is “hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is unable to do so” (Romans 8:7). We are, by nature, enemies of God (Romans 5:10).

Semi-Pelagianism was promulgated in the fifth century AD by John Cassian and some other church leaders in France. It took a middle-of-the-road approach to depravity; we are depraved, but not totally so. Semi-Pelagianism allows that humanity is tainted by sin, but not to the extent that we cannot cooperate with God’s grace on our own. Semi-Pelagianism is, in essence, partial depravity as opposed to total depravity. We are sinful, but we can still recognize the truth, cooperate with God’s grace, and choose to seek Christ. We need God’s grace to be saved, but we can take the first step toward Christ on our own, apart from grace.​

I suppose what @Van is holding is the concept that what begins as fully and unrecoverablely corrupt (totally depraved) is good enough to conjure up saving faith.

He rejects the presentation that God implants saving faith to those He chooses to give hearing ears, a rejection of John 1, “...to THEM gave he the....”

 

[Van]

your thinking it's absurd or not doesn't matter. Election for Gentiles is as false as it gets. It's extra biblical IOW's created by Gentiles who are jealous of the Jews. By men who wish they could replace the Jews.
MB

Mindless twaddle. Sir, you falsely claimed the ELECT doctrine was Calvinism. You did not post a "oops" retraction.
There is no need to go into another topic such as the corporate election of the Old Covenant of Abraham and his believing descendants which did not include Gentiles as a group. Of course several OT saints were Gentiles, such as Ruth.

Try to study the ELECT doctrine and see if it conflicts with your understanding of scripture.

 

[Van]

No, but Election is based upon the will of God, per the individual saved sinner!

Can you not even write a sentence, Sir?

 

[Van]

God chose us way before we chose Jesus as Lord!

Non-germane, 2 Thess. 2:13 proves condition election is biblical and unconditional individual election is bogus

 

[Van]

No names were called and no attempt to change the subject was made.
He simply and succinctly stated his disagreement with your stated opinion.

Yet another post addressing the poster and not the topic. On and on folks, on and on.

Does the fact of our corporate election "exclude" individuals from individual election? Nope - so a strawman diversion.

I say we were elected corporately and individually and you say they are mutually exclusive. LOL

Did I say election is always corporate? Nope - so a strawman diversion.

The election of Ephesians 1:4 must be corporate, because if individual then we were never not a people. 2 Peter 2:10

 

[Van]

What bible are you reading?

[2 Thessalonians 2:13-15 NASB]
13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.SNIP

Yet another copy and paste bit of twaddle.

God has chosen you...for salvation through...faith in the truth.

Thus we were chosen individually on the basis of God crediting our faith in the truth as righteousness.

 

[Van]

You have set yourself up for difficulty right from the start.
The term "Double Election" instantly conjures thoughts of "Double Predestination" which is already a very well defined concept that is both unpopular and radically different from what you want to talk about. On the chance that you think it unreasonable of me to immediately jump from "Double Election" to "Double Predestination", I suggest a small experiment ... Google "Double Election" and see what comes up.

Double Election (corporate and individual) was explained and therefore the association with double predestination is simply a strawman deflection.

 

[Van]

Could you explain how Point #2 differs from "Semi-Pelagianism"?

(Here is a definition of "Semi-Pelagianism" from "Got Questions?")

Calvinism is false doctrine, and calling biblical truth the same as heresy is deflection.

 

[atpollard]

Yet another post addressing the poster and not the topic. On and on folks, on and on.

True, but I was responding to your post addressing a poster that HAD addressed the topic ... he said he disagreed with you.

Does the fact of our corporate election "exclude" individuals from individual election? Nope - so a strawman diversion.

I said nothing about corporate election "exclude" individuals, so your response is a non sequitur.

I say we were elected corporately and individually and you say they are mutually exclusive. LOL

I said nothing of the kind.
Your response is a non sequitur.

Did I say election is always corporate? Nope - so a strawman diversion.

I said nothing about election always being corporate, so your response is a non sequitur.

The election of Ephesians 1:4 must be corporate, because if individual then we were never not a people. 2 Peter 2:10

... And yet, Ephesians 1:4 is not corporate and we were once "not a people".

 

[Van]

I suppose what @Van is holding is the concept that what begins as fully and unrecoverablely corrupt (totally depraved) is good enough to conjure up saving faith.

He rejects the presentation that God implants saving faith to those He chooses to give hearing ears, a rejection of John 1, “...to THEM gave he the....”

Yet another utterly false claim humans "conjure up" saving faith. Our faith is like a filthy rag to God. Of course if God does choose to credit filthy rag faith as righteousness, it is God's sovereign choice.