What Are main Differences between Arms and Non cals?

[The Biblicist]

Whoa wait a second...mine? I was referring to Paul's actual quote: "first for the Jew, then for the Gentile" (Rom 1:16) in reference to the powerful gospel being sent by God.

Choice of preference in gospel presentation IN TIME versus choice of PERSON to salvation before time have nothing to do with each other except greater responsibility by the Jew since they were objects of greater revelation and priviledges. This preference in presentation was temporal but election to salvation is eternal. This preference was changed at the judgment of Israel by God in A.D. 70 but election to salvation was settled before the world began and is unchangable in regard to its objects in all generations. Paul's quotation has to do only with a chosen preference in presentation of the gospel but nothing to do with those ultimately elected to salvation or in regard to its cause and consequential effects.

I believe, as Paul clearly stated, that God ELECTED to send the message appealing for reconciliation (the gospel) first to the Jew and then to the Gentile. What were you thinking I was talking about?

Paul is speaking about preference in regard to preaching the gospel not in regard to any fundemental changes in election to salvation

Apples and bannas! God's choice for Paul when coming to a city to preach the gospel first to the Jew and then to the gentile was a temporary preference that would cease when Israel rejected Christ as a nation and God's judgment came upon them as a nation. However, this choice of preference has NOTHING to do with God's choice of election to salvation as the former has to do with mere circumstantial preference in HUMAN presentation of the gospel whereas the latter has to do with DIVINE actualization of salvation.

Sorry, I read that no less than 4 times, but I still have no clue what you are trying to say. Again, sorry....

Simply put, your view makes faith the condition, the cause, the grounds for election whereas my view makes election the condition, the cause, the grounds for faith. If you cannot understand this then I cannot help you.

Perspective, brother, perspective. Corporate election is still God's choice to save....i.e. 'election to salvation.' Just because its not 'individual effectual election to faith which results in salvation' doesn't mean it's not 'election to salvation.' We affirm God's choice to save whosoever believes and whether you like that or not, it is still 'election to salvation.'

Your position REVERSES the cause and effects as presented by the prepositions in 2 Thes. 2:13. Your position makes the verse read "chosen from the beginning BECAUSE OF sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth TO salvation, thus making election the consequence rather than the cause of salvation and the means to attain it. The Greek preposition "eis" with the accusative case demands that salvation is the point of termination acheived by being chosen not the reverse as your position teaches. You do not teach election is "to salvation" but you teach salvation is through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth to election as your position demands election is not the cause but the effect. Let me spell this out so there is no misunderstanding. When a person says that things IN TIME (imputed righteousness, faith, etc.) determine the choice BEFORE TIME (election) then what happens in time is the cause and what happened before time is the consequence. This is illogical so you then interpret "foreknowledge" to resolve the contradiction and make it mean "prescience" or "foreseen" to justify what happens in time to be ultimately causal of what happened before time. Get it? Both your intepretation of election to salvation is wrong as well as your intepretation of foreknowledge as proven in Romans 8:29 where foreknowledge is based upon "according to his purpose" rather than his purpose based upon "according to foreknowledge."

So, when Christ rebukes men for not having faith He should have been rebuking God for not creating faith in them? Why would God hold men responsible for having faith if they are not responsible for having faith?

Because they are responsible for their sinful nature which makes faith impossible (Rom. 8:7-8). Notice that Romans 8:8 says those "in the flesh" cannot please God and faith is required to please God (Heb. 11:6). Whose fault for their sinful condition as described in Romans 8:7 and Romans 3:9-19? Man's fault - Rom. 3:23! Man's fault - Rom. 5:12-19.

 

[Skandelon]

Choice of preference in gospel presentation IN TIME versus choice of PERSON to salvation before time have nothing to do with each other

In your system they may not, but remember you asked about our system? This is an example of God's CHOOSING to send a powerful, enabling appeal to two groups of people...the Jews and then the Gentiles. That is a view of election, whether you acknowledge it or not.

You can continue to restate your position if you'd like, but I'm simply establishing our view of gospel election to salvation, as that was the original question.

that would cease when Israel rejected Christ as a nation

How does a nation reject Christ? Don't you mean individuals of that nation each rejected Christ? And if you consider that God is the determiner of the individuals choice to accept or reject Christ, according to your system, then really what you are saying is that God, through Israel, rejected Christ. The 'nation' you refer to here is actually God in your system, right?

However, this choice of preference has NOTHING to do with God's choice of election to salvation as the former has to do with mere circumstantial preference in HUMAN presentation of the gospel

In the parable, the king is the one who sends them to 'his people' (the Jews) first, remember? And scriptures clearly say of Jesus, "He came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not."

Paul taught in Rom 11: "Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says, "I will make you envious by those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding." 20 And Isaiah boldly says, "I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me." 21 But concerning Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people."

So on what basis are you suggesting this was merely human preference? Ironic that the determinist is arguing that this is something man decided rather than God????

Simply put, your view makes faith the condition, the cause, the grounds for election

Yes, for entrance into the banquet (His Kingdom). That choice is clearly conditioned upon the attire (faith) of man. But, as explained, there are other aspects of God's choice...his choice to make an appeal first to Jew and then the Gentile is one such choice (election) of God.

whereas my view makes election the condition, the cause, the grounds for faith. If you cannot understand this then I cannot help you.

What makes you think I don't understand your view? You asked me my view of election to salvation and I have presented it. For you to continually deny what I've stated on the basis that your position must be the right one is merely a game of question begging. We can debate the validity of your view of individual election versus mine, but you cannot deny they I have a view of election to salvation on the sole basis that I must be wrong because you are right. That is debate fallacy 101.

Your position REVERSES the cause and effects as presented by the prepositions in 2 Thes. 2:13. Your position makes the verse read "chosen from the beginning BECAUSE OF

Only if we presume your view of 'individual/effectual election to salvation.' If you accept our view of corporate election, by which God chose from the beginning to graft in the Gentiles by sending them the gospel appeal also, this accusation is simply untrue. It is all perspective and I'm afraid you have yet to take off your individualistic glasses long enough to really understand ours.

 

[The Biblicist]

In your system they may not, but remember you asked about our system?

No, you claimed that I did not understand your system when in fact I did. I asserted that your system taught election as the consequence rather than the cause of salvation and it does.

This is an example of God's CHOOSING to send a powerful, enabling appeal to two groups of people...the Jews and then the Gentiles. That is a view of election, whether you acknowledge it or not.li

Of course it is a view, just denial of the trinity is a view and your view is no more Biblical than denial of the trinity is Bibical.

You can continue to restate your position if you'd like, but I'm simply establishing our view of gospel election to salvation, as that was the original question.

Again, I would remind you that this discussion began with the unfounded assertion by you that I did not understand corporate election. However, I did and I do understand it and I rightly pegged it as making election the consequence rather than the cause and thus a complete reversal of Paul's teaching in 2 Thessalonians 2:13 rather than choice in eternity "to salvation" yours is a choice in eternity because of salvation through faith.

How does a nation reject Christ? Don't you mean individuals of that nation each rejected Christ? And if you consider that God is the determiner of the individuals choice to accept or reject Christ, according to your system, then really what you are saying is that God, through Israel, rejected Christ. The 'nation' you refer to here is actually God in your system, right?

The nation as a whole, the majority of individuals, especially the majority of individuals led by their religous leadership.

In the parable, the king is the one who sends them to 'his people' (the Jews) first, remember? And scriptures clearly say of Jesus, "He came unto his own, and they that were his own received him not."

I never denied they are the nation of chosen priviledges and revelation among all nations. I simply denie that "election to salvation" is different in cause versus effects for the Jew over the gentile.

Paul taught in Rom 11: "Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says, "I will make you envious by those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding." 20 And Isaiah boldly says, "I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me." 21 But concerning Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people."

So on what basis are you suggesting this was merely human preference? Ironic that the determinist is arguing that this is something man decided rather than God????

By "human preference" I meant God's preference of Jewish humans over Gentile humans in regard to the ORDER of presenting the gospel but denied this "human preference" in regard to presenting the gospel has anything to do with "election to salvation" as the ORDER in presentation of the gospel does not determine the elect or the cause and effect relationship between election and the gospel.

Yes, for entrance into the banquet (His Kingdom). That choice is clearly conditioned upon the attire (faith) of man. But, as explained, there are other aspects of God's choice...his choice to make an appeal first to Jew and then the Gentile is one such choice (election) of God.

You are taking one aspect of the parable and choosing to emphasize it over other aspects. The General call is demonstrated to be completely useless by the first aspect of the parable. The effectual call actually provides qualified guests. The unqualified guest cannot be a product of the effectual call be another aspect of the general call and its failures to produce qualfied guests.

What makes you think I don't understand your view? You asked me my view of election to salvation and I have presented it. For you to continually deny what I've stated on the basis that your position must be the right one is merely a game of question begging. We can debate the validity of your view of individual election versus mine, but you cannot deny they I have a view of election to salvation on the sole basis that I must be wrong because you are right. That is debate fallacy 101.

Plain n-simple - your view violates the Bibical order of cause and effect as it REVERSES it! You do not believe "election to salvation" but you believe "salvation to election" as you make the consequences (imputed righteousness by faith) the cause of election rather than its consequences.

Only if we presume your view of 'individual/effectual election to salvation.' If you accept our view of corporate election, by which God chose from the beginning to graft in the Gentiles by sending them the gospel appeal also, this accusation is simply untrue. It is all perspective and I'm afraid you have yet to take off your individualistic glasses long enough to really understand ours.

You define election by attributing the consequences to be the grounds for, cause of election while Biblical writers attributed election to be the cause of salvation including its means to that end. Both cannot be true. Your position is false and it is based upon REVERSING the Biblical order of cause and consequence. It is just that simple.

 

[Skandelon]

No, you claimed that I did not understand your system when in fact I did. I asserted that your system taught election as the consequence rather than the cause of salvation and it does.

It does only in regard to God's choice of who enters heaven (the banquet...whosoever beleives), but as I explained, there is an aspect of election which also proceeds faith...i.e. God's choice to graft both Jews and Gentiles into the vine...(the gospel sent first to the Jew and then the Gentile). This is the election (God's choice) we believe scripture is referring to in reference to before the world began. Now, it is fine to disagree with that, as obviously any Calvinist would do, but it is not fine to claim we don't believe in God's eternal election to salvation prior to the beginning of the world on the basis that we reject your individualized perspective of that teaching.

Again, I would remind you that this discussion began with the unfounded assertion by you that I did not understand corporate election.

I stand by that assertion on the basis of your continued misrepresentations....as evidenced by your next sentence...

However, I did and I do understand it and I rightly pegged it as making election the consequence rather than the cause and thus a complete reversal of Paul's teaching in 2 Thessalonians 2:13 rather than choice in eternity "to salvation" yours is a choice in eternity because of salvation through faith.

Sigh.

Question beg much? You are more than welcome to disagree with the corporate view of election. In fact, I welcome your argument against our view. But to assert that our view of election is wrong on the basis that its not your view of election is nothing more than circular reasoning (question begging). It's the lowest form of debate and boring to me.

You do not believe "election to salvation" but you believe "salvation to election"

So, you think we believe that men are saved prior to God's choice to allow them entrance? And you still think you understand our view?