Why? Why?

[Van]

Hi OR, yes God choose the 7000, and you can call it reserved, or you can call it leaving 7000 in Israel, but any way you slice it, it is a conditional election and choice, those who have not bowed their knee to Baal.

Anytime a person avoids addressing an argument or rebuttal by saying "I do not understand, or it makes no sense, or things of that ilk, they are evading addressing the argument, and such tactic is called an argument from personal incredulity. You can google it.

OR, you say you believe I reject the Biblical teaching on Election. But you provide no quote nor reason. Thus, you post your own biased and mistaken view without support. New flash, God chooses us for salvation through faith in the truth. 2 Thessalonians 2:13. Thus I believe in Biblical Election, both corporate and individual. You, Sir, post slander when you should stick to the truth.

 

[Van]

Hi Psalms 109:31, a couple of points:

1) Paul said we were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world, not we were chosen individually before the foundation of the world.

2) What did God credit or reckon as righteousness? The person or the faith? Read the last part of Ephesians 1:5.

 

[OldRegular]

Hi OR, yes God choose the 7000, and you can call it reserved, or you can call it leaving 7000 in Israel, but any way you slice it, it is a conditional election and choice, those who have not bowed their knee to Baal.

God did not choose those in Israel because they did not bow to Baal. They did not bow to Baal because they were chosen.

Anytime a person avoids addressing an argument or rebuttal by saying "I do not understand, or it makes no sense, or things of that ilk, they are evading addressing the argument, and such tactic is called an argument from personal incredulity. You can google it.

I can honestly say the comments you posted made no sense to me!

OR, you say you believe I reject the Biblical teaching on Election. But you provide no quote nor reason. Thus, you post your own biased and mistaken view without support. New flash, God chooses us for salvation through faith in the truth. 2 Thessalonians 2:13. Thus I believe in Biblical Election, both corporate and individual. You, Sir, post slander when you should stick to the truth.

I am not posting slander. i am simply trying to understand whether or not you believe that God chose some, through no merit or act of their own, to salvation in Jesus Christ. That seems to be simple enough to answer.

If I understand what you write above you are saying God elects people on the basis of their faith. That means that the individual elects himself. Is that what you are saying? If not I would be happy to know exactly what you believe.

 

[OldRegular]

Hi Psalms 109:31, a couple of points:

1) Paul said we were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world, not we were chosen individually before the foundation of the world.

You are playing word games. God chose each of us as individuals to salvation, that salvation made possible by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ!

2) What did God credit or reckon as righteousness? The person or the faith? Read the last part of Ephesians 1:5.

Ephesians 1:2-6
2. Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
3. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4. 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:
5. Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6. To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

That is a good question considering what Ephesians 1:5 says!

 

[Van]

Hi OR, scripture says God chose those who have not bowed their knee. It does not read as Calvinism would rewrite, those who will not because I chose them and enabled them so they will not bow.

Next we get yet another logical fallacy from OR, but that is all Calvinism has to offer.

Next I post God chose individuals through faith in the truth, then OR asks if God chose individual without regard to their faith in Christ? Fiddlesticks.

Next, God chooses individuals through faith in the truth, 2 Thessalonians 2:13 is said to mean Individuals choose God through faith in Christ. Twaddle folks, pure and unadulterated. Salvation does not depend upon the man that wills, but upon God who has mercy, Romans 9:16.

Oops, the last part of Romans 4:5

 

[Greektim]

Hi OR, scripture says God chose those who have not bowed their knee. It does not read as Calvinism would rewrite, those who will not because I chose them and enabled them so they will not bow.

Next we get yet another logical fallacy from OR, but that is all Calvinism has to offer.

Next I post God chose individuals through faith in the truth, then OR asks if God chose individual without regard to their faith in Christ? Fiddlesticks.

Next, God chooses individuals through faith in the truth, 2 Thessalonians 2:13 is said to mean Individuals choose God through faith in Christ. Twaddle folks, pure and unadulterated. Salvation does not depend upon the man that wills, but upon God who has mercy, Romans 9:16.

Oops, the last part of Romans 4:5

Just a quick question for Van for clarification.

You speak of Rom. 9:16 as if it is about salvation. If that is correct, can you interpret the rest of ch. 9? Do you switch to a different view (like Rom. 9 is about national election or some such)? I'm surprised to see a non-calvie use Rom. 9 in regards to salvation.

Just an fyi... the very immediate context of Rom. 9:16 is specifically about God choosing people and the supposed injustice of God. While I agree that "salvation does not depend upon the man that wills..." I think that verse is more specific than just salvation but answering why it is just for God to choose someone or have mercy on someone and not another. If you were fair to the context, I think you'd have to agree.

 

[Van]

Hi Greektim, thanks for a biblically based question. I cite and use all scripture, including Romans 9, as support for my view of salvation. No passage or verse exists in scripture that does not either teach my view or is consistent with my view.

Yes, I have posted my view of the entirety of Romans chapter 9. If we look at Romans 9:16 we see that "it" does not depend on man. What is the it. If you look at the entire chapter, then God's choice to have mercy on some does not depend on the man that wills. And that mercy, is to save us, those He called from the Jews and Gentiles.

The potter has the right to make from one lump of clay a vessel for common used, and then mush it and make it a new creation, born from above.

BTW, Calvinists love to cite Romans 9:16 to supposedly support unconditional election, but they fail to see the verse demonstrates total spiritually inability is mistaken doctrine, because according to Calvinism, an unregenerate person would not will to be saved. Paul teaches however, that all scripture is profitable for instruction.

 

[percho]

Hi Greektim, thanks for a biblically based question. I cite and use all scripture, including Romans 9, as support for my view of salvation. No passage or verse exists in scripture that does not either teach my view or is consistent with my view.

Yes, I have posted my view of the entirety of Romans chapter 9. If we look at Romans 9:16 we see that "it" does not depend on man. What is the it. If you look at the entire chapter, then God's choice to have mercy on some does not depend on the man that wills. And that mercy, is to save us, those He called from the Jews and Gentiles.

The potter has the right to make from one lump of clay a vessel for common used, and then mush it and make it a new creation, born from above.

BTW, Calvinists love to cite Romans 9:16 to supposedly support unconditional election, but they fail to see the verse demonstrates total spiritually inability is mistaken doctrine, because according to Calvinism, an unregenerate person would not will to be saved. Paul teaches however, that all scripture is profitable for instruction.

And the lump of clay is nothing more than that, a lump of clay.

Paul was anti Jesus of Nazareth. He did not believe him to be the Messiah. He did not believe him to have been raised from the dead, yet he believed in the resurrection, if I understand correctly.

That was the lump of clay which departed for Damascus that morning.

That lump of clay changed nothing. He was knocked to the ground blind, hearing a voice which said I am Jesus.

God remolded the lump of clay that day and the lump of clay had nothing to do with the remolding. It was elected for the purpose of God.

 

[Yeshua1]

Hi Greektim, thanks for a biblically based question. I cite and use all scripture, including Romans 9, as support for my view of salvation. No passage or verse exists in scripture that does not either teach my view or is consistent with my view.

Yes, I have posted my view of the entirety of Romans chapter 9. If we look at Romans 9:16 we see that "it" does not depend on man. What is the it. If you look at the entire chapter, then God's choice to have mercy on some does not depend on the man that wills. And that mercy, is to save us, those He called from the Jews and Gentiles.

The potter has the right to make from one lump of clay a vessel for common used, and then mush it and make it a new creation, born from above.

BTW, Calvinists love to cite Romans 9:16 to supposedly support unconditional election, but they fail to see the verse demonstrates total spiritually inability is mistaken doctrine, because according to Calvinism, an unregenerate person would not will to be saved. Paul teaches however, that all scripture is profitable for instruction.

Does God base election on the basis of what we can do. or is it based upon what he alone can do?

if he bases it upon what we do, can we not claim merit is what got us approval in sight of God then, and boost that is why I got saved, and someone else stayed lost?

 

[Van]

We are chosen through faith in the truth, 2 Thessalonians 2:13. You can deny Paul's words are inspired, but that view is without merit. All our works of righteousness are as filthy rags to God. It is God who credits our filthy rag worthless faith as righteousness. Therefore, if we boast, we boast in the Lord.

 

[OldRegular]

Just a quick question for Van for clarification.

You speak of Rom. 9:16 as if it is about salvation. If that is correct, can you interpret the rest of ch. 9? Do you switch to a different view (like Rom. 9 is about national election or some such)? I'm surprised to see a non-calvie use Rom. 9 in regards to salvation.

Just an fyi... the very immediate context of Rom. 9:16 is specifically about God choosing people and the supposed injustice of God. While I agree that "salvation does not depend upon the man that wills..." I think that verse is more specific than just salvation but answering why it is just for God to choose someone or have mercy on someone and not another. If you were fair to the context, I think you'd have to agree.

If you can understand that verbiage Van spews then have at him!

 

[Rippon]

If you can understand that verbiage Van spews then have at him!

You can't comprehend Vanology? Neither can I. His "system" is totally unique.

 

[OldRegular]

You can't comprehend Vanology? Neither can I. His "system" is totally unique.

Thanks Rippon, you have made my day! I was ready to have a pity party like Elijah, I and I alone can't understand Van!

 

[Yeshua1]

You can't comprehend Vanology? Neither can I. His "system" is totally unique.

far as I can tell, its basically no matter what a calvinist has ever posted/wrote/said, its always wrong!

 

[Rippon]

On the 5th of March,2011 --the day after Van joined the BB, he said something which is his calling card now:"In the Calvinist scheme of things,it does not matter whether the gospel is presented accurately or not."

Actually that quote of Van's is rather tame compared with all the things he has said since then.

 

[Yeshua1]

On the 5th of March,2011 --the day after Van joined the BB, he said something which is his calling card now:"In the Calvinist scheme of things,it does not matter whether the gospel is presented accurately or not."

Actually that quote of Van's is rather tame compared with all the things he has said since then.

he certainly knows a lot about what he thinks calvinists teaches, and how we perverted bible and theology, but still trying to get his creditialsto judge us by?

 

[Benjamin]

What do these personal attacks have to do with the thread? Or proving one's conclusions to be true or not?

 

[The Archangel]

...scripture says God chose those who have not bowed their knee. It does not read as Calvinism would rewrite, those who will not because I chose them and enabled them so they will not bow.

Note that the election of the 7,000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal were elected conditionally. Then note scripture says we too, under the New Covenant were elected in the same way, i.e. conditionally.

Nope. The Hebrew won't allow for this interpretation. Now, we're not saying the 7,000 weren't Yahweh worshipers, we're saying they worshiped Yahweh because He specifically chose them to do so...

In Hebrew, the verb in question here is שׁאר which means, basically, "remain." The problem with your "interpretation" is that this verb occurs in the 1 Kings 19:18 passage in the Hifil stem and the Hifil stem is the causative of the Qal stem. So, God, the subject, is saying "I will leave for myself..." What is more, the Hifil has a doubly causative nature in the sense that the objects of the Hifil verb (in this case bow and kiss) are subordinated to the Hifil.

So, in essence, this verse is saying "I [God] have kept for Myself 7,000 people who have not bowed the knee to Baal or kissed him." The nuance of the Hifil, of course, is that the reason the 7,000 haven't bowed or kissed is that God has "left them for Himself."

So, it is not, as you state "conditional." Instead, the language is specifically stating that the reason that there are 7,000 who haven't bowed to or kissed Baal is because God's choosing of them has specifically precluded them from doing so.

It is no mistake, by the way, that Paul brings out this nuance in his citation of this passage in Romans 11.

The Archangel

 

[Yeshua1]

Nope. The Hebrew won't allow for this interpretation. Now, we're not saying the 7,000 weren't Yahweh worshipers, we're saying they worshiped Yahweh because He specifically chose them to do so...

In Hebrew, the verb in question here is שׁאר which means, basically, "remain." The problem with your "interpretation" is that this verb occurs in the 1 Kings 19:18 passage in the Hifil stem and the Hifil stem is the causative of the Qal stem. So, God, the subject, is saying "I will leave for myself..." What is more, the Hifil has a doubly causative nature in the sense that the objects of the Hifil verb (in this case bow and kiss) are subordinated to the Hifil.

So, in essence, this verse is saying "I [God] have kept for Myself 7,000 people who have not bowed the knee to Baal or kissed him." The nuance of the Hifil, of course, is that the reason the 7,000 haven't bowed or kissed is that God has "left them for Himself."

So, it is not, as you state "conditional." Instead, the language is specifically stating that the reason that there are 7,000 who haven't bowed to or kissed Baal is because God's choosing of them has specifically precluded them from doing so.

It is no mistake, by the way, that Paul brings out this nuance in his citation of this passage in Romans 11.

The Archangel

God choosing of those 7000 first, would be the causal effecting them to be obedient unto Himself, as the Lord chose them in order to have them obey and serve him...

excellent posting, wonder how van will deal with you about the hebrew aspect of the text?

 

[Yeshua1]

What do these personal attacks have to do with the thread? Or proving one's conclusions to be true or not?

Big difference here is that NONE of us are angry/bitter really trying to attack van, just pointing out how he seems to know all these things, yet still don't know his creditials to judge translations. theology etc!