Featured You Are Chosen! Believe it or Not! Like it or Not!

False. No where do the scriptures say we were chosen "TO BE" in Christ. That is a Reformed invention. The scriptures say we were chosen "in him", meaning a person is chosen when they enter the body of Christ upon faith in their lifetime. You are adding to scripture what it NEVER says.

False. The scriptures show we are not "known" of God until we believe in time.

Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

Paul shows here that our personal intimate relationship with God begins when we believe in time (But NOW). But God in his foreknowledge could foresee this personal relationship before the foundation of the world.

Irrelevant, Joseph's relationship with Mary has nothing to do with election.

You are correct about Jesus saying he never knew unbelievers in a personal intimate way.

And I showed you from scripture that God does not know us in a personal, intimate way until we believe in time.

It doesn't have to say that here, it says it elsewhere, such as Gal 4:9 and John 6:64-71. Galatians 4:9 especially shows we are not known of God in a personal way until we believe in time.

Who says the word changed? The definition of forknowledge and foreknew are the same, only the tense has changed. Foreknew is past tense.

That is possible, and it is just as possible that Jesus meant from the beginning of time as he used in MANY scriptures. In fact, when he used this phrase he most often spoke of from the beginning of time.

Jhn 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Either way, Jesus knew who would not believe on him, and who should betray him, speaking of Judas. He said ONE of you is a devil speaking of Judas, showing he knew the other eleven were not. He knew these things before they occurred in time, that is foreknowledge. Foreknowledge can mean to know events before they happen, such as the case of Judas. You try to redefine the word to mean only to foreknow someone in a personal way. This is easily shown false;

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

The word "foreknowledge" in Acts 2:23 cannot mean to know a person in a personal, intimate way, as Peter was speaking to unbelievers who crucified Jesus. Here Peter is speaking of the event, Jesus being crucified. This refutes your narrow definition of "foreknowledge", and proves foreknowledge can be speaking of a foreknown event.

I don't know Greek, so I cannot debate you on the meaning here.

Again, I do not know Greek, but the scriptures say Jesus knew "from the beginning" who believed not, and who "should" betray him. This is foreknowledge of a future event.

Again, Galatians 4:9 shows that God does not know us in a personal, intimate way until we believe in time.

Foreknowledge simply means God can foresee who will believe on Jesus and enter into a personal relationship with him before it actually takes place. God can foresee his personal relationship with that person. Gal 4:9 shows we do not enter into a personal relationship with God until we believe in time.

 

None of these statements defeat the "Corporate election" view....they just don't...I am not even a dedicated adherent of them....but they simply don't.

 

Neither does he....but apparently James White does. I read a few (basicallly un-related) books by White when he was younger....and his arguments basically sucked...I read an anti-KJV book he wrote..(since I am a nominally KJV only-guy)...and his entire book sucked. He based the entire thing on one non-supported argument. He married us to one (completely unsupported) assumtion....and then based a full 2/3 of his argumentation on that basis...I read the book twice (laboriously)...and he was no more convincing the second time around...the difference between his knowledge now, and his knowledge then...is that he was kinda cute and skinny and informed then...[edited]

 

A person does not have to understand Greek to understand the scriptures, although it is an aid.

Calvinism insists upon foreknowledge meaning only a personal intimate relationship with God, but Acts 2:23 proves this narrow definition false. It is impossible for foreknowledge to be speaking of a personal relationship in this verse, it is speaking about God foreknowing the Jews would take Jesus and crucify him. These persons were not believers, so this absolutely refutes their narrow definition. Foreknowledge here is speaking of an event, not a relationship.

Galatians 4:9 shows that we did not know God in a personal way until we believed in time (But NOW), but it also shows God did not know us in a personal way until we believed in time as well.

Edit- I've watched a few sermons by James White on YouTube. He wrests and twists scripture constantly. He will spend a whole hour trying to prove a word doesn't mean what it obviously means.

 

You are not up-to-date on White now. Within the last five years or so, he has worked himself slim and trim into better shape than he was when he was younger and he is an avid and dedicated bike rider.

 

Whatever his physical shape, he wrests scripture. Here is a video I watched once where he attempts (unsuccessfully) to explain away 2 Peter 2:1 which refutes Limited Atonement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fprw1COvohY

2 Pet 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

This verse refutes Limited Atonement because it says Jesus "bought" false teachers who bring in "damnable" heresies and bring upon themselves swift "destruction". So, these false teachers are absolutely lost persons and not the elect.

James White twists this verse in such a way as to almost be unrecognizable to attempt to explain it away. It is almost painful to watch, and I would be embarrassed to be one of his students.

But, folks eat it up.

 

Of course the scripture I have provided does not refute the scripture you posted, no scripture contradicts other scripture. False argument.

The scripture I have provided refutes your INTERPRETATION of these scriptures. You ASSUME your interpretation is correct.

Romans 16:7 shows no person is in Christ until they believe in time. So how could we be chosen "in Christ" before we are "in Christ" in time? The scriptures tell us, we were chosen or elected according to the foreknowledge of the Father. God could foresee who would believe in time and be "in Christ" and based upon this foreknowledge God chose these persons.

Calvinists attempt to refute this by saying "foreknowledge" means only a personal relationship with a person. Of course, they never explain how God could have a relationship with a person who doesn't exist yet. Acts 2;23 refutes this narrow and limited definition of the word foreknowledge that Calvinism claims. Acts 2:23 is clearly speaking about unbelievers, and is speaking of them crucifying Jesus. It is speaking of an event. So, this easily refutes the Calvinist definition of "foreknowledge".

No scripture contradicts any other scripture when properly understood. The scriptures I posted of course do not contradict the verses you posted, but they do refute your personal interpretation of these scriptures.

You claim a person is "in Christ" before the foundation of the world. The scriptures NEVER say that. You claim scripture says God chose persons "to be" in Christ, the scriptures NEVER say that.

 

You are reading into Scripture that being "chosen" happens when one becomes a believer. Both in Christ and before the foundation of the world modify chosen. We are chosen "in Christ" and we are chosen "before the foundation of the world." I would surmise that since these two modifiers are parallel, in Christ happens "before the foundation of the world." Therefore, since God chose us before we chose Him, and He is omniscient and omnipotent, His choice is forward determining rather than backward determining.

Php 1:29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

It is "given [to us]... to believe on him." This is "in the behalf of Christ." For the sake of Christ and His perfect work on the Cross, the Father gives to the Son those for whom He died. "Before the foundation of the world" we are chosen "in Christ." At a certain point in time in our lives, God effectuates this election by calling us with a holy calling and placing us into the relationship "in Christ."

The now has to do with the question about turning back to the Law. It does not have to do with knowing or being known. The now is "after" both the knowing and the known. Both known and are known are in the same tense--aorist participle--the first active and the second passive. Both are in effect before the "now." Your attempt to make an argument about God not "knowing" until "now" (i.e. being "in Christ") fails the test of the grammar.

Our side of this relationship obviously does not begin until we are positionally "in Christ," for sure. However, God's side of this relationship is "before the foundation of the world." He foreknew us. We did not foreknow Him.

Where is the Scripture to support your argument about God's "foreknowledge" having merely to do with information "foreseeing" our faith? That is not what foreknowing a person means.

If you "know" someone, you have some form of relationship with that person.
If God "foreknows" someone, He has a form of relationship with the person "beforehand."
This is true in Greek and in English.

It is relevant because it is a form of ginwskw in which I was demonstrating that when a person is the direct object, it has to do with relationship, not merely factual information.

:thumbs:

Which is my whole point. If we try to inject your definition of foreknow (with a person as the object) into these uses of ginwskw, we end up with rather strange ideas.

Answered earlier in this post.

Gal 4:9 answered earlier in the post.

As for John 6:64, I said before that the word for knew here is a form of eido, which is different from ginwskw. Also, the direct object of the verb eisin here is a compound clause--"who they were that believed not, and who should betray him" (a factual piece of information)--not a person or people.

What I was saying was:

1. to "know" someone is to have a relationship with him
2. to "foreknow" someone is to have a relationship with him "beforehand."

Just because proginwskw in 1 Peter 1:2 has been nominalized (turned into a noun) to "foreknowledge" does not mean that its definition changes in this verse to prescience of factual information.

Sure, I can accept that Jesus (as the Son of God) knew from the beginning of time this information. I most certainly would not dispute that. I interjected the idea that the context of this verse has to do with the purpose for why He chose these disciples. Thus, "from the beginning" in context had to do with when He chose them to be disciples.

Of course, the devil committed his sin at "the beginning" [of time].

Apples and oranges. As I said before, ginwskw and eido are different words. You cannot equate these two.

ginwskw with a person as the direct object, and
eido with a factual piece of information as the direct object

are even more demonstrably different.

Sure, I never said that an event cannot be the direct object of proginwskw. Here being delivered is being modified by a nominalized proginwskw. Thus, in Acts 2:23 there is no "intimate relationship" being presented. It is rather of Christ being "pre-chosen" for death.

Neither do I, but I am familiar with grammar and linguistics.

My contention for you is that even in English, when you use the word know with a person as a direct object, it implies a personal intimacy.

No dispute here.

The problem is when you try to read an "event" or "foreseen faith" into passages that say no such thing. Romans 8:29 and 1 Peter 1:2 say nothing about faith or events being "foreknown." These passages have to do with people being "foreknown." In English, when you know a person, you have a relationship with that person.

I don't know how else to explain this if you are not understanding my argument.

If I ask you "Do you know President Obama?"
You would likely reply "No. I have never even met him."

Obviously, you know who he is. You know some facts about him, but you would not say that you know him.

Not in Romans 8:29 or 1 Peter 1:2. You have not proven that. No where have these verses said anything about facts or faith being the object of foreknow. You are just reading this into these verses.

Of course, but the issue at hand is what the verses actually mean grammatically.

Answered earlier in post.

 

"Individuals" as it were being addressed does nothing, and no damage whatsoever to the "corporate view" of election...none, not at all. Provided we are addressing only individuals (and the corporate view is something I am not even married to)....none of these passages negate it...Why don't you see that? Don't the "vain philosophies" you are so against tell you that even if one is understood as party to a group that any address to an individual or all of the sum total of all individuals in said group does not invalidate the identitiy of said group??? Since you people hate "vain philosophy" and what-not so much...didn't you have to study the idea of "sets" and "subsets" in mathematics in High School? Does none of this ring a bell??? It isn't hard folks...you are trying to negate "corporate election"...but, even as a non-calninist...I would do an infinitely better job of arguing your position than you would...This is pathetic.

 

You could read a verse that says: "Calvinism is false"...and explain it away as not "refuting" your OP...I have no doubt.

 

This verse does not address time, so it does not support your position. However, Romans 16:7 clearly address time and says Andronicus and Junia were "in Christ" before Paul was.

Nonsense, the verse says "But NOW "after" ye have known God, or rather ARE KNOWN OF GOD"... This verse shows that we do not have a personal relationship with God until after we believe. A personal relationship involves two parties, you cannot have a personal relationship with another person by yourself. Absurd.

Ridiculous, no one can have a personal intimate relationship with another person without that person being involved. Your view is ridiculous. No, the scriptures say that now that we know God, he also knows us. Now that makes sense.

Or to use your own analogy, How could Adam know Eve and Eve not know Adam? So, you see how foolish your argument is.

 

Without even looking at the video, I see that you already have presuppositions that you are reading into the verse.

The verse says nothing about Jesus as you have assumed. The Lord here is not the usual kurios used of Jesus. It is the word despotes, or "sovereign ruler" or "master."

Remember, Peter was writing to a Jewish audience who were familiar with the exodus from Egypt and the history of their fathers. God "bought" the Israelites out of Egypt (Exo 15:16; Deu 32:6-9). In fact, 2 Peter 2:12 is a loose reference to Deuteronomy 32:5. The people of Israel became "Lo-Ammi" because they forsook the Master that bought them and became "destroyed" as a people.

Remember, when Moses was up in Mt. Sinai, the people of Israel with Aaron built golden calves and worshipped false gods, denying the Sovereign Who bought them out of Egypt. The people to whom Peter was referring were Jewish false Christs who would claim to speak the truth of God, yet they would deny the God that bought them as a nation out of Egypt, just as there were centuries before.

 

I responded to his looooooong post. I showed how foolish it is to believe that God could have a personal, intimate relationship without our involvement. A ridiculous and illogical idea. Using his own analogy, I showed how foolish it is to believe that Adam could know Eve without Eve knowing Adam. Absurd.

I then showed Galatians 4:9 which clearly says that we are NOW known of God. God does not know us in a personal way until we believe on Jesus in time.

He agreed that "foreknowlege" in Acts 2:23 is not speaking of a personal relationship.

Look, nobody is chosen "to be" in Christ. That is God choosing you OUTSIDE of Christ. Christ is the "elect one" the "chosen" of God. The only reason we are elect is when we believe and are baptized into his body. Jesus is the elect, we are simply riding on his coat-tails.

You believe in election OUTSIDE of Christ. This is serious error.

 

Peter was addressing believers in Christ who understood Jesus bought them with his blood.

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

This passage is also speaking of persons who sin wilfully (they did not believe) after receiving the knowledge of the truth. There remaineth no MORE sacrifice for them. The have trodden underfoot Jesus, and count the blood of Jesus wherewith THEY WERE SANCTIFIED an unholy thing.

You go on and keep listening to James White. See where it gets you.

 

What about the disciples? Were they just riding on Jesus' coat-tails?

John 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

Did Jesus choose them just hoping they would believe in Him?

 

Don't be stealing one of my favorite verse!:smilewinkgrin: