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

[Jedi Knight]

Baloney. John 15:16 does not say Jesus chose the disciples to be saved, it says he chose them to go and bring forth fruit.

You can't simply read into scripture what you want it to say. That is what you are trying to do.

You forgot something.....AND! Your telling the second half of scripture and ignoring the first part.

 

[Winman]

:laugh: I said that once or twice myself. It's amazing how a clear non-biased look at the Scriptures can change one's mind and life.

I probably post more scripture than any poster here at BB. I explain how I interpret that scripture. None of you ever shows me my error, you simply say I am wrong, but never say WHY.

Show me where I have erred. Show scripture I have posted and how my interpretation is error.

I did that with OR, he said we are chosen before the foundation of the world. I corrected him and showed it says we are chosen IN HIM before the foundation of the world, but that Romans 16:7 show we enter into Christ in time. I showed that God elects us according to his foreknowledge, that is he foresees us believe in time and chooses us.

All Calvinists know that non-Cals and Arminians believe God elects us according to foreseen faith. They know it makes perfect sense. But they also know it refutes Calvinism, therefore they write dozens of articles to try to prove this view false.

 

[Winman]

You forgot something.....AND! Your telling the second half of scripture and ignoring the first part.

What part is that? The word "ordained"? That does not change the meaning of the verse one bit. No where in this verse does it say Jesus chose and ordained the disicples to be saved, it says he chose them and ordained they should go and bring forth fruit.

Show me in John 15:16 where it says Jesus chose and ordained the disciples to be saved. You can't do it. It does not mention being saved at all. Calvinism simply reads into scripture what is not there.

 

[Jedi Knight]

What part is that? The word "ordained"? That does not change the meaning of the verse one bit. No where in this verse does it say Jesus chose and ordained the disciples to be saved, it says he chose them and ordained they should go and bring forth fruit.

Show me in John 15:16 where it says Jesus chose and ordained the disciples to be saved. You can't do it. It does not mention being saved at all. Calvinism simply reads into scripture what is not there.

You did not choose me, but I chose you AND appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. First things first....we need a relationship with the Lord...thats salvation! Second is to use us as he sees fit...thus the "AND". He is talking to the ELEVEN of his sheep...minus the devil "Judas".

 

[quantumfaith]

The disciples were chosen to spread the gospel. That is what Jesus chose them for. That said, he chose eleven because he knew they would believe and be faithful to death, he chose Judas to fulfill prophecy that he would betray him.

Read the verse again, does it say he chose them to be saved? NO, it says he chose them to go and bring forth fruit, that is, other believers.

Reading without comprehension is useless.

I have always been convinced that this is indeed the intent of this passage. These men were indeed chosen for the special and specific roles that they would play, I do not believe this passage is the "duble entendre" indicated by my colleagues on the reformed side.

 

[OldRegular]

I did that with OR, he said we are chosen before the foundation of the world. I corrected him and showed it says we are chosen IN HIM before the foundation of the world, but that Romans 16:7 show we enter into Christ in time. I showed that God elects us according to his foreknowledge, that is he foresees us believe in time and chooses us.

Now consider what you say above Winman!

By Winman
" I corrected him and showed it says we are chosen IN HIM before the foundation of the world."

So you admit that we were chosen in Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world. Is that what the above statement by you states. YES.

Next you say:

By Winman
" but that Romans 16:7 show we enter into Christ in time."

Now explain how CHOSEN IN JESUS CHRIST BEFORE TIME, BEFORE THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE WORLD squares with ENTER INTO CHRIST IN TIME. If there is a distinction what is it? If they mean the same thing then explain how that is possible?

 

[Winman]

You did not choose me, but I chose you AND appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. First things first....we need a relationship with the Lord...thats salvation! Second is to use us as he sees fit...thus the "AND". He is talking to the ELEVEN of his sheep...minus the devil "Judas".

I agree we need a relationship with Jesus. But nobody can have a relationship by themselves. God cannot have a personal relationship with you unless you have a personal relationship with him.

Adam couldn't KNOW Eve without EVE KNOWING Adam. To think otherwise is ridiculous, but that is how Calvinists say foreknowledge works. They say God has a personal relationship with us before we believe. Absurd.

Look, you have scripture that SEEMS to contradict itself.

#1 God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world (before time)

#2 Andronicus and Junia were in Christ before Paul (in time)

Now, both of these statements are from scripture, but they seem to contradict each other. How is it possible that these two seemingly contradictory scriptures can be absolutely true and not contradict each other?

The answer is FOREKNOWLEDGE. The scriptures say we are elect according to the foreknowledge of the Father. So, God's choosing or election is based on something he knew before it actually happened. That is the definition of foreknowledge.

What God foreknew is those persons who would believe in time and be "in Christ" in time as Paul was in Rom 16:7. God knew Paul would believe before Paul was born, and chose Paul. Foreknowledge is the answer.

Foreknowledge is the only possible way to reconcile that we were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, but no man is in Christ until he believes in time.

In addition, God could not have a personal relationship with us before we believed in time. You can't have a personal relationship with another person by yourself. That is nonsensical.

The scriptures show we enter into this personal relationship with God at the SAME 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 doesn't say God knew us in a personal intimate way before time, he says we are known of God NOW.

This makes sense, if you know someone in a personal and intimate way, they they also know you in a personal and intimate way at the same moment. It is impossible to be any other way.

So again, we seem to have a contradiction. If God "foreknew" us before time, how could he know us in time as Gal 4:9 shows?

Again, the answer is FOREKNOWLEDGE. God in his foreknowledge could foresee this personal relationship in time and chose us.

This is not complicated, and it makes perfects sense. Calvinists do not like it, because it refutes their doctrine. But it is what scripture shows.

 

[Jedi Knight]

I agree we need a relationship with Jesus. But nobody can have a relationship by themselves. God cannot have a personal relationship with you unless you have a personal relationship with him.

Well I see saving relationship talk here between Jesus and his sheep....not just in general.....thus Judas is absent.

 

[percho]

:godisgood: even when we were dead in trespass and sins!

Just like father Abe.

 

[The Archangel]

Baloney. John 15:16 does not say Jesus chose the disciples to be saved, it says he chose them to go and bring forth fruit.

You can't simply read into scripture what you want it to say. That is what you are trying to do.

Wrong. I'll explain below.

I probably post more scripture than any poster here at BB. I explain how I interpret that scripture. None of you ever shows me my error, you simply say I am wrong, but never say WHY.

Show me where I have erred. Show scripture I have posted and how my interpretation is error.

I did that with OR, he said we are chosen before the foundation of the world. I corrected him and showed it says we are chosen IN HIM before the foundation of the world, but that Romans 16:7 show we enter into Christ in time. I showed that God elects us according to his foreknowledge, that is he foresees us believe in time and chooses us.

All Calvinists know that non-Cals and Arminians believe God elects us according to foreseen faith. They know it makes perfect sense. But they also know it refutes Calvinism, therefore they write dozens of articles to try to prove this view false.

We have shown you your errors, literally, thousands of times. You simply do not listen.

What part is that? The word "ordained"? That does not change the meaning of the verse one bit. No where in this verse does it say Jesus chose and ordained the disicples to be saved, it says he chose them and ordained they should go and bring forth fruit.

Show me in John 15:16 where it says Jesus chose and ordained the disciples to be saved. You can't do it. It does not mention being saved at all. Calvinism simply reads into scripture what is not there.

Here is what the verse says in a mostly wooden translation from the Greek:

You did not choose me for yourself, but I chose you for myself

The verb "chose" is indeed middle and context suggests that it be taken as a middle. Also, the "but" is alla, a strong adversitive to draw contrast between the disciples not choosing and Jesus choosing.

And appointed you so that you should (or might) go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide

There are two things here: The previous clause "You did not choose me for yourself, but I chose you for myself" is clear Jesus is doing the choosing. The second thing, from this clause, is that the appointment is in order that the disciples would indeed bear fruit.

Now, the really interesting thing comes next:

So that whatever you ask the Father in my name he may give it to you.

In Greek, you have a word, hina, that starts several clauses. The word means "so that;" it is a causative word. Because of the hina clauses "so that you should go and bear fruit..." and "so that whatever you ask the Father in my name..." these two things are linked.

The "appointment" to bearing fruit cannot be separated from "asking from the Father."

If the "appointment" is to bear fruit, which you claim it is, it is also to "ask things from the Father." In this case, since only believers can ask in the Fathers name, it is the case that the appointment is unto salvation in some sense.

Furthermore, because of the use of the word "and" linking the first and second clauses (You did not choose me for yourself, but I chose you for myself AND appointed you so that you should (or might) go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide) you have Jesus choosing the disciples for Himself (and categorically eliminating the option that they chose Him first) and you have Him appointing them to bear fruit and asking the Father. Again, only believers can ask the Father for things in Christ's name.

So, while it is not explicit, your "interpretation" is not and cannot be--according to the Greek.

Furthermore, as far as interpretation is concerned, the true theologian asks three questions of any text: 1) What does it say; 2) what does it mean; and 3) how does this text apply to me?

In all of your posts that I have read, you never ask questions two or three. Hence, your "interpretations" leave much to be desired.

The Archangel

 

[percho]

Where do the scriptures say that God never called Haran or Nahor? You have read into scripture what it does not say. You may possibly be correct, but you cannot simply assume that. Jesus said MANY are CALLED, but FEW are CHOSEN.

I agree with you, you will not find them being called in the scriptures. Permit me to ask.

Do you think they were called?

We know Abram was.

I also think Abram, possibly knew and talked with Noah.

At least I think that was possible.

 

[percho]

Baloney. John 15:16 does not say Jesus chose the disciples to be saved, it says he chose them to go and bring forth fruit.

You can't simply read into scripture what you want it to say. That is what you are trying to do.

Once I agree with you. Chosen is I believe to be most times in the context of, for the purpose. And even though I believe it to carry with it salvation that does not mean one who is not chosen will not achieve salvation. Just as I do not think the brothers of Abraham were called, God being God can raise them from the dead and then call them.

edited for better understanding of my understanding. I am not Calvinist for I think Calvin believed God chose for salvation and therefore God also chose the rest not for salvation.
I think you believe, we get to choose therefore letting God off the hook.

I believe God chooses for a purpose and at the present he is choosing the firstfruits and others can be chosen later. The purpose being found in Eph. 1:10 and he has made that known to the ones he has chosen.

 

[Winman]

Wrong. I'll explain below.



We have shown you your errors, literally, thousands of times. You simply do not listen.




Here is what the verse says in a mostly wooden translation from the Greek:

You did not choose me for yourself, but I chose you for myself

The verb "chose" is indeed middle and context suggests that it be taken as a middle. Also, the "but" is alla, a strong adversitive to draw contrast between the disciples not choosing and Jesus choosing.

And appointed you so that you should (or might) go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide

There are two things here: The previous clause "You did not choose me for yourself, but I chose you for myself" is clear Jesus is doing the choosing. The second thing, from this clause, is that the appointment is in order that the disciples would indeed bear fruit.

Now, the really interesting thing comes next:

So that whatever you ask the Father in my name he may give it to you.

In Greek, you have a word, hina, that starts several clauses. The word means "so that;" it is a causative word. Because of the hina clauses "so that you should go and bear fruit..." and "so that whatever you ask the Father in my name..." these two things are linked.

The "appointment" to bearing fruit cannot be separated from "asking from the Father."

If the "appointment" is to bear fruit, which you claim it is, it is also to "ask things from the Father." In this case, since only believers can ask in the Fathers name, it is the case that the appointment is unto salvation in some sense.

Furthermore, because of the use of the word "and" linking the first and second clauses (You did not choose me for yourself, but I chose you for myself AND appointed you so that you should (or might) go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide) you have Jesus choosing the disciples for Himself (and categorically eliminating the option that they chose Him first) and you have Him appointing them to bear fruit and asking the Father. Again, only believers can ask the Father for things in Christ's name.

So, while it is not explicit, your "interpretation" is not and cannot be--according to the Greek.

Furthermore, as far as interpretation is concerned, the true theologian asks three questions of any text: 1) What does it say; 2) what does it mean; and 3) how does this text apply to me?

In all of your posts that I have read, you never ask questions two or three. Hence, your "interpretations" leave much to be desired.

The Archangel

No, you are reading into the scripture more than it says. It says Jesus chose and ordained them to go and bring forth fruit.

Now, as to the latter part of the verse, it does not say they were ordained to be believers, it says it is ordained that whatever they ask in Jesus's name the Father will give them. Note that they must ASK. They must apply to the Father through Jesus to receive from the Father. What is ordained is that if they ask in Jesus's name they shall receive from the Father.

You Calvinists are always trying to remove man from the equation, but it cannot be done.

Jhn 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.

This verse does not say they were ordained to be saved, it says it is ordained that whatsover YE SHALL ASK of the Father in Jesus's name, he may give it to you.

In other words, if you ask anything in my name, the Father will give that to you. This has been ordained.

You put a huge spin on this verse and change the meaning completely. There is not one word about being ordained to be saved in this verse.

 

[The Archangel]

No, you are reading into the scripture more than it says. It says Jesus chose and ordained them to go and bring forth fruit.

Not at all...although that is what you always say when we (or anyone, for that matter) points out your errant interpretations. You act like an ostrich and bury your head in the sand.

Now, as to the latter part of the verse, it does not say they were ordained to be believers, it says it is ordained that whatever they ask in Jesus's name the Father will give them. Note that they must ASK. They must apply to the Father through Jesus to receive from the Father. What is ordained is that if they ask in Jesus's name they shall receive from the Father.

Not at all. The clauses of the verse are linked; they do not stand alone.

The hina clause (translated "so that) rules out that "it is ordained that whatever they ask..." No, they were appointed SO THAT they might produce good fruit and that fruit would abide SO THAT whatever they might ask of the Father..."

I have never denied that the disciples (or us for that matter) do not have to ask.

The necessity of the good fruit abiding speaks to an ongoing relationship with the Father. The only way to bear good fruit is to be a believer. Clearly Jesus appointed the disciples to bear good fruit. And, that's on top of his having chosen them for Himself.

You Calvinists are always trying to remove man from the equation, but it cannot be done.

Not at all. That is an assumption on your part.

Jhn 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.

This verse does not say they were ordained to be saved, it says it is ordained that whatsover YE SHALL ASK of the Father in Jesus's name, he may give it to you.

In other words, if you ask anything in my name, the Father will give that to you. This has been ordained.

No. Linguistically this is impossible in Greek. You are ignoring the hina clauses.

You put a huge spin on this verse and change the meaning completely. There is not one word about being ordained to be saved in this verse.

Perhaps you were negligent in reading what I wrote. I said it is not explicit--ordained to be saved. However, what is certain is that your interpretation cannot be.

The Archangel

 

[Winman]

Once I agree with you. Chosen is I believe to be most times in the context of, for the purpose. And even though I believe it to carry with it salvation that does not mean one who is not chosen will not achieve salvation. Just as I do not think the brothers of Abraham were called, God being God can raise them from the dead and then call them.

edited for better understanding of my understanding. I am not Calvinist for I think Calvin believed God chose for salvation and therefore God also chose the rest not for salvation.
I think you believe, we get to choose therefore letting God off the hook.

I believe God chooses for a purpose and at the present he is choosing the firstfruits and others can be chosen later. The purpose being found in Eph. 1:10 and he has made that known to the ones he has chosen.

Well, I certainly don't believe we are letting God off the hook. God was never on the hook. God does not unconditionally choose to damn billions of people to be cast into the lake of fire before they are born and ever sinned. That is what Calvinism teaches.

God does not do wrong, so he has no need to be let off the hook.

One thing you said is correct, if God chose only to save some people, then he also chose to damn the others. Calvinists try to deny this, but it is absurd.

It's like when we were kids choosing football teams. You chose the guys one at a time who would be on your team. If you didn't chose one fellow, by default you are choosing him for the other team. This was the guy you didn't think could play well, you wanted him on the other team.

 

[OldRegular]

Winman you are ignoring my request!

Originally Posted by Winman
I did that with OR, he said we are chosen before the foundation of the world. I corrected him and showed it says we are chosen IN HIM before the foundation of the world, but that Romans 16:7 show we enter into Christ in time. I showed that God elects us according to his foreknowledge, that is he foresees us believe in time and chooses us.

Now consider what you say above Winman!

By Winman
" I corrected him and showed it says we are chosen IN HIM before the foundation of the world."

So you admit that we were chosen in Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world. Is that what the above statement by you states. YES.

Next you say:

By Winman
" but that Romans 16:7 show we enter into Christ in time."

Now explain how CHOSEN IN JESUS CHRIST BEFORE TIME, BEFORE THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE WORLD squares with ENTER INTO CHRIST IN TIME. If there is a distinction what is it? If they mean the same thing then explain how that is possible?

 

[AresMan]

You Calvinists are always trying to remove man from the equation, but it cannot be done.

No, but if this "equation" is like a sentence in the Greek, man would be in the dative case. :thumbs:

 

[OldRegular]

Well, I certainly don't believe we are letting God off the hook. God was never on the hook. God does not unconditionally choose to damn billions of people to be cast into the lake of fire before they are born and ever sinned. That is what Calvinism teaches.

God does not do wrong, so he has no need to be let off the hook.

One thing you said is correct, if God chose only to save some people, then he also chose to damn the others. Calvinists try to deny this, but it is absurd.

It's like when we were kids choosing football teams. You chose the guys one at a time who would be on your team. If you didn't chose one fellow, by default you are choosing him for the other team. This was the guy you didn't think could play well, you wanted him on the other team.

There you go again Winman. Salvation is not a kids football game! You are attributing the selfish motives of a football game to the decrees of God. You say God does not do wrong and then turn around and compare the sovereign decrees of God to a kids football game. I am afraid this attitude as well as your insistence on the dominance of the will of man over the sovereign decrees of God reflects your view of God.

 

[psalms109:31]

Preaching chosen to be in Christ is preaching Hyper-Calvinism, they don't believe there is a need to spread any Gospel so lets call it Extreme-Calvinism. Mature teaching is teaching of righteousness, living a Godly life it has nothing to do with believing this Extreme-Calvinism teaching. To me they need milk not solid food believing in Jesus, trusting in Jesus, repentance, Remaining in Jesus Christ.

We are chosen in Christ the new creation your old creation is dead the one born again by the enduring word of God is alive in Jesus Christ.

No one is saved on their own outside of Jesus Christ.

Jesus is our refuge from the wrath to come. If you don't run to Him you will not be saved no matter how much you think you was chosen before the foundation of the world.

I shouldn't, John shouldn't, Paul shouldn't , Peter shouldn't have to teach you about remaining in Christ, you should already know this.

It is Jesus who is the upright one Israel and the only way to be saved is to remain in Him.

When you have doubt remain in Him, if you are faithless remain in Him, because Jesus can not disown Himself unless there is something mentally wrong with you, you should not believe you are saved as you are without being born again through Jesus Christ and chosen before the foundation of the world through Him, not of yourself, Jesus is the only life you have so remain in Him.

Jesus is the way the truth and the life, and Jesus and the Father is one.

 

[convicted1]

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::godisgood:

Thanks Icon, I could not bring myself to disagree with an Old Regular Baptist in public!

Brother Baker, please feel free to disagree with me. I would not be offended if you did, honestly.


Here are a few questions for you. The old line ORBs hold to Sisters NOT cutting their hair and wearing pants. In fact, we have two Sisters who came from the Sardis Association of ORBs. One had apparently been spotted wearing pants under her dress, and they met her in the parking lot and excluded her right there. The other one, the Moderator apparently told a Sister they were going to go by what the Book said concerning women and the length of there hair, and she left. One of the Deacons left later on because of it.

So, if your church came to your wife and gave her an ultimatum(sp?) of not cutting her hair or wearing pants, would that have offended you? I mean nothing ill, realizing that your precious wife has been very sick, but I wanted to know if you hold to ALL that the ORBs hold to.