PDA

View Full Version : Election (God chooses you, you don't choose Him)



BadDog
Aug 1st 2008, 07:12 PM
The purpose of this poll is to get an idea how we think about election. In general, those who hold to election say that God chooses (elects) us, but we cannot choose Him until we are first regenerated (Reformed viewpoint). Some say the opposite (Arminian) and many are somewhere else on the issue. I'm just curious where most align. I'll try to list all options some may have, but I guess I'll have to have an "other" option. Please don't select it unless truly necessary.

BD

BrckBrln
Aug 1st 2008, 07:26 PM
I picked the Reformed position.

BadDog
Aug 1st 2008, 07:30 PM
Cool. I'm really interested in how the percentages work out, so I hope this is taken by many of our users.

Oh, FWIW, I take the position that both are possible at the same time. (Molinism) I don't think I've had the pleasure of interacting with you on any threads here... about the time you joined was when I backed off. It'll happen again when school starts - Monday.

Tell me about that book by Pink on the sovereignty of God. I just led a youth D-group on that this week. We didn't get into election-free will, but we did discuss some practical questions regarding how a proper understanding of His sovereignty should be reflected in our lives. (A take from AW Tozer's excellent "The Knowledge of the Holy.")

Hey, I started a poll on "Are you a heretic?" There's a link to a quiz which reveals some of our misunderstandings about various doctrines.

BD

grptinHisHand
Aug 1st 2008, 08:05 PM
God chose us, not just foreknew. He chose us ALL though. Not all accept Him, but John 3:16 says Christ came so that "whoever believes in Him' will be saved. That indicates to me that He chooses all. Also, God is 'not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.'
But so many reject Him. They do not have to, because salvation is His free gift to all who believe and receive Him - when we come to Him on His terms, which includes turning from our way, to Him. Well, the gift is free to US. It cost Christ His life - that is a very big price to pay.
g :hug:

BadDog
Aug 1st 2008, 08:20 PM
Hmmm, interesting idea - God chose us all. I like it. (Don't agree, but it is intriguing.) :P

BD

Kate
Aug 1st 2008, 08:20 PM
I chose "Other".

God chose us before the foundation of the world because of no merit in ourselves but because of his own good pleasure to have mercy. Because of this, when we hear the truth of the gospel the Holy Spirit is sent to us in our unregenerate state and reveals the truth of it to us.

It is not possible for anyone to hear the gospel and receive Christ without the Holy Spirit revealing truth. This is why it says that no-one can come to the Son unless the Father draws him.

When we hear the gospel in our unregenerate state it's foolishness to us without the aid of the Holy Spirit. There's nothing good in us, and we are spiritually blind. Jesus said "my sheep know my voice". We hear His voice calling us and we respond.

We choose God by our own free will. Yes. But God also chose us.

BadDog
Aug 1st 2008, 08:51 PM
I chose "Other".

God chose us before the foundation of the world because of no merit in ourselves but because of his own good pleasure to have mercy. Because of this, when we hear the truth of the gospel the Holy Spirit is sent to us in our unregenerate state and reveals the truth of it to us.

It is not possible for anyone to hear the gospel and receive Christ without the Holy Spirit revealing truth. This is why it says that no-one can come to the Son unless the Father draws him.

When we hear the gospel in our unregenerate state it's foolishness to us without the aid of the Holy Spirit. There's nothing good in us, and we are spiritually blind. Jesus said "my sheep know my voice". We hear His voice calling us and we respond.

We choose God by our own free will. Yes. But God also chose us.Hmmm, can't make up my mind if you're #3 or #1 (Reformed). The end makes me think that you're Reformed, but with a Molinist twist. (Similar to me.)

Thx,

BD

BrckBrln
Aug 1st 2008, 10:22 PM
Tell me about that book by Pink on the sovereignty of God.

It's a great book if you believe in the Reformed doctrine of the sovereignty of God. If you don't, however, you might find it quite revolting. :)

Sherrie
Aug 1st 2008, 10:24 PM
I lean toward Kates thoughts as well. I voted other.

9Marksfan
Aug 1st 2008, 11:34 PM
God chose us, not just foreknew. He chose us ALL though. Not all accept Him, but John 3:16 says Christ came so that "whoever believes in Him' will be saved. That indicates to me that He chooses all.

How are you getting that? Surely God only chooses those who will believe (however you understand that choosing)?

9Marksfan
Aug 1st 2008, 11:36 PM
I chose "Other".

God chose us before the foundation of the world because of no merit in ourselves but because of his own good pleasure to have mercy. Because of this, when we hear the truth of the gospel the Holy Spirit is sent to us in our unregenerate state and reveals the truth of it to us.

It is not possible for anyone to hear the gospel and receive Christ without the Holy Spirit revealing truth. This is why it says that no-one can come to the Son unless the Father draws him.

When we hear the gospel in our unregenerate state it's foolishness to us without the aid of the Holy Spirit. There's nothing good in us, and we are spiritually blind. Jesus said "my sheep know my voice". We hear His voice calling us and we respond.

We choose God by our own free will. Yes. But God also chose us.

Everything you say is Reformed - including possibly the last sentence too! Once we are regenerated, our wills truly ARE free -and we freely choose Christ! So is there something about the Reformed stance that you disagree with?

BrckBrln
Aug 1st 2008, 11:38 PM
“For many are called, but few are chosen.” Matthew 22:14

Not everybody is chosen.

And yeah, our wills are changed by God so that we 'freely' (from our perspective) choose Him.

Pleroo
Aug 2nd 2008, 12:24 AM
Chosen for what? :)

Kate
Aug 2nd 2008, 04:08 AM
“For many are called, but few are chosen.” Matthew 22:14

Not everybody is chosen.

And yeah, our wills are changed by God so that we 'freely' (from our perspective) choose Him.

I agree with that. Well put.

9Marksfan
Aug 2nd 2008, 10:02 PM
Chosen for what? :)

Salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Thess 5:9, 2 Thess 2:13).

BadDog
Aug 3rd 2008, 03:49 AM
It's a great book if you believe in the Reformed doctrine of the sovereignty of God. If you don't, however, you might find it quite revolting. :)I'm not Reformed, but I don't think I'd find it revolting! You might be interested in a book called Divine Foreknowledge edited by J Beilby & P Eddy. It contains 4 positions on this topic - 1 by Reformed, 1 about simple foreknowledge (Arminian typically), 1 about open theism and 1 about Molinism (middle knowledge) each done by a guru of that position.

You see, I hold firnly to election and to a God who is fully sovereign. I just believe that He has chosen to give us a free will, and that He can still work His will (comes from Molinism).

FA

holyrokker
Aug 4th 2008, 04:26 AM
God chooses us and we choose Him.

BadDog
Aug 4th 2008, 05:20 PM
How are you getting that? Surely God only chooses those who will believe (however you understand that choosing)?9Marksfan,

There is a common non-Reformed view of corporate election which sees things this way. God chooses "all decided (chose) all who will trust in His Son.

BD

BadDog
Aug 4th 2008, 05:22 PM
Everything you say is Reformed - including possibly the last sentence too! Once we are regenerated, our wills truly ARE free -and we freely choose Christ! So is there something about the Reformed stance that you disagree with?I don't know... she didn't specifically state that regeneration occurs before faith (logically). The ordo salutis ("order of salvation") is key to being classified as Reformed. I'm not sure that she is.

BD

BadDog
Aug 4th 2008, 05:24 PM
“For many are called, but few are chosen.” Matthew 22:14

Not everybody is chosen.

And yeah, our wills are changed by God so that we 'freely' (from our perspective) choose Him.Now the Reformed perspective is that more than just our wills are changed - we are regenerated. Otherwise, it is argued, we could not believe. That's your position, right?

Thx,

BD

BadDog
Aug 4th 2008, 05:27 PM
Chosen for what? :)Chosen to be born from above ("born again"), to become children of God. Arminians generally say that we have a choice, that we choose to follow or to believe in Christ, while Calvinists say that we could not if God did not regenerate us first. But there are wide ranges of both, and everyone cannot simply be classified as either Reformed or Arminian, though many Calvinists think so.

Actually Arminianism was an offshoot of Calvinism. They agree on much more than they disagree.

BD

BadDog
Aug 4th 2008, 05:56 PM
“For many are called, but few are chosen.” Matthew 22:14

Not everybody is chosen.

And yeah, our wills are changed by God so that we 'freely' (from our perspective) choose Him.There is another growing position that holds to election by God and genuine creaturely free will. But the free will is not due to our wills being changed - being regenerated, but this view holds that both can be true at the same time and are not contradictions. Such a position has been held by many Baptists for a long time, but until more recently, there was not a good explanation for how this could be. (Actually Molinism has been around for a few hundred years, but only recently has it become popular.) Molinism ("middle knowledge") is actually a view regarding the fore-knowledge and omniscience of God. But it has a clear application to this controversy.

There are people in the Arminian and the Calvinist camp (rare, but growing) who now hold to this view - Molinism - "middle knowledge." I for one hold to this view, FWIW. But in general it is viewed as a 3rd camp altogether.

Often Molinists do not hold to limited atonement or to total depravity. It's only the latter that would prevent one from being classified as Reformed, though IMO, as I said earlier, the key to being classified as reformed is the ordo salutis.

Arminians have disagreed strongly with Calvinists for centuries on this particular point: if God chooses some to be reprobate-unsaved (double predestination), then God’s gracious love and justice are genuinely threatened. (Remember that for Calvinists that God did not choose Jacob, or any of us, based on anything about who we are. Of course, since eternal life is a free gift, completely unearned, that should not matter. But "free will" gives a higher view of a loving, just God.) "How can it be said that God is a God of love if he chooses for some to go to hell?" it is argued.

If God knows all, Calvinists argue, then how can people genuinely be free (liberatarian free will)?

Middle knowledge (Molinism) says that God's knowledge is far beyond what we recognize, and since God knows not only all that is, has and will happen, but all possibilities resulting from all permutations of decisions throughout all of history, that this resolves the election-free will problem. It works for me. I am convinced of both the Calvinist and Arminian arguments in scripture, so both must be true without contradiction. For me, Molinism is simply a way of understanding God's knowledge which makes some sense of it.

Now, this said, I didn't start this poll to try to make a point about Mominism. I just wanted to get a feel for what percentages of people tended to hold what views... what percentages were neither Arminian nor Calvinist. At this point on this board, it appears to be about 2/3 are neither. Surprising.

FWIW,

BD

BadDog
Aug 4th 2008, 06:05 PM
God chooses us and we choose Him.
Amen! Which happens first?

IMO God chose us first. According to Ephesians 1:4 and Revelation 13:8, 17:8.

BD

BadDog
Aug 4th 2008, 06:08 PM
With a middle knowledge view it could be said that while God controls all things yet He does not cause all things. We still freely choose and experience the consequences, whether good or bad, of those choices. Such a view says that God has permitted man to freely choose - it was His desire to do so. Hence we can then avoid having God be the cause of evil.

BD

Esperanza32
Aug 4th 2008, 07:53 PM
You need another option, for "totally confused"

What is "regeneration"??? Is that the same as being "born again"?

BadDog
Aug 5th 2008, 12:40 AM
You need another option, for "totally confused"

What is "regeneration"??? Is that the same as being "born again"?Sorry, yes it is. I typically do not use "born again" because it came from John 3:3, and IMO that is best translated as "born from above."

In general, there has been debate for centuries over whether or not man truly has a free will. Can he choose? Can he believe? Or must God cause him to be re-born first, then he is able to seek God and to believe the gospel? Some stand on the side of "free will" and others on "God's election." ("Election" means to choose, Hence this position says that God chooses us, we are not able to choose him.) Then there is a growing group that say that both are true at the same time, even though it seems logically impossible.

So then, those are the choices. I take the last position, and was explaining "Molinism" (Named after a RC priest, Molini, who got into a debate with another RC priest on this issue in the 16th century.) Molini referred to a type of knowledge called "middle knowledge." Before I became a Molinist I just quoted Isaiah 55:8, 9 stating that God's ways are far beyond our ability to understand, which is obviously true. But it was no explanation, and was kind of a cop out.

I don't think I should go into the details now as it gets really messy philosophically, except to say that this has to do with God's knowledge of all the possibilities... the "could haves" if this or that had happened. Because of such knowledge, God can remain in control without actually limiting free will. Typically Reformed people say that such knowledge (of "counterfactuals, they're called) doesn't really exist... only what will really happen.

That's similar to the way those who hold to "open theism" reason regarding God's knowledge. (IMO Open Theism is a dangerous doctrine, the others are not.) But they say that God does not really know the future, because physically it is unknowable. They argue that since God has such a complete knowledge and understanding of the past and present, He can still make predictions about the future without error. Something like a super computer. I don't buy that. Similarly, I do not like limiting God's knowledge, esp. since there are a few examples of it in scripture, such as when Jesus said that if the miracles done in Capernaum were done in Sodom, they would have repented and the city would not have been destroyed.

Open Theism, IMO, is dangerous because it treats God kinda like He's just a super hero. But to be God requires existence outside time and space.

This stuff is quite messy. Since I believe that the Bible teaches both that God is sovereign (completely in control) and that man has a free will, this helps me to understand how both can be true at the same time.

To overly simplify things, Reformed believers hold to man not having a free will since God is sovereign. Arminians hold to man having a free will, and hence say that God doesn't really predetermine who will trust in Him, but only chooses who will trust in Him because He knows who will do so. They say that He chooses based on what He knows, that He wouldn't operate in a vacuum. (True) They quote Romans 8:29 ("Those whom He foreknew He predestined to be conformed into the image of His Son.")

Hence Arminians (free will) have an issue explaining how God is sovereign IMO, and Calvinists (Reformed) have an issue with explaining the appeals in scripture for people to come to Him... to seek Him. The appeals are clearly made to those who do not know Him, yet in their theological construct they are not able to respond to those appeals. Why all those appeals if we can't come to Him? They also have an issue with God appearing to be some monster who doesn't really love the entire world, since He chooses some to not be His children. I do personally have a problem with that.

Whew!

BD

Esperanza32
Aug 5th 2008, 06:37 AM
Thanks for the clarification. ("Regeneration" just sounded like...some kind of sci-fi...to me!)

I'm with you. I don't think it's either/or, but both. God created time; he is not limited by it.

He chose us (by creating us and providing a way to him), and we choose him when we choose to not reject him.

The way I see it, there are an infinite number of people who could possibly exist, but God has created only a relatively small number of humans--I suppose that in creating us, he has chosen us. Not sure that makes any sense.

BadDog
Aug 5th 2008, 03:37 PM
Esperanza,

Makes sense. There are many views on this difficult issue. IMO the key is that we genuinely experience a close walk with our Lord. Understanding that He is sovereign in our lives can greatly impact our experience of this. We may struggle in logically getting it all to pull together in our minds, but our focus needs to be not on the theology (or philospohy) but on God's Word and our relationship with Him.

So at this point it might be interesting to hear from those of different perspectives (Arminian, Calvinist, Molinist or some other middle-ground) on how your perspective of election-free will impacts your Christian experience. What amazes you about our Lord and how He works in our lives as a result of your understanding in this area?

Thx,

BD

9Marksfan
Aug 5th 2008, 08:48 PM
Esperanza,

Makes sense. There are many views on this difficult issue. IMO the key is that we genuinely experience a close walk with our Lord. Understanding that He is sovereign in our lives can greatly impact our experience of this. We may struggle in logically getting it all to pull together in our minds, but our focus needs to be not on the theology (or philospohy) but on God's Word and our relationship with Him.

So at this point it might be interesting to hear from those of different perspectives (Arminian, Calvinist, Molinist or some other middle-ground) on how your perspective of election-free will impacts your Christian experience. What amazes you about our Lord and how He works in our lives as a result of your understanding in this area?

Thx,

BD

I'm amazed that God should choose someone like me, knowing the countless times I would screw up AFTER I came to know Him - and still do! - that really IS amazing! :o

BadDog
Aug 5th 2008, 11:56 PM
I'm amazed that God should choose someone like me, knowing the countless times I would screw up AFTER I came to know Him - and still do! - that really IS amazing! :oAmen!

"You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go out and produce fruit and that your fruit should remain. That whatever you ask of the Father in My name He will give to you." (John 15:6)

He chose us... and the purpose was that we would bear fruit - lasting fruit. Look at how Jesus dealt with Peter AFTER he denied Him 3 times. Jesus knew that Peter would do this. But like you said, He knew (beforehand) the countless times we would screw up.

Thx,

BD

Izdaari
Oct 9th 2008, 03:26 AM
My position would be somewhere in the Molinism to Moderate Calvinism range: both predestination and free will are true. I'm pleased to see that puts me in pretty distinguished company: Luis de Molina (after whom Molinism is named), William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, Ravi Zacharias, Charles Stanley, Bill Bright and Josh McDowell. :pp

BadDog
Oct 14th 2008, 10:15 PM
My position would be somewhere in the Molinism to Moderate Calvinism range: both predestination and free will are true. I'm pleased to see that puts me in pretty distinguished company: Luis de Molina (after whom Molinism is named), William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, Ravi Zacharias, Charles Stanley, Bill Bright and Josh McDowell. :pp
Cool - just saw this post. To quote Johnny Carson, "I did not know that" regarding Charles Stanley, Bill Bright and Josh McDowell.

Now Norm Geisler doesn't hold to Molinism, but to "moderate Calvinism" as he refers to it in his books. But you're right in that he does believe that both free will and election are true at the same time. I just think that we need Molinism to make it work logically.

I recommend his book, Chosen But Free, to anyone wanting to search this out. (Read it twice - good read.) While I feel that it is a bit philosophically weak in explaining the logic he does show that both concepts are clearly taught in scripture, and does a decent job of demonstrating the short-comings of Calvinism in this area.

William Lane Craig is the guru on this, for those looking for some depth, but he's not an easy read. :P

Thx for the input Izdaari.

CYL,

BD

CoffeeCat
Oct 24th 2008, 10:37 PM
I picked the "God chose us before Creation, we chose to believe in Christ BEFORE regeneration" response. My understanding of Christianity is that God has always chosen and loved us first.... from day one, long before we choose Him -- but for it to truly be OUR choice, we do choose to follow, serve and love Christ, and we decide that we want to do so before we're born again. We need to have that desire FOR Him, the want to be with Him, before we actually are. After we're born again, I believe that's when we see our prior decision actually coming into play -- the following, serving, loving.

LookingUp
Aug 27th 2012, 11:53 PM
God reveals Himself to all men (Rom. 1:19-20). God calls all men to His kingdom (Matthew 22:1-14). Those who reject His call are those who have not embraced what God reveals. Those who have embraced what God reveals through a humble and contrite heart (Isaiah 66:2) will have their heart opened (i.e. regenerated) to believe the gospel (Acts 16:14). In other words, it will be granted him/her by the Father to come to Jesus (John 6:65).

So:
God reveals Himself to all men, general revelation.
Man accepts or rejects the “general” revelation (man’s choice/free will).
God calls all men, specific revelation.
Those who reject the general revelation will not have their hearts opened by God to accept the gospel when they hear it.
Those who accept the general revelation will have their hearts opened (i.e. regenerated) to accept the gospel when they hear it (God’s choice/election).

Those who believe the gospel are chosen by God to believe it. But they are chosen based on man’s free choice to accept or reject all that God has previously revealed to him. Many are called but few are chosen (Matthew 22:14). No one comes to Jesus unless the Father draws them (John 6:44). No one can come to Jesus unless it has been granted him from the Father (John 6:65). Why are they chosen? Why does the Father draw them? Why has it been granted them? Because they had just enough faith and humility to believe what He has revealed in creation and within them.

So, although I’d pick the first one out of the three you’ve offered, BadDog, it would be misleading for me to pick that one. For God only chooses to regenerate us so we can put our faith in Christ (specific revelation) AFTER we have freely chosen to believe in His general revelation.

God knows who He’s going to choose, because He’s intimate with every aspect of our being—He knows if we’ve embraced His general revelation or not, who is humble and contrite in heart and trembles at His word or is not and does not.

Ceegen
Aug 28th 2012, 12:06 AM
I chose "We freely choose to believe. Then we’re regenerated. God simply knows what we will choose (Arminian)"

That's the closest I could get, because "other" doesn't quite fit. I don't know about this "regenerated" thing. Sounds odd.

Ceegen
Sep 15th 2012, 08:07 PM
Actually, you know what, I think the "elect" are a different class of people. The rest of us were called to service, not elected. Is there not an hierarchy among the angels, too?

I think some of us were "chosen" people, like Paul. God struck him down, and renamed him from Saul, to name him as one of God's own. Is there already a thread about this? I don't want to derail the thread with a bunch of talk about this, but I also can't go and edit my post now, so I posted where I thought this may be appropriate.

jesse
Sep 16th 2012, 06:24 AM
God chose us, not just foreknew. He chose us ALL though. Not all accept Him, but John 3:16 says Christ came so that "whoever believes in Him' will be saved. That indicates to me that He chooses all. Also, God is 'not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.'
But so many reject Him. They do not have to, because salvation is His free gift to all who believe and receive Him - when we come to Him on His terms, which includes turning from our way, to Him. Well, the gift is free to US. It cost Christ His life - that is a very big price to pay.
g :hug:

Agreed.

As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes. Romans 11:28

Either the Jews are saved apart from Christ... or election is not salvation. I side with the latter.

Boo
Sep 16th 2012, 10:53 AM
Molinism-like, here.

Gadgeteer
Sep 16th 2012, 12:11 PM
The purpose of this poll is to get an idea how we think about election. In general, those who hold to election say that God chooses (elects) us, but we cannot choose Him until we are first regenerated (Reformed viewpoint). Some say the opposite (Arminian) and many are somewhere else on the issue. I'm just curious where most align. I'll try to list all options some may have, but I guess I'll have to have an "other" option. Please don't select it unless truly necessary.

BDWow --- a four-year-old thread! :-)

One of the best passages on the subject is Matt9:12-13:


"It is not the healthy who need a physician, but the sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

How would "monergistic regeneration" fit this? Under Monergism, Jesus could not come for the unregenerate, because they could not respond (and His coming would be useless). But He also could not come for the regenerate, for they would be righteous already and would not NEED Him (again His coming is useless!). The problem with Monergism (and Reformed Theology) is that there is no connection between Jesus "coming-for-men", and regeneration!

In Jesus' words, His coming for them (being a Physician), affects men. In the same way that a patient must CONSUME the medicine their physician prescribes, a man must RECEIVE the doctoring Jesus brings to be healed. And that's a choice.

There's only one way that Jesus can come for the sick/sinners --- that is if they can TURN from their sin towards Him, and THEN become righteous/regenerate.

Regeneration therefore MUST be caused by those who CHOOSE Jesus.


“For many are called, but few are chosen.” Matthew 22:14

Not everybody is chosen.

And yeah, our wills are changed by God so that we 'freely' (from our perspective) choose Him.Nonsense. That parable (Matt22:2-14), very clearly asserts that everyone was called ("all you find!"), but only those who CHOSE to accept the invitation became the chosen. Those who declined --- did the KING decide any of that? No! One declined because of business, another because of farming; a third refused to put on the clean clothes the king had provided (refused to repent). Many others refused for reasons not stated; but they chose.

MANY (all!) are called, but FEW (those who CAME!) became "chosen/elect".

Recognize what Jesus said about the "eklektos" elect in Matt24:24:


"The false will deceive even the elect, if they CAN!" Matt24:24
"Paul hurried to be in Jerusalem for Pentecost, if he COULD!" Acts20:16

In no way can "ei-dunatos" mean IF-HE-COULD in Acts20:16, but then mean the opposite (they-can't-deceive-the-elect) in Matt24:24!

We can be deceived to unbelief, to an "evil unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God" (Heb3:6-14). Time and time again we're warned to make our calling and election steadfast (2Pet1:5-11), to abide in Christ and His teaching to save ourselves (1Tim4:16, 1Jn2:26-28, 2Jn1:7-9). We are at the same risk of deception away from Jesus as Eve was! 2Cor11:3!

Better to discuss how to BUILD ourselves in holy faith and to KEEP ourselves in His love, so that He is able to keep us and make us stand before God! Jude1:20-24!

episkopos
Sep 16th 2012, 12:20 PM
Actually, you know what, I think the "elect" are a different class of people. The rest of us were called to service, not elected. Is there not an hierarchy among the angels, too?

I think some of us were "chosen" people, like Paul. God struck him down, and renamed him from Saul, to name him as one of God's own. Is there already a thread about this? I don't want to derail the thread with a bunch of talk about this, but I also can't go and edit my post now, so I posted where I thought this may be appropriate.

Agreed! If only the the saints are saved that would make the next age to be sparsely populated indeed. Rather the saints (elect) rule over the saved among the nations.

Does everybody win a political election? Is everyone chosen that is called??? Does every runner win the race?

Gadgeteer
Sep 16th 2012, 12:45 PM
I recommend his book, Chosen But Free, to anyone wanting to search this out. (Read it twice - good read.) While I feel that it is a bit philosophically weak in explaining the logic he does show that both concepts are clearly taught in scripture, and does a decent job of demonstrating the short-comings of Calvinism in this area.I bought a copy of "Chosen by God" by R.C.Sproul. Also have a copy of "The Sovereignty of God" by A.W.Pink. Don't think I've read Geisler's book.

There are four "founding passages" in Reformed Theology --- Ephesians1:4-5, Eph1:11, Romans8:28-35, and Rom9:11-21. There are about thirty-three "secondary passages" --- like Matt24:24, John6:37, 44, 65; John10:26-28; Jn15:16; Acts4:28; Acts13:48; Rom3:10-12; 1Cor2:14; 2Cor4:3-4; Prov16:4; Jer17:9; Jer13:23; Isaiah65:1.

Every one of those (and the rest) can be shown NOT to support "sovereign election" --- in addition, literally dozens of verses warn against "falling-from-salvation". We can be deceived by men (Col2:6-8), by our own sins (Heb3:12-13, James1:14-16), and by evil spirits (1Tim4:1, 2Cor11:3).

God's perspective (as "grptinHisHand" eloquently said) is that NONE should perish --- clearly stated in Ezk18:23 & 31-32, He does not want anyone to perish but would prefer all to repent. Deut30:11-20 connects directly with Rom10:6-10, and Acts17:26-31. God arranges that EVERYONE can believe, puts the word-of-faith in EVERYONE'S heart and mouth (it's not too far nor too difficult for ANYONE), and those who confess and believe are saved, but those who turn away and WILL not obey perish.

God reveals Himself to all men (Rom. 1:19-20). God calls all men to His kingdom (Matthew 22:1-14). Those who reject His call are those who have not embraced what God reveals. Those who have embraced what God reveals through a humble and contrite heart (Isaiah 66:2) will have their heart opened (i.e. regenerated) to believe the gospel (Acts 16:14). In other words, it will be granted him/her by the Father to come to Jesus (John 6:65).

So:
God reveals Himself to all men, general revelation.
Man accepts or rejects the “general” revelation (man’s choice/free will).
God calls all men, specific revelation.
Those who reject the general revelation will not have their hearts opened by God to accept the gospel when they hear it.
Those who accept the general revelation will have their hearts opened (i.e. regenerated) to accept the gospel when they hear it (God’s choice/election).

Those who believe the gospel are chosen by God to believe it. But they are chosen based on man’s free choice to accept or reject all that God has previously revealed to him. Many are called but few are chosen (Matthew 22:14). No one comes to Jesus unless the Father draws them (John 6:44). No one can come to Jesus unless it has been granted him from the Father (John 6:65). Why are they chosen? Why does the Father draw them? Why has it been granted them? Because they had just enough faith and humility to believe what He has revealed in creation and within them.

So, although I’d pick the first one out of the three you’ve offered, BadDog, it would be misleading for me to pick that one. For God only chooses to regenerate us so we can put our faith in Christ (specific revelation) AFTER we have freely chosen to believe in His general revelation.

God knows whom He’s going to choose, because He’s intimate with every aspect of our being—He knows if we’ve embraced His general revelation or not, who is humble and contrite in heart and trembles at His word or is not and does not.Nicely said.

...except...

"Regeneration" comes from full faith in Jesus Christ. Titus3:5-6 says that regeneration is by the Spirit-who-WAS-POURED (where "poured", is the same word as in Acts10:45-47, meaning "received") --- was poured through Jesus-our-Savior. "Savior" comes first, then comes "poured/received" and regeneration.

Contrast 2Tim3:15, where studying Scripture is ABLE to give us wisdom that leads to saving-faith in Jesus --- with John5:39-47 where Jesus rebuked those who studied Scripture but REFUSED to be saved. Jesus stated that the underlying reason was that "they did not love God".

Loving God is the greatest commandment (Matt22:37), it is a command that God thinks we can obey. And He expects us to, and holds us accountable.

...that's why there is a "judgment"...

Boo
Sep 16th 2012, 08:29 PM
[QUOTE=Gadgeteer;2893612]"Regeneration" comes from full faith in Jesus Christ. Titus3:5-6 says that regeneration is by the Spirit-who-WAS-POURED (where "poured", is the same word as in Acts10:45-47, meaning "received") --- was poured through Jesus-our-Savior. "Savior" comes first, then comes "poured/received" and regeneration.

[\QUOTE]

Not exactly, Gadgeteer.

Titus 3:5 not from works in righteousness which we did, but according to his mercy he delivered us, through 3067 λουτρού the bath of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.


Nothing in the definition says "pouring."

λουτρόνa bath, bathing placeλουτρόν a bath, i.e. (figuratively), baptism
Derivation: from G3068;
KJV Usage: washing. G3068

Thayer:
1) bathing, bath, the act of bathing
Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words

Gadgeteer
Sep 16th 2012, 11:22 PM
"Regeneration" comes from full faith in Jesus Christ. Titus3:5-6 says that regeneration is by the Spirit-who-WAS-POURED (where "poured", is the same word as in Acts10:45-47, meaning "received") --- was poured through Jesus-our-Savior. "Savior" comes first, then comes "poured/received" and regeneration.



Not exactly, Gadgeteer.

Titus 3:5 not from works in righteousness which we did, but according to his mercy he delivered us, through 3067 λουτρού the bath of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.


Nothing in the definition says "pouring."

λουτρόνa bath, bathing placeλουτρόν a bath, i.e. (figuratively), baptism
Derivation: from G3068;
KJV Usage: washing. G3068

Thayer:
1) bathing, bath, the act of bathing
Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words
Next verse --- regeneration is by the Spirit who was poured. "Ekcheō".

Regeneration by the Spirit-who-was-poured --- "poured" comes first, it's the same "ekcheō-poured" in Acts10:45, which means (10:47) "received".

1. Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ
2. Receive the Spirit ("poured")
3. Become regenerated by the POURED/RECEIVED Spirit


"Regeneration" comes from full faith in Jesus Christ.Ayup, thayt's whut he said...

Boo
Sep 17th 2012, 09:52 AM
Next verse --- regeneration is by the Spirit who was poured. "Ekcheō".

Regeneration by the Spirit-who-was-poured --- "poured" comes first, it's the same "ekcheō-poured" in Acts10:45, which means (10:47) "received".

1. Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ
2. Receive the Spirit ("poured")
3. Become regenerated by the POURED/RECEIVED Spirit

Ayup, thayt's whut he said...

My point, brother, is that you skipped the words of verse five but referenced them in your post. I wanted to help include the words you referenced.

Verse five indicates that, by the "bath of regeneration" taking place, God bestowed (poured out) the Holy Spirit upon them. Isn't it better to be accurate with the verses we quote?

Scooby_Snacks
Sep 17th 2012, 01:17 PM
Cool - just saw this post. To quote Johnny Carson, "I did not know that" regarding Charles Stanley, Bill Bright and Josh McDowell.

Now Norm Geisler doesn't hold to Molinism, but to "moderate Calvinism" as he refers to it in his books. But you're right in that he does believe that both free will and election are true at the same time. I just think that we need Molinism to make it work logically.

I recommend his book, Chosen But Free, to anyone wanting to search this out. (Read it twice - good read.) While I feel that it is a bit philosophically weak in explaining the logic he does show that both concepts are clearly taught in scripture, and does a decent job of demonstrating the short-comings of Calvinism in this area.

William Lane Craig is the guru on this, for those looking for some depth, but he's not an easy read. :P

Thx for the input Izdaari.

CYL,

BD

Original poster quote. Thread from 2008, still alive?

I like what the summary of the book mentioned on amazon stated:


Is God in Control, or Do We have a Choice? The seemingly endless debate between Calvinism and Arminianism continues to make its rounds throughout the Christian community. Polarized beliefs have dominated and divided the theological landscape of the twentieth century, while many observers wonder, "Does it really make a difference?"

episkopos
Sep 17th 2012, 03:25 PM
I had to press other. God CALLS us....not chooses us per se. Of course God knows what we will do. For some that calling may appear as a choosing...but this is because we are so distant from God that a mighty act is required to see our calling in Christ. We will all be measured against what we have been given. So the choosing comes later. many are called but few are chosen.

Gadgeteer
Sep 17th 2012, 07:44 PM
My point, brother, is that you skipped the words of verse five but referenced them in your post. I wanted to help include the words you referenced.

Verse five indicates that, by the "bath of regeneration" taking place, God bestowed (poured out) the Holy Spirit upon them. Isn't it better to be accurate with the verses we quote?
I disagree. (...but you knew I was gonna say that, didn't you???)

God saves us by the washing-of-regeneration (waterbaptism nowhere in view, for those who think "water" is necessary to salvation).

Washing-of-regeneration, by the --- what? By the POURED Spirit. It's cause-and-effect. We are not saved by the washing-and-pouring-of-the-Spirit, we are saved when we receive Jesus, and receive the Spirit (Spirit "poured") and regeneration ACCOMPANIES our receiving the Spirit. Subtle but important difference in sequence. "Poured/received" is a quality of the regenerating Spirit, and therefore follows belief.

"Poured" is the provision of the Spirit for all who believe; "regeneration" is what the Spirit brings when we receive His gentle loving and regenerating indwelling. But we are believing WHEN we receive Him and His regeneration. Cause-n-effect...

MarleVVLL
Sep 17th 2012, 09:56 PM
I voted other.

Yes.

Boo
Sep 18th 2012, 07:06 AM
I disagree. (...but you knew I was gonna say that, didn't you???)

God saves us by the washing-of-regeneration (waterbaptism nowhere in view, for those who think "water" is necessary to salvation).

Washing-of-regeneration, by the --- what? By the POURED Spirit. It's cause-and-effect. We are not saved by the washing-and-pouring-of-the-Spirit, we are saved when we receive Jesus, and receive the Spirit (Spirit "poured") and regeneration ACCOMPANIES our receiving the Spirit. Subtle but important difference in sequence. "Poured/received" is a quality of the regenerating Spirit, and therefore follows belief.

"Poured" is the provision of the Spirit for all who believe; "regeneration" is what the Spirit brings when we receive His gentle loving and regenerating indwelling. But we are believing WHEN we receive Him and His regeneration. Cause-n-effect...

If you were a terrier, not even the big dogs can get that bone from you, huh?

I am trying to picture how one can have the Holy Spirit poured on them and how that pouring looks like the burial and resurrection of Christ Jesus. ........... Nope, doesn't seem to fit the picture at all.

Gadgeteer
Sep 18th 2012, 08:34 AM
I voted other.

Yes.What other view is there, Marle?

:-)

Gadgeteer
Sep 18th 2012, 08:54 AM
If you were a terrier, not even the big dogs can get that bone from you, huh?I don't think we're really in disagreement. Either the Spirit comes because of belief (and then we're regenerated), or God "zaps" certain unrepentant unbelieving people (whom He has chosen before time, but for some reason He doesn't want them saved from infancy) with regeneration and THEN they believe and receive the Spirit. Another way of saying that --- does the Spirit regenerate from internally to one's heart, or from externally?

I'm betting you and I agree that we believe and receive the Spirit and His regeneration.

I am trying to picture how one can have the Holy Spirit poured on them and how that pouring looks like the burial and resurrection of Christ Jesus. ........... Nope, doesn't seem to fit the picture at all.Let's see if we can resolve this with a few questions.

Can one receive the Spirit without being regenerated?
Conversely, can one be regenerated without receiving the Spirit?
Does "receive-the-Siprit" denote belief?
Can one receive the Spirit without receiving Jesus (or vice-versa)?
In Matthew3:11b and Acts1:5b, is "immersion-into-the-Spirit" a different event from Rom6:3-7 "immersion-into-Christ"?

I would answer these questions "no, no, yes, no, no". I bet we have the same answers, don't we?

:-)

Boo
Sep 18th 2012, 09:24 AM
Can one receive the Spirit without being regenerated?
Conversely, can one be regenerated without receiving the Spirit?
Does "receive-the-Siprit" denote belief?
Can one receive the Spirit without receiving Jesus (or vice-versa)?
In Matthew3:11b and Acts1:5b, is "immersion-into-the-Spirit" a different event from Rom6:3-7 "immersion-into-Christ"?

I would answer these questions "no, no, yes, no, no". I bet we have the same answers, don't we?

:-)

1. No, the Spirit regenerates us
2. No, the Spirit regenerates us
3. No, we believe, repent, and then are Baptized to receive the Spirit. I have already shown you that this is the method taught by the Apostles in the early church. I just have not seen anywhere in the scriptures that show it happening since then by a method after this one as described in Acts 2 and 1Peter 3. There may be, but I can't find it.
4. No, Jesus and the Spirit and God are One. They work independently based on scripture, but if you have one; you have the other.
5. You have asked this before, and I have answered before. Matthew 3:11 and Acts 1:5 tell us by whom we are baptized. Romans 6 tells us the effect of being baptized. There are not descriptive of each other.


Let's not carry on in this thread. You and I are not likely to be able to accept each other's view.
Have a great day.

Bandit
Sep 20th 2012, 02:21 AM
I voted other.

Yes.


What other view is there, Marle?

:-)

Hello all,

Yes, there is another view. To put it briefly, Jesus (who is God) is Himself the Elect (chosen) One. His bride (the church) is therefore both chosen and elect because they - Jesus and His bride - are one 'flesh', in a sense. So, the church is the elect body of Christ - that is God's sovereign choice. But by making His choice the way He did, God opened up the possibility for every individual to freely choose to join that elect body - which is His church. So God is not so much in the business of electing and predesting individuals for salvation, but rather He has elected and predestined Christ and His bride - of which election you are a part - if you have chosen to join the elect body.

jesse
Sep 20th 2012, 05:21 AM
Hello all,

Yes, there is another view. To put it briefly, Jesus (who is God) is Himself the Elect (chosen) One. His bride (the church) is therefore both chosen and elect because they - Jesus and His bride - are one 'flesh', in a sense. So, the church is the elect body of Christ - that is God's sovereign choice. But by making His choice the way He did, God opened up the possibility for every individual to freely choose to join that elect body - which is His church. So God is not so much in the business of electing and predesting individuals for salvation, but rather He has elected and predestined Christ and His bride - of which election you are a part - if you have chosen to join the elect body.

Very interesting! I have never heard it put that way. At first glance, it is the most reasonable explanation I have ever heard.

Gadgeteer
Sep 20th 2012, 02:40 PM
Hello all,

Yes, there is another view. To put it briefly, Jesus (who is God) is Himself the Elect (chosen) One.That's supported by verses like 1Pet1:20-21 --- JESUS was foreknown before the foundation --- and whosoever believes will not perish (joins the predestined-plan).

John1:12 says that the right to become adopted children of God is given to those who believe and receive Jesus --- that right does not exist before belief. Not at the foundation of the world, not somewhere in the past, after belief.
His bride (the church) is therefore both chosen and elect because they - Jesus and His bride - are one 'flesh', in a sense. So, the church is the elect body of Christ - that is God's sovereign choice.The word "ELECT" in Scripture, is interchangeable with "SAVED". In Matt22:2-14, many (everyone in view!) are called, but few (those who voluntarily accepted the invitation and changed clothes!) are chosen/elect.

The thread topic relates most to John15:16 ("You didn't choose Me, but I chose you") --- but that's speaking of the TWELVE being chosen to be DISCIPLES. Jesus said He chose all twelve (Jn6:70), including Judas, and "ordained that they bear fruit that remains" (Jn15:16). Judas was ordained to bear fruit that remained; who chose to break God's ordaining? Judas himself did.
But by making His choice the way He did, God opened up the possibility for every individual to freely choose to join that elect body - which is His church. So God is not so much in the business of electing and predestining individuals for salvation, but rather He has elected and predestined Christ and His bride - of which election you are a part - if you have chosen to join the elect body.Nice post. :-)

Can you please explain why that's different from #2?

We freely choose to believe. Then we’re regenerated. God simply knows what we will choose (Arminian)

Eyelog
Sep 20th 2012, 02:52 PM
Agreed! If only the the saints are saved that would make the next age to be sparsely populated indeed. Rather the saints (elect) rule over the saved among the nations.

Interesting proposition. What is the Scripture to support it?

Eyelog
Sep 20th 2012, 02:54 PM
I had to press other. God CALLS us....not chooses us per se. Of course God knows what we will do. For some that calling may appear as a choosing...but this is because we are so distant from God that a mighty act is required to see our calling in Christ. We will all be measured against what we have been given. So the choosing comes later. many are called but few are chosen.

I tend to agree with this statement, but it seems at odds with what you say in the prior post. Who is the "we"? Are not the believing all saints? Who are the saved? Are not all the saved the saints?

Please explain and support with scripture.

Bandit
Sep 20th 2012, 09:47 PM
Very interesting! I have never heard it put that way. At first glance, it is the most reasonable explanation I have ever heard.

Hello jesse,

This is what is known as the corporate view of election (to salvation). I put "to salvation" in parentheses in my previous post because God does "elect" (choose) persons to particular positions of service - like the Holy Spirit deciding what gifts to give to each believer - but God does not chose or elect persons to salvation. The Father "chose" His Son and His Son's bride. The bride is a corporate entity - therefore God's election as applied to humanity is in a corporate sense. It is now our choice as individuals to join the elect body. So then, both God's choice and the person's choice are involved in the salvation of the individual.

Bandit
Sep 20th 2012, 10:16 PM
...Nice post. :-)

Thank you


Can you please explain why that's different from #2?

We freely choose to believe. Then we’re regenerated. God simply knows what we will choose (Arminian)


I will do my best to explain. The 2nd choice was listed as Arminian. If you are familiar with traditional Arminianism, then you know that view attempted to mesh the notion of human volition (freewill) with the calvinist notion of individual election. So in the traditional Arminian view, God somehow "looked" ahead through history to see which individuals would choose Him, and then He somehow "chose" them individually in time past. (At least this is how I understand the traditional Arminian position. And do notice that the traditional Arminian view is still rooted in the notion that God elects individually.) But since I understand election in a corporate sense - as my previous posts indicate - and since I see corporate election as being significantly different from the traditional Arminian view - I thought that my view view (the corporate view) was distinct enough from the traditional Arminian view to qualify for the "other" choice.

You guys will have to let me know if you agree.

Gadgeteer
Sep 20th 2012, 11:43 PM
I will do my best to explain. The 2nd choice was listed as Arminian. If you are familiar with traditional Arminianism, then you know that view attempted to mesh the notion of human volition (freewill) with the calvinist notion of individual election. So in the traditional Arminian view, God "looked" ahead through history to see which individuals would choose Him, and then He "chose" them in time past. (At least this is how I understand the traditional Arminian position. And do notice that the traditional Arminian view is still rooted in the notion that God elects individually.)That makes no sense --- clearly each person makes his own choice --- directly stated in Rom2:6-8, and the heart of the parable of Matt22:2-14.
But since I understand election in a corporate sense - as my previous posts indicate - and since I see corporate election as being significantly different from the traditional Arminian view - I thought that my view view (the corporate view) was distinct enough from the traditional Arminian view to qualify for the "other" choice.

You guys will have to let me know if you agree.Well then --- I knew I wasn't "full Arminian".

I think the most profound passages in Scripture are the connected ones of Deuteronomy30:11-20, and Romans10:6-10. The "word-of-faith" is in everyone's heart and mouth, each can confess and believe and be saved, or can turn away and perish. Plainly stated, "it's not too far nor too difficult"; which it would be for most, if "exclusive election" was the theme.

Acts17:21-26 fits perfectly; God determines all men's places and times so that each can seek Him and perhaps find Him, though He is not very far from anyone; and He commands all men everywhere to repent.

None of that fits "exclusive predestinary election".

Bandit
Sep 20th 2012, 11:54 PM
That makes no sense ---

Well, as I said, and that from my understanding of it, early Arminianism attempted to incorporate human volition (freewill) into an otherwise individual election paradigm. And I would agree that such would make no sense. I think the real solution to the problem (of election) resides in the corporate paradigm.

Gadgeteer
Sep 21st 2012, 01:28 AM
Well, as I said, and that from my understanding of it, early Arminianism attempted to incorporate human volition (freewill) into an otherwise individual election paradigm. And I would agree that such would make no sense. I think the real solution to the problem (of election) resides in the corporate paradigm.Agreed.

Have you looked much at "Compatabilism"? The view that attempts to accommodate "free will" (redefined), into "Sovereign Election" (Reformed Theology)? That's an interesting view also...

EmethAlethia
Sep 21st 2012, 02:20 AM
As with most things, context, flow of thought, meaning of words, clears up most things. It is when we try and alter meanings of words, ignore the context they are a part of, ... to hold fast to our beliefs that things get really muddy. Those that are in Christ, in the beloved, in Him, ... are predestined by God to be, do, receive, ... certein things after, ... hearing, believing, and being "Sealed in Him".

There is a word in Greek meaning "Predetermined". It is used one time in the New Testement. Often we want to take passages that are extreemly muddy and interpret those in the light of our beliefs, and then we reinterpret other passages that "would be clear" if we stuck to the context, flow of thought, meaning of words, ... outside of their usage within the framework of scripture, ... we would be left with 95% of the clear passages lining up together, although not clearly within the set boundaries of Calvanism and Armenianism.

Romans 10:1-3 talks about the difference between those with a zeal for God, but are lost, and what they do with the scriptures. The main thing is the desire to seek out justification for their beliefs. Interestingly, every person in every belief group that gathers every passage or "fact" they can use to support their beliefs, and every passage or fact that they can "use" to refute all opposing beliefs, ALWAYS finds full justification for believing anything they want to believe. That is why there are experts in every major belief group and belief system that "Believe with their whole heart that their beliefs ARE "TRUTH". Ultimately this is not all that confusing in the light of this passage:

2Th 2:10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.
2Th 2:11 For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false,
2Th 2:12 in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.
2Th 2:13 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.

For those who just want to pin this down to events that happen in the end times, please note the begining word in verse 13. Paul took the standards listed in the verses prior to 13 and applied those same standards to those living when he wrote this. Unlike the first group, the second group passed.

How bad do we want to justify our beliefs? How important to us is it that our beliefs be proven true? If you want truth, even at the cost of your beliefs, you will keep on continuously seeking, proving, rightly dividing, ... and altering your beliefs to fit truth. If you want to hold fast to your beliefs, you gather and link only those things which support your beliefs and refute all oppossing beliefs. "If you keep on seeking, as a habit and way of life, and never stop, you will find." The question is, what do the things you habitually "seek" prove you want?

jesse
Sep 21st 2012, 03:32 AM
Hello jesse,

This is what is know as the corporate view of election (to salvation). I put (to salvation) in parentheses because God does "elect" (choose) persons to particular positions of service - like the Holy Spirit deciding what gifts to give to each believer - but God does not chose or elect persons to salvation. The Father "chose" His Son and His Son's bride. The bride is a corporate entity - therefore God's election as applied to humanity is in a corporate sense. It is now our choice as individuals to join the elect body. So then, both God's choice and the person's choice are involved in the salvation of the individual.

Thanks I will have to look that up. I have been on all sides of the fence on this issue. Most of the people I respect are calvanist so by default I started off in that camp. Eventually I came to see election as being about works which is kind of where I am right now... however your post has opened my eyes to a new understanding. I will have to look into it more.

Bandit
Sep 21st 2012, 09:12 PM
Agreed.

Have you looked much at "Compatabilism"? The view that attempts to accommodate "free will" (redefined), into "Sovereign Election" (Reformed Theology)? That's an interesting view also...

Hi,

It has been a long time since I looked at "compatibalism". From what I remember, it really is nothing more than calvinism under a new name. I totally reject the individual election paradigm - which is foundational to calvinsim.

Bandit
Sep 21st 2012, 09:28 PM
Thanks I will have to look that up. I have been on all sides of the fence on this issue. Most of the people I respect are calvanist so by default I started off in that camp. Eventually I came to see election as being about works which is kind of where I am right now... however your post has opened my eyes to a new understanding. I will have to look into it more.

From what I have seen, it is very difficult for many to grasp the concept of corporate election. I don't know why, but most western Christians seem more comfortable thinking along the lines of individual election.

I have a couple of books which explain the corporate view. One is called Elect in the Son by Robert Shank. The first 50 pages explain the jist of the position. Another book is called The New Chosen People by William Klein at Denver Seminary. I think Klein's book is more scholarly, but Shank does a good job of getting the basic concept across. I don't think you should have to spend your money to get the basic concepts. Perhaps we can discuss it back and forth, and then you can decide if you want to pursue by buying a book.

For starters, Ephesians 1 is commonly hailed as a stronghold of the individual election paradigm. But did you know that if one reads it from a corporate perspective, the wording is just as valid and relevant? In other words, the wording of Ephesians 1 fits just as easily into either a corporate view or an individual view. It is just that when most people read that passage, they approach it assuming that individual election is in view. Try reading it with a corporate perspective in mind. I can help you with that if you wish.

Gadgeteer
Sep 24th 2012, 02:47 AM
From what I have seen, it is very difficult for many to grasp the concept of corporate election. I don't know why, but most western Christians seem more comfortable thinking along the lines of individual election.

I have a couple of books which explain the corporate view. One is called Elect in the Son by Robert Shank. The first 50 pages explain the jist of the position. Another book is called The New Chosen People by William Klein at Denver Seminary. I think Klein's book is more scholarly, but Shank does a good job of getting the basic concept across. I don't think you should have to spend your money to get the basic concepts. Perhaps we can discuss it back and forth, and then you can decide if you want to pursue by buying a book.

For starters, Ephesians 1 is commonly hailed as a stronghold of the individual election paradigm. But did you know that if one reads it from a corporate perspective, the wording is just as valid and relevant? In other words, the wording of Ephesians 1 fits just as easily into either a corporate view or an individual view. It is just that when most people read that passage, they approach it assuming that individual election is in view. Try reading it with a corporate perspective in mind. I can help you with that if you wish.
Bandit, I found Shank's book excellent. Though I've not called my perception "corporate election". Scripture uses "elect" interchangeably with "saved". Clearly the provision is for every last person; this is clear and undeniable in Deut30:11-20, with the connected passage Romans10:6-10, and the mirror passage Acts17:26-31. Those three passages completely end any possibility of "exclusive predestined election".

Ephesians1:4-5 and 11, along with Romans8:28-35 and Rom9:11-21 do seem to promote "individual monergistic election". But then we have to connect Eph1:4 (chose us in Him before the foundation of the world) with 2Thess2:13 (chosen from the beginning ...through faith in the truth). How can we be chosen through belief, before we believed? But that fits perfectly with John1:12-13; where the begottenness is all of God and nothing of men (verse 13), but the right to become begotten is not granted until after believing and receiving Jesus (verse 12). That right is subordinate to belief; it was not granted before time.

So whether we call it "corporate election" or "God draws all men to the door of salvation and each decides to enter in or to turn away", it's the same idea. The only way that "exclusive election" (limited atonement) can persist is to consciously ignore many Scriptures, especially Deut30:11-20, Rom10:6-10 and Acts17:26-31. The word-of-faith is in everyone's heart and mouth, each can confess and believe and be saved, or can turn away and perish; it's not too far nor too difficult, it's very near; God commands all men everywhere to repent, having determined all men's times and places so that they CAN seek Him and find Him. Add John12:32 to Deut30 and Rom10 and Acts17.

jesse
Sep 27th 2012, 04:46 AM
Scripture uses "elect" interchangeably with "saved".

I have often wondered how this verse is interpreted when one believes the above statement.

As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, Romans 11:28

EDIT: N.M. Figured it out.

XYZ
Oct 25th 2012, 11:51 AM
The purpose of this poll is to get an idea how we think about election. In general, those who hold to election say that God chooses (elects) us, but we cannot choose Him until we are first regenerated (Reformed viewpoint). Some say the opposite (Arminian) and many are somewhere else on the issue. I'm just curious where most align. I'll try to list all options some may have, but I guess I'll have to have an "other" option. Please don't select it unless truly necessary.

BD

What God "chose" was that all who will come to his son will be saved. That leaves it totally random based upon our choice as in "Choose you this day, whom ye will serve." [Josh 24:15]

AFTER God chose Israel, he told them to choose:
Joshua 24:15 "And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

Hannah
Oct 25th 2012, 12:44 PM
I think he might have un-chosen me by allowing me to be subjected to just about every counter-faith argument out there, while growing up. It is incredibly hard to shake off years of Darwinism, "pro-science" humanism, political correctness, anti-religious ideology, "Jesus was a great teacher" and "the bible is a valuable piece of literature with some worthwhile moral teachings and lots of fairy tales"... Before I actually got wind of what the idea of salvation really encompasses.

DeafPosttrib
Oct 25th 2012, 05:25 PM
I do truly believe God is omniscience means, He knows everything from A to Z. He knows all things of past, present, and future before the foundation of the world. God already know and predetermine us, that we will be saved before the creation -Romans 8:28-30. God chooses us by follow after the conclusion of what we done to God same with Matt. 22:1-14. "Few are chosen" , after their conclusion of their reply and obedience in their lifetime. 2 Peter 1:10 tells us very clear, that our calling and election be sure, for IF we do these things, we shall not fall away. Our election and calling are base upon conditional by follow our reply the gospel, obedience with faith toward Christ till the end.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

XYZ
Oct 25th 2012, 11:48 PM
I do truly believe God is omniscience means, He knows everything from A to Z. He knows all things of past, present, and future before the foundation of the world. God already know and predetermine us, that we will be saved before the creation -Romans 8:28-30. God chooses us by follow after the conclusion of what we done to God same with Matt. 22:1-14. "Few are chosen" , after their conclusion of their reply and obedience in their lifetime. 2 Peter 1:10 tells us very clear, that our calling and election be sure, for IF we do these things, we shall not fall away. Our election and calling are base upon conditional by follow our reply the gospel, obedience with faith toward Christ till the end.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

I think there is a context to be considered when speaking of "God knows all things," for God Himself, says of His own knowledge "There are some things men do that God never considered."

"Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents; 5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind" [Jer 19:4-5]

"And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin." [Jer 32:35]

Warrior4God
Oct 27th 2012, 01:29 AM
I think there is a context to be considered when speaking of "God knows all things," for God Himself, says of His own knowledge "There are some things men do that God never considered."

"Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents; 5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind" [Jer 19:4-5]

"And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin." [Jer 32:35]

Well, I don't quite see it the way you do. I don't see it as God not knowing beforehand that His people would do those horrible things to their kids while worshiping false gods. When scripture says, "neither came it into my mind," I understand it to mean that it was never something that God conjured up in His mind nor desired for His people to do. In other words, it wasn't His will for them to sacrifice their children. One thing I would like to ask of those that don't believe mankind truly has free will and that God chooses to save certain predetermined people and chooses to damn certain predetermined people is this...how are people that are damned wth no say in the matter supposed to feel about that fact? Should they consider themselves to be "blessed" by God that He would send them to hell? :rolleyes:

LookingUp
Oct 28th 2012, 12:08 AM
I bought a copy of "Chosen by God" by R.C.Sproul. Also have a copy of "The Sovereignty of God" by A.W.Pink. Don't think I've read Geisler's book.

There are four "founding passages" in Reformed Theology --- Ephesians1:4-5, Eph1:11, Romans8:28-35, and Rom9:11-21. There are about thirty-three "secondary passages" --- like Matt24:24, John6:37, 44, 65; John10:26-28; Jn15:16; Acts4:28; Acts13:48; Rom3:10-12; 1Cor2:14; 2Cor4:3-4; Prov16:4; Jer17:9; Jer13:23; Isaiah65:1.

Every one of those (and the rest) can be shown NOT to support "sovereign election" --- in addition, literally dozens of verses warn against "falling-from-salvation". We can be deceived by men (Col2:6-8), by our own sins (Heb3:12-13, James1:14-16), and by evil spirits (1Tim4:1, 2Cor11:3).

God's perspective (as "grptinHisHand" eloquently said) is that NONE should perish --- clearly stated in Ezk18:23 & 31-32, He does not want anyone to perish but would prefer all to repent. Deut30:11-20 connects directly with Rom10:6-10, and Acts17:26-31. God arranges that EVERYONE can believe, puts the word-of-faith in EVERYONE'S heart and mouth (it's not too far nor too difficult for ANYONE), and those who confess and believe are saved, but those who turn away and WILL not obey perish.
Nicely said.

...except...

"Regeneration" comes from full faith in Jesus Christ. Titus3:5-6 says that regeneration is by the Spirit-who-WAS-POURED (where "poured", is the same word as in Acts10:45-47, meaning "received") --- was poured through Jesus-our-Savior. "Savior" comes first, then comes "poured/received" and regeneration.

Contrast 2Tim3:15, where studying Scripture is ABLE to give us wisdom that leads to saving-faith in Jesus --- with John5:39-47 where Jesus rebuked those who studied Scripture but REFUSED to be saved. Jesus stated that the underlying reason was that "they did not love God".

Loving God is the greatest commandment (Matt22:37), it is a command that God thinks we can obey. And He expects us to, and holds us accountable.

...that's why there is a "judgment"...I think I understand what you've written and I agree.

shamer543
Oct 28th 2012, 02:06 AM
We are chosen by God before the foundations of the world. He told jeremiah "Before i formed you in the womb i knew you". We are chosen by God for salvation and for his purpose. It is not "happenstance" that you have the parents you have, the experience's in your life are not just because. We know God has a plan and he is a God of provision.

Once servants of Jesus Christ realize that they were chosen for are purpose and not just because they accepted Christ, they will learn to seek God's face more, so that they will learn his Divine plan for their life. (Or at least some of it).Remember God Know's all things,Jesus knows all things even before they happen. So given that he knows all things he knows who will accept him.

Gadgeteer
Oct 28th 2012, 03:17 AM
We are chosen by God before the foundations of the world. He told jeremiah "Before i formed you in the womb i knew you". We are chosen by God for salvation and for his purpose. It is not "happenstance" that you have the parents you have, the experience's in your life are not just because. We know God has a plan and he is a God of provision.

Once servants of Jesus Christ realize that they were chosen for are purpose and not just because they accepted Christ, they will learn to seek God's face more, so that they will learn his Divine plan for their life. (Or at least some of it).Remember God Know's all things,Jesus knows all things even before they happen. So given that he knows all things he knows who will accept him.Hi, "Shamer". Welcome. :-)

Can you tell us --- if what you say is true, "God chose certain ones for SALVATION (righteousness), before the foundation of the Earth, and He chose the REST for sin and perishing" --- what does He judge men on?

What does Romans2:4-8 mean to you?

Thanx in advance.

LookingUp
Oct 28th 2012, 05:17 AM
We are chosen by God before the foundations of the world. He told jeremiah "Before i formed you in the womb i knew you". We are chosen by God for salvation and for his purpose. It is not "happenstance" that you have the parents you have, the experience's in your life are not just because. We know God has a plan and he is a God of provision.

Once servants of Jesus Christ realize that they were chosen for are purpose and not just because they accepted Christ, they will learn to seek God's face more, so that they will learn his Divine plan for their life. (Or at least some of it).Remember God Know's all things,Jesus knows all things even before they happen. So given that he knows all things he knows who will accept him.
Just because God “knew” Jeremiah before He formed him doesn’t mean “we” are chosen by God for salvation before the foundation of the world. This would mean that God doesn’t “know” others and some are not “chosen” by God for salvation before the foundation of the world (i.e. they are left for dead). That is NOT who God is.

Just because we are not individually chosen by God for salvation before we are born does NOT mean God does not have a purpose for our lives.

LookingUp
Oct 28th 2012, 05:21 AM
Hi, "Shamer". Welcome. :-)

Can you tell us --- if what you say is true, "God chose certain ones for SALVATION (righteousness), before the foundation of the Earth, and He chose the REST for sin and perishing" --- what does He judge men on?

What does Romans2:4-8 mean to you?

Thanx in advance.Great question, Gadgeteer!

XYZ
Oct 30th 2012, 10:36 PM
Well, I don't quite see it the way you do. I don't see it as God not knowing beforehand that His people would do those horrible things to their kids while worshiping false gods. When scripture says, "neither came it into my mind," I understand it to mean that it was never something that God conjured up in His mind nor desired for His people to do.

There are more than a dozen Greek words translated "desired" in English. Which of them did you get your conclusion from?
["Conjured" is not in the KJV].