No I dont mind discussing it further to me its a great passage of Scripture. I enjoyed the fact and truth definitons. It is a fact and a truth that God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world because it says so. We have to just read it and its plain to see.
For He chose us in Him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love He predestined us to be adopted as His sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with His pleasure and will to the praise of His glorious grace, which He has freely given us in the One He loves. Ephesians 1: 4-6
I think we have to be careful how we explain Gods Word when we start to depart from the intended meaning. Clearly when a person says that Gods chooseing us is really only His foreknowledge of something that He knew would happen, they have overstepped what is being said in the passage. All it says is For He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. I have read it over many many times and it doesnt say anywhere that His foreknowledge is the same as His choice.Any other view either avoids the word choose altogether or trys to explain why somehow God was unclear on what He really intended to say.
The main reason it says God chose us in Him is because it was His will to offer forgiveness in His Son....thats why it says to be holy and blameless in His sight. It further compounds your position when later in the next verse it states He predestined our adoption..then in a final explanation it says its inaccordance with His pleasure and will...to the praise of His glorious grace..which He has freely given us in the One He loves.God chose us in His Son. Its clear as can be.
As to John 15:16 Jesus wasnt just speaking to His disciples...He was speaking to everyone who could hear and to us. Its written to us. If you read it from the beggining of the Chapter you will see that its written for all believers. Hes talking about vines and branches and abiding in Him...He says if anyone...
So in conclusion I cant honestly see how this language can be saying anything else but God chose us. Its dramatic...its truthful....its factual...its to be believed.
11In him we were also chosen,[e] having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession–to the praise of his glory.
Later on in verse 11 we see both Gods choice and predestination mentioned again and its qualified as His will. Even more to settle it it says that we were predestined according to the plan of Him WHO WORKS OUT EVERYTHING in conformity to the Purpose of His will. WOW...then in a remarkable way God goes on to say you were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. It seems to me that God in His mind isnt as confused as we often seem to be with this whole concept..even going as far as to mention them in the same paragraph one right after the other as if there was no conflict at all. They both are true...God chose us and we chose Him.Can it be explained for our intellect to understand. The answer is an emphatic no..but we are told they are both true.I find it easier to beleive it because God said it rather than trying to understand it so I can beleive it.
Lord Bless You Homer
Steve
Two sides of the same coin
Re: Hi Homer
I also agree we have to be careful how we explain God's Word. One thing I have found useful in understanding it is by comparing Scripture with Scripture. I'll attempt to do this here:Crusader wrote: I think we have to be careful how we explain Gods Word when we start to depart from the intended meaning. Clearly when a person says that Gods chooseing us is really only His foreknowledge of something that He knew would happen, they have overstepped what is being said in the passage. All it says is For He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. I have read it over many many times and it doesnt say anywhere that His foreknowledge is the same as His choice.Any other view either avoids the word choose altogether or trys to explain why somehow God was unclear on what He really intended to say.
1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ...
and
Romans 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
This seems to make it clear that we are elect according to God's foreknowledge. So when we get to Eph 1:14 "having believed" we see the condition required to be marked with the seal, the promised Holy Spirit.
That's my take.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)
Hello
I'm too late for the discussion but I'll chime in anyway.
This is how I understand Phil 3 as well. I have no righteousness in and of myself but I receive the righteousness of Christ as I a in Christ.
My two cents, now you two can correct me!
peace, Bill
Could we possibly understand this to be saying that God, before the creation, chose that those who are in Christ to be holy and blameless? That he predestined that those who are in Christ to be adopted? This to my mind allows God to Sovereignly choose the means and allows us to choose to participate. God can, being soveriegn, override our choices but delegated that descision to us. Being sovereign allows God to intervene at his will but dosnt necessatate it.For He chose us in Him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love He predestined us to be adopted as His sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with His pleasure and will to the praise of His glorious grace, which He has freely given us in the One He loves. Ephesians 1: 4-6
This is how I understand Phil 3 as well. I have no righteousness in and of myself but I receive the righteousness of Christ as I a in Christ.
My two cents, now you two can correct me!
peace, Bill
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Bill,
This is exactly what I think the scripture teaches.
The Calvinist quotes verses on "election" without even dealing with the three essential questions related to the subject:
1) Who is said to be elected?
2) What are they said to be elected for? and
3) On what basis were they elected?
As for the first of these, election, in both testaments, is corporate, not individual. In the Old Testament, Israel is elected; in the New Testament, Christ is elected. Many Christians fail to understand Paul's teaching that, ever since Pentecost, "Christ" is corporate--comprised of a Head and many body parts (1 Cor.12:12/Eph.1:23).
Paul's frequent use of the phrase "in Christ" can not ever be properly understood until this point is grasped. Christians are in Christ, that is, in the corporate body of Christ, the church. The same is true of Israel. Israel (like Christ) was an individual person, but came to encompass a community. God chose Israel (corporate) in the Old Testament, and He chose Christ (corporate) in the New.
The choice of an individual, like Abraham, Isaac, Israel, David or Christ, was the choice of a progeny, or a family, not just an individual.
God chose Israel to fulfill a role that was typical of the role of Christ. Christ is as much a corporate entity as is Israel (Jacob), since He can no more be distinguished from the true Church (the community of believers) than a man's head can be distinguished from the rest of the man.
The Church is today, what Israel was in the Old Testament (1 Peter 2:9-10). The sum total of Old Testament saints were chosen "in Israel." The sum total of Christians are chosen "in Christ" (Eph.1:4). This does not mean that God chose which individuals would be "in Israel" or which individuals would be "in Christ." That choice was always left to the individual. It is the sum total, taken as a group, that are the chosen.
Thus Rahab or Ruth (non-Jewish women) could choose to be "in Israel" (and did so), whereas the unbelieving Jews could, and did, choose NOT to be "in Israel." Thus, Jeremiah and Paul describe them as branches no longer attached to the Olive tree--Israel (Jer.11:16/ Rom.11:19-21).
Israel was elect as a corporate entity, regardless which individuals chose to be a part of it, and which did not. Those who chose to be "in Israel," by that very choice, came to participate in the "chosenness" or "election" (the words are synonyms). Thus those in the elect Israel were thus elect (chosen) "in Israel."
Today, Christ is the new "Israel" (compare Isaiah 5:7, where the Jews are God's "vine," with John 15:1ff, where Christ is now the "True Vine"). God has chosen Christ, similarly to His formerly choosing national Israel (Isa.42:1). He has left the choice to every individual whether to be "in Christ" (i.e. to abide in the Vine) or not (John 15:4-6). The Vine is chosen, as a whole. Individual branches are not chosen, except in the sense of their sharing in the corporate election that the Vine possesses. Those that abide in the Vine are "elect in the Vine," or, as we said earlier, elect "in Christ."
It does no good for the Calvinist or the Calvary Chapelite to repeatedly insist that Ephesians 1:4 says "He chose us in Him," and then to pretend that they have established a case for Calvinistic election. We who deplore Calvinism affirm that we have been chosen "in Him," just as adamantly as does the Calvinist. What the Calvinists need to find is a verse that says certain individuals were "chosen to be in Him." This they will not find.
If a man should say, "I have chosen all those who step across this line to be the recipients of my vast fortune," but he allowed each individual who heard him to chose whether or not to step over that line, could it not be said that the man had chosen the group on the correct side of the line to receive his fortune? Of course! Yet he had made no choices about who would or would not step over the line.
So also, God says, "I have chosen all of those who are and abide "in Christ" to be adopted as my sons" (Eph.1:4-5). This does not tell us a thing about Him choosing certain individuals to be in Christ. The statement pertains to a class or a category. Calvinists can point to scriptures about election all day long, but until they can show that God chose certain individuals, rather than choosing all who are "in Christ," as a class, they have not moved ahead one inch in demonstrating their strange doctrine to be scriptural.
THE SECOND QUESTION is: What are the chosen chosen for? The answer depends upon the case in context. Israel, as a nation, was chosen to fulfill certain national functions as God's people on earth, not the least of which was to bring forth the Messiah. This is what is referred to by Paul in Romans 9, where he mentions the chosing of Jacob over Esau. There is nothing there about anyone being chosen to go to heaven. The choice between Jacob and Esau was a choice between two heads of future nations, and a choice of the one nation of the two to fulfill the earthly destiny that Israel was chosen to fulfill.
When Jesus said to the disciples in the upper room, "You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you..." (John 15:16), He was clearly talking about the vocational selection of those twelve men to be apostles, and not discussing eternal election unto salvation--since Judas was one of those "chosen" twelve (John 6:70), but did not go to heaven.
In speaking of the election of the church "in Christ," it is indeed eternal salvation, adoption, being conformed to the image of Christ, and reigning with Christ that are in view, as the relevant passages demonstrate. Thus, election is not always to the same privilege, depending upon context.
THE THIRD QUESTION is: What is the basis for God choosing them? The answer given by two apostles is "God's foreknowledge" (Rom.8:29/ 1 Pet.1:2). What did God foreknow, and what was the relation of this foreknowledge to election? God foreknew that He would send and choose Christ, and He foreknew that Christ would call men unto Himself. He knew that not all who were called would respond favorably (matt.20:16/ 23:37), but also that many would embrace Him and faithfully persevere to the end as His disciples (Rev.17:14). I believe (though some do not) that God even knew precisely which of us would believe and persevere, and which would not. However, His election of those who would be "in Christ" was based upon His foreknowledge of Christ (1 Pet.1:20), not necessarily of the number or names of the individuals who would be in Christ.
If the Calvinists or the Calvary Chapelites wish to show that God chose any given individual to be saved, and to prove their general doctrine of election (I hope I say this charitably), they must give better answers to these three questions than those presented here. In order to do that, they will either have to find a different Bible, or fall back on the traditions of man.
This is exactly what I think the scripture teaches.
The Calvinist quotes verses on "election" without even dealing with the three essential questions related to the subject:
1) Who is said to be elected?
2) What are they said to be elected for? and
3) On what basis were they elected?
As for the first of these, election, in both testaments, is corporate, not individual. In the Old Testament, Israel is elected; in the New Testament, Christ is elected. Many Christians fail to understand Paul's teaching that, ever since Pentecost, "Christ" is corporate--comprised of a Head and many body parts (1 Cor.12:12/Eph.1:23).
Paul's frequent use of the phrase "in Christ" can not ever be properly understood until this point is grasped. Christians are in Christ, that is, in the corporate body of Christ, the church. The same is true of Israel. Israel (like Christ) was an individual person, but came to encompass a community. God chose Israel (corporate) in the Old Testament, and He chose Christ (corporate) in the New.
The choice of an individual, like Abraham, Isaac, Israel, David or Christ, was the choice of a progeny, or a family, not just an individual.
God chose Israel to fulfill a role that was typical of the role of Christ. Christ is as much a corporate entity as is Israel (Jacob), since He can no more be distinguished from the true Church (the community of believers) than a man's head can be distinguished from the rest of the man.
The Church is today, what Israel was in the Old Testament (1 Peter 2:9-10). The sum total of Old Testament saints were chosen "in Israel." The sum total of Christians are chosen "in Christ" (Eph.1:4). This does not mean that God chose which individuals would be "in Israel" or which individuals would be "in Christ." That choice was always left to the individual. It is the sum total, taken as a group, that are the chosen.
Thus Rahab or Ruth (non-Jewish women) could choose to be "in Israel" (and did so), whereas the unbelieving Jews could, and did, choose NOT to be "in Israel." Thus, Jeremiah and Paul describe them as branches no longer attached to the Olive tree--Israel (Jer.11:16/ Rom.11:19-21).
Israel was elect as a corporate entity, regardless which individuals chose to be a part of it, and which did not. Those who chose to be "in Israel," by that very choice, came to participate in the "chosenness" or "election" (the words are synonyms). Thus those in the elect Israel were thus elect (chosen) "in Israel."
Today, Christ is the new "Israel" (compare Isaiah 5:7, where the Jews are God's "vine," with John 15:1ff, where Christ is now the "True Vine"). God has chosen Christ, similarly to His formerly choosing national Israel (Isa.42:1). He has left the choice to every individual whether to be "in Christ" (i.e. to abide in the Vine) or not (John 15:4-6). The Vine is chosen, as a whole. Individual branches are not chosen, except in the sense of their sharing in the corporate election that the Vine possesses. Those that abide in the Vine are "elect in the Vine," or, as we said earlier, elect "in Christ."
It does no good for the Calvinist or the Calvary Chapelite to repeatedly insist that Ephesians 1:4 says "He chose us in Him," and then to pretend that they have established a case for Calvinistic election. We who deplore Calvinism affirm that we have been chosen "in Him," just as adamantly as does the Calvinist. What the Calvinists need to find is a verse that says certain individuals were "chosen to be in Him." This they will not find.
If a man should say, "I have chosen all those who step across this line to be the recipients of my vast fortune," but he allowed each individual who heard him to chose whether or not to step over that line, could it not be said that the man had chosen the group on the correct side of the line to receive his fortune? Of course! Yet he had made no choices about who would or would not step over the line.
So also, God says, "I have chosen all of those who are and abide "in Christ" to be adopted as my sons" (Eph.1:4-5). This does not tell us a thing about Him choosing certain individuals to be in Christ. The statement pertains to a class or a category. Calvinists can point to scriptures about election all day long, but until they can show that God chose certain individuals, rather than choosing all who are "in Christ," as a class, they have not moved ahead one inch in demonstrating their strange doctrine to be scriptural.
THE SECOND QUESTION is: What are the chosen chosen for? The answer depends upon the case in context. Israel, as a nation, was chosen to fulfill certain national functions as God's people on earth, not the least of which was to bring forth the Messiah. This is what is referred to by Paul in Romans 9, where he mentions the chosing of Jacob over Esau. There is nothing there about anyone being chosen to go to heaven. The choice between Jacob and Esau was a choice between two heads of future nations, and a choice of the one nation of the two to fulfill the earthly destiny that Israel was chosen to fulfill.
When Jesus said to the disciples in the upper room, "You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you..." (John 15:16), He was clearly talking about the vocational selection of those twelve men to be apostles, and not discussing eternal election unto salvation--since Judas was one of those "chosen" twelve (John 6:70), but did not go to heaven.
In speaking of the election of the church "in Christ," it is indeed eternal salvation, adoption, being conformed to the image of Christ, and reigning with Christ that are in view, as the relevant passages demonstrate. Thus, election is not always to the same privilege, depending upon context.
THE THIRD QUESTION is: What is the basis for God choosing them? The answer given by two apostles is "God's foreknowledge" (Rom.8:29/ 1 Pet.1:2). What did God foreknow, and what was the relation of this foreknowledge to election? God foreknew that He would send and choose Christ, and He foreknew that Christ would call men unto Himself. He knew that not all who were called would respond favorably (matt.20:16/ 23:37), but also that many would embrace Him and faithfully persevere to the end as His disciples (Rev.17:14). I believe (though some do not) that God even knew precisely which of us would believe and persevere, and which would not. However, His election of those who would be "in Christ" was based upon His foreknowledge of Christ (1 Pet.1:20), not necessarily of the number or names of the individuals who would be in Christ.
If the Calvinists or the Calvary Chapelites wish to show that God chose any given individual to be saved, and to prove their general doctrine of election (I hope I say this charitably), they must give better answers to these three questions than those presented here. In order to do that, they will either have to find a different Bible, or fall back on the traditions of man.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Here ya go
You requested an example...here is one.
In 2nd John...there is a direct reference to an individual elect person...
"The elder,
To the chosen lady and her children, whom I love in the truth - and not I only, but also all who know the truth - 2because of the truth, which lives in us and will be with us forever:
3Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Father's Son, will be with us in truth and love"
"But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things - and the things that are not - to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him" 1st Corinthians 1 27-29
"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. 4For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5he[c] predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will– 6to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves"Ephesians 1
"8And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him,[j] who[k] have been called according to his purpose. 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers". 30 Romans 8:28
No mention of a Church but of individuals,those that God chose by the way....To hold the position that that Steve has mentioned almost seems plausible at first glance. Yet as he requested I have supplied evidence of a person being referred as chosen..individually. To say that the rest of these scriptures, are referring to Christ corporately isnt really fair because its not in the text.And its not something you cant just imply. There is a lot of "God Choosing" though. Its a hard pill to swallow, if I may be so bold as a Calvary Chapelite...but none the less worthy of acceptance based on what is said in the text itself...
Steve
In 2nd John...there is a direct reference to an individual elect person...
"The elder,
To the chosen lady and her children, whom I love in the truth - and not I only, but also all who know the truth - 2because of the truth, which lives in us and will be with us forever:
3Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Father's Son, will be with us in truth and love"
"But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things - and the things that are not - to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him" 1st Corinthians 1 27-29
"Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. 4For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5he[c] predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will– 6to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves"Ephesians 1
"8And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him,[j] who[k] have been called according to his purpose. 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers". 30 Romans 8:28
No mention of a Church but of individuals,those that God chose by the way....To hold the position that that Steve has mentioned almost seems plausible at first glance. Yet as he requested I have supplied evidence of a person being referred as chosen..individually. To say that the rest of these scriptures, are referring to Christ corporately isnt really fair because its not in the text.And its not something you cant just imply. There is a lot of "God Choosing" though. Its a hard pill to swallow, if I may be so bold as a Calvary Chapelite...but none the less worthy of acceptance based on what is said in the text itself...
Steve
Last edited by Jill on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Steve,
Thanks for doing the research and presenting these verses, as per my request.
I don't mean to be difficult, but most of the scriptures you gave are ones I have referred to in my earlier posts. I don't see any mention of individuals in them. They all refer to a group or category that has been chosen. I read about "us," "those whom He foreknew," "the foolish things...and the weak things" (categories, not individuals). As near as I can tell, these plurals speak of the corporate church.
I remember many occasions when I had always thought that I had seen a clear teaching in a passage, but when I modified the angle of my perception ever so slightly, I was amazed how little the passages supported what I was getting from them, and how they all fit so neatly into an entirely different paradigm.
The identity of the "elect lady" will be disputed by scholars until the Lord comes, trying to determine whether this is an actual lady and her (apparently non-elect) children, or whether the "lady" is a church, and her "children" are the members. I have always leaned toward the latter, even long before adopting my present thoughts about election. If this view is correct, then it is the lady (the church), not her individual children, who are said to be "elect."
I grew up believing in individual election, without any qualms about it, so I don't find it to be a hard pill to swallow. I just find it to be a hard concept to document from scripture. I used to believe and teach that there was a great mystery in the harmonization of free will and divine election. It has been my studies of the scripture that solved the mystery.
In many of your communications here, Steve, you have complained that I and others are reading additional ideas into a given text, based upon statements made in other passages. That is exactly what I do without shame, as do you, and every other evangelical teacher, when discussing any complex biblical concept.
When Jesus said, "The Father is greater than I" (seemingly challenging the co-equality of the members of the godhead), we say something like, "This means that Christ, in His earthly sojourn was temporarily made to be quantitatively inferior to the Father." We are correct in saying so, but we are not taking that qualification from the text under consideration. We do it by bringing in the whole teaching of scripture about the Trinity. How else could we hope to do responsible theological studies?
This is what, I believe, we must also do when discussing the passages on election. They don't all mention specifically that we were elect "corporately, in Christ," but neither do any of them say that we were individually chosen to be in Christ.
The first concept, while not stated in so many words in every relevant passage, is taught in enough passages to make good sense of the whole subject, and to justify seeing the other passages in this light.
The second concept is not unambiguously stated in any passage, and adopting it makes all talk of human free will to be either nonsense or a "mystery."
I am all for mysteries, when the Bible presents them. I do not prefer to appeal to them when the Bible itself clears them up and eliminates the enigmatic element.
Calvary Chapel is a great movement, as I have often publicly said, but I hope that blind loyalty to a denomination or great teacher shall never eclipse, for us, loyalty to good, sound biblical hermeneutics.
Thanks for doing the research and presenting these verses, as per my request.
I don't mean to be difficult, but most of the scriptures you gave are ones I have referred to in my earlier posts. I don't see any mention of individuals in them. They all refer to a group or category that has been chosen. I read about "us," "those whom He foreknew," "the foolish things...and the weak things" (categories, not individuals). As near as I can tell, these plurals speak of the corporate church.
I remember many occasions when I had always thought that I had seen a clear teaching in a passage, but when I modified the angle of my perception ever so slightly, I was amazed how little the passages supported what I was getting from them, and how they all fit so neatly into an entirely different paradigm.
The identity of the "elect lady" will be disputed by scholars until the Lord comes, trying to determine whether this is an actual lady and her (apparently non-elect) children, or whether the "lady" is a church, and her "children" are the members. I have always leaned toward the latter, even long before adopting my present thoughts about election. If this view is correct, then it is the lady (the church), not her individual children, who are said to be "elect."
I grew up believing in individual election, without any qualms about it, so I don't find it to be a hard pill to swallow. I just find it to be a hard concept to document from scripture. I used to believe and teach that there was a great mystery in the harmonization of free will and divine election. It has been my studies of the scripture that solved the mystery.
In many of your communications here, Steve, you have complained that I and others are reading additional ideas into a given text, based upon statements made in other passages. That is exactly what I do without shame, as do you, and every other evangelical teacher, when discussing any complex biblical concept.
When Jesus said, "The Father is greater than I" (seemingly challenging the co-equality of the members of the godhead), we say something like, "This means that Christ, in His earthly sojourn was temporarily made to be quantitatively inferior to the Father." We are correct in saying so, but we are not taking that qualification from the text under consideration. We do it by bringing in the whole teaching of scripture about the Trinity. How else could we hope to do responsible theological studies?
This is what, I believe, we must also do when discussing the passages on election. They don't all mention specifically that we were elect "corporately, in Christ," but neither do any of them say that we were individually chosen to be in Christ.
The first concept, while not stated in so many words in every relevant passage, is taught in enough passages to make good sense of the whole subject, and to justify seeing the other passages in this light.
The second concept is not unambiguously stated in any passage, and adopting it makes all talk of human free will to be either nonsense or a "mystery."
I am all for mysteries, when the Bible presents them. I do not prefer to appeal to them when the Bible itself clears them up and eliminates the enigmatic element.
Calvary Chapel is a great movement, as I have often publicly said, but I hope that blind loyalty to a denomination or great teacher shall never eclipse, for us, loyalty to good, sound biblical hermeneutics.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Hmmmmmm
Calvary Chapel is a great movement, as I have often publicly said, but I hope that blind loyalty to a denomination or great teacher shall never eclipse, for us, loyalty to good, sound biblical hermeneutics.
I assure you that I have not taken these positions based on a Churchs view...I find them the most accurate way to approach a subject that for centuries has escaped the conquest of the greatest theologians of all time and continues even today without the slightest hint of being resolved. This is only the case because both are true and found in Scripture. If this werent the case with all the scrutiny and attention given to it by everyone there would a long time ago have been a conclusive ending. It probably will continue until the Lord comes and then after we are glorified people will probably feel pretty strange seeing things a lot more like God does and realizing all along they both were true.
...On the lady and her children...I think its a stretch to construe that he was referring to the Church here.....but feel comfortable to leave that for others reading this to weigh and measure....Lord Bless you bro
Steve
I assure you that I have not taken these positions based on a Churchs view...I find them the most accurate way to approach a subject that for centuries has escaped the conquest of the greatest theologians of all time and continues even today without the slightest hint of being resolved. This is only the case because both are true and found in Scripture. If this werent the case with all the scrutiny and attention given to it by everyone there would a long time ago have been a conclusive ending. It probably will continue until the Lord comes and then after we are glorified people will probably feel pretty strange seeing things a lot more like God does and realizing all along they both were true.
...On the lady and her children...I think its a stretch to construe that he was referring to the Church here.....but feel comfortable to leave that for others reading this to weigh and measure....Lord Bless you bro
Steve
Last edited by Jill on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_love the logos
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 8:16 am
- Location: houston, tx
In practice the majority of Christians appear to live both arminanisticly and Calvinisticly at the same time. [quantatative]
In practice the apostles lived with assurance of Gods care for them, and his total control over everything, yet still persuaded and worked ferverently [not just because they had to] but because they maintained individual signifigance.
If calvinism is true, Then we are no better off than evolutionary materialists, we are just a conditioned being, and we believe in total determinsm therefor the preaching of the gospel is meaningless. This leaves an impersonal God, a puppet master.
If it is true, then why bother preaching to me about it? Why would anyone logically PREACH determinism? Its nonsensical, irrational, and meaningless.
If arminianism is true. Then we are no better than the modern utopian humanist who believes he must do whatever is within his power to work at his best for the overall condition of the current society. This leave a senile second-guessing God, this leaves prophecy of second-coming and other prophecies illogical, and this leaves many other things in question. This leaves a God who is not a God, but a Deistic God.
In the case of both there is no
1. Assurance of faith [for in calivinism you worry if you are elect or not (because it is not your choice) and in arminianism you worry if you are still elect (incase you may have lost it along the way)
2. Prayer is sterile and ineffective (why pray when it is predetermined and why pray when God cannot do anything about it)
and you are left with a.
3. Skewed view of scripture. If you view the bible through calvinistic framework you must fit everything else accordingly, if you start with arminainism you must fit everything else accordingly. For instance we must explain away certain verses to fit our worldview. Thus we begin to lose true exegetical teaching
My View comes from Jerram Barrs in "Being Human".
For Gods thoughts are Higher than our thoughts, and his ways are higher than the heavens to Us.
Who are we to get behind his shoulders and see HOW he does it?
Christ is Fully Human, Fully God. And God is ultimately Sovereign yet human beings are still signifigant and responsible.
If you cannot swallow that human beings are responsible and God is 100 percent sovereign how can you swallow Christ being fully human and fully man?
Doesn't the same illogical contention exist in both? Yes, if you are worried about understanding the HOW. No, if you keep in mind we are dealing with an infinite God.
It is rational to say that an infinite God cannot be understood by a finite being.
Therefor I believe it is rationally for me to hold both WITHOUT TENSION.
In Love,
Steven.
In practice the apostles lived with assurance of Gods care for them, and his total control over everything, yet still persuaded and worked ferverently [not just because they had to] but because they maintained individual signifigance.
If calvinism is true, Then we are no better off than evolutionary materialists, we are just a conditioned being, and we believe in total determinsm therefor the preaching of the gospel is meaningless. This leaves an impersonal God, a puppet master.
If it is true, then why bother preaching to me about it? Why would anyone logically PREACH determinism? Its nonsensical, irrational, and meaningless.
If arminianism is true. Then we are no better than the modern utopian humanist who believes he must do whatever is within his power to work at his best for the overall condition of the current society. This leave a senile second-guessing God, this leaves prophecy of second-coming and other prophecies illogical, and this leaves many other things in question. This leaves a God who is not a God, but a Deistic God.
In the case of both there is no
1. Assurance of faith [for in calivinism you worry if you are elect or not (because it is not your choice) and in arminianism you worry if you are still elect (incase you may have lost it along the way)
2. Prayer is sterile and ineffective (why pray when it is predetermined and why pray when God cannot do anything about it)
and you are left with a.
3. Skewed view of scripture. If you view the bible through calvinistic framework you must fit everything else accordingly, if you start with arminainism you must fit everything else accordingly. For instance we must explain away certain verses to fit our worldview. Thus we begin to lose true exegetical teaching
My View comes from Jerram Barrs in "Being Human".
For Gods thoughts are Higher than our thoughts, and his ways are higher than the heavens to Us.
Who are we to get behind his shoulders and see HOW he does it?
Christ is Fully Human, Fully God. And God is ultimately Sovereign yet human beings are still signifigant and responsible.
If you cannot swallow that human beings are responsible and God is 100 percent sovereign how can you swallow Christ being fully human and fully man?
Doesn't the same illogical contention exist in both? Yes, if you are worried about understanding the HOW. No, if you keep in mind we are dealing with an infinite God.
It is rational to say that an infinite God cannot be understood by a finite being.
Therefor I believe it is rationally for me to hold both WITHOUT TENSION.
In Love,
Steven.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
2 john 1:12
-
_love the logos
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 8:16 am
- Location: houston, tx
Edit: fully human fully God.
P.S I am never in favor of pressing the Mystery button prematurely, but we are dealing with alot of scripture on both sides of the argument, and it does seem like the apostles held both together without much question.
I would argue the same for the trinity, the incarnation of Christ, or Christ's divinity.
P.S I am never in favor of pressing the Mystery button prematurely, but we are dealing with alot of scripture on both sides of the argument, and it does seem like the apostles held both together without much question.
I would argue the same for the trinity, the incarnation of Christ, or Christ's divinity.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
2 john 1:12