How about considering perspective?

[Guest]

Hi Steve heres something you wrote.


[[[[[ Christ (understood corporately—1 Cor.12:12) is the New Israel. Paul sometimes says we are "chosen in Christ" (Eph.1:4), or in the verse under consideration, that we have received "grace...given to us in Christ" and that these transactions predate history. What I believe this means is that God chose Christ before the world began, and chose at that same time that those who are "in Him" would be given grace and salvation. The True Vine (Christ) is unconditionally chosen by God, but the branches hold their status tentatively (John 15:6).

All spiritual blessings in the heavenlies accrue to "us", Paul says, "in Christ"—but I understand "us" as meaning "those of us who have chosen to be in Christ, not seen as so many individuals, but as the corporate entity (the church)." The question of whether it was God's choice or ours as to whether you or I came to be in the church is left unaddressed in passages such as these—but not elsewhere in scripture.

Passages about God's choosing are always talking about God's choice of Christ, along with whomever may be "in Him." But when individual destinies are being discussed, it is the decision of the individual, his responsibility for believing, and his culpability for not doing so, that is always in view.

As I said, I would invite any Calvinist to present ONE scripture that says that God chose any given individual for salvation (not verses about God's calling of a man to special ministry or vocation). Verses that use plurals ("we", "us", "ye") always allow the possibility that it is the church corporately that is said to be chosen—not individuals.]]]]]


This is an example to me of extreme theology. Where does it explicitly say that Christ is what is meant by chosen and not the individual. If it can be found as stated in Scripture and not implied I would love to see it .For against that backdrop we have this to contend with in Romans 9:14. Now keep in mind though I beleive in both free will and Gods Sovierngty.


"14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
      and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

   19One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ ”[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? "

Lord bless

Steve

[_Steve]

There can be no question that Jesus is the chosen One. Isaiah 42:1 says, "Behold, My Servant whom I uphold, My Elect One, in whom my soul delights..." This passage is quoted and said to be about Christ in Matthew 12:18ff, where the first line is rendered: :Behold, My Servant whom I have chosen..."

Given the choice of seeing corporate election in the relevant passages, or seeing individual election there, what tips the scales in favor of one view over the other? I believe that the scale is tipped in favor of corporate election by two factors:

1) the wording of the passages about our being "in Christ," likening the individual to being an expendable branch in a chosen (corporate) Vine; the comparison of Israel (corporate) being "the chosen" in the Old Testament, and Christ (corporate) being the chosen in the New, leaving open, in both cases, the decision of the individual to belong or not; the analogies of God choosing Jacob (corporate) over Esau (corporate), the only meaning of Romans 9:10-13 that can make sense of Paul's choice of Old Testament quotations there; etc.; and

2) the fact that this view, and not the other, avoids unnecessary tension with the rest of the scriptures (including those about free will) and the other doesn't avoid this. Why exactly, are you so zealously tied to the "individual election" view? What evidence for it tips the scales in its favor, in your judgment?

I was under the impression that you read what I had written about Romans 9. Why do you bring it up again as if it has not been expounded previously. If you disagree with the exposition previously given, why not point out what is wrong with it. What is the point of simply quoting again a passage that has been exegeted thoroughly, without adding any new insights or reasons for rejecting those already on the table?

[Guest]

Steve,

Good point about Calvinists vs. Palagians. I have noticed Calvinists are wont to call others, such as Finney, Palagians. They'd probably put the both of us in that category. Oh well.

Homer

[Guest]

Hi Steve,

Several questions. Wasn't it Augustine who tried to remove Pelagianism from the early church? Was he successful? What is semi-Pelagianism? Some have said this is where Jacobus Arminius got his rebuttal to Calvinism from. Please clarify your view of the history of Arminianism. I had not heard that it was the dominant view before Augustine.

I posted the view we discussed earlier over at General/Personal Questions. I probably should have posted here since it fits this discussion subject.

Here is the link for anyone interested:

http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=392

Thanks,
Scott

[Guest]

["There can be no question that Jesus is the chosen One. Isaiah 42:1 says, "Behold, My Servant whom I uphold, My Elect One, in whom my soul delights..." This passage is quoted and said to be about Christ in Matthew 12:18ff, where the first line is rendered: :Behold, My Servant whom I have chosen..." ]

I agree whole heartedly and say Amen.I agree that Jesus was chosen by God.Paul was a chosen servant also but in a lesser sense obviously.God probably has made many choices.I see no conflict whatsoever with us being chosen either.Its a stretch to me,one that isnt supported in Scripture by the way, to make such a leap as to assume that because Christ is chosen by God as His servant that somehow it in anyway relates to Ephesians 1: 4 "just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, " where it clearly says He chose us in Him..not He chose His Son and since we were there we are chosen.It to me means that the Father chose us and it was accomplished in His Chosen Servant..Jesus Christ.In fact the Bbile teaches that the Father gave us to His Son. For in John 17: 24 we read "Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world" previously in John 17 Jesus prayed for His desciples and here is praying for all believers..and it clearly says the Father gave them to the Son.Plus there is this Scripture in John 6.." 37All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. 38For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day." Also in Ephesians 1 you can see the truine God revealed...in verses 3-6 you see we are chosen by the Father and verses 7-12 you see us redeemed by the Son...and lastly in versus 13-14 you see beleivers sealed in the Spirit. I understand that from your position you need to some how diffuse election by choice but to say that Jesus represents Gods corporate choice in the New Testament isnt supported in Scripture,that I can see at least. It says He chose us in Him not He chose His Son and since we were there we are chosen.

Now when you get to Romans 9 there are even more obstacles which one holding to your position needs to consider.

"10And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac 11(for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger."[d] 13As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."[e]

Before they were even born For the sake of election it says God chose one over the other...Saying He loved one and hated the other...

6But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called."[b] 8That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. 9For this is the word of promise: "At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son."

Clearly here Paul after stating his anguish over Israel says that there is no corporate salvation for each of them because they are called His chosen or elect as a group. It is based upon an individual basis and according to being children of the promise not of the group. Clearly Paul is showing that God has called people from the Jews and from the gentiles to be His elect.

Then he goes on and says this.

"What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion."[f] 16So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth."[g] 18Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.    19You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" 20But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" 21Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

These are pretty powerful statements and Paul is saying here that God chooses who He wants...Then in verse 19 he asks the question well then if all this is true why does God still find fault...for who can resist His will? Paul answers clearly in verse 20 and 21...who are you oh man to reply against God...doesnt the potter have power over the clay...to make one vessel for honor and one for dishonor..there is no mention of any security or special privilege based being in a corporate situation at all.
Then there is this where it says plainly.. "which He prepared beforehand for glory..even THOSE WHOM HE CALLED..both Jews and Gentiles"...it doesnt say He called Jesus and we were there it says He called Jews and Gentiles.

" 22What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"

    Lord Bless

Steve


Free info on election

http://thinklings.org/jaredwilson/letti ... e_god.html

http://www.caledonianfire.org/caledonia ... ingcal.htm

http://www.biblebb.com/files/spurgeon/0239.HTM

[Guest]

It says He chose us in Him not He chose His Son and since we were there we are chosen.

Also notice that it doesn't say "He chose us" period or "He chose us to be in Him". It says He [God] chose us in Him [Christ].

So we are chosen in Christ, not in our own righteousness but we are saved by Christ righteousness. Just as 1 John 5:11-12 says:
"And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life."

We don't have eternal life of ourselves, we have it only in Christ. This is why Jesus stated "I am the way", not go your own way and do your own thing because you have eternal life in yourselves.

Christ's body is the Church (Eph 1:22-23) and in Him is eternal life. What if God said 'I chose everyone in sin goes to Hades'. Would this mean God chose everyone to be sinners? Or that God chose that everyone who is in sin to go to Hades?

The inclusion of "in Him" clearly states you're chosen in the Church. If your in the Church (Christ's body) you are chosen in Him. It doesn't say 'He chose us to be in Him, but His choosing is in Christ.


Romans 9:

"10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, "The older shall serve the younger." 13 As it is written, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated."

Before they were even born For the sake of election it says God chose one over the other...Saying He loved one and hated the other...

Yes, but it doesn't say that God chose Jacob to go to heaven and Esau to go to hell. Paul is quoting Genesis 25:23 calling them two nations. Also when Paul quoted "the older will serve the younger" realize that this never happened between the literal people Jacob and Esau. But the nation of Edom (Esau) did worship God in Israel (Jacob). Also, it did happen between the nations of Edom (Esau) and Israel (Jabob) though as explained in Malachi, the very place Paul quoted from getting Romans 9:13

Malachi 1:

2"I have loved you," says the LORD.
"Yet you say, "In what way have You loved us?'
Was not Esau Jacob's brother?"
Says the LORD.
"Yet Jacob I have loved;
3But Esau I have hated,
And laid waste his mountains and his heritage
For the jackals of the wilderness."
4Even though Edom has said,
"We have been impoverished,
But we will return and build the desolate places,"

Thus says the LORD of hosts:
"They may build, but I will throw down;
They shall be called the Territory of Wickedness,
And the people against whom the LORD will have indignation forever.
5Your eyes shall see,
And you shall say,
"The LORD is magnified beyond the border of Israel.'

Esau is the nation of Edom. Jacob is the nation of Israel.
The point Paul is making is that not all Israel is of Israel, just like Jacob and Esau, there are some who are descended from Jacob who are not "Israel". These are the unbelievers (a good chunck of the nation of Israel and it's system of righteousness by works) who were raised up, like pharaoh, to be destoyed so God's power would be shown against that nation who is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt (Revelation 11:8, Luke 4:18). Because the nation is holding God's true believers and remant bondage. Jesus came to set us free from the bondage of the old covenant and Jerusalem (Gal 4, Rom 8:2-4).

People are going to ask Paul, 'Why is it that the Messiah has come but Israel is not being restored, protected, or becoming followers of Jesus? Because the ones who don't believe are apostate and are coming under the judgement of God pronounced through the prophets and John the Baptist and Jesus.

15 For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.

It doesn't matter how bad Israel wants it, they are not righteous by their own effort (Romans 9:34)

19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God?

Notice after the second part of the question "For who has resisted His will?" Paul immediately replies "But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God?" The idea is that when the question who has resisted His will, Paul answers who are you? Implying that by simply asking the question is resisting God's will. Like when God brought Israel out of Egypt and they grumbled against God, so they were not allowed to enter the promised land "because of thier unbelief" (Heb 3:16-19). Replying against God is resisting His will. And yes, His will can be resisted (Luke 7:30)

Then Paul procedes:

20 Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,

This is a clear description of unbelieving Israel, whom God carefully created like a potter. This is what Paul is saying God is going to do, destroy them (Isaiah 5 Matt 21:33-44 & Rom 9:32-33) because of thier apostasy. Paul is going through great pains to explain why God would do this to the very nation He so patiently created like a potter. (Jer 18)

Then Paul explains that there are those who will escape this destruction, both Jews and Gentiles (Rom 9:23-27)

Then in Romans 9:28 and on Paul goes back and describes the destruction again from verses 21-22:

27 Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel:[j]
"Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea,
The remnant will be saved.
28 For He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness,
Because the LORD will make a short work upon the earth."

Then Paul explains more as to why God would do this:

30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. 33 As it is written:
"Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense,
And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."

This is also explined by Paul in Galatians chapter 4:

22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar-- 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children-- 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all

Here is another use of the "Jacob I loved Esau I hated" typology. But in this case it's Abraham's two sons Isaac and Ishmael. The (at that time) physical Jerusalem that God so patiently created like a potter is going to be "gotten rid of" and "will not be heir with the freewoman's son".

Does that make any sense?
There is a lot covered here in this part of Romans and has been building up from chapter 1, so there is a lot of detail here.

[Guest]

Sean I dont think you adressed the issue of choice,to make a choice by definition requires a chooser. God chose us in Him,the reason being is because Jesus is Gods only plan of redemption. We had to be chosen in Him! Who chose..God did. Who did He choose..He chose us. Who was that choice accomplished in...Jesus.Even Jesus said we are gifts from the Father to Him, in John 6 and 17. Its only logical that a choice requiers a chooser....now with all that said I also believe in free will. I could just as easily switch sides and argue as passionately for the free will side of what is revealed in Scripture.What I dont support is extreme theology. Like your statement about God sending people to Hell. I dont find that written anywhere,in fact just the opposite is true,He is actually isnt willing that any perish but that all men believe unto salvation and whosoever will may come the Bible says.. I dont have a problem with free will or Gods soviergnty since I feel they are both in the Bible. I have an issue with extreme theology which pits one truth against the other based on 1) extrapolating out the end of either free will or Soviergnty based on our intellect even when the conclusion is not in the Bible or 2) not allowing Gods Word to just simply speak for itself on these issues and then accept it by faith. If our understanding, as limited as it is, creates a systematic theology that violates Gods word or His character,then we are seriously treading on thin ice. Sovierngty and free will I agree with,but how they work together seems to be the great conumdrum theologians like to debate. But what if the answer isnt within our ability to find and we cant within our logic bring these two truths together. Then it is time for faith...we just accpet them both,even if we cant reconcile them in our own understanding.For throughout the ages men with far greater spiritual thinking ability than whats represented here havent yet reconciled what quite honestly is taught in Scripture that is free will and Gods Soviergnty..so I guess Im a Calvminain .

Lord Bless you

Steve

[Guest]

Sean I dont think you adressed the issue of choice,to make a choice by definition requires a chooser. God chose us in Him,the reason being is because Jesus is Gods only plan of redemption. We had to be chosen in Him!

Steve

I agree, we are not chosen apart from Him (Christ). There is only one way. We must be in Christ to be chosen. As to the mystery, weve covered this several times already: We are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father. God acts to save sinful man because he can't save himself. Some accept the message and some reject it. (John 1:12) God alreadly knows who this will be.

[Guest]

I realize your deliema over the word choose and I sympathize with you Sean. But I dont see how you could equate Gods foreknowledge with His choice.They clearly are two different situations. One is the foreknowledge of an omniscient God who knows everything and one is the choice of an omnipotent God who works all things according to the pleasure of His will.. If I as a parent see my child in the living room and I know they are going to run up hug my leg and say "Daddys home" when I walk through the front door, is my foreknowledge of that event what caused it,one would have to say no. If from a small plane I see a train heading down the tracks and at a corner I see a car stuck at a crossing,is my foreknowledge related to the cause of that wreck? Nope. When you get into the more explicit implications of free will and Gods soviergnty you are almost forced to develope extreme theology to support your thinking. But we know they are both taught in Scripture.Did God choose us before the foundations of the world ? Looks like a yes on that one. Does man also have a choice when hearing the good news? A yes to that one? Does God send people to Hell against thier will? I would have to say nope? Is it possible we are simply unable to explain these two truths because we arent God? I think that sounds like a better reason and one which leads us to creating extreme theology to fill in the blanks.


Steve

[Guest]

I realize your deliema over the word choose and I sympathize with you Sean. But I dont see how you could equate Gods foreknowledge with His choice.They clearly are two different situations.

It's not really a deliema, it's what is stated in the Bible:

"elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father" (1 Peter 1:2)

Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. (Romans 5:2)

"For whom He foreknew, He also predestined" (Romans 8:29)

One is the foreknowledge of an omniscient God who knows everything and one is the choice of an omnipotent God who works all things according to the pleasure of His will.. If I as a parent see my child in the living room and I know they are going to run up hug my leg and say "Daddys home" when I walk through the front door, is my foreknowledge of that event what caused it,one would have to say no. If from a small plane I see a train heading down the tracks and at a corner I see a car stuck at a crossing,is my foreknowledge related to the cause of that wreck? Nope. When you get into the more explicit implications of free will and Gods soviergnty you are almost forced to develope extreme theology to support your thinking.

God's foreknowledge does play an important role in salvation. How are we saved? By faith? No, faith doesn't save. We are saved by the atonment of our sins by Jesus incarnation, life, death, burial and resurrection. A genuine faith in that truth, a trust not only that but the entire gospel message causing our regeneration is being saved. So did God knowing about us cause our salvation? No. God sending His Son as a propitiation of sins and the message of this truth going out so people can repent and believe are the two parts of salvation.

Again, part one: God's work = Salvation. Always comes first and reaches down to lowly man.
Part two: Man's work, to believe in the work God has done.

So what does God's foreknowledge have to do with it? God already knows who will believe, and those He foreknew He predestined. So His foreknowledge didn't cause us to believe, but it sees who will accept His message, and those who accept His message to them He gave the right to become children of God (John 1:12)