CHOSEN - Dead or Alive...?

[nobdysfool]

When we say unconditional, we mean that it was not because of anything we did. God gives His reason, as was pointed out: the Good Pleasure of His Will. To deny that betrays a basic mistrust of God, that His reason within Himself cannot be good enough, that you must have done something to cause Him to choose you.

The choosing and the placing in Christ are two different things, two different actions of God. One (the choosing) occurred before the foundation of the world. The other (the actual placement in Christ) happened when we believed. You are trying to make them the same.

This is your error, and your blindness. You are judging what we say by your own definitions, and you apparently refuse to see what we are actually saying, but rather you filter our words through your definitions of terms, and therefore come up with things we did not say, as you have constantly spewed all over these threads. This is clear, incontrovertible FACT.

 

[Rightglory]

Hammster,

Then quit with your constant quoting of Eph 1:13. You have constantly held that up as the verse that destroys unconditional election.

a reply to Ghost Air, but he is correct on that statement. The verse disposes election first of all, then the unconditional part.

How plain can it be?

So here is the choice you have left. I can either agree with the teachings of Calvin, and base that on my own study of scripture, OR I can believe the teachings of Ghost air for the same reasons. Quite the dilemma.

Why only two options, both of which are incorrect.

the ONLY option is to accept the Gospel according to Christ Himself. The meaning of scripture from the beginning, not changed by man.

 

[Hammster]

Why in the world would you believe ME... I'm no different than John Calvin... and you'd still be honouring a man rather than the word of God.

If we're both searching the scriptures for the simple truth of God's word, then why must everything fit into the man centered doctrine of unconditional election... rather than just letting the bible speak for itself... why would simple biblical statements be attacked and then said to be corrected by those who honour the man John Calvin..?

That is the point. I have never said I follow John Calvin, yet that is what you accuse me of. In fact, I used to argue against Calvinism on this forum. So to say that my arguments are to honor John Calvin is disingenuous, since I have stated previously to you, many times, that I have read very little John Calvin. I could very well say that you honor the man Charles Finney, and then say why must everything fit into the man-centered doctrine of conditional election...rather than just letting the bible speak for itself....why would simple biblical statements be attacked and and then said to be corrected by those who honor Charles Finney...?

It is an unproductive argument that you make. It is called a genetic fallacy. It is attacking the person instead of the argument. It really makes it look like you have nothing to say, so you lash out at what you can. I would rather just stick with the arguments from scripture.

 

[Hammster]

OH... more doctrine of MEN I see.... but then again, I really wasn't expecting anything from the word of God...

This is where you learned your 'effectual' call from...? Nice !

The root of the problem here imo is what these men call the ELECT... as if it has nothing at all to do with CHRIST...

CHRIST is the elect of God according to scripture, and the members of His body are the elect of God for that reason, that they are IN CHRIST.. because again, that's the condition for being the elect of GOD... being IN CHRIST.

Of course not all agree, some here will say that Election is not conditional upon being in Christ... ie, it has nothing to do with Christ.

I guess you are just in full attack mode.

You asked for an explanation. I found one that summed it up. It is the first time I have quoted from an outside source because I figured it would be clear and concise. There are scriptural reasons for these statements. What you don't seem to realize, yet, is that you want me to agree with YOUR view, which is written on these forums, and somehow you don't consider them a doctrine of man in the same way. I certainly don't understand that.

 

[Hammster]

Hammster,



a reply to Ghost Air, but he is correct on that statement. The verse disposes election first of all, then the unconditional part.
How plain can it be?

I actually agree with that. The verse does dispose of unconditional election. That is, if it was a stand alone verse, and not part of one sentence that started 11 verses earlier. The context changes things.

Why only two options, both of which are incorrect.

the ONLY option is to accept the Gospel according to Christ Himself. The meaning of scripture from the beginning, not changed by man.

Which is actually what we are both arguing for. My point was that it stupid to keep throwing out the "honoring man" charge when in fact, all of us are doing EXACTLY what John Calvin did. We are explaining what it is that we think that scripture is talking about on any given subject. To say that you, or I, or anyone else is doing otherwise is really not being intellectually honest. The only people who could possible make that claim are those who only post scripture.

I would hope that Ghost air attends a worship service every week where a pastor gets up and (wait for it) gives what he believes scripture is teaching (and hopefully that is the gospel).

 

[Rightglory]

Hammster,

I actually agree with that. The verse does dispose of unconditional election. That is, if it was a stand alone verse, and not part of one sentence that started 11 verses earlier. The context changes things.

It does not stand alone, that is the point. It is always in context which explains the meaning. There is nothing in Ephesians or scripture as a whole that supports any idea that individuals are chosen to salvation, conditional or unconditional.

Which is actually what we are both arguing for. My point was that it stupid to keep throwing out the "honoring man" charge when in fact, all of us are doing EXACTLY what John Calvin did. We are explaining what it is that we think that scripture is talking about on any given subject. To say that you, or I, or anyone else is doing otherwise is really not being intellectually honest. The only people who could possible make that claim are those who only post scripture.

It is kinda stupid to use any man's version, including our own personal one. The NT portion of the Bible has had a distinct meaning for 2000 years. A meaning that has not been changed or effected by man. Why would anyone need to think what it means, when a meaning has been preserved for us. That was the whole point of the Holy Spirit giving the Gospel once, in the beginning.

I would hope that Ghost air attends a worship service every week where a pastor gets up and (wait for it) gives what he believes scripture is teaching (and hopefully that is the gospel).

why not listen to one that is teaching, preaching the same Gospel as was given in the beginning.

 

[Hammster]

Hammster,

It does not stand alone, that is the point. It is always in context which explains the meaning. There is nothing in Ephesians or scripture as a whole that supports any idea that individuals are chosen to salvation, conditional or unconditional.

I guess that would be your interpretation. However, you would be wrong. The whole sentence speaks of God choosing us in Christ apart from us doing anything.

It is kinda stupid to use any man's version, including our own personal one. The NT portion of the Bible has had a distinct meaning for 2000 years. A meaning that has not been changed or effected by man. Why would anyone need to think what it means, when a meaning has been preserved for us. That was the whole point of the Holy Spirit giving the Gospel once, in the beginning.

Ah, but you would have us believe what? That which the ECFs taught. Do you just believe them, or did you look into scripture as well? Unlike most EO on here, I don't see you quoting the ECFs, so I assume you look into scripture. As do I. Yet we disagree on issues. So we debate and discuss what we think scriptures teach us. And we probably agree more than we disagree, as a whole. But on that in which we disagree, we can debate. But when people like Ghost air and Easystreet try to marginalize their oponents by making silly attacks on Calvin, we waste a lot of time because I am sure that there are those whom have written which they themselves agree with.

why not listen to one that is teaching, preaching the same Gospel as was given in the beginning.

Sounds good to me. Did I say otherwise?

 

[Ghost air]

That is the point. I have never said I follow John Calvin, yet that is what you accuse me of. In fact, I used to argue against Calvinism on this forum. So to say that my arguments are to honor John Calvin is disingenuous, since I have stated previously to you, many times, that I have read very little John Calvin. I could very well say that you honor the man Charles Finney, and then say why must everything fit into the man-centered doctrine of conditional election...rather than just letting the bible speak for itself....why would simple biblical statements be attacked and and then said to be corrected by those who honor Charles Finney...?

Then why do you embrace unconditional election ? Isn't that one of the elements of the TULIP... did you come to 'unconditional election' through searching the scriptures...?

IF so, then why not make your case from scriptural facts rather than from a commentary from the WCF ?

It's an unproductive argument that you make. It is called a genetic fallacy. It is attacking the person instead of the argument. It really makes it look like you have nothing to say, so you lash out at what you can. I would rather just stick with the arguments from scripture.

Absolutely... let's stick with scripture...

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

So what does this scripture mean to you... it's the context for Romans 9 and what God's purpose according to election actually is imo...

What's your opinion of these verses Hammster ?

 

[Ghost air]

Then how about the next portion of Romans 9... concerning Jacob and Esau ?

Somebody already did a wonderful job on the context of this being with respect to the NATION which God chose... and I think that fits within the ultimate parenthesis of Romans 9-11 which deals with the nation of Israel...

I think there's more too, which builds upon the context of the children of the FLESH not being the children of God...

We're told plainly in the scriptures that God hated Esau and this was written of Esau long after he actually lived his life... we learn in Hebrews that Esau was GODLESS and PROFANE, and that he sold HIS BIRTH RIGHT (that's right, HE HAD A BIRTH RIGHT) to SATISFY HIS what....? ? ? ?

HIS FLESH...

That's what God hates... is the constant lust of the flesh... and even for the Christian, who has two natures within the same lump... there is a war going on...

Which one do you think that God has chosen... ?

I think that it's painfully obvious...

 

[Rightglory]

Hammster,

I guess that would be your interpretation. However, you would be wrong. The whole sentence speaks of God choosing us in Christ apart from us doing anything.

it is not my interpretation. It is the historical interpretation. An interpretation that has been retained over a 2000 year period. No man has effected changes in that Gospel. It is not subject to man's subjective personal opinion.

Ah, but you would have us believe what? That which the ECFs taught. Do you just believe them, or did you look into scripture as well? Unlike most EO on here, I don't see you quoting the ECFs, so I assume you look into scripture.

In my study of the EDF I found it amazing how exact, how syncronized, how their teachings align with scripture. I also found that the teachings of the ECFs did not change from one century to the next.

I don't quote them for several reasons. One, they are not accepted as viable, reliable as a valid base. Secondly, for most that even read them, will interpret them in the light of their own personal opinion and interpretation, even to the contrary of direct explanation of the CF.

As do I. Yet we disagree on issues. So we debate and discuss what we think scriptures teach us. And we probably agree more than we disagree, as a whole.

We will always disagree, and disagree on most, if not everything to the understanding of scripture.

But on that in which we disagree, we can debate. But when people like Ghost air and Easystreet try to marginalize their oponents by making silly attacks on Calvin, we waste a lot of time because I am sure that there are those whom have written which they themselves agree with.

however, even if one used Calvin as he taught it, would be dismissed by most today. Individuals have changed Calvin significantly enough that they should not use Calvin as a base. For many others it has become ONLY their own interpretation that matters, notwithstanding any other person, denomination, theologian and surely not any CF who was actually taught and lived in the Truth once Given.

Given the complete dismissal of anything outside of personal opinion, one would of necessity believe that what you might teach your own children is not vialble for them. That they must develop their own understanding at some point. That any teaching of man, which you are, is not viable or valid.

why not listen to one that is teaching, preaching the same Gospel as was given in the beginning.

Your response......
Sounds good to me. Did I say otherwise?

then why is your explanation so contradictory to scripture, to the Gospel once given?

Is it that your preacher is teaching the Original Gospel, but being a man it is not valid for you? You can only accept what you personally develop from your very own study?

 

[Tzaousios]

Hmm...it seems someone is drunk on the wine pressed from his vineyard of sour grapes.

 

[Wayfairer]

I wonder if this is applicable to the discussion at hand?

For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of His Son, that He might be the first born among many brothers. And those he predestined, He also called; those He called, He also justified; those He justified He also glorified. (Romans 8:29-30)

It would appear that God has established those that would, in a later point, be called to faith. Clearly an all knowing God is aware of who will choose salvation and who will not. However, this passage would indicate that we do not choose salvation until we have been called by God to choose it. So then, we have faith through the active participation of God in our lives as He predetermines who will be called, calls these and then justifies them in faith.

 

[_JJM]

Ghost Air's OP is good stuff.

 

[Rightglory]

Tzaousios,

Hmm...it seems someone is drunk on the wine pressed from his vineyard of sour grapes.

which seems to be the only comment you can make when one is unable to actually defend his view.

 

[Tzaousios]

Tzaousios,

which seems to be the only comment you can make when one is unable to actually defend his view.

Nope. Already defended my view. The thing is, you did not like it. Now you are just rehashing your same old sour grapes on other targets.

 

[Rightglory]

Tzaousios,

Hmm...it seems someone is drunk on the wine pressed from his vineyard of sour grapes.

which seems to be the only comment you can make when one is unable to actually defend his view.

For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of His Son, that He might be the first born among many brothers. And those he predestined, He also called; those He called, He also justified; those He justified He also glorified. (Romans 8:29-30)

It would appear that God has established those that would, in a later point, be called to faith. Clearly an all knowing God is aware of who will choose salvation and who will not. However, this passage would indicate that we do not choose salvation until we have been called by God to choose it. So then, we have faith through the active participation of God in our lives as He predetermines who will be called, calls these and then justifies them in faith.

this is classic universalism without the possiblity of hell.

God calls all men to repentance. After all, He redeemed man's nature from death just so that man with God could fulfil the purpose of our existance. It has always been a choice. God does not differentiate between individuals. He desires that all come to know Him.

 

[Rightglory]

Tzaousios,

Nope. Already defended my view. The thing is, you did not like it. Now you are just rehashing your same old sour grapes on other targets.

AH, yes, your view. A personal view totally abstract. It has nothing to do with what scripture has always meant, nor any relationship with historical Christianity.
It is a religion of one.

 

[Tzaousios]

Tzaousios,

AH, yes, your view. A personal view totally abstract. It has nothing to do with what scripture has always meant, nor any relationship with historical Christianity.
It is a religion of one.

An empty, hollow trope.

I have already affirmed the points of theological orthodoxy, which you brushed aside as being nothing of importance. You did this just to preserve your accepted ecclesiological presupposition that the EO is "the Church". I guess the natures of Christ and the persons of the Trinity do not matter as much as your presupposition.

It is woefully obvious that your "conversion" from Protestantism to Orthodoxy has done nothing for your person except turn you into a bitter curmudgeon who harbors poisonous, sour grapes against all Protestants.

When anyone points out your lack of Christian charity and love, I guess you missed that part of the Gospel once passed down, you throw up your ecclesiological presupposition and hide behind it. All you have done is appropriated the Roman Catholic's ecclesiological position of extra ecclesiam nulla salus to your own personal EO belief and used it as a hammer to bludgeon Protestants whom you seek out on internet forums. You have constructed a type of phyletism of your own which you act out against your Protestant targets.

Confess your sins of hatred, hypocrisy, and lack of love in your nect visit with your priest. Do yourself a favor and reread some of the saints lives you claim to emulate and pay attention to what they do in love.

 

[nobdysfool]

Which is why I don't read his posts...

 

[Hammster]

Hammster,

it is not my interpretation. It is the historical interpretation. An interpretation that has been retained over a 2000 year period. No man has effected changes in that Gospel. It is not subject to man's subjective personal opinion.

In my study of the EDF I found it amazing how exact, how syncronized, how their teachings align with scripture. I also found that the teachings of the ECFs did not change from one century to the next.

I don't quote them for several reasons. One, they are not accepted as viable, reliable as a valid base. Secondly, for most that even read them, will interpret them in the light of their own personal opinion and interpretation, even to the contrary of direct explanation of the CF.

We will always disagree, and disagree on most, if not everything to the understanding of scripture.



however, even if one used Calvin as he taught it, would be dismissed by most today. Individuals have changed Calvin significantly enough that they should not use Calvin as a base. For many others it has become ONLY their own interpretation that matters, notwithstanding any other person, denomination, theologian and surely not any CF who was actually taught and lived in the Truth once Given.

Given the complete dismissal of anything outside of personal opinion, one would of necessity believe that what you might teach your own children is not vialble for them. That they must develop their own understanding at some point. That any teaching of man, which you are, is not viable or valid.

then why is your explanation so contradictory to scripture, to the Gospel once given?

Is it that your preacher is teaching the Original Gospel, but being a man it is not valid for you? You can only accept what you personally develop from your very own study?

My views are contradictory to scripture? Wow. Thanks, man. That really clears it up. We can all go home now because all we have to is listen to Rightglory. No more debating or discussion, please.