CHOSEN - Dead or Alive...?

[Ghost air]

I see many pictures of Christ in the OT, Isaac is but one of them. What I don't see is that there are many scriptures that describe the elect as being people other than Christ, some of which I quoted, yet you refuse to deal with them. How do you reconcile those scriptural passages when it talks about people (who are not Christ) as being the elect? It's fine that you disagree, but ignoring posted scripture that demonstrates a different position so that you can continue to make your claim just doesn't help the discussion progress. Do you see where the problem is?

Dawn,

I don't know if saying it AGAIN will do any good, but here goes...

The ELECT are the ELECT by virtue of their being IN CHRIST... not because of who they are... we are not the elect in ADAM... we are the elect in CHRIST...

Take the church of God for example... the church of God IS the BODY OF CHRIST... scripture does not get much more plain than this... so the church of God IS the elect because they are members of HIS BODY, and HE is the elect.

 

[Rightglory]

Hammster,

Demonstrating that you do not understand the doctrine of Unconditional Election. We can't defend against your misguided view. It is tiring trying to explain over and over how your view of our view is wrong.. You set up straw-men that you can conveniently knock down.

AGain, one does not need to understand the reformed view in specifics if it can be shown that it does not align with scripture even in it most basic interpretation. You may have a view, but does it align with scripture, that is the pertinent question.

The reformed view or translation of the word "election" is not found in scripture. The understanding of the reformed view is that it means to be elected or chosen to be saved.

In scripture however, the word in context always means to be elected or chosen to a specific service.

If one needs to translate the Greek then we get "to be called out". To be called to do something special.

It is used in scripture only 5 very specific reasons.

ONe use is described in Isaiah 42:1 which is later quoted in Matt 12:18-21.

this text in context is clearly describing Christ, the Messiah. Hardly can this context be speaking of saving, as if Christ needed to be saved. It is about selecting someone, in this case Jesus, to be the Christ. To be called out for a specific purpose. He is called to become the Savior of the world.

Luke 23:35 supports this where the word "chosen" is used by those riling against Christ at the Cross.

Another use, #2, is in Isaiah 45:4 where Jacob is mentioned as being called, the elect. Does this mean all Isrealites will be saved? Hardly, it simply means that Jacob was chosen to be the first in the direct line of Isreal, the formation of the special people, the Isrealites. It has nothing to do with specific Isrealites being saved. They were all being saved by faith as well. NOthing about be saved by selection, by God. Even those outside of Isreal could become an Isrealite upon circumcision. Here Isreal is called elect because they are identified with Christ. Isreal is the nation created for the purpose of bringing forth the Messiah.

ONe text which supports this context and concept is Rom 9:11 which is grossly misunderstood by the reformed proponents. According to Gen 25:23 Esau and Jacob represent two nations. Either one does not have anything to do with individuals being saved. Thus the issue is not what nation will be saved, but which nation is going to be used by God to serve a specific purpose for Him. The formatioin of a nation, Israel.

Then we have the election of the twelve apostles. Surely this could not mean they wre elected to be saved. they were elected to serve a very specific role, purpose in God's Kingdom. Luke 6:13 gives the list, which, by the way, includes Judas. We know that he was not saved. So it cannot mean "to save" but to serve a purpose.

John 6:70 reiterates the selection of the Apostles. Other texts are Acts 1:25, Acts 1:2 and several others. Never is the word elect, chosen, or election mean to be saved, but to serve.

Now, another use, the Elect, the Body of Christ. The most clear verse is Eph 1:3-4., "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love." Here the two words, "IN HIM" is of utmost importance. It does not say to be chosen to be saved, but chosen IN Christ. Thus it is the elect, the Body that has been chosen for specific purpose. Chosen that we should be holy and blameless before Him. Nothing about being chosen or elected to be saved.

Again, as it was with Isreal, out identification as elect is that we are identified with Christ.

Rom 8:33 Paul refers to the Body, or the elect, in the plural. Rom `12:5 clearly puts the Body of Christ as being the elect. it is not refering to individuals, but a group. Same as the OT Isreal, in the NT it is the Church, the Body of Christ.

the last use of the word, election is of Paul. Acts 9:15, and Acts 22:14 both clearly show that Paul was an elect of God. Chosen for a very specific purpose. It has nothing to do with Paul being saved.

There are many additional texts where you find the word, chosen, elect, or election but they all refer to either of these instances above. None of which even hints at being saved, or chosen to be saved, or elected to be saved. They are all referring to some service. They are very specific and never general.

 

[nobdysfool]

I know Hammster... it's so far above me... you know... what you guys know and preach.. like unconditional election and how you believe that you're elected regardless of anything that you do or will do...

Strawman after strawman. Opposition for the sake of opposition.

 

[A New Dawn]

Dawn,

I don't know if saying it AGAIN will do any good, but here goes...

The ELECT are the ELECT by virtue of their being IN CHRIST... not because of who they are... we are not the elect in ADAM... we are the elect in CHRIST...

Take the church of God for example... the church of God IS the BODY OF CHRIST... scripture does not get much more plain than this... so the church of God IS the elect because they are members of HIS BODY, and HE is the elect.

Ghost air, what is your point? Do you honestly believe that anyone here believes that we are the elect in ADAM? We were elected from the foundation of the world to be positioned IN CHRIST.

 

[Ghost air]

Ghost air, what is your point? Do you honestly believe that anyone here believes that we are the elect in ADAM? We were elected from the foundation of the world to be positioned IN CHRIST.

Glad you finally agree that election is IN CHRIST, period.

There's nothing unconditional about that.

 

[Hammster]

I know Hammster... it's so far above me... you know... what you guys know and preach.. like unconditional election and how you believe that you're elected regardless of anything that you do or will do...

I never said it was so far above you. This false self-deprecation is silly. All I am saying is that if you don't actually understand a doctrine, then how can you be so sure that it is incorrect?

 

[Hammster]

Glad you finally agree that election is IN CHRIST, period.

There's nothing unconditional about that.

When has anyone ever said that election wasn't in Christ? When we refer to Ephesians 1 (all of it, not just your pet verse), we are referring to being chosen (elected) in Him before the foundation of the world. Simple. What you want to teach and have people believe is that there is something that happens to make God the Father chose us in Christ. Your teaching ignores the plain reading of scripture. Maybe you don't have an acronym for your teaching (neither did Calvin, btw) buy you would have us follow your teaching, and your teaching is man-centered.

 

[Ghost air]

I never said it was so far above you. This false self-deprecation is silly.

What's silly is the continuous trope that people can't understand what unconditional election is... that's silly Hammster.. and not only that, I've debated with you long enough to know that this is typically what you resort to... false claims,

All I am saying is that if you don't actually understand a doctrine, then how can you be so sure that it is incorrect?

I do understand 'unconditional election' Hammster... and I think that you understand that I do as well... but again, this is what it typically comes down to with you personally... the YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND trope...

Hey whatever...

 

[Hammster]

What's silly is the continuous trope that people can't understand what unconditional election is.

Once again, I never said that. What I've said is that you don't understand what we mean when we refer to unconditional election. You can't pour your meaning into a phrase and then say you disagree with it. That would be called a straw-man argument.

 

[Ghost air]

When has anyone ever said that election wasn't in Christ? When we refer to Ephesians 1 (all of it, not just your pet verse), we are referring to being chosen (elected) in Him before the foundation of the world. Simple. What you want to teach and have people believe is that there is something that happens to make God the Father chose us in Christ.

And you believe that God just places you into Christ for no reason at all... hence the unbiblical term... unconditional election.

That's WHY the rest of Ephesians is pretty important too... we don't (or should not) build doctrine from one verse.

Your teaching ignores the plain reading of scripture. Maybe you don't have an acronym for your teaching (neither did Calvin, btw) buy you would have us follow your teaching, and your teaching is man-centered.

Yeah, I know... you're the CALVINist and I'm man centered... does hypocrisy mean anything to you... or is that for those who just disagree with your man centered TULIP doctrines...?

 

[Ghost air]

Once again, I never said that. What I've said is that you don't understand what we mean when we refer to unconditional election. You can't pour your meaning into a phrase and then say you disagree with it. That would be called a straw-man argument.

HERE's YOUR BIG BIG BIG CHANCE Hammster...

Tell ALL OF US here in CF what unconditional election means to YOU CALVINISTS...

I doubt if you will though... that's your style... but hey... here's your big chance to set everyone straight on what UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION means to a CALVINIST.

 

[Hammster]

And you believe that God just places you into Christ for no reason at all... hence the unbiblical term... unconditional election.

First, the term "unconditional election" is not one that Calvinists came up with. It is one that the remonstrants came up with. We just use it out of convenience. But I digress. Paul actually gives the reason why we are elect. Eph 1:5 "according to the purpose of his will,"

That's WHY the rest of Ephesians is pretty important too... we don't (or should not) build doctrine from one verse.

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

Yeah, I know... you're the CALVINist and I'm man centered... does hypocrisy mean anything to you... or is that for those who just disagree with your man centered TULIP doctrines...?

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.

 

[Hammster]

HERE's YOUR BIG BIG BIG CHANCE Hammster...

Tell ALL OF US here in CF what unconditional election means to YOU CALVINISTS...

I doubt if you will though... that's your style... but hey... here's your big chance to set everyone straight on what UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION means to a CALVINIST.

Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto; and all to the praise of His glorious grace. "As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Whereby they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

WCF

 

[Terrence Theodore]

Terrence threw another factor into the mix with his claim that he existed before he was born through his parents...

Again, I feel that I'm more of a theologian than a philosopher, but this is a philosophical query. The issue here is one of "existence" versus "living." Though somewhat synonymous, they aren't univocal (having the same meaning). The thoughts and ideas of the great writer indeed exist, but they are not physically alive (living). Indeed, God knew me before I was born (you as well). When the scriptures say, "God chose you before the foundation of the world" - and here I pause to reintroduce theological thinking, as opposed to philosophical - it means to insinuate that you exist. No, you weren't physically alive, that did not come to be until you were born. However, you nonetheless existed. You might ask, "where did I exist?" I would answer this way: you existed in the mind of God, who not only planed for you, but ordained and mapped out your life; just as the master planer has done with everyone and everything else. Does this make sense to you? Have I convinced you otherwise, namely to finally agree with me on something?

 

[Ghost air]

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 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..?

 

[Ghost air]

Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto; and all to the praise of His glorious grace. "As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Whereby they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

WCF

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.

 

[Ghost air]

When the scriptures say, "God chose you before the foundation of the world" - and here I pause to reintroduce theological thinking, as opposed to philosophical - it means to insinuate that you exist.

Terrence, for the hundreth time... the bible says no such thing as what you wrote... it's missing the MOST VITAL part of the scripture... IN HIM... IN CHRIST...

Isn't that important...? Isn't IN HIM, IN CHRIST important to you ?

If so, then WHY in the world would you leave it out..?

 

[Terrence Theodore]

Terrence, for the hundreth time... the bible says no such thing as what you wrote... it's missing the MOST VITAL part of the scripture... IN HIM... IN CHRIST...

Isn't that important...? Isn't IN HIM, IN CHRIST important to you ?

If so, then WHY in the world would you leave it out..?

My bad! I rewrote it again for you. Check it out and answer the question at the bottom:

Again, I feel that I'm more of a theologian than a philosopher, but this is a philosophical query. The issue here is one of "existence" versus "living." Though somewhat synonymous, they aren't univocal (having the same meaning). The thoughts and ideas of the great writer indeed exist, but they are not physically alive (living). Indeed, God knew me before I was born (you as well). When the scriptures say, "God chose you in Christ before the foundation of the world" - and here I pause to reintroduce theological thinking, as opposed to philosophical - it means to insinuate that you existed. No, you weren't physically alive, that did not come to be until you were born. However, you nonetheless existed. You might ask, "where did I exist?" I would answer this way: you existed in the mind of God, who not only planed for you, but ordained and mapped out your life; just as the master planer has done with everyone and everything else. Does this make sense to you? Have I convinced you otherwise, namely to finally agree with me on something?

 

[Ghost air]

My bad! I rewrote it again for you. Check it out and answer the question at the bottom:

Again, I feel that I'm more of a theologian than a philosopher, but this is a philosophical query. The issue here is one of "existence" versus "living." Though somewhat synonymous, they aren't univocal (having the same meaning). The thoughts and ideas of the great writer indeed exist, but they are not physically alive (living). Indeed, God knew me before I was born (you as well). When the scriptures say, "God chose you in Christ before the foundation of the world" - and here I pause to reintroduce theological thinking, as opposed to philosophical - it means to insinuate that you exist. No, you weren't physically alive, that did not come to be until you were born. However, you nonetheless existed. You might ask, "where did I exist?" I would answer this way: you existed in the mind of God, who not only planed for you, but ordained and mapped out your life; just as the master planer has done with everyone and everything else. Does this make sense to you? Have I convinced you otherwise, namely to finally agree with me on something?

All things exist in the mind of God... don't they...? Are there things which He doesn't know..?

Regardless, it appears that you mean that you did not actually exist but that God foreknew you... I have no problem with that.. I think that it's obvious.

What I also believe is obvious is the fact that we began to exist when we were born through our parents... and at that time we were NOT in Christ... the scriptures tell us plainly that we were dead in trespasses and in sins before we trusted in Christ.

That's important, just as TAKING UP YOUR CROSS is important... just as I AM CRUCIFIED with CHRIST is important... just as I AM DEAD and my life is hid with God IN CHRIST, who is my LIFE.... is all important...

But I digress... it's obviously way too important for you folks to think and believe that you're the elect of God unconditionally... as if being in Christ had nothing to do with it... so be it, we'll just continue to agree to disagree.

 

[Terrence Theodore]

All things exist in the mind of God... don't they...? Are there things which He doesn't know..?

Regardless, it appears that you mean that you did not actually exist but that God foreknew you... I have no problem with that.. I think that it's obvious.

What I also believe is obvious is the fact that we began to exist when we were born through our parents... and at that time we were NOT in Christ... the scriptures tell us plainly that we were dead in trespasses and in sins before we trusted in Christ.

That's important, just as TAKING UP YOUR CROSS is important... just as I AM CRUCIFIED with CHRIST is important... just as I AM DEAD and my life is hid with God IN CHRIST, who is my LIFE.... is all important...

But I digress... it's obviously way too important for you folks to think and believe that you're the elect of God unconditionally... as if being in Christ had nothing to do with it... so be it, we'll just continue to agree to disagree.

What I'm arguing for is that we certainly existed before we were physically born. I'm making a distinction between "existing" and "living," and pointing out that while the words are synonymous in some sense, they aren't univocal. In the mind of Stan Lee, the character "Iron Man" existed way before today's date. Tonight, however, I'm going to see a special screening of what will be the physical manifestation of that magnicifcant mind (I can't wait)!

Concerning your other point, namely the one about "picking up our cross and following Jesus." Hey, music to my ears man! I want to encourage you to experience that scripture to a deeper degree. Recently, I had, by God's grace, some new insight to that scripture. Denying self isn't only about not doing a thing, but also doing a thing. Jesus' followers are called to put on and put off (put off old man, put on new man). Here's how that looks for me. In denying myself in regard to "putting off the old man," I reject notions and inclinations to be arrogant, witty, and quick tempered with people; especially those in the house hold of faith. In regard to "putting on the new man," here's how I deny self: I, by God's grace (and I must thank Him for it), am patient, loving, kind, and humble with people; especially those in the house-hold of faith.

Okay, I really have to go. I should have left an hour ago, but I wanted to talk with you for a while. Gotta go workout.

Grace and Peace!!