Election's Historicity (Doctrinal Counter Perspective)

[Hammster]

I am forced to agree with you on scripture in this matter. Would you be willing to address why Paul opens his epistles, not to the elect, as he is to Gentiles... while Peter who is to the Jews, opens to the elect?

They were two different people with two different styles.

I agree, per the greek and the passage.

Is the word all used to show what scope Jesus Christ's blood is intended, within that same passage?

What, that He makes peace through His blood? Is that what you are referring to?

 

[Grip Docility]

They were two different people with two different styles.

What, that He makes peace through His blood? Is that what you are referring to?

Colossians 1:20 and through Him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through His blood, shed on the cross.

Colossians 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. (This primes intent)
What does blood do (According to OT scripture?) Or, to be less difficult, does blood atone, according to OT scripture?

How blood reconciles, according to Paul, in his very own words.

Ephesians 1:7 “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace.” Because of Christ's shed blood, God is able to forgive us of sins because He took our punishment.​

 

[Grip Docility]

They were two different people with two different styles.

What, that He makes peace through His blood? Is that what you are referring to?

Are you willing to discuss the usage of "Election" within Romans 11:28, which is denoted, Post Crucifixion, towards Christ Rejecting Israel?

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

 

[Grip Docility]

They were two different people with two different styles.

What, that He makes peace through His blood? Is that what you are referring to?

Do you agree that the Tabernacle Curtain was torn in two, immediately following Jesus Christ's Death on the cross?

 

[Hammster]

Are you willing to discuss the usage of "Election" within Romans 11:28, which is denoted, Post Crucifixion, towards Christ Rejecting Israel?

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

It’s your OP. You keep changing texts midstream, so why not?

 

[Hammster]

Do you agree that the Tabernacle Curtain was torn in two, immediately following Jesus Christ's Death on the cross?

Yes.

 

[Grip Docility]

It’s your OP. You keep changing texts midstream, so why not?

I'm addressing the initial point of Jehan's doctrine of Election. This is relevant, as it is within scope of the OP.

 

[Grip Docility]

Yes.

If No-Thing is now impeding people from going into the most Holy of Holy's, what is the implication of access to God, in reference to the World? Who could not access the Most holy of holy's, after the Curtain was torn?

 

[Clare73]

Colossians 1, discussed in posts 5-7, by the Greek… and grammar… makes the limiting of the word “all” impossible in respects to atonement.

Not in context. . .

Col is to the church, about the church, and for the church, not the world.
That Is the context.
"All" refers to the recipients of the letter; i.e, the church.

There is no theological wicket that can deny it. I assert that scripture disagrees. It’s the end all to the semantics involving the word all… because it leaves no room for eiegeses.

The simple wicket of the context, not to mention Jesus and the rest of the NT, denies it (e.g., Jn 3:18).
That interpretation, not being in agreement with the rest of the NT, is therefore necessarily incorrect.
First rule of hermeneutics. . .context; i.e., Colossians is to the church.
All the NT letters are to the church or its pastors.

 

[Hammster]

I'm addressing the initial point of Jehan's doctrine of Election. This is relevant, as it is within scope of the OP.

Okay. But we went from John to Colossians to Romans, and simply because you won’t stick with a particular text. So what makes me think you’ll stick with this one?

 

[Hammster]

If No-Thing is now impeding people from going into the most Holy of Holy's, what is the implication of access to God, in reference to the World? Who could not access the Most holy of holy's, after the Curtain was torn?

The holy of holies has been destroyed. Josephus wrote about it.

 

[Grip Docility]

Okay. But we went from John to Colossians to Romans, and simply because you won’t stick with a particular text. So what makes me think you’ll stick with this one?

All Scripture is God breathed. Do you agree?

 

[Grip Docility]

The holy of holies has been destroyed. Josephus wrote about it.

At the Moment that the curtain was torn, what is the theological implication towards humanity? Is the bible a carnal book without Spiritual teaching? Did not Jesus say that He spoke in Parables, so that the Hard Hearted wouldn't comprehend?

Mark 4:12 'they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven.

By this same token, we have Jesus discussing hard hearted reprobates... and He states that they "could" turn to Him and be forgiven. Do you deny Jesus' implication's here?

 

[Grip Docility]

Not in context. . .

Col is to the church, about the church, and for the church, not the world.
That Is the context.
"All" refers to the recipients of the letter; i.e, the church.

The simple wicket of the context, not to mention Jesus and the rest of the NT, denies it (e.g., Jn 3:18).
That interpretation, not being in agreement with the rest of the NT, is therefore necessarily incorrect.
First rule of hermeneutics. . .context; i.e., Colossians is to the church.
All the NT letters are to the church or its pastors.

I'm intrigued that you have made that statement. Because you have reduced the scope of the usage of the word all, as defined by Colossians 1. By the very Greek and how All is defined, implicitly, you have now demoted Jesus Christ's authority. The passage specifies how Jesus obtained All authority, through His Blood Reconciling All.

You have now stated that Jesus only has Authority over the Body of Christ, per the implicit Hermeneutics which are contained within a small, tightly contextual passage of scripture, which completely argues against your "All authority" OP. Which conclusion would you like to "hermeneutically" accept? That Jesus is not in Authority over everything, or that Jesus shed his blood for "Even the Reprobate"?

It is Hermeneutically impossible to have doctrine of Election theological cake and eat it too, in this passage. (This is a metaphor. Jesus used them. I'm trying to point something very important out.)

Hermeneutics:

1. the branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation, especially of the Bible or literary texts.

 

[Clare73]

Dead is an overloaded word -

The NT presentation of spiritual death and physical death as separation, lost is not an overloading of the word death.

meaning it has many different meaning depending on the context. In the parable of the Prodigal Son, the son was said to have been "dead" (Luke 15:24), came to himself and returned to the Father."
Jesus says that believing (not a pre-faith regeneration that Calvinist's teach) transitions one from spiritual death into spiritual life.

And the NT word of God also says that faith is a gift (Php 1:29, Ac 13:48, 18:27, 2 Pe 1:1, Ro 12:3). . .no gift, no faith.

Although, John 3 says regeneration is required to enter the kingdom of God,
scripture does not say that one must be regenerated in order to believe.
If that were true, it would be plainly stated as it would be of utmost importance.

To wit:

Regeneration is of the sovereign Holy Spirit only (Jn 3:3-6), who is as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:7-8). Furthermore,
"Those without the Holy Spirit do not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they cannot understand them and they are foolishness to him." (1 Co 2:14)
No one believes apart from the Holy Spirit's enablement in the new birth.

John 5:24 Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.​

In complete agreement with what I have posted.

 

[Grip Docility]

The NT presentation of spiritual death and physical death as separation, lost is not an overloading of the word death.



And the NT word of God also says that faith is a gift (Php 1:29, Ac 13:48, 18:27, 2 Pe 1:1, Ro 12:3). . .no gift, no faith.

To wit:

Regeneration is of the sovereign Holy Spirit only (Jn 3:3-6), who is as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:7-8). Furthermore,
"Those without the Holy Spirit do not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they cannot understand them and they are foolishness to him." (1 Co 2:14)

In complete agreement with what I have posted.

Did Jesus Christ shed his Blood for all Humanity?

 

[Clare73]

I'm intrigued that you have made that statement. Because you have reduced the scope of the usage of the word all, as defined by Colossians

The scope is determined by the context.
The context is to the church in Colosse.

"All" having more than one definition ("without distinction" or "without exception"), the definition is determined by the context; i.e., the letter being to the church in Colosse. . .basic hermeneutics.

1. By the very Greek and how All is defined, implicitly, you have now demoted Jesus Christ's authority. The passage specifies how Jesus obtained All authority, through His Blood Reconciling All.
You have now stated that Jesus only has Authority over the Body of Christ, which completely argues against your "All authority" OP.

What OP?

Which conclusion would you like to "hermeneutically" accept? That Jesus is not in Authority over everything, or that Jesus shed his blood for "Even the Reprobate"?

At all times, Jesus did the will of the Father, not his own will (Jn 6:38).

Did Jesus Christ shed his Blood for all Humanity?

Did the OT sacrifices atone for all humanity?
They were given as the pattern for the true atoning sacrifice of the Son of God.
Sacrifice was for the people of God only, then and now.

 

[Grip Docility]

The scope is determined by the context.
The context is to the church in Colosse.

"All" having more than one definition ("without distinction" or "without exception"), the definition is determined by the context; i.e., the letter being to the church in Colosse. . .basic hermeneutics.

Did the OT sacrifices atone for all humanity?
They were given as the pattern for the true atoning sacrifice of the Son of God.
Sacrifice was for the people of God only, then and now.

The word All is, Within the passage, specifically stating that Jesus Christ's Authority over all things was reconciled, restored, through His blood shed. It states all things in heaven and earth, seen and unseen that are created. That is the Hermeneutics of Colossians 1:15-20. I can stand on this hill and die on it, vindicated by Scripture, because it is impossible to tamper with the biblical hermeneutics within Colossians 1:15-20.

It is abrogating context and truth to say other wise, in reference to Colossians 1:15-20. This pits Jehan Cauvin directly against Jesus Christ. The choice remains, to the reader.

When I asked if Jesus Christ shed His blood for all, it was actually to ask, who does Colossians 1:15-20 say that Jesus Christ shed His blood for? To reduce the scope of the word all in respects to "who" Jesus Christ shed His blood for within those 5 verses, correspondingly reduces the scope of Jesus Christ's authority.

How did God the Father, through His Son, reconcile all things to the Son? Through Jesus Christ's bloodshed. To remove any single thing from the Umbrella of Jesus Christ's bloodshed is to remove something from the Authority of Jesus Christ. If I remove a single hamster from that statement, it is to say that God does not have authority over that adorable little furry creature. It's very specific and Ironclad.

Spoiler

I was referring to Hammster's "All Authority" OP.

 

[Grip Docility]

2 Corinthians 15:18-19 It's Ironclad.

All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.

 

[John Mullally]

The NT presentation of spiritual death and physical death as separation, lost is not an overloading of the word death.

You just made my point. Your use of "dead" in Post 18 was inability to respond to God, but here you say "spiritual death" is separation.

Jesus's atonement allows for this separation to be removed by believing the Gospel message.

And the NT word of God also says that faith is a gift (Php 1:29, Ac 13:48, 18:27, 2 Pe 1:1, Ro 12:3). . .no gift, no faith.

A gift can be rejected. Romans 10:17 says that faith comes by hearing God's word and we all decide what we listen to.

To wit:

Regeneration is of the sovereign Holy Spirit only (Jn 3:3-6), who is as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:7-8).

No one is arguing that regeneration is not of the Holy Spirit. God is accountable to keep His word.

Furthermore,
"Those without the Holy Spirit do not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they cannot understand them and they are foolishness to him." (1 Co 2:14)

The phrase "Those without the Holy Spirit" is phrased as "natural man" in most English translations. The “natural man” simply means anything other than the spiritual man, which can include unbelievers or immature believers.

Paul raises a dichotomy between a “natural man” (1 Corinthians 2:14) and “spiritual men” (1 Corinthians 3:1), and he says that he cannot speak to the Corinthian believers as “spiritual men.” (3:1) Being indicative of the “natural man,” he calls them “men of flesh” (3:1) and “fleshly.” (3:3) However, that is not to say that they are unsaved since he also calls them “infants in Christ.” (3:1) As infants in Christ, they are only able to handle what a natural man can handle, which is spiritual “milk to drink,” such as the gospel, but “not solid food” such as the deep things of God or the “depths of God” (1 Corinthians 2:10), potentially indicative of what Paul alluded to at Ephesians 1:15-19.

In complete agreement with what I have posted.

Your response is in regard to John 5:24.

In John 5:24, we learn that “eternal life” comes in the order of “hears,” “believes” and “eternal life,” similar to Ephesians 1:13. The "marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit" includes regeneration.

Ephesians 1:13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,​