Election's Historicity (Doctrinal Counter Perspective)

[Clare73]

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.

I think I addressed that in post #14. . .keep Jn 3:18 in mind.
"Whoever does not believe stands condemned already."

If all are saved, then none are condemned.

That is the Hermeneutics. 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.

What does Calvin have to do with the NT texts?

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.

And then there are the words of Jesus Christ himself (Jn 3:18).

You are setting Scripture against Scripture; i.e., de facto error.

 

[Grip Docility]

I think I addressed that in post #14. . .keep Jn 3:18 in mind.
"Whoever does not believe stands condemned already."

If all are saved, then none are condemned.


What does Calvin have to do with the NT texts?

And then there are the words of Jesus Christ himself (Jn 3:18).

You are setting Scripture against Scripture; i.e., de facto error.

In order to Hermeneutically reconcile these matters, we have to get further away from Jehan's assertions. In Genesis, God blessed man with Self Sovereignty.

The denial of the existence of God Granted Human Individual Free Autonomous Moral Agency is a lock that Jehan, not Scripture, placed within his doctrine, to protect his doctrine. We now have two inconsistencies discovered within scripture that argue against Jehan, not Scripture.

As far back as Augustine, free will, in the simple term was believed to exist per the Genesis passage I am referring to. I don't use any commentary to build my opinion of doctrine, but perhaps the matter that an early reference that Calvin drew from believing in it, might soften you to scripture, in this matter?

 

[John Mullally]

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

One should be able to support their position from multiple Bible passages - and quotes from multiple people is even better.

1 Corinthians 13:1 This will be my third visit to you. “Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.​

​

What you don't want is to hook, line, and sinker something based upon a peculiar interpretation of a single scripture passage or philosophical argument. Which I have seen done on many threads.

 

[Clare73]

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.

"Us" being the church of NT believers.

"World" meaning "all without distinction" or "all without exception"?

 

[Grip Docility]

One should be able to support their position from multiple Bible passages - and quotes from multiple people is even better.

1 Corinthians 13:1 This will be my third visit to you. “Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.​

​

What you don't want is to hook, line, and sinker something based upon a peculiar interpretation of a single scripture passage.

If it doesn't fit from Gen - Rev... it goes in Paul's "Rubbish bin".

 

[Grip Docility]

"Us" being the church of NT believers.

"World" meaning "all without distinction" or "all without exception"?

In larger context, instead of per the written intent, it does refer to those who claim Jesus Christ, which responded to, by their God granted Self Sovereignty, The Call of The Son of God, Jesus Christ, WHO IS the very Drawing of the Father to all mankind. How do I know it's a drawing to all mankind. Colossians 1:15-20. If you refuse to soften to the scriptural Hermeneutics of Colossians 1, this will stringently pit you against Jehan's very poor hermeneutic treatment of Romans 9.

 

[Clare73]

In order to Hermeneutically reconcile these matters, we have to get further away from Jehan's assertions. In Genesis, God blessed man with Self Sovereignty.

The denial of the existence of God Granted Human Individual Free Autonomous Moral Agency is a lock that Jehan, not Scripture, placed within his doctrine, to protect his doctrine.

Nowhere stated in Scripture. . .

What is stated in Scripture: "Everyone who sins is a slave to sin" (Jn 8:34), only those whom the Son makes free are free (Jn 8:36, see Jn 8:32, Ro :18, 22, 8:12, Gal 5:1).
Slaves to sin; i.e., all the unregenerate, are not free autonomous moral agents.
Can any of these "free autonomous moral agents" choose to be sinless?

 

[Clare73]

In larger context, instead of per the written intent, it does refer to those who claim Jesus Christ, which responded to, by their God granted Self Sovereignty,

Jesus has another idea about that, presented in the post above, #167.

 

[Grip Docility]

Nowhere stated in Scripture. . .

What is stated in Scripture: "Everyone who sins is a slave to sin" (Jn 8:34), it is only those whom the Son makes free that are free (Jn 8:36, see Jn 8:32, Ro :18, 22, 8:12, Gal 5:1).
Slaves to sin are not free autonomous moral agents.

Why did Jesus come to this earth? To destroy the work of the Devil. We still had the Free Moral Agency, but the Devil used the Perfection of God's knowledge against Adam and Eve. Paul writes about this here...

Romans 7:7 What should we say then? Is the law sin? Absolutely not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin if it were not for the law. For example, I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, Do not covet.[d] 8 And sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind. For apart from the law sin is dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life 10 and I died. The commandment that was meant for life resulted in death for me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me, and through it killed me. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good.

Heb 2:14 and 1 Corinthians 15:55-56

 

[Grip Docility]

Jesus has another idea about that, presented in the post above, #167.

By the very aspect that post #167 Denies Genesis 1 in reference to the Hebrew granting of Free Moral Agency, Colossians 1 in reference to Jesus shedding His blood for all of creation... and all of Paul's writings that Sin (Satan) seized our absence of Perfection in contrast with the Law to condemn us..... therefore the entire scriptural implication that Satan used "The Law" (God's knowledge and perfection" against humanity).... post #167 is not Hermeneutic. It means that Post 168 is actually implying "Jehan" had another idea.

The actual intentions and revelations of Jesus must be slave to all scripture in doctrine. Jesus declared that all scripture reveals Him. This is very important.

 

[Clare73]

Why did Jesus come to this earth? To destroy the work of the Devil. We still had the Free Moral Agency,

Jesus disagrees with that:
"Everyone who sins is a slave to sin" (Jn 8:34), only those whom the Son makes free are free (Jn 8:36; see Jn 8:32, Ro 6:18, 22, 8:12, Gal 5:1).

We had limited moral free agency.
We cannot choose to be sinless.

By the very aspect that post #167 Denies Genesis 1 in reference to the Hebrew granting of Free Moral Agency

You'll have to take that up with Jesus, in the above.

 

[Grip Docility]

Jesus disagrees with that:
"Everyone who sins is a slave to sin" (Jn 8:34), it is only those whom the Son makes free that are free (Jn 8:36, see Jn 8:32, Ro :18, 22, 8:12, Gal 5:1).

We had limited moral free agency.
We cannot choose to be sinless.

You are now quoting Jehan and using his specific commentary verses repetitiously. I've been paying attention. You did not prophecy his doctrine. You simply believe it. but Genesis 1 is clear that we were given Domination, Sovereignty etc etc over all on the earth. This is identically why Colossians 1 is iron clad, because it intentionally poetically echo's Genesis 1 when restoring all Supremacy to Jesus Christ.

I am certain of my Hermeneutic opinion. This post is denying Gen 1, Col 1 and thus Dan 7. No quotation of scripture by Reformed commentary can abrogate Jesus Christ's true intended contextual meanings of His words.

 

[Clare73]

By the very aspect that post #167 Denies Genesis 1

You'll have to take that up with Jesus, he's the one who said it.

in reference to the Hebrew granting of Free Moral Agency, Colossians 1 in reference to Jesus shedding His blood for all of creation... and all of Paul's writings that Sin (Satan) seized our absence of Perfection in contrast with the Law to condemn us..... therefore the entire scriptural implication that Satan used "The Law" (God's knowledge and perfection" against humanity).... post #167 is not Hermeneutic. It means that Post 168 is actually implying "Jehan" had another idea.
The actual intentions and revelations of Jesus must be slave to all scripture in doctrine. Jesus declared that all scripture reveals Him. This is very important.

You are now quoting Jehan and using his specific commentary verses repetitiously. I've been paying attention.
You did not prophecy his doctrine.

I don't know what that means. . .

You simply believe it.

Uh, yeah. . .pretty much. . .he is God, after all.
I don't see myself in much of a position to improve upon it.
I find it in agreement with all Scripture.

but Genesis 1 is clear that we were given Domination, Sovereignty etc etc over all on the earth. This is identically why Colossians 1 is iron clad, because it intentionally poetically echo's Genesis 1 when restoring all Supremacy to Jesus Christ.

I am certain of my Hermeneutic opinion. This post is denying Gen 1, Col 1 and thus Dan 7. No quotation of scripture by Reformed commentary can abrogate Jesus Christ's true intended contextual meanings of His words.

Agreed. . .

 

[Grip Docility]

You'll have to take tht up with Jesus



I don't know what that means. . .

Uh, yeah. . .pretty much. . .he is God, after all.

Agreed. . .

Colossians 1 goes beyond most belief's in reference to Jesus' shed blood. Do you reject Colossians 1:15-20 as it reads, written by the apostle Paul, in reference to the depth of the flow of Christ's shed blood to it's effectual audience... as the passage reads, without bringing any abrogating concepts into the literal scriptural flow?

Colossians 1:20 and through Him to reconcile
everything to Himself
by making peace
through the blood of His cross[j]—
whether things on earth or things in heaven.

 

[Clare73]

Colossians 1 goes beyond most belief's in reference to Jesus' shed blood. Do you reject Colossians 1:15-20 as it reads, written by the apostle Paul, in reference to the depth of the flow of Christ's shed blood to it's effectual audience... as the passage reads, without bringing any abrogating concepts into the literal scriptural flow?

I understand all Scripture in the light of all Scripture.
Any understanding not in agreement with the rest of Scripture understood in its context is, ipso facto, erroneous.

Colossians 1:20 and through Him to reconcile
everything to Himself
by making peace
through the blood of His cross[j]—
whether things on earth or things in heaven.

Have a look at post #14, where I addressed that. . .

 

[Grip Docility]

Scripture must be understood in the light of all Scripture.

Obviously does not mean that Christ has saved all people, for Scripture speaks of an eternal hell and makes clear that only believers are saved (Jn 3:18).

There will be those that are lost, according to scripture.

Disorder came to all creation (Ro 8:19-22) as the result of Adam's sin. When Christ died on the cross, he also restored in principle the harmony of the physical non-spiritual world, which full realization will occur only when Christ returns (Ro 8:21).

You are acknowledging that He did shed His blood for all? Salvation is a Covenant between God and the person being Saved, individually speaking. Do we agree on that point?

I read... "We have this promise", so I thusly say... "I have this Promise"

Also... this really doesn't address the exact wording of this...

and through Him to reconcile
everything to Himself
by making peace
through the blood of His cross[j]—
whether things on earth or things in heaven.

Paul wrote this, the same Paul that wrote this:

2 Corinthians 15:18-19

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.

 

[Clare73]

There will be those that are lost, according to scripture.

You are acknowledging that He did shed His blood for all.

Did you miss the word "non-spiritual"?

Salvation is a Covenant between God and the person being Saved, individually speaking. Do we agree on that point?

Salvation is the forgiveness of sin which saves one from God's judgment on his sin at the Judgment.

The New Covenant is the indwelling of the promised Holy Spirit.

I read... "We have this promise", so I thusly say... "I have this Promise"

 

[Grip Docility]

Did you miss the word "non-spiritual"?

Salvation is the forgiveness of sin which saves one from God's judgment on his sin at the Judgment.

The New Covenant is the indwelling of the promised Holy Spirit.

Allow me to shrink scope to simplify this one question. Clare, do you have a promise from God of salvation?

(Promise of God which always means "Covenant" between God and who God is making a Covenant with)

 

[Clare73]

There will be those that are lost, according to scripture.

So not all are saved.

You are acknowledging that He did shed His blood for all.

Did you miss the word "non-spiritual;" i.e., shed his blood for all the physical non-spiritual world.

Salvation is a Covenant between God and the person being Saved, individually speaking. Do we agree on that point?

Salvation is the forgiveness of sin which saves one from God's judgment on his sin at the Judgment.

The New Covenant is the indwelling of the promised Holy Spirit.

I read... "We have this promise", so I thusly say... "I have this Promise"

 

[Grip Docility]

So not all are saved.

Some will be lost, forever, per scripture.

Did you miss the word "non-spiritual;" i.e., shed his blood for all the physical non-spiritual world.

This would then only give Jesus dominion over all "Non-Spiritual Things"

Salvation is the forgiveness of sin which saves one from God's judgment on his sin at the Judgment.

Could we then say that all saved individuals have a promise from God?

The New Covenant is the indwelling of the promised Holy Spirit.

I agree

Allow me to shrink scope to simplify this one question. Clare, do you have a promise from God of salvation?

(Promise of God which always means "Covenant" between God and who God is making a Covenant with)