Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It''s just has a person who can't always go to a place of worship I try to study often.
Did you bother to read the link. If you did, explain your understanding of it since it appears to me that you did not even comprehend it.Took this is what I was responding to:
“The Reformed model has nothing to do with what choices man makes since man is reprobate.”
Which evokes the question....Is it your understanding in Reformed doctrine that we don’t make any choices?
Let’s clear that up.
That’s a keeper. Lol.
Actually, I don't think anybody does believe that, but you're more than welcome to argue against a nonexistent position.
You mean it’s so easy even a caveman could understand? Sorry could not resist with your avatar.It's not complicated, a child could understand.
Well here’s a comment. You made an assertion without evidence and then repeated not once but twice.I don't know why you feel insulted... I'm honestly sad you feel this way .. These were sincere questions... But please report me, then maybe I'll know where I have been wrong ..
How does that work when predestined and foreknowledge are in the same sentence and don’t mean the same thing?I believe that God predestined according to his foreknowledge. He knew how Pilate was, actually Jesus even presented to him the gospel, and gave him a chance out, but Pilate choose the other way and God used that. I don't think God predestined in the way of affecting peoples free will, but uses peoples choices of free will to get His will done.
Ugh! Says the caveman.You mean it’s so easy even a caveman could understand? Sorry could not resist with your avatar.
In Romans 8:29 Its the same word, the literary style is call a paralellism, repetition for the sake of emphasis, Provetbs uses a lot of them. Basically it's what God predetermined from the foundation of the world, he has accomplushed in Christ. Everyone thinks the predestination is about them, it's not, it's about Christ. He has now done what he always intended, it's not all about us, sometimes the gospel is about Jesus, not just us getting saved.How does that work when predestined and foreknowledge are in the same sentence and don’t mean the same thing?
?I won't go into it, because it's been done so many times allready in other threads.
Sure I did. I ask you to prove your claim. You did not.Redleghunter, you have still not answered this.
Hope you are having fun. That link is a joke. It’s someones blog page with no scholarship.Here is somewhat of what I meant concerning the similarities of Calvinistic double predestination and Gnostisism.
‘Classes’ of People: A Relationship Between Gnostic and classical Calvinist/Arminian Understanding of Election? Appropriated from J. Kameron Carter
It’s mainstream?Have you seen this other mainstream interpretation : Corporate election - Wikipedia
You can’t say us means church in the same passage and change us to individuals when it is convenient. He is addressing individuals.To me the word 'church' in the intro paragraph simply means all believers. So, it fits Eph 1:13-14 fine. Is there a place in these beginning sections you see as wrong? --
"Election is first and foremost centered in Christ: "He chose us in him" (Ephesians 1:4a).[6] Christ himself is the elect of God.[7] Regarding Christ, God states, "Here is my servant whom I have chosen" (Matthew 12:18; cf. Isaiah 42:1, 6).[8] God audibly declared to Christ's disciples, "This is My Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him!" (Luke 9:35)[9] The Gospel writer John says, "I have seen and I testify that this is God’s Chosen One" (John 1:34, Today's New International Version).[10] The apostle Peter refers to Christ as "the Living Stone . . . chosen by God and precious to Him" (1 Peter 2:4; cf. v. 6).[11] Therefore, Christ, as the elect of God, is the foundation of our election.[12] Through union with Christ believers become members of the elect (Ephesians 1:4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-13).[13] No one is among the elect unless they are in a living faith union with Christ.[14]
Election is primarily corporate
"New Testament theologian Ben Witherington remarks that apart from the word election (eklektos) occasionally being used to apply to the king in the Old Testament, election in the Old Testament is predominantly applied corporately to a people, not to individuals. The Hebrew word for "elect" (bahir) is normally used in the plural, and thus refers collectively of Israel. While there are times in Scripture where God chooses individuals for a specific historical task or purpose (e.g. Cyrus in Isaiah 45:1), these are passages that have nothing to do with God deciding who will be saved, thus, they are of no relevance to this topic. The corporate concept of election in the Old Testament is the context which one must view the references to election in the New Testament.[15]
"Professor William Klein concluded that the New Testament writers "address salvific election in primarily, if not exclusively, corporate terms. In other words, God has chosen an elect body to save."[16] The elect are identified corporately as: "the body of Christ" (Ephesians 4:12; cf. 1:22-23; 2:16; 3:6; 5:23, 30), "members of God's household" (Ephesians 2:19),[17] "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession" (1 Peter 2:9; cf. 2:10).[18] Thus, election is primarily corporate and only embraces individuals (secondarily) who identify and associate themselves with the body of Christ, the church—God's new covenant community.[19]
"New Testament scholar Brian Abasciano says that the Bible's teaching regarding "corporate election unto salvation is even more nuanced than simply saying that the group is elected primarily and the individual secondarily."[20]
"More precisely, it refers to the election of a group as a consequence of the choice of an individual who represents the group, the corporate head and representative. That is, the group is elected as a consequence of its identification with this corporate representative. The same may be said of individuals. They are chosen as a consequence of their identification with the people, and more fundamentally, with the individual corporate head. Thus,
'God chose the people of Israel in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel (Deuteronomy 4:37; 7:6-8). That is, by choosing Jacob/Israel, the corporate/covenant representative, God also chose his descendants as his covenant people. . . . The covenant representative on the one hand and the people/nation of Israel on the other hand are the focus of the divine covenantal election, and individuals are elect only as members of the elect people. Moreover, in principle, foreign individuals who were not originally members of the elect people could join the chosen people and become part of the elect, demonstrating again that the locus of election was the covenant community and that individuals found their election through membership in the elect people.'
"This notion of election is rooted in the Old Testament concept of corporate solidarity or representation, which views the individual as representing the community and identified with it and vice versa.[21]
....(continues at site)
Corporate election - Wikipedia
Notice how in that last quoted paragraph, this fits perfectly how we are to "love one another" as the central command to us from Christ. We are not isolated individuals, but instead we are together in a profound way: "Love one another as I have loved you."
Sure I did. I ask you to prove your claim. You did not.
Show me and link me to a quote from Augustine.
Well here’s a comment. You made an assertion without evidence and then repeated not once but twice.
Pony up with your evidence.
Hope you are having fun. That link is a joke. It’s someones blog page with no scholarship.
The blogger even said what he wrote was an assertion based on an idea.
I’m kind of wondering. Is that your blog?
Look if you want to discuss Eph 1 you have to start a new thread. There have been many discussions on other threads on Eph 1. I'm not really looking forward of discussing it again, because it has led nowhere.
So free will isn't a illusion?
But Jesus died for the sins of the whole world. He exorts sinners to turn, repent and be saved. If this is His will, then it is a contradiction to believe that He would predestine some to hell.
Yes but calvinism has it that God is more than an observer, but that he is calling the plays before they happen. In Calvinism, Gods sovereign will is always operating and free will is rather dubious to reconcile for the outside observers.
No, Probably Terry Bradshaw or Joe Namath...Possibly Tim TebowIs the other guy who knows what will happen Bill Belichick?
Well here’s a comment. You made an assertion without evidence and then repeated not once but twice.
Pony up with your evidence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?