Are words of life meant for only those already living?

Hi Larry;
I must have missed it.
Mike

 

You will note in verse 11 that "he came to his own (His ELECT) and his own did not accept him, BUT there were some who did accept him, the initial number was 11 of them, to them gave he the power to become children of God. Then to all who believed he gave the same power. They through believing in HIM, were "BORN AGAIN" not from human stock or desire, (see John 3) and they did not will it for themselves (not of yourselves it is the gift of God) Will what? Being "born again" that truly is performed by God in man, all that man contributes is FAITH in God, and FAITH (believing) comes FIRST as noted in verses 12 and 13!

 

You will note in verse 11 that the words "his elect" are not in there. You have added to Scriputre in order to justify your doctrine. You have made no case that "elect" should be understood there, especially "elect to salvation." In fact, when you study the context, it is very clear that he is referring to the Jews, not the elect to salvation.

So long as you add to Scripture you will not find the truth. The text indicates that spiritual birth into the family of God does not come by the will of man. That is in direct contradiction to your teaching, and your explanations will not change that.

 

I have added nothing to the scripture Larry.

Is it not true that what you have as "your own" is your elect? Do you have someone elses "elect"? That which you cherish is that which you choose to cherish! It is only coincidence when you cherish that which others cherish.

Did Jesus not create the world, including MAN? Did Jesus not choose the Jews to be his "elect", do scriptures not declare the Jews to be God's "cherished" people?.

"his own" means "his elect" All through the Old testament, the Jews are God's elect, Jesus is God the Son!

 

The Jews were God's elect nation in the OT, and are still God's elect nation, whom he will one day bring to repentance and restoration. But it is clear from reading the NT that "elect" takes on a different meaning, that of individuals chosen to salvation from the beginning. It is very hard to miss that. In fact, you can only miss that be being so committed to a position that you will ignore Scripture to get there.

"Elect" does not always mean the same thing in Scripture. IT is easy to see that.

 

Hi Larry;
So what's the big deal here anyway. His own, are all He has according to Calvinist. Satan has the rest. If they were His own they had to be His elect they could not be His unless they were. Unless you have some other ownership in mind if so, what would that be? The Bible says they were His own. Are you denying scripture says they were His ? and by that very fact they were His they had to be His elect? Otherwise they weren't His.
May God Bless you;
Mike.
P.S.
There is no individual election Calvinist and others have not proven there is. All we have is your word. No scripture says that we are elected individually.

Talk about Israel being God's chosen people. This choosing was unto Salvation.
Besides this The whole nation didn't reject Christ only some of them did.

[ December 18, 2004, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: ILUVLIGHT ]

 

The big deal of the thread was that the Word is what the Spirit uses to give life.

As for election, choosing "you to salvation" is pesonal. God doesn't save in groups. He saves individuals. They are his own. '

Israel as "elect" is a completely different subject. Don't let the use of the same word confuse you. The two are analogical, not identical.

 

Hi Larry;
You didn't show scripture to support individual election. You didn't show any for it on my thread about it either so when you mentioned it here I just thought I'd ask again.
May God Bless;
Mike

 

Skan,

The difference I would have with your view is that I see salvation being brought about by the word and Spirit and not the word "only"(I Thes. 1:5). While the word is the means, the unseen work of the Spirit is what "opens" the heart in order to heed the spoken "words"(Acts 16:14). Hope this helps.


P.S. Just curious, when you pray for a person's salvation. Given your view, how does God go about to accomplish that?

In Christ...

 

Is it not true in the Old Testament that gentiles who, of themselves, took up the "faith of Israel" were accounted as Jews, thus making them "Of the elect"? Why does that not carry forward into the New Testament? Those who believe in the Christ BECOME through their belief, CHRISTIAN! Thus, they become "of the elect", and would in the same right be called "THE ELECT"!

 

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, Born is "were" ... past tense. It gives clear evidence that the birth precedes the rest. And it has the added benefit of making sense theologically.

When will you stop misrepresenting Calvinism? This is dead wrong and it has been explained before. In calvinism, there is plenty of room from man's response. That response, 100% of the time is to reject God. That is a response even if you don't like it. Until God is at work, man will always respond by rejection. Punishment and judgment is not only not nonsensical; it is the only thing that makes any sense. Man is responsible because he willfully and of his free will rejects God.

Why? Dogs aren't made in man's image. Dogs haven't sinned against God. Dogs haven't rejected God.

It is discussed ... The Holy Spirit illuminates the mind and gives understanding through the preached word. As Christ said, it is like the wind. We don't know where it comes from or where it is going. But we know that it works because we see it. Why do we need more explanation than the words of Christ?

 

Yes, what is there to explain? I am not sure what is confusing about that? Before a child comes into existence, he has no rights as a child. And a child doesn't come into existence by his own desire.

 

No, not true. They were still proselytes with restrictions.

Because it wasn't true int eh OT.

That is true.

That is not The Bible never talks about someone becoming the elect through their faith. BTW, I haven't forgotten that I asksed you to support that with Scripture and you haven't done it. The reason is because you won't find it in Scripture. Scriputre never says anything about becoming elect through faith. Election was in the beginning, before the foundation of hte world, not as a result of faith.

 

No, not true. They were still proselytes with restrictions.</font>[/QUOTE]"Proselyte" is merely a distinction of how it came to be, not a limitation on it's validity. Any restrictions were merely "National" in essence and not part of the "faith".

 

Skandelon,

For clarification, are you saying that the Spirit is "guiding and encouraging" distinct from the Word?
Or are you saying that the Spirit just made the Word and "it"(the word) guides and encourages, thus equating the Word with the Spirit? In other words, in a practical sense, the word and the spirit are the same as far as spiritual influence.

My point was that Paul was saying that the Gospel came not in word "only"(1 Thes. 1:5). This seems to be exactly your position. The Spirit applies no personal power but rather the words alone are sufficient to bear upon a fallen mans mind. Paul said it came not in word "only" but in the Spirit also, which is what I am affirming.

Saying it does not mention how God opened her heart is to beg the question. God "is" the one who opens peoples hearts to respond to the truth in "distinction" from the words spoken, as examplified by Lydia. You seem to imply that the "opening" of her heart had nothing to do with the gospel message. However, this seems unlikely given the fact that she was Baptized immediately after.