Dispensationalism and the Doctrine of Election

There's a word for this, but I can't remember it. It's one of the pre-Nicene heresies. Christ was God but not fully God. I hope you don't really believe that.

 

Lance Ketchum

You have stated several times that election is vocational, not salvational.

It seems to me that scriptue teaches it is both. To be elected to salvation is to be elected to be comformed to the image of His Son and to do good works, the very works God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. You seem to be making a distinction when there is no difference.

As to your statement that God foresaw who would believe in Christ and based His election of them on that knowledge I will say this.

If God is responding to what men do, then Grace is not Grace (unmerited favor). Men have earned God's election of them (vocationally or salvifically), because God is responding to what they do.

If men respond to what God has done in their lives (according to His will and His purpose), then God has shown Grace.

peace to youraying:

 

Doctor,

I want all to read the post you gave above. I want others to read how you misuse the theological principles of Biblical hermeneuticsc to make it fit your thinking. I tell you one thing, you act is if this idea would be backed by Scofield, but Scofield would be upset the way you have wrote this.

But lets play ago with this silly idea. Please notice what the good Doc says....

From the link given by the doctor

It should 1st be noted that this is not the 1st time the word is used. The word is 1st used in Gen 6.

2nd, even before this the idea of election is given in Gen 4.

God had regard for Abel's offering
God had no regrad for Cain's offering

Who made this choice? It was God. This is election.

Could God have taken the fruit from Cain and say thanks for the offering? Yes

Did God? No

No doubt, Cain brought the very best of the fruit to God. Did Cain know before hand that it must be a blood offering? We are not told if he knew. So why not take the fruit and then ask for the blood as well? Well...it was God that choose to reject Cains offering.

Hebrews tells us that it was because of faith...

Hebrews 11:4
By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks.

Pink says...

**********
Now lets look at the "Principle of First Mention"

PFM is the idea that when God indicates in the first mention of a subject the truth found in that passage gives true meaning of the subject.

So how do we use this?

Well..lets not forget the the Golden Rule of Hermeneutics

"If the Plain Sense Makes Common Sense, Seek No Other Sense.

If a passage meaning is given we NEVER NEVER need to use the PFM. To use it only misuses the principle and places more rule on the PFM then the context of the passage.

Many passage could be given to show why we should never do this, but I'll save that for another time.

************
Next we need to see it is when GOD first mentions the truth. We must remember this for it is God that reveals the truth. Therefore if it is the first mention that rules, we must understand when the first mention of the truth to mankind is.

So...we must go by the chronological order of revealed truth to man by God and not the order of the books which man has placed them in the Bible

Job is the 1st book given to man and written down that is found in the Bible.

Check out Job 33...

T
**********

12Behold, in this thou art not just: I will answer thee, that God is greater than man.

13Why dost thou strive against him? for he giveth not account of any of his matters.

14For God speaketh once, yea twice, yet man perceiveth it not.

15In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed;

U
*********
16Then he openeth the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction,

17That he may withdraw man from his purpose, and hide pride from man.

18He keepeth back his soul from the pit, and his life from perishing by the sword.

19He is chastened also with pain upon his bed, and the multitude of his bones with strong pain:

20So that his life abhorreth bread, and his soul dainty meat.

21His flesh is consumed away, that it cannot be seen; and his bones that were not seen stick out.

22Yea, his soul draweth near unto the grave, and his life to the destroyers.

L
**********
23If there be a messenger (Christ) with him, an interpreter,(Holy Spirit) one among a thousand, to shew unto man his uprightness:

24Then he (god the Father) is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit: I have found a ransom. (atonement)

I
***************
25His flesh shall be fresher than a child's: he shall return to the days of his youth:

26He shall pray unto God, and he will be favourable unto him: and he shall see his face with joy: for he will render unto man his righteousness.

27He looketh upon men, and if any say, I have sinned, and perverted that which was right, and it profited me not;


P
*********

28He will deliver his soul from going into the pit, and his life shall see the light.

29Lo, all these things worketh God oftentimes with man,

30To bring back his soul from the pit, to be enlightened with the light of the living.
*****************

Now lets look at your verse...

You said Numbers 16:4, but I'm sure you meant 16:5


Num 16:4 ¶ And when Moses heard [it], he fell upon his face:


Num 16:5 And he spake unto Korah and unto all his company, saying, Even to morrow the LORD will shew who [are] his, and [who is] holy; and will cause [him] to come near unto him: even [him] whom he hath chosen will he cause to come near unto him.

Please note that this verse does indeed show it is Gods choice and it was priesthood. However it does not replace the fact found in this verse...

Isa 43:10 Ye [are] my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I [am] he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Chosen to believe in God.

 

Dispen. and the Doct. of Election

"nd, even before this the idea of election is given in Gen 4.

God had regard for Abel's offering
God had no regrad for Cain's offering"

I am so thrilled that you point out the ideas of the scripture.
Here's one I have posted many times and I am so happy that you have at least set a foundational position for it.

God "drove" Adam from the garden. Adam was choosing to stay. You don't have to "drive" someone who does not have a will. The first use of the will of man after the fall. He wanted to stay where he knew God was.

Bartimaeus

 

OK, so he edits his book to say "first use in connection with God choosing." No big whoop!

It was Cain who CHOSE, James. God laid the rule down -- Cain chose to disobey. Otherwise Cain would have been "chosen" as well as Abel -- just like when we choose Christ.

No, because He would have had to make Himself a liar.

Perfect example of men choosing God -- even of a rudimntary "sinner's prayer -- not in any way of God choosing man! Perhaps this is a concept that aludes you?
You said Numbers 16:4, but I'm sure you meant 16:5

That is, to service, just as the good doctor said.

"Witnessing" is also service, James. And furthermore, the passage speaks of Israel being called to this service of "witnesses."

You're not "scoring any points" here, James.

skypair

 

I was responding to what you have said on this board, and I notice you did not address my comments directly.

I almost never follow links given in threads, especially if they are to websites of the BB member.

Nothing personal, I simply find it unseemly to link to yourself as a source or authority. I can't imagine there is anything on your website that you cannot say here.

It may save you time for me to link to your website. That, however, is not one of the reason I post on this board.

peace to youraying:

 

Jarthur001, I appreciate your taking the time to search through Dr. K's website and expose the errors of his methodology.

It always seem the one who accuses everyone else of lacking expertise in understanding the Word of God, are themselves floating in a sea of self-deception.

peace to youraying:

 

If you were just a little more familiar with scripture, you would know that the 'servant' that God chose in that verse is ISRAEL. As a matter of fact, Jesus, in His "kingdom of heaven" parables to the Jews (Matthew is addressed primarily to the Jews), always uses "servants" when He is speaking of ISRAEL in those parables.

But you should first have been alerted to that because God equates "My witnesses" (pl) with "My servant" (sing) showing that they are the same one people, ISRAEL. Again "chosen" or "elected," if you must, to His purpose which is to know and believe and understand Me. God didn't save all Israel, all these people Isaiah was talking to, did He?

This is also where Israel comes up with the idea that they will be the "suffering servant" to bring the world to salvation in God, BTW.

skypair

 

If you understood scripture a little better, you would know that Israel means the "One who wrestles (or strives) with God".

You would also know that Paul addresses this very issue, making the point that God considers those He has chosen among the Gentiles to be included in His Israel and that many who are Jews by birth are not considered to be among His Israel.

You would then come to the inescapable conclusion that God does not have a separate plan for "national Israel", but that God has joined those He has chosen from among the Jews and those He has chosen among the Gentiles to comprise His "ONE" people, His chosen, His elect, the Body of Christ, the Temple of Christ, the Bride of Christ. God has placed both Jews and Gentiles together as part of His church.

And what God has bound together, no man can tear asunder.....unless he doesn't understand scripture very well.

peace to youraying:

 

Not until they can be "properly deprogramed" they won't.

skypair

 

Leaving aside your "one people" error -- then you have decided that "election" IS to service or purpose and not to salvation? You don't appear to be denying that issue. Have you changed your mind?

skypair

 

Lanc,

Have you considered equating 'election' with 'sanctification,' "setting aside?"

It seems to me that the saved are set aside/elect for a purpose but not the same purposes for which God sets aside Israel or the brazen altar, etc.

skypair

 

I find it unseemly, and somewhat arrogant, to link to yourself as a source or authority. You have not proven yourself to be an authority on this subject, in my view anyway.

I commented on what you have posted on this board. You, again, have not addressed my comments. It must be that you cannot answer.

You are not laying a good foundation as an authority on this issue when you can't answer questions directly.

I don't care how much you write. Just write it here on the BB. You obviously know how to use a computer.

The passage is not referring to a "sin offering". God is warning Cain. God personifies sin in the passage as someone ready to overpower and rule Cain through his anger. That cannot be referring to a "sin offering".

I criticized your "methodology" based on your statements on this board concerning the "golden rule of hermenutics" and your statement that the first use of a word determines its meaning throughout scripture.

Neither statement lays a solid foundation of hermenutics. The golden rule of hermenutics is that context determines meaning. "Any text out of context is a pretext for a prooftext" (D.A. Carson)

Since context determines meaning, your second statement concerning first use is plainly flawed.

I know of no serious scholar that does not acknoweldge the wide range of semantic meaning of words, according to use at the time of the writing.

To assume that Moses's first use of a word like "chose" (in Hebrew) determines every meaning of the word, through various authors and over many centuries, is plainly flawed.

BTW: As JArthur pointed out above, you can't even accurately find the first use of the word you claim determines the meaning for the rest of scripture. You built your entire argument on a mistake. How embarassing.

How embarassing for a man claiming to be a scholar and arrogantly declaring that others don't know what they are talking about, to make an error common to lazy freshmen.

If you are making so many errors here, where we babes in Christ only desire milk and cookies, I can only imagine the horror and embarassment (for you) that I will find should I follow the link. No thank you.

If that is the best you can do when "trying to be kind", you don't do "kind" very well. Nevertheless...

peace to youraying:

 

If you would have read the post that Dr. K won't answer, you would know the answer.

peace to youraying:

 

You continue to read into words meanings that support your theology. That is not a good foundation to lay for someone wanting to present themselves as an expert on an issue.

peace to youraying: