Early Church Dads And Reformers ...

Allan.

Do you contend that every time you see a person as elect...

Election, the word itself, is used of the saved alone. If you want to introduce Jesus into this then explain: All fall short of the glory of God. I know full well that elect means chosen.

Since God chose those that go to Hell then He elects them for that but the word elect is never used for them.

As you said: 3) choice, select, i.e. the best of its kind or class, excellence preeminent: applied to certain individual Christians

Where's the argument?


john.

 

Jesus also was elect/chosen. So was He ordained to salvation as well?
If not, then explain how elect is always used for salvation and yet Jesus is called elect. If you are contending #3 then you are also affirming that Elect can also be for purpose and NOT salvation alone.

Is Jesus in need of being saved since elect is used for the saved alone or is Jesus the best of a group illistrating purpose?

BTW - The word 'elect' is used in many translations, just as the word 'chose' is used by more than the NIV.

 

Allan.

I've already told you that the NIV has chosen not elect. When the word 'elect' is used it is in regard to the saints. I know 'chosen' means 'elect' but 'elect' as a word is reserved for the saints.

...applied to certain individual Christians Is not an endorsement of anything but ...applied to certain individual Christians as you said.
The rest of the definition has more to do with meat and veg rather than people since we were all one lump there's nothing to chose between itself.

The only purpose I find in connection with election is God's purpose, His purpose in election. Just to show that He can. This is God's purpose in election: before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad Just to show that He can send men to Hell just because. Do you say He can't?

john.

 

Where does it get you if I say that we are elected for a purpose? To worship God forever and to be Royal Priests and to show God's purpose in election?

Did Bush get elected to office? Election has a meaning and that meaning you are trying to confuse. You live in a democracy you know what election means.

john.

 

Yes, it means there people have a will and purpose so to elect someone there are conditions that electee must meet according to the will and purpose of the people. And Electee steps forth agreeing to meet those conditions and based upon the one the people beleive will keep to that - THey elect!

 

No, Scripture says just that! And that is you stand out on your theological limb with only a handfull of others.

That passage has nothing to due with salvation but to His purpose concerning Israel and it's Messaih through whom He would come.

 

Cool man. When the branch is as thin as this it won't take much weight. Safety in numbers is a bad stratergy. Just shows how God is judging the world to me.

AM 8:11 "The days are coming," declares the Sovereign LORD, "when I will send a famine through the land-- not a famine of food or a thirst for water, but a famine of hearing the words of the LORD.

He talks of the twins. Was Israel twinned with Edom?

john.

 

AGAIN, they are figure heads of their people (fuedal heads) and representive of them.

It can't get much clearer than the plain reading of the text. Stick with context, John context is key.

Now you tell me, (since you have not answered my own question.)
When was Esau EVER Jacobs servent, as scritpure states :

Scripture establishes clearly that these two are representives of nations each will bring forth and each nation will be similar to their originator (father).

 

We need to get back to the thread at hand.

 

He and John Gill, give the mistaken notion that just because an early church "father" (MOST OF WHOM HE QUOTES ARE ROMAN CATHOLIC) USED language that not even Arminians or Non Calvinists disagree with, that such somehow supports the early presence of Calvinist thought.

Predestination, even though it is only used twice in Scripture, is a Biblical term. Election is a Biblical term. We Non Cals do not have a problem with those terms in the Bible. What we DO have a problem with is how they are defined by Calvinism, as well as the lack of support for such definitions in history. Just because an early church leader quoted the TERM, does not mean that their view on that term is the same as how it is defined by contemporary Calvinism.

The burden of proof is still on the Calvinist to show that such Biblical terms as are currently espoused to by Calvinists/Reformers have any historical support before Augustine, and of which are derived from sources that they themselves would not now consider heretical.

 

Notice the trickery of posting quotes of men who merely stated what ALL OF US believe about mans innate sinfulness, and lining them next to quotes from Augustine that Calvin relied on to define inability. What MOST of these early church leaders stated about "depravity" is NOT THE SAME as it was defined by Augustine or Calvin. Thus to line them up together under one heading to give the appearance that they all held to the same views is blatantly dishonest.

And of course let's not forget that Augustine held to the same view as Calvin when it came to persecuting and MURDERING "heretics".

 

You can post your out of context quotes on this thread, and I'll post their quotes that prove they did not share Calvinist views on THIS THREAD.

 

Rippon, I am not going to wade deeply into the conversation, because frankly, I am lost in the weeds. However, I do KNOW you to "rip" on people for any mention (attack) of J. Cauvin regarding the Servetus issue and "rip further" on them about proper sources. Seems to me that Allan is asking the very same of you here.

 

I would certainly agree with that statement about Luther

 

And almost every patristic and early church father believed in baptismal regeneration. They also believed that sin after baptism resulted in an unrecoverable fall from grace. The early church was inconsistent and prone to extremes.

 

Thank you for confirming stuff I dug out myself through investigation. So that does it for credibility of these guys.:smilewinkgrin:

 

We actually owe them a debt of gratitude. The early church faced divers persecution and heresies spawned from the pit of hell. In a real sense they were fighting for their very lives. The lessons they gave in true piety serves Christians well today. By the time the Reformation occurred Christianity was well established. The entire impetus of the Reformation was doctrinal.

 

As are we today as well.