Let's discuss the differing views of Biblical Election

True, it was a title often used in reference to a Jew.

Surely you are not denying that I believe this, are you? After all, my view reveals a great love of God for all individuals rather than the 'select few' of your system.

Have you been fully adopted yet? According to Paul in Romans 8 we await our adoption. We, believers, have been predestined to BE ADOPTED but how does that prove you individually were predestined to believe?

No, it says he has chosen US (believers) to be holy and blameless. It says nothing about choosing some to be believers. That is something Calvinists read into the text. It never actually says that.

Right, individuals who believe. And those who believe will be (1) sealed by his Spirit (2) conformed to Christs image and (3) adopted as His child, according to his predetermined plan.

What many fail to see is that the major issue of that day was the concept that non-Jews could be saved through faith. If we heard a NEW doctrine today wouldn't we attack it and be very suspicious of it? That is what is happening to Paul, and a part of his defense is to point to the fact that this has been God's plan all along. This is not NEW because God predetermined to adopt whosoever believes, EVEN NON-JEWS. That is what Paul is arguing here.

 

I can understand that, but please note that is not the point I brought up. I know and have acknowledged that Cals don't believe people are wanting in and being turned away at the door.

Enough said. There should be no objection then to my use of the same word. And there certainly shouldn't be accusation of ad hominem.

And did I not acknowledge in my replies that the number of those saved is many, but that still is a relative few in comparison to those not saved? Yet, did not the accusations continue to the neglect of the topic presented?

 

What a well thought out and thorough argument. I didn't know that all we needed to do was deem others views as "wrong" so as to dismiss them and move on. And here I thought we actually needed to address the actual claims and make sound arguments. :smilewinkgrin:

I could have posted links to Adam Clarke, AW Tozer, or some other known old dead scholar that speaks in Old English so as to make their concepts sound more intelligent, but I figured this link would be more likely read and understood.

Cals often refer to the verse "Many are called but few are chosen" in support of their view of election. Do you deny this?

 

:wavey: Thanks quantum!

 

It was just a joke.

An individual's rational is what makes them an individual and truly autonomous. The alternative is that God made KJVO adherents purposely less rational so as to make them unable to do otherwise, which is truly unreasonable.

The fact that you THINK I have denied that there are reasons, motives, thoughts and intents only once again reveals you have yet to engage with our actual view. We openly affirm such influences, but we just deny their determinative nature...(i.e. John Doe rejected God because his God given nature was created so it could not do otherwise). A chooser determines his choice. This is the difference between self-determination, versus divine-determiniation of all things. However, don't forget that our view acknowledges it was God's determination to allow for self-determiniation, so spare us the accusations about God not having any power.

Kind of like the flat earthers reasoning years ago...

Question beg much?

Discerner or determiner?

As apposed to because God made some less corrupt? What exactly do you think this argument is avoiding Aaron?

Oh, is that how you define God's choice to save you? Was that 'willy nilly' and 'random' too? :love2:

And you're like a flat earther that thinks everything must be in accordance with what is seen and measured by human ability.


I look forward to your full explanation as to how God's choices are determined.

 

Our view is that GOD chose to create free moral creatures, not that WE created them so spare us this non-sense.

And he created us in his image and DIFFERENT from the animals who make choices determined by instinct. You're view of man's moral and reasoned determinations has no real distinction from animal instinct.

 

Maybe but I'm not the one arguing that God's predetermined level of wisdom dictates what choices he will make, are you?

In my view, wisdom, which can grow or diminish based on previous choices, circumstances etc, which can influence how one chooses, but the person as whole is the one who make the choice, not just some divinely predetermined quality about that person.

Can't escape what? The Determinism you presume upon an infinite God based upon your finite logic? Yeah, that is a tough one to let go of...:smilewinkgrin:

:laugh:

Anyone who presumes the premise up for debate must be accepted is question begging. How else should I interpret your "you can't escape it" accusations, Aaron?

If my argument over and over was, "You can't escape free will, it is like gravity." You would be right to label it Question Begging because that is what it is and its the lowest form of debate. Very elementary. I'm pressing you to do better.

Apparently not, but whose fault is that? I'm just doing as God determined.

So, God is discerning that which he determined. Interesting.

I noticed that you didn't explain how God determined his choice to save you. It must have been willy nilly and random, right?

 

Depends upon how long God has predetermined me to kick against them I suppose. :sleep:

I dug? Or the one God dug through secondary causes? Stop giving me so much credit for all the stuff God is doing and be consistent.

How do you like debating with God? After all, my stubborn and other inferior qualities (predetermined by God) have clearly predisposed me to disagree with you and debate you, so in reality you are debating God. How are you doing? Oh wait, you are actually only doing what God predetermined you to do as well, so really God is debating himself here. I wonder who will win?

I can't wait to see how God is going to beat himself in this debate! :laugh: