Lost persons are unsaved, so would be on the high way to hell....You're hard put to separate 'lost' from 'lost sheep' in the gospels. No where that I'm aware does 'lost' equate to 'hell bound'.
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Lost persons are unsaved, so would be on the high way to hell....You're hard put to separate 'lost' from 'lost sheep' in the gospels. No where that I'm aware does 'lost' equate to 'hell bound'.
Are you saying that none of the 3000 saved at preaching by peter were born again? How can one be saved and not be born again?The text does not say they were born again.
You cannot produce a text in Acts saying anyone was born again. That is the same as your suggestion about election.
ALL theology is due to human reasoning and understanding, since none of us here are Apostles, but Calvinism rightly understood explains the Gospel in the best way that we can currently do it this side of heaven.The very nature of the disagreement (not the mere presence of the disagreement) among Calvinists is a fitting illustration of the fact that Calvinism is a human philosophy. I'm a former Calvinist who read the scriptures for years with those philosophical lenses until I was taught to let the Bible define its own terms, my friends.
Your view is not how Corporate Election has traditionally been understood, as its how reformed stated it as being held!Oh. My point is that while some will hold that corporate election excludes individual election most of these are people who hold one view at exclusion of the other.
Scripture speaks of God corporately choosing (electing) a nation and a people. Spurgeon (apparently another Calvinist @Iconoclast has not encountered) very strongly supported the Church as corporately elected (or chosen) as God's particular possession (in the sermon "Choice Portions").
My view is God chooses both a people and people (a flock and sheep). The Church is God's chosen people (God's Elect) which is made up of people who can look back at their election (as @Reformed states, their "call") as God choosing them. It is both a belonging to a larger group and individually personal.
That's how I view it anyway.
Lost persons are unsaved
so would be on the high way to hell....
I am referring to non elected lost, you seem to mean the elect lost!k.
Are 'vessels of mercy afore prepared unto glory' ever truly bound for hell? No. They're 'lost sheep'.
Here is one view:Your view is not how Corporate Election has traditionally been understood, as its how reformed stated it as being held!
I am referring to non elected lost, you seem to mean the elect lost!
You're hard put to separate 'lost' from 'lost sheep' in the gospels. No where that I'm aware does 'lost' equate to 'non-elect' or 'hell bound'.
But, to hoi polloi, 'saved' means bound for heaven and 'lost' means bound for hell.
I think that God chooses individuals that will make up His corporate Body, disagreement is when does He choose us and on what basis does he choose?Here is one view:
"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 (he claims) which one must view the references to election in the New Testament. Supporters of the corporate view of election point to the New Testament language that explicitly discusses election, which they say is always corporate. One scholar says "one will look in vain for an overt use of the language of election unto salvation in reference to an individual."
I think that is what you are talking about. The problem is there are many on all sides that view election as corporate and individual as well.
I never claimed to hold a Reformed or Arminian (the view I presented is one type of Arminian view) position.
I think that Scripture most often speaks of corporate election. I can understand the reasoning people deny individual election, but it seems that denying corporate election is a direct denial of Scripture.
I believe God elects corporately (God has chosen a people, plural) and individual (looking back, I can say that God chose me before the foundation of the earth).
All of us were goats before any of us became sheep!Again:
No, this is incorrect. Foreknew is not a foreknowledge as in foresight. This is your big error in this theological matter. You redefine the word.No, All the verses that mention predestination are about a saved man getting predestinated, according to the foreknowledge of God, unto standing before God in love and holiness and obtaining a glorified resurrection body in the image of Christ's resurrection body:
Those whom God foreknew he predestined would refer to God knowing them in same way knew saved Israel, as those in a covenant relationship to come with Him..... He directly caused and brought to pass that relationship, he chose us to be in Christ regardless of our state at that time.No, this is incorrect. Foreknew is not a foreknowledge as in foresight. This is your big error in this theological matter. You redefine the word.
I know what Reformed means by using the term corporate election when viewed through the biblical language of the local church builded together as the habitation of God.Now you have.
Why do you believe @Reformed beleif that election is both corporate and individual is so preposterous and unbiblical?
It makes sense to me. If the Church (the "elect") is not God's chosen people, if God truly has no Elect, but deals with people individually only then how do you explain the "Bride" or what has been discussed as the "Church" in terms of Reformed theology?
Yes David,this is a growing root error prevalent in our day. It leads to several sister errors.No, this is incorrect. Foreknew is not a foreknowledge as in foresight. This is your big error in this theological matter. You redefine the word.
No, this is incorrect. Foreknew is not a foreknowledge as in foresight. This is your big error in this theological matter. You redefine the word.
Look up the Greek George. The word does not mean foresight.A) God can't foreknow, in the sense of intimate salvific knowledge, people who are not in Christ and un-redeemed sinners. You talk about an "error in this theological matter".
B) I had already answered you in another thread by showing that God's foreknowledge in the Bible is just foresight:
Acts 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
And those works include the wicked which God has made:
Pro 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
Put the 2 verses together and you have God foreknowing (foresight) the wicked.
The problem you dear brethren have is that you have INFUSED Bible words with a theologically external connotation.
You're hard put to separate 'lost' from 'lost sheep' in the gospels. No where that I'm aware does 'lost' equate to 'non-elect' or 'hell bound'.
But, to hoi polloi, 'saved' means bound for heaven and 'lost' means bound for hell.
except that we are giving the term the meaning given by regarded greek lexicons....A) God can't foreknow, in the sense of intimate salvific knowledge, people who are not in Christ and un-redeemed sinners. You talk about an "error in this theological matter".
B) I had already answered you in another thread by showing that God's foreknowledge in the Bible is just foresight:
Acts 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
And those works include the wicked which God has made:
Pro 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
Put the 2 verses together and you have God foreknowing (foresight) the wicked.
The problem you dear brethren have is that you have INFUSED Bible words with a theologically external connotation.
Think a problem is that while all of us are lost sinners by our physical birth into likeness of Adam, as fallen sinners, we who will get saved are still in the same spiritual condition until we actually experience being reborn again, even though God views us as already in the Beloved....Pardon, mon ami. Perhaps my choice of words or grammar needs to be tightened up a bit. Allow me a riposte.
1. Those who are not elect are the same as those who will not place their faith in Christ. They are salvifically lost. They may be able to find their way to their favorite Thai restaurant by GPS but they will never find their way to eternal life.
2. Those that are elect, but have not yet come to faith in Christ, are not lost salvifically, they have yet to be called in-time. Paul had some harsh words for this group (including himself) prior to their faith in Christ. He called them "children of wrath" (Ephesians 1:3). That is not really courteous language for those who were predestined for salvation, but Paul used that type of language anyway. So, yes, I believe there is a difference between the eternally lost and lost sheep. I accept your humble and gracious correction.
Now, as far as calling those in point #2 "lost", I will concede they are not lost in the mind of God. Practically speaking, we have no idea who is elect and who is not. It is not our place to know. We should not even try to know. Theologically, I know that only the Elect will come to faith in Christ. However, lacking perfect knowledge all I can do, all any of us can do is to proclaim Christ as the Holy Spirit gives opportunity.
I hope that explanation helps.
The Church is God's chosen people (God's Elect) which is made up of people who can look back at their election (as @Reformed states, their "call") as God choosing them.