As a Reformed Baptist I'm pretty sure my comments won't be appreciated. Once I saw where the thread was going I knew it was time for me to bow out. I am reading it though with great interest.
The Corporate View of Election
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Skandelon, Jun 27, 2012.
Page 2 of 3
-
-
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
You might enjoy this;
http://www.founders.org/library/dagg_vol1/bk7c4.html#sec1
Many of us here enjoy the biblical view of election. God elects individual sinners and puts them together as a habitation of God Himself.
Peter speaks of each individual as living stones, built together into a Holy temple.
Many of us agree with the historic faith.:thumbs::wavey: -
-
Is it foolishness to them because:
1. They deemed it to be foolish by their own free choice, they 'traded the truth in for lies,' and 'refused to love the truth so as to be saved?' (ref Rm 1, 2 Thess 2)
or
2. Because God punished them with a totally depraved nature from birth due to Adam's Sin and didn't love them salvifically thus leaving them hopeless from birth? (ref Calvin's Institutes)
I don't see where this passage provides any answer to that question. I only see you reading your answer into that passage.
Where does this passage tell us that those called were called irresistibly? Is that an argument from silence simply because he refers to those who respond as being called? We call Army recruits, "Recruits," but does that mean those are the only ones the Army attempted to recruit? Again, nothing here supports your view unless you read something into it.
Enough for now...getting too long. -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
2]then are you suggesting that God made them to be all these things before deciding to elect them? [ No one suggests that at all.No one thinks that way,except you]
3]How does that work? Doesn't God always know how they are going to act? Please explain[/QUOTE]
[God does not elect based on how man acts} your wrong view of theology has you go off on these tangents...no one is following you. -
ORRRR, people who "humble themselves will be exalted" (ding, ding, ding) -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Carnal reasoning. -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
:laugh::laugh::laugh: I will give you this one webdog.....as I cannot prove this for certain....he could have other reasons or motives:thumbsup: -
...and really...how can you understand deep systematic theology when an elementary, trivial duty like using the quote feature properly escapes you? Its irritating having to go back and edit it correctly. -
Some folks play trivial pursuit.
Some folks pursue the trivial. -
-
Perhaps just too old and/or busy to worry about things of little worth or importance.
-
At any rate, not sure how this concerns you. -
HeirofSalvation Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Here is what I am getting so far....and anyone who knows more please chime in...There seem to be 4 possible camps:
1.) "Election" is properly understood as Primarily Corporate and secondarily (really by a default virtue of the former) individual
2.) "Election" is properly understood as Primarily Individual, and if some of us non-Cal heretics wanna yack about some kind of ethereal secondary "Corporate" perspective as well, just to make ourselves feel better...then we can knock ourselves out.
3.) Both are equally true and of relatively equal importance.
4.) Corporate Election is bogus....
This is actually a serious question...does that kind of sum-up the status? I (at least) am open for some pro-and-con lecturing. That is if you are actually familiar with it, and not merely brainwashed against the very notion of it...as no one on this board is of course. ;)
Someone mentioned earlier (I think) or in some reading I was researching about how the Orthodox Churches seemed to have held primarily to a "Corporate" perspective without issue for ages. Is this so?
O.K. Last question.....:smilewinkgrin: This seems to be more of a "perspective" than a "doctrine" per se...it seems to me that this is compatible with just about any school of thought out there, even if it lends itself to some better than others. It seems to be consistent with just about all of them. True? I consider myself ostensibly Arminian...and a Molinist on the side...and it seems consistent enough with what I think. On it's face....this doesn't seem strictly inconsistent even with Calvinism...Thoughts? -
HOS,
I don't think you'll find any Calvinists who says election is not often Corporate in the Bible (Israel & Church, etc). They (we) would also say that it is ALSO individual. Skan might say this too, but that individual election is based on a person's individual faith (he can corrrect me if I'm wrong).
A cal (me) might also point out that even in the OT, where Israel is clearly the "elect" people of God...there were many other "non-elect" nations who were not given the revelation of God. Did God not give those foreign peoples an opportunity to believe in the true God and become the elect? -
-
-
Besides, entire nations were approached before the Israelites expanded their territorites which put's a crimp on individual election as well.
Page 2 of 3