[Title change]: The unity of Christ to the Body (the Church)

[cyberjosh]

Re: The head (Jesus) cannot say to the feet "I don't need you"?

I used that phrase on purpose to illustrate how unwise it is to transfer the meanings of the elements of one parable onto another. It also completely ties in with what you want to discuss. The leaven here seems to me to be the words of Christ. The parable shows how the kingdom of God is the rule of Christ over the individual person, submitted to his headship. It goes beyond the church to effect those outside the church and lifts the entire community to believe. The church is not a local assembly that meets in a building, but it is any and all believers united under the headship of Christ, bound together by love and dedicated to good works and faith in his promises.

Ah, I see...

I never said it was never used as an anatomical metaphor, either. I agree here the head is Christ and as head of the body here, the metaphor refers to the function of the head to direct and lead, to be the eyes and ears that watch over the care and feeding of the body. I am not saying that the body/head analogy is not a useful simile. It is. As you say, let’s discuss that and not dwell on the unsubstantiated inferences of Christ not being able to say he doesn’t need the body. I think you agree that he doesn’t. He does love and nourish it and gave his life for it. We agree on that. We’re happy.

Yes I do think we could agree on that, although the passage in Corinthians could stand some more exegesis (as to whether the anatomical references have any distinct significance of their own), however perhaps for another thread...

I do however want to emphasise now that Christ is now our High Priest who can relate to his brethren in a very intimiate way.

His covenant is conditional. He won’t go back on his promise as long as we fulfill our part in the covenant as well. Here are just two of the dozens of examples:

Of course the covenant is conditional, I of all people should know since I've battled against OSAS for years, however there will always be (due to God's promise, not our efforts) a remnant who is faithful. This is the reference I would choose to point to when I mention "the Church" - past, present, and future (as that body of believers will ever remain faithful). Also there is a point in one's personal walk when they can realize that God has called them as elect and have assurance of their salvation (but that's definately another discussion).

Nonetheless, with the qualifications of course, God will never go back on his covenant. It unites him to us a very unique way, especially since he came in the flesh and considers us brethren and even friends. I know of no more intimiate relationship than that of Christ to the believer and the Body as a whole. And granted a genuine salvation one can be assured of their unity with Christ.

The fact that these precious promises are conditional in no way diminishes the worship, honor, and praise that he deserves. He gave his life that we might live with him when there was no way we could have been reconciled other than his perfect substitute for our sin.

Absolutely, and infact Jesus' sacrifice for us increases the amount of praise and honor he deserves because he became lowly that we might be exalted with Him. The promise went to the greatest lengths and will reconcile to the utmost.

I don’t consider you the bad guy, Josh. It was just a bad idea. We all get them and there aren’t many that are honest, forthright and humble enough to admit when he changes his mind about something he has posted. I’m trying to be constructive in my criticism. Although I lack your tact, I don’t think I have said anything that painted you as an evil person trying to deceive the flock, have I? I may have come down hard on that particular aspect of your post but you asked for an honest opinion of the scriptural integrity of it. I actually felt you suspected it was not kosher when you asked for confirmation.

Well actually I meant to further construe my intentions: that I was not out to make a new doctrine (which may lead to heresy) as some people like doing for the "thrill' or "enlightenment" of it (thus not the "bad guy"). I genuinely was trying to view our unity with Christ in a deeper way, and when I ran across a book that interpreted the head as Christ in the Corinthians passage I let my mind run on it to analyze it. The reason I posted my thoughts here is because I hadn't fully made up my mind but was seriously entertaining the implications (which I have now seen can be arrived at aside from that particular interpretation of that verse).

P.S. Do you agree with the jist of my ideas given in my last post of the intimate relationship Christ has with us in virtue of him emptying himself and coming in the flesh, thus giving him a unique experience of being a relatable High Priest since he has partaken of human sufferings? In other words, it was something that would not have been as intimate had Christ not come in the flesh. I think His coming in the flesh has far more (present & eternal) ramifications than most people think of. (See also what I wrote in the 2nd paragraph of my OP)

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[unred typo]

Re: The head (Jesus) cannot say to the feet "I don't need you"?

quote by cybershark5886 :

Nonetheless, with the qualifications of course, God will never go back on his covenant. It unites him to us a very unique way, especially since he came in the flesh and considers us brethren and even friends. I know of no more intimiate relationship than that of Christ to the believer and the Body as a whole. And granted a genuine salvation one can be assured of their unity with Christ.

Our unity and our assurance of salvation must be based on obedience:

John 15:14
You are my friends, if you do whatsoever I command you.

quote by cybershark5886 :
Well actually I meant to further construe my intentions: that I was not out to make a new doctrine (which may lead to heresy) as some people like doing for the "thrill' or "enlightenment" of it (thus not the "bad guy"). I genuinely was trying to view our unity with Christ in a deeper way, and when I ran across a book that interpreted the head as Christ in the Corinthians passage I let my mind run on it to analyze it. The reason I posted my thoughts here is because I hadn't fully made up my mind but was seriously entertaining the implications (which I have now seen can be arrived at aside from that particular interpretation of that verse).

Our unity with Christ is solidified by taking his words and making them our life’s mission. Consider how the hand is connected to the head by obedience to the commands to move where the head directs. If your hand did not respond when your brain gave commands to do it’s work, it would be considered dead, or disconnected. It would be malfunctioning, and not in a normal healthy state of being.

quote by cybershark5886 :
P.S. Do you agree with the jist of my ideas given in my last post of the intimate relationship Christ has with us in virtue of him emptying himself and coming in the flesh, thus giving him a unique experience of being a relatable High Priest since he has partaken of human sufferings? In other words, it was something that would not have been as intimate had Christ not come in the flesh. I think His coming in the flesh has far more (present & eternal) ramifications than most people think of. (See also what I wrote in the 2nd paragraph of my OP)

Sure, I agree. He was in all points tested, as such is as common to man. He is touched by the feeling of our infirmities.

 

[unred typo]

Re: The head (Jesus) cannot say to the feet "I don't need you"?

Josh, you wanted me to go back and comment on your earlier post. I’m not sure if this is what you wanted to rehash or not:

quote by cybershark5886 :
Not to survive, it never specifically elaborated on the nature of the 'need'. Rather since it is in the negative "don't need", and saying that you can't say you don't need the other members, it can simly imply that the two cannot work apart and at the same time be part of the same body, for a body that does two different things in different sections of the body under two different laws of operation cannot actually be said to be a functioning body, nor even a unified one. Yet the very nature of the Church is unity in Christ.

If you want to include Christ in the body as the head, you have to give him the proper place. In places where he is called head of the body, the body is unified in Christ. Don’t you think that a body actually does not only two but several different things in different sections of the body under many different laws of operation? I thought that was the point of Paul’s analogy. You say it cannot actually be said to be a functioning body, nor even a unified one, in such a case, but this is exactly what a body is like. The stomach does a totally different operation from the hands, and works under entirely different laws of operation. The same is true of the liver and the hair or the eyes or the lungs or the feet. All different laws of operation doing entirely different functions, and yet in the same body, unified by their obedience to the head. Only when a body part stops following the directives of the head does it cease to be a functioning part of the body.

 

[cyberjosh]

Re: The head (Jesus) cannot say to the feet "I don't need you"?

Our unity and our assurance of salvation must be based on obedience:

John 15:14
You are my friends, if you do whatsoever I command you.

I have already said how I agree that the covenant is conditional. However at present I am looking at the power and promise of that covenant, and that is a cause for rejoicing.

Our unity with Christ is solidified by taking his words and making them our life’s mission. Consider how the hand is connected to the head by obedience to the commands to move where the head directs. If your hand did not respond when your brain gave commands to do it’s work, it would be considered dead, or disconnected. It would be malfunctioning, and not in a normal healthy state of being.

I agree that Christ has to be made manifest in our actions, in a sense the Word becoming flesh in us as well, but this is not a works salvation relationship. The obedience is the love aspect of the relationship in reciprocation to God's unmerited favor towards us. Thus we are called to walk worthy of our calling.

Sure, I agree. He was in all points tested, as such is as common to man. He is touched by the feeling of our infirmities.

Ok, good. The point I was drawing on here is another intimate relation of Christ to us. It is not all works based (as I have just said) but also Christ helping us in our sufferings and weaknesses is an integral part of this relationship. I personally, and I believe Paul also (who desired the "fellowship of his sufferings"), have never experienced God in such a way as I do in sufferings when I have to depend on His strength rather than my own. I actually long for God's aid in such a way. That is a true craving for unity with God and his in-working power. That is intimate beyond expression.

If you want to include Christ in the body as the head, you have to give him the proper place. In places where he is called head of the body, the body is unified in Christ. Don’t you think that a body actually does not only two but several different things in different sections of the body under many different laws of operation? I thought that was the point of Paul’s analogy. You say it cannot actually be said to be a functioning body, nor even a unified one, in such a case, but this is exactly what a body is like. The stomach does a totally different operation from the hands, and works under entirely different laws of operation. The same is true of the liver and the hair or the eyes or the lungs or the feet. All different laws of operation doing entirely different functions, and yet in the same body, unified by their obedience to the head. Only when a body part stops following the directives of the head does it cease to be a functioning part of the body.

Well I'm trying to move away from the particular analogy of picking the body apart, however my point here was that the body functions together as a whole, though obviously preforming different actions of their own. Paul was warning the corinthians against divisions in the body, and in that sense the body not cooperating with its own members is useless and might as well not even be members of the same body. Though not a perfect analogy, the brain orchestrates many functions of the body consciously and unconsciously, and in a similar way the Body of Christ operates (though having differing members) on a foundational principle and power (and that principle & foundation & power is Christ).

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[unred typo]

Re: The head (Jesus) cannot say to the feet "I don't need you"?

quote by cybershark5886 :
I agree that Christ has to be made manifest in our actions, in a sense the Word becoming flesh in us as well, but this is not a works salvation relationship. The obedience is the love aspect of the relationship in reciprocation to God's unmerited favor towards us. Thus we are called to walk worthy of our calling.

I like that…“the word becoming, in a sense, flesh in us as well†too. Although the new creation in Christ can’t really be said to be flesh in nature, that is the picture presented for us, of the word being fleshed out in our lives.

I don’t really understand this fear of a “works salvation†relationship. Our calling to salvation is not according to works, but according to his grace, and we know even the worst sinner is called to obtain salvation by following Christ ( 2 Timothy 1:9
Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, ) and the plan of salvation was made by God, before the creation of the world, but we must do works of faith and love in order to be saved. James is very emphatic about works being essential to salvation:
James 2:14
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
James 2:17
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
James 2:20
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
James 2:24
You see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
James 2:26
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

The body that doesn’t work for the head is useless. Does the head not care for the hands and the feet? Yes, and even more so when they are tired and hurting from work.

 

[cyberjosh]

Re: The head (Jesus) cannot say to the feet "I don't need you"?

I agree that works are indeed emphasized & important, but I'm just trying to present a balance. It seems we've come to an acceptable place here, until I can think of another idea for further discussion.

I like that…“the word becoming, in a sense, flesh in us as well†too. Although the new creation in Christ can’t really be said to be flesh in nature, that is the picture presented for us, of the word being fleshed out in our lives.

Yeah I like that too. I wish I could take full credit for that revelation/analogy, but I mostly got the idea from a thought-provoking sermon. I was listening to an excellent pastor at a local Church one Sunday (we were visiting) and he preached on the meaning of "Christ in us" and it was the absolute best sermon I've ever heard on the reality of Christ in us, and how Christ is our life. And he said something about Christ being the Word in us, and then (perhaps inadvertently - maybe not intending to make a direct connection) mentioned Christ being manifested in our actions - that our struggles are futile and that we can't live the Christian life (it's impossible) on our own, only Christ can live that perfect standard - and he said that it must be Christ living in us and through us if we are to live the Christian life. And as he said that I had the idea pop in my head that since Christ is the Word (and now Christ is in us - and infact our very life) that Christ being manifested in our life is just about the same as the Word becoming manifest in the flesh in us, through Christ.

That changed my thinking a bit. That spells out even more to me the intimacy of how Christ manifests in his people.

"So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed... work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." (Philippians 2:12-13)


God Bless,

~Josh

 

[unred typo]

Re: The head (Jesus) cannot say to the feet "I don't need you"?

quote by cybershark5886 on Tue Nov 06, 2007
I agree that works are indeed emphasized & important, but I'm just trying to present a balance. It seems we've come to an acceptable place here, until I can think of another idea for further discussion.

I think the scales have already been dumped over with the weight of one sided interpretations of ‘not of works’ verses that are talking about the absolute grace of God in offering us any kind of salvation, not that he is giving us a free ride.

quote by cybershark5886:
I wish I could take full credit for that revelation/analogy, but I mostly got the idea from a thought-provoking sermon. I was listening to an excellent pastor at a local Church one Sunday (we were visiting) and he preached on the meaning of "Christ in us" and it was the absolute best sermon I've ever heard on the reality of Christ in us, and how Christ is our life. And he said something about Christ being the Word in us, and then (perhaps inadvertently - maybe not intending to make a direct connection) mentioned Christ being manifested in our actions - that our struggles are futile and that we can't live the Christian life (it's impossible) on our own, only Christ can live that perfect standard - and he said that it must be Christ living in us and through us if we are to live the Christian life. And as he said that I had the idea pop in my head that since Christ is the Word (and now Christ is in us - and infact our very life) that Christ being manifested in our life is just about the same as the Word becoming manifest in the flesh in us, through Christ.

This is what bothers me about that; when you leave it up to Christ to work out in your life, it makes it seem like we don’t have anything to strive for, except to ‘let go and let God,’ as it is often said. There has to be some effort on our part. A little blood, sweat and tears would be a good start. All these ‘pew potatoes’ need a eye opener into the reality of works being a necessary part of their salvation.

quote by cybershark5886:
That changed my thinking a bit. That spells out even more to me the intimacy of how Christ manifests in his people.

"So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed... work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." (Philippians 2:12-13)

Working out your salvation is very intimate. You have an evil thought and the Holy Spirit is right in your face. You have to push him aside to continue to go down that path of sin. Then, you have to face the consequences of your actions with a reminder that the way was open to resist it. Falling down, getting a hand to lift you up, and starting out again is a very personal walk with God. Daily struggles to keep on the straight and narrow is a lot more intimate than a hopping out of church after the sermon and “see yaâ€⢠next week†deal, don‘t you agree?

 

[darcy]

Re: The head (Jesus) cannot say to the feet "I don't need you"?

The first time I read a book that proposed the possible deeper implications on this verse it shocked me. I immediately wanted to revolt from the idea that the head in Paul's metaphor could possibly refer to Jesus as the head. But as I contemplated more and more on the mystery of Christ and how much he gave up for us and died for to be one with us it does seem that Christ's sacrifice requires and infact expects such a unity, for it was its very purpose. The verse in question is 1 Corinthians 12:21 which says, "And the eye cannot say to the hand, 'I have no need of you'; or again the head to the feet, 'I have no need of you'". Who else is the head except Christ? In only the preceding chapter Paul said, "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ" (1 Corinthians 11:3), and in the parallel verse in Ephesians, "For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body" (Ephesians 5:23). And even here we see Christ as submissive to the Father as His head, to carry out the Father's will (at such a cost!!!) to die for man to unite them to Christ and God that God may sum all things up in Christ (Ephesians 1:10).

Another thing I was slow to accept is that Christ indeed still has a "body". And incorruptable one yes, as we too will have upon the ressurection (1 Corinthians 15), but none-the-less a body. Notice that Christ will still be called "Son of Man" when he returns (per Daniel). I remember talking to my Dad once as he was working in the kitchen and I said, "Surely Jesus doesn't still have the holes in his hands and feet in heaven," and my Dad stopped what he was doing and looked at me and said, "Really? Why not?" And I faltered for a moment and futilely tried to shoot down the idea by mentioning all the references in Scripture to the "Spirit of Christ," but as my Dad brought home to me this does not negate the possibility of Christ having a body. When Christ emptied himself and became our true High Priest to whom he can relate he held back nothing. It was a true sacrifice, even to the point of assuming a subordinate role in the Trinity (thus God the Father being the head of Christ). Christ still has a body as an eternal witness of who He is and what He has done.

How that ties into this topic though is to further the reality of the unity of the body of believers, and Christ being an inseperable part of that body as the head. What Christ has done is irreversable and we who believe are now united with Christ and even already seated in Heaven with Christ (as per Colossians). We will be united to him as the bride and the two will become "one flesh (read: spiritual body)". We are in Christ and he in us. We cannot say to Christ, "We have no need of you" but even more amazingly Christ cannot say to the body he died for and is united to, "I do not need you"! What a revelation! Why did this not occur to me before?

What do you think about this idea?

God Bless,

~Josh

God can say as the head that he does not need the body, because he made the body and if the body doesn't have the head which is God than it can't think that way!

 

[cyberjosh]

Re: The head (Jesus) cannot say to the feet "I don't need you"?

Just FYI I have digressed from that original idea in the OP and focused more on the fact that God cannot and will not (because of his eternal promise) cast away his elect. I tried to rectify that original idea to focus moe on Christ's indellible unity with the Body.

 

[darcy]

Re: The head (Jesus) cannot say to the feet "I don't need you"?

Just FYI I have digressed from that original idea in the OP and focused more on the fact that God cannot and will not (because of his eternal promise) cast away his elect. I tried to rectify that original idea to focus moe on Christ's indellible unity with the Body.

Well you need to show me what you mean. God is all knowing and he can choise what he wants the body to do. He is the one that made us.

 

[cyberjosh]

Re: The head (Jesus) cannot say to the feet "I don't need you"?

Just FYI I have digressed from that original idea in the OP and focused more on the fact that God cannot and will not (because of his eternal promise) cast away his elect. I tried to rectify that original idea to focus moe on Christ's indellible unity with the Body.

Well you need to show me what you mean. God is all knowing and he can choise what he wants the body to do. He is the one that made us.

If you wish to discuss this I guess I can, but I've pretty much gotten out of this what I wanted. I've already reached the punch line for myself of how Jesus is very much unified with us in Covenant.

But yes God made us and is the creator. The original idea in my OP was a little mislead as to the nature of the "need", while I was primarily focusing on how God will not and cannot break His covenant, and thus His unity with us through Christ.

The idea is summed up in how God is going to keep his promises to his people, the Church, the elect, and as he said that he would never leave us or forsake us. Basically this: "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?" (Numbers 23:19)

P.S. I'm not a narrow sighted Christian that sees only promises and doesn't believe in keeping our part, so lets not even debate over that. When Jesus says "He who endures to the end will be saved", that's what he meant. I will never deny that. Just taking the time to acknowledge the deepness of God's promises.

 

[darcy]

Re: The head (Jesus) cannot say to the feet "I don't need you"?

So do you belive that man really has a choice to belive in God or has God already choicen us so that we have no choice?

 

[unred typo]

Josh, maybe you should take this headship of Christ over the church to the verses that talk about Christ being head over the church the same way a husband is head over his wife. The promises being that once spiritually wed to Christ, and part of the bride, he is dedicated to present her without spot or any such thing. Just a thought. In marriage, the two become one. I’ll leave it to you to work the wrinkles out…. :

I do believe in that vein, the idea of the covenant is that it is entered into by both parties, and if the bride begins the marriage with the thought that since she was chosen, she doesn’t have to keep herself solely to her husband, while he must be faithful to his vows, things are not going to go very smooth, and she may find herself out on the street, just as faithless Israel did.

 

[cyberjosh]

So do you belive that man really has a choice to belive in God or has God already choicen us so that we have no choice?

You ask an excellent question, which needs to be tackled, but I doubt such a discussion will fit well in this thread. If this turns into a full-fledged discussion we can create a new thread. First of all you should know this has been dicussed several times here in the past and no one all completely agrees. We have Calvinists and Arminians here and then the select few who call themself Calminians to take a "between" stance (Javier, Me, perhaps some others...) on salvation.

However to answer your question, the Bible is clear that God calls the man and that we are not saved of ourselves. We chose God because he first chose us. As for the "no choice" I would say definately no, we most certainly have a choice! God wishes that all would come to him yet they do not, "How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!" (Luke 13:34). As for election, that is so tricky that I don't think any man or woman can understand it in this life time. However I do believe, since it is doctrinally explicit, that all the elect will be saved, according to God's plan. Of course the prize-winner question of all time is: "Who are the elect?". Well that's what we can never know for sure in this life, other than for ourselves. We can know for ourselves personally, and that's the important part. Peter said to us, "Wherefore, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall" (2 Peter 1:10). This speaks of our personal responsibility to endure to the end, seek after God daily, and work out our salvation (Phil. 2:12-13).

Now how God's "woos" his elect into his infinite and benevolent Grace through his Son Jesus Christ is a blessed mystery, but I'm so happy to have obtained grace and for my part I will seek after the Lord with all my heart and make my election sure in Christ.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[unred typo]

That sounds very good except for this part:

quote by cybershark5886:

As for election, that is so tricky that I don't think any man or woman can understand it in this life time. However I do believe, since it is doctrinally explicit, that all the elect will be saved, according to God's plan. Of course the prize-winner question of all time is: "Who are the elect?". Well that's what we can never know for sure in this life, other than for ourselves. We can know for ourselves personally, and that's the important part.

Why do you think election is so hard to understand? Think of election like planning ahead for your grandchildren when your son first gets married. You don’t know who they will be, but you want them to have a college education or to have a certain toy or a savings bond, or gold coin or watch that was your grandfather’s, whatever. They are the elect. You are predestining them to a certain goal, according to your foreknowledge of what you have to give to them. You don’t know their name, or whether they will be boys or girls, but they are the elect, the offspring of your son., and you preordain them to receive this gift when they are a certain age or have reached a certain level of maturity or accomplished some other desire of your will for them. That’s why election is referred to as ’in Christ’. We are elected in Christ. See, it’s an easy concept if you don’t make it difficult. Wherefore doubtest thou? :scrambleup: :smt102

Now that sheds some more light of the importance of being IN Christ, doesn’t it? Which is just what you say here: :smt023

quote by cybershark5886:

Peter said to us, "Wherefore, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall" (2 Peter 1:10). This speaks of our personal responsibility to endure to the end, seek after God daily, and work our our salvation (Phil. 2:12-13).

 

[cyberjosh]

See, it’s an easy concept if you don’t make it difficult. Wherefore doubtest thou?

I think you perhaps misunderstood the scope of what I was saying. To fully understand the reasons and methods of God's election for each person would to be God himself and understand everything. I cannot explain to you why God elects some and not others and how the mystery of salvation works in them. I cannot explain how some sinners who look like they could never be saved are suddenly touched by God's power and turned around in the blind of an eye, or why some who look like Christians (or maybe even are Christians!) start out good but fall away from God. I don't understand God's masterful ways and purposes predestined since before the world began. God's ways are unsearchable, as the Bible says. Election is as much a mystery to man as salvation and godliness. We can only grasp what we can of it and thank God for it. God grows us in knowledge of such things but even so God's ways are marvelous and unsearchable in our eyes, with never-ending depths, and His ways are above our ways, and His thoughts above our thoughts.

But as for everything you said of election, yes I do agree. I was just thinking on a grander scale.

 

[unred typo]

quote by cybershark5886 :
I think you perhaps misunderstood the scope of what I was saying. To fully understand the reasons and methods of God's election for each person would to be God himself and understand everything. I cannot explain to you why God elects some and not others and how the mystery of salvation works in them. I cannot explain how some sinners who look like they could never be saved are suddenly touched by God's power and turned around in the blind of an eye, or why some who look like Christians (or maybe even are Christians!) start out good but fall away from God. I don't understand God's masterful ways and purposes predestined since before the world began. God's ways are unsearchable, as the Bible says. Election is as much a mystery to man as salvation and godliness. We can only grasp what we can of it and thank God for it. God grows us in knowledge of such things but even so God's ways are marvelous and unsearchable in our eyes, with never-ending depths, and His ways are above our ways, and His thoughts above our thoughts.

But as for everything you said of election, yes I do agree. I was just thinking on a grander scale.

I don’t know what to say. You have apparently not understood what I wrote at all if you can ‘agree with me’ and then write a statement like, “I cannot explain to you why God elects some and not others and how the mystery of salvation works in them.†God doesn’t elect some and not others to salvation. He has ordained that all who choose to follow Christ and do so, will be saved. That’s it. That’s who are elected. Those who obey Christ.

There are mysteries that God hasn’t revealed to us. This isn’t one of them. He has been quite candid about whom he chooses. He chooses those that obey and follow Christ. If they obey, then he will choose them. As long as you turn it backwards, you will continue to be confused on a grand scale, Josh.

:-?

 

[cyberjosh]

God doesn’t elect some and not others to salvation. He has ordained that all who choose to follow Christ and do so, will be saved. That’s it. That’s who are elected. Those who obey Christ.

Ah, this reminds me that people have different views on election. You seem to be one of those that thinks God elects you only on his foreknowledge that you will choose Christ in the future. Many people (including myself) do not believe that, while many other people do (it's a long-standing doctrinal difference people have had). I believe God's Sovereignty is far more active in election and is not a mere (basically effortless/passive) looking ahead to "find out" so that God can then go down a list and check off "He will believe in me - Elected", "She won't - Condemned", He won't either - better check off as condemned". I believe God has an active choice and molding (potter and the clay) in it. Though we obviously have free will, election is an exercise of Divine Soveriegnty. Thus I cannot pretend to know the extent of God's Soveriegn choices in the matter, nor interrogate or judge Him on His decisions (Romans 9:19-20). Romans 9 says that God can prepare a vessel of dishonor for destruction (vs. 22) - a scarry passage but if read humbly it will prompt one to have the Fear of the Lord even more, and strive to make sure their election and calling are for real before God.

"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.
Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men" (2 Corinthians 5:10-11)

 

[unred typo]

quote by cybershark5886 :

Ah, this reminds me that people have different views on election. You seem to be one of those that thinks God elects you only on his foreknowledge that you will choose Christ in the future. Many people (including myself) do not believe that, while many other people do (it's a long-standing doctrinal difference people have had). I believe God's Sovereignty is far more active in election and is not a mere (basically effortless/passive) looking ahead to "find out" so that God can then go down a list and check off "He will believe in me - Elected", "She won't - Condemned", He won't either - better check off as condemned".

Hmmnnn… my view is easy to hold but hard to explain. I do NOT believe that it is a mere looking ahead to "find out" so that God can then go down a list and check off "He will believe in me - Elected", "She won't - Condemned", He won't either - better check off as condemned". That is about as opposite as you can get from what I tried to say. It’s hard getting my point across, but I must be an even worse communicator than I thought.

Maybe if I put it into a scenario like you did. God is in the beginning, planning creation. He wants to create beings who have their own wills and don’t HAVE to obey and love him unless they want to. But if he gives them a will of their own and a choice between obeying him or not, there is the inevitable chance that they will eventually choose to disobey and at that point, he must either destroy them or redeem them somehow. But how can he do it without causing them to die for their sin and be lost for eternity?

Since he has infinite wisdom, he knows what he can do. He can make an offer some time in the future to those who want to repent and obey of their own free will. So he plans right then that he will call those who love him to come to his word, which he will send to earth and be born as his son, die in the place of all mankind and redeem them back unto himself.

All who repent, he decides, will be given all the advantages they need to follow and obey. And eventually they will be reborn as his children. These are called the elect ones in the Bible. At this point there are no names or people to pick from, only the plan to choose whoever chooses to obey. They are not Bobby, Tom and Natasha, but the elect are ‘whosoever’ will choose to repent, obey and come to Christ.

You’re not getting this, are you?

:-?

 

[cyberjosh]

quote by cybershark5886 :

Ah, this reminds me that people have different views on election. You seem to be one of those that thinks God elects you only on his foreknowledge that you will choose Christ in the future. Many people (including myself) do not believe that, while many other people do (it's a long-standing doctrinal difference people have had). I believe God's Sovereignty is far more active in election and is not a mere (basically effortless/passive) looking ahead to "find out" so that God can then go down a list and check off "He will believe in me - Elected", "She won't - Condemned", He won't either - better check off as condemned".

Hmmnnn… my view is easy to hold but hard to explain. I do NOT believe that it is a mere looking ahead to "find out" so that God can then go down a list and check off "He will believe in me - Elected", "She won't - Condemned", He won't either - better check off as condemned". That is about as opposite as you can get from what I tried to say. It’s hard getting my point across, but I must be an even worse communicator than I thought.

Maybe if I put it into a scenario like you did. God is in the beginning, planning creation. He wants to create beings who have their own wills and don’t HAVE to obey and love him unless they want to. But if he gives them a will of their own and a choice between obeying him or not, there is the inevitable chance that they will eventually choose to disobey and at that point, he must either destroy them or redeem them somehow. But how can he do it without causing them to die for their sin and be lost for eternity?

Since he has infinite wisdom, he knows what he can do. He can make an offer some time in the future to those who want to repent and obey of their own free will. So he plans right then that he will call those who love him to come to his word, which he will send to earth and be born as his son, die in the place of all mankind and redeem them back unto himself.

All who repent, he decides, will be given all the advantages they need to follow and obey. And eventually they will be reborn as his children. These are called the elect ones in the Bible. At this point there are no names or people to pick from, only the plan to choose whoever chooses to obey. They are not Bobby, Tom and Natasha, but the elect are ‘whosoever’ will choose to repent, obey and come to Christ.

You’re not getting this, are you?

:-?

No actually I'm now understanding what you are saying quite well. But before I continue I must acknowledge that I thoroughly appreciate the respectful tone of the conversation we have had thus far, as two mature Christians trying to discuss doctrinal truths. I enjoy such discussions as this as they do not involve bickering and are serious talks.

Now, this is so interesting that you have brought this back to my mind, as I had forgotten all about this interpretation. I remember right before School started this semester entertaining the idea of the elect as a group that had undefined individual members, and that the predestining was done for the "group" of the elect. Unfortunately I don't remember ever reaching a conclusion in my mind. But now that I think back on it I believe that it may have been (as I am now thinking( that I made no such definate conclusion because I wanted to read in the Bible several places where election is discussed to test such a theory to see if it holds up to the truth. This is ofcourse the proper response to any new doctrine presented to you, "Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

My first hurdle which I must present to throw in the way to test it, is the individuality stressed in such passages as Romans 9, and how God can prepare individuals for honor or dishonor, etc.

I'll look forward to your feed back on this.

P.S. Now that we are starting to go full swing down this line of discussion, which deviates from this threads topic, I think I'll create a new thread on Romans 9 and copy our last two responses over there, so we have an appropriate area to discuss this.