What is Election?

[ivdavid]

Paul is appealing back to God's sovereign right over Israel, to take from one lump (Israel) and make one vessel for honorable use (the remnant) and another for common use (unbelieving Israel).

On what basis is the remnant elected here?
Are the remnant elected because they believed - or were they led to believe because they were elected.

We know that the remnant were elected by an election of grace(Rom 11:5). And that election of grace is purposed in God Himself independent of what the objects of election are going to do(Rom 9:11) - so that it is not of man who wills but of God alone who shows mercy(Rom 9:16). How would you interpret this differently or go about reconciling this?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

On what basis is the remnant elected here?
Are the remnant elected because they believed - or were they led to believe because they were elected.

We know that the remnant were elected by an election of grace(Rom 11:5). And that election of grace is purposed in God Himself independent of what the objects of election are going to do(Rom 9:11) - so that it is not of man who wills but of God alone who shows mercy(Rom 9:16). How would you interpret this differently or go about reconciling this?

The Remnant is an elected group of Israelites chosen by grace, to bring about God's purposes of the inclusion of the Gentiles. Notice how all the apostles are Jewish, and that in John's gospel it refers to them as being given from the Father to the Son. In that way I see it somewhat like you would unconditional election, I just don't see it as referring to all humanity, but for a specific instance where God chose to partially harden most of Israel, yet retain a remnant.

This is Paul's reasoning is it not?

I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?[1]

God has not rejected the Jews, but he divided the same lump of clay (Israel) into the two different vessels, the honorable represents the Remnant and the dishonorable represents unbelieving Israel. Both will serve to accomplish his purposes of bringing his salvation to the world.

Care to address anything that I stated in my last post?

[1] Romans 11:1-2 (NASB)

 

[ivdavid]

In that way I see it somewhat like you would unconditional election, I just don't see it as referring to all humanity, but for a specific instance where God chose to partially harden most of Israel, yet retain a remnant.

What did God harden "most of Israel"(the non-remnant) against - aren't we talking about the Gospel of Christ(Rom 9:3) here? How does your worldview reconcile such unconditional election of people with respect to the Gospel even if it's only for a specific instance?

Care to address anything that I stated in my last post?

I thought I was doing just that. I enquired about your beliefs on this - you shared them - I compared them with my own and began at what seemed the core point of difference. Was there anything in particular you wanted me to comment on?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

What did God harden "most of Israel"(the non-remnant) against - aren't we talking about the Gospel of Christ(Rom 9:3) here? How does your worldview reconcile such unconditional election of people with respect to the Gospel even if it's only for a specific instance?

In John's gospel it says the following about the Jews.

When Jesus had said these things, he departed and hid himself from them. Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him, so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled:

“Lord, who has believed what he heard from us,
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”

Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said,

“He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their heart,
lest they see with their eyes,
and understand with their heart, and turn,
and I would heal them.”[1]

They are hardened against recognizing Jesus as the promised Messiah. This hardening is a judgement upon them and is not arbitrarily placed, but it is also to bring about the nation's future inclusion after the fullness of the Gentiles. So while God has shut up both Jews and Gentiles in disobedience, he will have mercy upon both. It does not resemble unconditional election in the following ways.

1) This reprobation (I suppose you could say) or more properly hardening of Israel was as a judgement of their idolatry and unbelief, and cannot simply be said to be done arbitrarily or for some secret purpose.
2) This hardening is not deterministic in nature, in that same chapter of John in v.42 it says, "Nevertheless, many even of the authorities believed in him." (ESV) And also in Romans 11, "And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again." (NASB)
3) The election of grace pertains only to the Remnant, properly it is best understood that election is corporate and those who are in Christ, both Jew and Gentile are the elect. This union and election in Christ depends on what's belief in him.

I thought I was doing just that. I enquired about your beliefs on this - you shared them - I compared them with my own and began at what seemed the core point of difference. Was there anything in particular you wanted me to comment on?

I went in depth on some of the verses in Romans 9 and 11, and you brought up Romans 11:5, which I did not mention at all.

I just often feel like on this forum I am the one doing all the work and answering all the questions, and no one wants to deal with the substance of my posts.

 

[chessman]

Besides the ones I was just referring to in the Gospel of John. There is also Romans 9, where Paul is speaking about God's plan and justification for the rejection of unbelieving Israel and how he is bringing about the inclusion of the Gentiles.

For instance.

Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?[1]

This is an allusion to Jeremiah 18:6, where God says, "Can I not, O house of Israel, deal with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel." (NASB) Paul is appealing back to God's sovereign right over Israel, to take from one lump (Israel) and make one vessel for honorable use (the remnant) and another for common use (unbelieving Israel).

This is demonstrated in the next verse.

What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?[2]

Most Calvinists look at these verses as referring to God's election, that he makes some to be vessels of wrath and others to be vessels of mercy. However, the context proves this incorrect. There are certain vessels that are κατηρτισμένα or having been fitted or ripe, namely the people of Israel who rejected the Messiah Jesus. What if God was willing to demonstrate his wrath and make his power known by punishing them, but instead chose to endure them with much patience. And why would he do that?

And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,[3]

And he did so, to the end that his glorious mercy might be demonstrated. To who?

even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.[4]

All of this was to fulfill the prophecy that was about the coming inclusion of the Gentiles and rejection of unbelieving Israel. As Paul quotes in the next verse, “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.' And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”

Notice how well this fits with more clear passages in Romans 11.

I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous.[5]

The "they" is the unbelieving Israelites, who have been temporarily hardened (notice how the Israelites are the only ones who are said to be hardened) in keeping with God's right to harden and have mercy. Though in Romans 11, Paul goes beyond his point in Romans 9 and demonstrates how even his inclusion of the Gentiles

[1] Romans 9:21 (NASB)
[2] Romans 9:22 (NASB)
[3] Romans 9:23 (NASB)
[4] Romans 9:24 (NASB)
[5] Romans 11:11 (NASB)
[6] Romans 11:32 (NASB)

How about Romans 8? Is Paul on the subject of the nation of Israel exclusively? Or rather, could He be using them as example of how He makes all things work out accord ing to His plan?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

How about Romans 8? Is Paul on the subject of the nation of Israel exclusively? Or rather, could He be using them as example of how He makes all things work out accord ing to His plan?

Well Romans 9-11 are in a sense a justification of God, if all things work together for good, for those who love God, why then did God's people fall? In other words, if God is so faithful, why are his people rejected?

Romans 9-11 serves to prove that 1) the word of God has not failed, 2) God's plan is for mercy to come to all mankind, Jew and Gentiles and 3) that God hasn't actually rejected his people who he foreknew.

Of course among other things.

Romans 8 is not exclusively about the nation of Israel, the opening five verses of Romans 9 sets up the context of Romans 9-11 as a separate, yet related unit.

 

[ivdavid]

On what basis is the remnant elected here?

In that way I see it somewhat like you would unconditional election, I just don't see it as referring to all humanity...

This reprobation (I suppose you could say) or more properly hardening of Israel was as a judgement of their idolatry and unbelief....This union and election in Christ depends on what's belief in him.

...you brought up Romans 11:5, which I did not mention at all.

We know that the remnant were elected by an election of grace(Rom 11:5). And that election of grace is purposed in God Himself independent of what the objects of election are going to do(Rom 9:11) - so that it is not of man who wills but of God alone who shows mercy(Rom 9:16).

If this election is based or dependent on one's belief/unbelief in Christ - how is it an 'unconditional election' of grace, independent of what the objects of election do? I'd wanted to know how you reconcile Rom 9:11,16 with there being a basis of election dependent on the will of man.

This was what I'd identified as the main point of difference in our respective interpretations - which is why I'm getting this clarified first.

I went in depth on some of the verses in Romans 9 and 11...

I just often feel like on this forum I am the one doing all the work and answering all the questions, and no one wants to deal with the substance of my posts.

I have no objection to what you've stated about the election of Israel and the gentiles except what stems from the above point of difference - I do believe Israel is elect and is used as a visible foreshadow of the spiritual Church that has come now - and God is faithful to preserve all His elect.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

If this election is based or dependent on one's belief/unbelief in Christ - how is it an 'unconditional election' of grace, independent of what the objects of election do? I'd wanted to know how you reconcile Rom 9:11,16 with there being a basis of election dependent on the will of man..

You're getting my statements a bit confused, which I think may be my fault.

The election that is based and dependent on one's belief and union with Christ, is I guess the "main" election. Election pertains to the issue from the OT, and it is the question of, "who are God's chosen people." The NT's answer to this question is those who belong and are found in Christ, the New Covenant Representative.

God's keeping of a remnant portion of Israel is a related issue, but a separate one at the same time. Confusing the two by reading the texts pertaining to Israel and the disciples as Calvinists do, is what my initial objection was all about.

I have no objection to what you've stated about the election of Israel and the gentiles except what stems from the above point of difference - I do believe Israel is elect and is used as a visible foreshadow of the spiritual Church that has come now - and God is faithful to preserve all His elect.

Here is a question for you, was election unconditional in the Old Testament?

 

[chessman]

In other words, if God is so faithful, why are his people rejected?

Not a bad question:

; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works.


They have stumbled over the stumbling stone,33 as it is written,

“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense;
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

 

[ivdavid]

Election pertains to the issue from the OT, and it is the question of, "who are God's chosen people." The NT's answer to this question is those who belong and are found in Christ, the New Covenant Representative.

I guess we're not on the same page concerning semantics here. I do differentiate between "election" - and the "criteria for justification".

God, through the Gospel, commands all men everywhere to believe in Christ and sets forth that as the "criteria for justification".

1. You seem to hold that certain people do fulfill this "criteria of justification" of their own 'freewill' - and hold that these are then the "elect", on the basis of their fulfilling so.

2. I believe that none fulfill this "criteria for justification" of their own natural will. Given this scenario - all still deserve condemnation and none will enter God's eternal kingdom. And this is where God is entitled to have mercy upon whom He wills - whereby He regenerates the objects of mercy with a new heart that now wills to fulfill the "criteria for justification". The set of people whom God purposes to have mercy upon is whom I hold to be the "elect" - this being purposed in God Himself alone - as is the very concept of mercy.

Do you see the core difference in our belief systems to be over what the basis of election is?

Here is a question for you, was election unconditional in the Old Testament?

From what I've stated above - I always hold election to be unconditional, given that it is purposed in God alone concerning whom He shall have mercy upon - in the scenario of all failing the "criteria for justification".

The "criteria for justification" in the OT was faith in God alone.


It's quite late here where I'm from - I'll continue responding tomorrow.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I guess we're not on the same page concerning semantics here. I do differentiate between "election" - and the "criteria for justification".

God, through the Gospel, commands all men everywhere to believe in Christ and sets forth that as the "criteria for justification".

1. You seem to hold that certain people do fulfill this "criteria of justification" of their own 'freewill' - and hold that these are then the "elect", on the basis of their fulfilling so.

2. I believe that none fulfill this "criteria for justification" of their own natural will. Given this scenario - all still deserve condemnation and none will enter God's eternal kingdom. And this is where God is entitled to have mercy upon whom He wills - whereby He regenerates the objects of mercy with a new heart that now wills to fulfill the "criteria for justification". The set of people whom God purposes to have mercy upon is whom I hold to be the "elect" - this being purposed in God Himself alone - as is the very concept of mercy.

Do you see the core difference in our belief systems to be over what the basis of election is?

I don't see where you got #1 from what I said, so I will just state my belief on the matter without assumptions being inserted.

I believe that God has chosen to elect Covenant Representatives, in the Old Testament it was Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and in the New Covenant it is Jesus Christ. All who belong to the Covenant membership, share in the blessings of Covenant Representative, or in other words what is true for them is true for those who belong to them. In the case of Jesus, he is the one who is foreknown before the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:20), and God chose before the foundation of the world to have an elect body of believers in Christ. The individuals are elect, because they belong to Christ. It would not be proper in my view to say that they are elect on the basis of faith, as that is not the causal relationship to the election, only the union with Christ.

These persons have no free will to believe, save the power of the Holy Spirit's work through the proclamation of the Gospel to bring about faith in those who hear it. I just do not believe this process is irresistible, and I certainly reject the idea of regeneration preceding faith. You can read about my position on regeneration here: http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?threads/christocentric-regeneration.51437/

Here is a small critique of the Calvinist perspective. In Calvinistic theology, God planned and decreed all that would happen prior to it taking place, which includes the fall of mankind. If God decreed the fall from all eternity, he is ultimately responsible for the predicament that sinners find themselves born into, and therefore responsible for their refusal as well. Here is a helpful analogy.

Say that there was a robot maker who created an advanced machine shop that creates robotic workers that will help serve people in their homes. What if in that design process, he purposefully set about to install an initial flaw that would cause all of the robots to then be disobedient to their masters. Then, what if he only guaranteed repairs for that initial flaw to less than half of the robots he made. He then would go on to explain his reasoning for only repairing some of the robots to be, "because all of the robots are disobedient and unworthy of my repairs." Yet, all the while, the very root cause of the robots disobedience to their owner's commands was because of my initial flaw that he planned for each of them to have. Would you think anything this robot maker did was admirable?

It's tantamount to setting up a big problem, and then coming in to clean up the problem and claim the credit and glory for something that was his own responsibility to begin with.

The analogy was not necessarily meaning to equate humans with robots in the analogy, but primarily about how God in Calvinist theology sets them up to fail, by decreeing the fall and then punishing them all to a torturous eternal existence.

And of course, I find it to be the weaker interpretation of the "questionable texts."

From what I've stated above - I always hold election to be unconditional, given that it is purposed in God alone concerning whom He shall have mercy upon - in the scenario of all failing the "criteria for justification".

The "criteria for justification" in the OT was faith in God alone.

Let's examine Deuteronomy 7 for the answer to this question.

“For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples," Deuteronomy 7:6-7 (ESV)

This kind of sounds like unconditional election right here doesn't it, with God saying that he chose them out of all the peoples on the face of the earth and that it wasn't due to anything good in them. Why was it then?

but it is because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Deuteronomy 7:8 (ESV)

It is because of the fact that 1) God loves them and 2) that he is keeping the oath that he swore to their fathers. What oath is this? It's the Covenant he made with Abraham and his offspring, and those who are apart of the chosen nation are those who belong to the Covenant people. What are the conditions given to belong to the Covenant group? Unconditional election by God? No.

“And because you listen to these rules and keep and do them, the LORD your God will keep with you the covenant and the steadfast love that he swore to your fathers." Deuteronomy 7:12 (ESV)

Obedience is the reason that God will continue to honor the Covenant with the descendants of Abraham, their continued keeping of the Law. If they were to transgress this law wilfully, they would be cut off from the Covenant people, who are God's chosen ones. I think the problem here is, you are transferring the idea of individual salvation (a view made more popular in recent American Evangelicalism) to the Jewish view, which had actually quite little to do with, "how can I be saved from some kind of future punishment." Rather, it had more to do with, "how can I know that I am apart of God's people on earth?" Which Paul's doctrine of Justification deals primarily with that issue, though it does have implications as to personal salvation.

Just some food for thought for you.

 

[Dan00]

Those who wish to individualize every saying of Scripture to pertain to themselves, will often misinterpret these sayings and create doctrines such as Calvinism.

Thanks, and an Amen for that last statement. I do believe in predestination, because Jesus found me. I was not looking, and most certainly was unworthy.

He has given me a passion for understanding the scriptures; and 40 years later I can understand well enough to realize I don't fit into any of the 1st century scripture, except possibly to be born after Satan was released to go out and deceive the nations, and there are not a lot of details there. I am reasonably certain my time within the framework of the scripture is at the earliest, Rev 20:7, which will be completed at the end of that chapter, Rev 20:15. I would like to think more highly of myself, but I would have to spiritualize the scriptures.

I was fortunate (blessed, is a better word) to be able to understand that the Satan that was terrorizing Christians in the first century, is the same Satan that was released out of prison and is deceiving the world today. Like in the first century, Satan is at war with Christianity--with anything Christian--with anything decent and Godly. And he is the great deceiver. He has infiltrated our schools, our churches, even our scripture.

Dan

 

[reba]

Our Scripture ? or our interpretation of Scripture

 

[ivdavid]

It would not be proper in my view to say that they are elect on the basis of faith, as that is not the causal relationship to the election, only the union with Christ.

Acknowledged. But you make faith to be the basis of entry into this union, right? If C is dependent on B, and B is dependent on A - is it illogical to say C depends on A?

This doctrine is quite simple, "he who has the Son has life, he who does not have the Son does not have life."

I agree with 1John 5:12 - but why are you equating "regeneration" to be exactly the same as "eternal life"? Regeneration is a specific work of God where He takes out the hardened heart of stone in man and replaces it with a new heart, and renews man's spirit - so can't I say that

1. God commands all men to obey Him.
2. Man disobeys.
3. God commands all men to repent and believe.
4. Man disobeys.
5. God, of His mercy, takes out the hardened heart in man and gives him a new heart, and renews his spirit.
6. Man, with his new heart and renewed nature, obeys the Gospel command and believes in Christ.
7. Being justified by such faith, man is entered into union with Christ and is sealed by the Holy Spirit.
8. In union with Christ, and having the pledge of the Holy Spirit, man has the Biblical hope of life - life eternal, to be precise.

I see your post showing the necessity of 8(life) having to follow 7(union with Christ), and 7 to follow 6(faith) - thereby proving that one's gift of eternal life does not precede one's faith - with which I do agree. But does 6(faith) precede regeneration(5) is the question, right?

What if in that design process, he purposefully set about to install an initial flaw that would cause all of the robots to then be disobedient to their masters.

If God did purposefully install sin in man, I would be offended myself. But God has not caused sin in any way - could you revise your analogy and critique accordingly?

...Rather, it had more to do with, "how can I know that I am apart of God's people on earth?"

If they were to transgress this law wilfully, they would be cut off from the Covenant people, who are God's chosen ones.

And by this law, all were found transgressors and were under the curse of the law - deserving of being cut off from the Covenant group(Gal 3:10). How then could anyone be part of God's people on earth if it was based on adherence to the law(Gal 3:17)? It is instead based on simply who the promises of God are applicable to(Gal 3:18,Rom 9:8) - and this scope of application is independent of what these objects of application actually do(Rom 9:11,16).

 

[Dan00]

Our Scripture ? or our interpretation of Scripture

Hi, Reba,

Both scripture and interpretation. The words have been changed, the divinity of Christ has been "watered down," and the meaning has been corrupted (though admittedly the meaning has always been cloudy.)

In both of the next two verses the NKJV makes interpretation more difficult; in the case of Daniel, almost impossible.
----------------
(Gen 15:18)
KJV
" In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:" (Gen 15:18)

NKJV
"On the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying: “To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates— " (Gen 15:18)

The NT verse that conflicts with the NKJV OT for context:
"Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,”[a] who is Christ." (Gal 3:16)

------------------
Daniel 9:27

KJV
"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week:"

NKJV
"Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;. . ."

The use of "Then" vs "And" changes the context completely, rendering it useless as prophecy.

-----------------------------------------------------
The Divinity of Christ:

1 John 5:7
KJV: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

ASV: And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
DARBY: or they that bear witness are three:
HCSB: For there are three that testify:
NIV: For there are three that testify:
RSV: And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
NAB: So there are three that testify (Catholic)
NWT: For there are three witness bearers: (Jehovah Witness)

Scofield Note: "It is generally agreed that v.7 has no real authority, and has been inserted."

[The story is that Scofield used the KJV so he could sell his bibles, but he didn't like the KJV.]

--------------
The following is more significant than at first glance to many people. The reference to the Son of God in Daniel helps to validate Christ's statement, "Before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58)

Daniel 3:25
KJV: He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

Now, the watered-down versions:

ASV: He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the aspect of the fourth is like a son of the gods.

DARBY: He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of God.

HCSB: He exclaimed, “Look! I see four men, not tied, walking around in the fire unharmed; and the fourth looks like a son of the gods.”[a] -- [a] or of a divine being

NAB: In the fire Azariah stood up and prayed aloud:

NWT: He said: “Look! I see four men walking about free in the midst of the fire, and they are unharmed, and the fourth one looks like a son of the gods.”

---------------------------------
Interpretation

Interpretation was "enhanced" by the introduction of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909. By "enhanced" I mean, enhanced in a manner that favored those who hate Christ. The role of the Church in society has been damaged by Scofield, which made it more difficult for the people to recognize the forces of antichrist. By "antichrist", I do not mean Scofield's imaginary "evil world leader;" but those who deny and despise the notion of the divinity of Christ (like John wrote of;) and who work night and day to destroy Christianity by destroying its landmarks of morality, truth, freedom, etc..

Approach Scofield Notes with the understanding that everything he wrote was an attempt to undermine Christianity, and he is much easier to understand. These are a few examples:

Scofield note on John the Baptist as the fulfillment of Malachi 4:5,6

(1) Christ confirms the specific and still unfulfilled prophecy of Mal 4:5,6: "Elias shall truly first come and restore all things." Here, as in Malachi, the prediction fulfilled in John the Baptist, and that yet to be fulfilled in Elijah, are kept distinct.

(2) But John the Baptist had come already, and with a ministry so completely in the spirit and power of Elijah's future ministry Lk 1:17 that in an adumbrative and typical sense it could be said: "Elias is come already.

Still unfulfilled? Christ specifically stated John the Baptist was Elijah! I believe Scofield's purpose was to make Christ's words less authoritative.

One of the reasons Judaism rejected Jesus was because Elijah the Prophet had not come before him. This is a statement by the 2nd Century Jewish Rabbi, Trypho, in a conversation with Justin Martyr:

And Trypho said, “Those who affirm him to have been a man, and to have been anointed by election, and then to have become Christ, appear to me to speak more plausibly than you who hold those opinions which you express. For we all expect that Christ will be a man [born] of men, and that Elijah when he comes will anoint him. But if this man appear to be Christ, he must certainly be known as man [born] of men; but from the circumstance that Elijah has not yet come, I infer that this man is not He [the Christ].”


Scofield note on the soldier piercing Jesus with his spear:

John wrote that Zechariah 12:10 was fulfilled when the Jesus was pierced:

"For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced." (John 19:36-37)

Scofield note: [blank]

This is Scofields agenda:

Zech. 12.-14. from one prophecy the general theme of which is the return of the Lord and the establishment of the (Israeli) kingdom:

The solution: completely ignore John's words and pretend the verse relates to the earthly Israel in the distant future.

(3) the "latter rain" in the pouring out of the Spirit and the personal revelation of Christ to the family of David and the remnant in Jerusalem, not merely as the glorious Deliverer, but as the One whom Israel pierced and has long rejected (Zech 12:10);

Eve as a type of Church and bride of Christ

I kid you not. This is the actual note on Eve in Gen 2:23:

"Eve, type of the Church as bride of Christ Jn 3:28,29 2Cor 11:2 Eph 5:25-32 Rev 19:7,8"

Check out each of the four Scofield references from above that supposedly support his claim. Afterward, ask yourself if you any idea whatsoever where he got the notion that Eve was a "type of the Church as bride of Christ" from any of those references? His notes are littered with that strategy: throw a blizzard of nonsensical references at the reader. Since it is rare a Scofield disciple complains about the content of the notes, I can only guess they are too embarrassed to admit they don't understand.


A few other "Notes" that have no relation whatsoever to the scripture referenced, but tend to undermine the Church:

Scofield note Genesis 11:1
"The history of Babel ("confusion") strikingly parallels that of the professing Church."

Scofield note Daniel 1 chapter
"Daniel is the indispensable introduction to New Testament prophecy, the themes of which are, the apostasy of the Church. . . "

Scofield note Daniel 9:24
"When the Church- age will end, and the seventieth week begin, is nowhere revealed."

You and I know the Church age will never end, but what about the new converts?


The most damaging in my opinion is one of the notes in Rev 1:1, which is completely made-up madness:

(4) prophetic, as disclosing seven phases of the spiritual history of the church from, say, A.D. 96 to the end. It is incredible that in a prophecy covering the church period, there should be no such foreview. These messages must contain that foreview if it is in the book at all, for the church does not appear after Rev 3.22. Again, these messages by their very terms go beyond the local assemblies mentioned. Most conclusively of all, these messages do present an exact foreview of the spiritual history of the church, and in this precise order. Ephesus gives the general state at the date of the writing; Smyrna, the period of the great persecutions; Pergamos, the church settled down in the world, "where Satan's throne is," after the conversion of Constantine, say A.D. 316. Thyatira is the Papacy, developed out of the Pergamos state: Balaamism (worldliness) and Nicolaitanism (priestly assumption) having conquered. As Jezebel brought idolatry into Israel, Song Romanism weds Christian doctrine to pagan ceremonies. Sardis is the Protestant Reformation, whose works were not "fulfilled." Philadelphia is whatever bears clear testimony to the Word and the Name in the time of self-satisfied profession represented by Laodicea."

This Note virtually eliminates any rational interpretation of the book of the Revelation.


These are only a few in a blizzard of misdirections by Scofield to steer Christians away from New Jerusalem (the Church) and towards old Jerusalem (Israel.)

People believe this madness because Scofield wrote it. He is still a very powerful person because he had a lot of money and powerful people behind him in this effort, and still does. The latest version of the "Scofield Bible" is even more anti-Christian.

Dan

 

[Dan00]

Our Scripture ? or our interpretation of Scripture

Reba, check this out:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/23/army-dont-say-christmas/

Dan

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

(Look what you started, lol!)

I know when a discussion gets to that point.

That's why I've stopped all that nonsense and am just trying to get him to address the fundamental issue with his doctrine and avoiding the bunny trails:

Where does the will to accept the will from God to believe come from, man or God?

By the way, Allen.....what number soil are you?

P >50, K >175, Zn >8.0.

Does this qualify me for eternal life?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

P >50, K >175, Zn >8.0.

Does this qualify me for eternal life?

No.

Your PH balance is off.

Your soil needs a good Sabbath rest.

 

[The Gospels]

yes, God already has a future placed and set, he knows everything..

 

[Jethro Bodine]

yes, God already has a future placed and set, he knows everything..

Now we just have to decide which side of that future we want to be on.