What is Election?

[Jethro Bodine]

So is God's will just that all repent and live? Or is it God's will that all men repent and live, by believing His Word is the truth?

Sorry, but I can't help but to see this as a rationalization to somehow protect God against appearing weak and unable to get what he wants (which is OUR definition of weakness, not God's--a definition based in human pride).

 

[ivdavid]

I say just attribute it to the man himself, then, since it is not a matter of being 'in the flesh', or being 'in the Spirit' as we like to throw those terms around.

It's obviously a decision influenced by the Spirit while a person is still in the condemnation of their sins. Why do we have to try to pin down a label for it? This is what I detest about how the church handles theological matters. Why do we have to label and categorize everything instead of just saying the way something is?

When we label and categorize we end up missing the truth in our misguided attempts to contain everything in the artificial boundaries of labels, and categories, and definitions we shouldn't have made in the first place. This is why I don't read commentaries, but prefer to simply read the scriptures. Man seems to major in over-thinking and compartmentalizing things and using an abundance of words which just end up missing the truth and making it all the harder to find.

Firstly, it's a binary thing - either man is in the flesh(self-nature) - or he is in the spirit(God-nature).
Secondly, it does matter - given the Scriptural verses I referenced in my last post on this - which deny attributing this to the flesh.
Thirdly, these are not terms/labels thrown around by over-thinking commentary-writing men - unless you're referring to Paul - because this is what Paul has written to signify the difference between the flesh and the spirit - and to conclude upon what he deemed important doctrines from that.

The fact that God's desire and will, (that no man die) is simply not fulfilled..

Show me how God got what he wants in seeing mankind saved, not destroyed, without twisting the scriptures to make it appear that the few that do get saved was really his intent and purpose, not the many he said he wants to see get saved.

You're stuck on this because you assume there is no difference between God's desires and His final purposed choice(will). And is it twisting Scriptures to say Christ did want the cup to pass away but wanted more that the Father's will be done? Would you keep stating that Christ did not get what he wanted in the cup passing away - Or would you state that Christ got what he finally purposed to be realized?

God can still be great, and get all the glory, even if, against his perfect will and intention, most men will not repent and will die in the stubbornness of their own decision to do so.

Perhaps. But God can be greater if the same happens in accordance with His purposes.

God is not an American politician who's success is based on how many things he wants he is able to achieve.

I did not imply this. Quantity does not matter. Effective realization of what God finally purposes is what matters.

I'm pointing out that I was not wrong that you were equating 'regeneration' with being 'born again'. That's all.

Okay. Did I say you had gotten that wrong someplace? I'm genuinely confused given that I'm unable to recollect this now.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Firstly, it's a binary thing - either man is in the flesh(self-nature) - or he is in the spirit(God-nature).
Secondly, it does matter - given the Scriptural verses I referenced in my last post on this - which deny attributing this to the flesh.
Thirdly, these are not terms/labels thrown around by over-thinking commentary-writing men - unless you're referring to Paul - because this is what Paul has written to signify the difference between the flesh and the spirit - and to conclude upon what he deemed important doctrines from that.

"“What I am saying is true and reasonable.26 The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner.27 King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do.”"

28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?”
(Acts 26:25-28 NIV)

Unsaved King Agrippa...is he in the flesh, or in the Spirit?

You're stuck on this because you assume there is no difference between God's desires and His final purposed choice(will).

No, actually I'm saying there is a VAST difference between God's desires and his final purposed will.

But in our humanness we instantly think that is a bad thing, so we try to rationalize it in order to somehow do God a service.

And is it twisting Scriptures to say Christ did want the cup to pass away but wanted more that the Father's will be done?

Twisting? You simply stated what the Bible says. How is that twisting? Add your interpretation to it, then we'll see if there's any twisting going on.

I've had this passage in the back of mind all through this thread. It illustrates how even Christ had the will to choose his own will. The very example of 'election' had choice, but election gets taught so often as meaning 'no choice'.

Would you keep stating that Christ did not get what he wanted in the cup passing away - Or would you state that Christ got what he finally purposed to be realized?

Christ laid aside his own will in the matter. He chose another purpose than his own. But election is often taught that the elect doesn't have this capacity, that they can't help but to will the Father's purposes.

Perhaps. But God can be greater if the same happens in accordance with His purposes.

But it didn't, and it won't. It's a moot point.

I did not imply this. Quantity does not matter. Effective realization of what God finally purposes is what matters.

But the purpose fulfilled is not going to be what God would rather have. That's the point. If you were an American politician and this was the case you'd be considered a failure. But that's according to the sinful standard of fallen man, not according to God's righteous character, which doesn't need to hide or distort perceived failures to look good in the eyes of men. We Christians need to learn from this and stop trying to protect God where he doesn't need to be protected.

Okay. Did I say you had gotten that wrong someplace? I'm genuinely confused given that I'm unable to recollect this now.

Your posts were leaving more unsure of your position than they were making it sure.

Let's stick with this quick response format if you want to continue the discussion.

 

[ivdavid]

Unsaved King Agrippa...is he in the flesh, or in the Spirit?

If he is an unbeliever, it is evidence that he is in the flesh - if he believes in Christ, it is evidence that he is in the spirit.

Add your interpretation to it, then we'll see if there's any twisting going on.

I did - since post#528. I'll spell it out here anyway -
Jesus' Desire #1 : This cup passing away.
Jesus' Desire #2 : the Father's will be done.
Jesus' Final Purposed Choice : His own Desire #2.

Conclusion: God can have multiple valid desires - of which He purposefully chooses the greatest desire, which is then brought to fulfillment.

One cannot say, Jesus' Desire #1 was a failure - Jesus never wanted His own Desire#1 to exceed His greater Desire#2. What He most wanted, was indeed fulfilled.

Similarly,
God's Desire#1 : All men obey His commands and live.
God's Desire#2 : Permit man to disobey in the flesh, Judge all who disobey and show mercy through election of grace.
God's Final Purposed Choice : His own Desire #2.

As per the above conclusion, God's Desire#1 is not a failure - God never wanted His own Desire#1 to exceed His greater Desire#2. What He most wanted, was indeed fulfilled.
Compare the above with your - "But the purpose fulfilled is not going to be what God would rather have. That's the point."

Christ laid aside his own will in the matter. He chose another purpose than his own. But election is often taught that the elect doesn't have this capacity, that they can't help but to will the Father's purposes.

Christ's greatest Desire was to have the Father's purposes fulfilled - which is what He constantly purposes to choose. All in the spirit, have the Mind of Christ - hence their greatest Desire too is to have the Father's purposes fulfilled - which is what they constantly purpose to choose, as long as they're operating by the spirit.

It illustrates how even Christ had the will to choose his own will. The very example of 'election' had choice, but election gets taught so often as meaning 'no choice'.

You're mixing two different concepts here. As to Christ making His own choices - Man is similarly always making his own choices, until he is found guilty and condemned. Having been condemned, he now is at the mercy of the sovereign God. Do the condemned in our various prisons today have the "choice" to be "free" - but they were making their own choices until they got in prison, right?

But it didn't, and it won't. It's a moot point.

I respect this as your position. But it would be presumptuous to make generalized conclusions.

Your posts were leaving more unsure of your position than they were making it sure.

Given that there are 2 sides to effective communication - this is quite subjective. Let's just stick to verifiable facts in a charitable manner.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If he is an unbeliever, it is evidence that he is in the flesh - if he believes in Christ, it is evidence that he is in the spirit.

What do you mean by 'believes'? What the scripture says, or what the church says it always has to mean (salvation)?

I'll be back later. Going out to troubleshoot the '88 Honda.
(I'm a feared Granny's rockin' chair's gonna come flyin' off if I don'ts puts some more rope around it.)

 

[ivdavid]

What do you mean by 'believes'?

"Believing" is to hold a premise as true.
"Believing [in/upon]" is a phrasal verb that is the verb form of the noun "faith", both meaning exactly the same in their respective parts of speech - ie. to hold as true, the sufficiency of a person to fulfill an expected/promised outcome on the basis of their own nature/abilities.

Therefore, The king believes in Christ = The king has faith in Christ = The king holds as true, the sufficiency of Christ to fulfill God's promises on the basis of Christ's own nature and abilities. The king believing certain facts is quite different from the king believing in(having faith in) a person/system.

I'll be back later. Going out to troubleshoot the '88 Honda.
(I'm a feared Granny's rockin' chair's gonna come flyin' off if I don'ts puts some more rope around it.)

Take your time. It's quite late here - I'm off to bed.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Therefore, The king believes in Christ = The king has faith in Christ = The king holds as true, the sufficiency of Christ to fulfill God's promises on the basis of Christ's own nature and abilities. The king believing certain facts is quite different from the king believing in(having faith in) a person/system.


Take your time. It's quite late here - I'm off to bed.

So, if we insist on applying the terms as you use them, he is both, 'in the flesh', and 'in the Spirit'.

Now maybe you can see why I resist applying the terminology to God's revelation of the gospel to a person.

King Agrippa has had the revelation of Christ made known to him by the Spirit (1 John 5:6b). He now knows to be true that which he can not see with his eyes (Hebrews 11:1). But he has yet to place his trust in that which he now knows by God's enablement of faith to be true about the Christ and remains lost in his faith (James 2:19).

Why do we have to apply labels to Agrippa's experience, and then argue about which one actually applies? What's wrong with simply stating the facts and leaving it at that?

(Bench testing the distributor in front of my computer right now, lol.)

 

[jasoncran]

bench testing a distributor? pm me on that. im curious.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The point being, with the enablement of faith that comes with the Spirit's testimony about the gospel sent out into the world, man is given the chance to now not have to choose unrighteousness via the default choice he received in Adam (and cemented in place when he began to exercise that choice for unrighteousness), but can now choose righteousness through Christ.

Some say election requires King Agrippa to respond in whatever way God has ordained ahead of time that he must respond. But I say 'election' simply means that if he chooses to 'have' faith (meaning 'put his trust in what he now knows to be true' by the power of faith) he will be chosen for the kingdom. God's preordained plan being that men be chosen that way, on the basis of faith, not on the basis of acceptable works of the law.

Jacob and Esau demonstrate for us the truth of being chosen apart from what we do--good, and bad-- but chosen on the basis of God's predetermined way to choose people on the basis of their faith. Jacob had faith, Esau did not.

 

[ivdavid]

King Agrippa has had the revelation of Christ made known to him by the Spirit (1 John 5:6b).

This is the testimony of the Holy Spirit concerning Christ - this is NOT the same as man being "in the spirit(God-nature)". 1Cor 2:14 makes this difference - the natural man "in the flesh(self-nature)" does not accept the things/testimony of the Holy Spirit - only the spiritual man "in the spirit(God-nature)" can discern and accept the things of the Holy Spirit.

He now knows to be true that which he can not see with his eyes (Hebrews 11:1).

He has now been made aware of the truth - and at this point he does not accept this truth but rejects it, thereby confirming the above - that he is still a natural man in the flesh.

But he has yet to place his trust in that which he now knows by God's enablement of faith to be true about the Christ and remains lost in his faith (James 2:19).

I would disagree with most of the vocabulary of this above sentence (one remains lost in his faith??) - but since I get what you're conveying, contrast this choice of agrippa with any one of his choices from an earlier time and tell me what "enablement of truth" was required there for him not to have chosen wrongly back then? Also, is there a possibility that the truth about Christ can be presented/preached/given testimony about, without such "enabling of faith" happening?

And if God had brought about Judgement Day at the end of the Old Testament itself - and condemned all men into the lakes of fire, would you say God is Unrighteous/Unjust?

So, if we insist on applying the terms as you use them, he is both, 'in the flesh', and 'in the Spirit'.

Why do we have to apply labels to Agrippa's experience, and then argue about which one actually applies? What's wrong with simply stating the facts and leaving it at that?

We're regressing here. I'll just have to repeat ad verbatim my earlier post on this -
Firstly, it's a binary thing - either man is in the flesh(self-nature) - or he is in the spirit(God-nature).
Secondly, it does matter - given the Scriptural verses I referenced in my last post on this - which deny attributing this to the flesh.
Thirdly, these are not terms/labels thrown around ... because this is what Paul has written to signify the difference between the flesh and the spirit - and to conclude upon what he deemed important doctrines from that.

I'm basically asking which nature man operates by, when he chooses to believe - by the self-nature(flesh) that he was born in - or by the God-nature(spirit) that he's born again in?

Jacob and Esau demonstrate for us the truth of being chosen apart from what we do--good, and bad-- but chosen on the basis of God's predetermined way to choose people on the basis of their faith. Jacob had faith, Esau did not.

Given that "believing" is a good work, how are we to reconcile that Jacob was chosen apart from any good he did - and yet, on the basis of this good that he did?

 

[Tristan]

If as a Christian I'm already born again, why am I still sinful? There are a couple vital issues here.

1) Why does EVERYONE continue to live in the flesh even after becoming a Christian and being "born again"?
2) If one can only live by the Spirit when they're born again (because it seems we believe this is binary??), how is it that nonbelievers can display the fruit of the Spirit without being born again in the conventional sense.

These questions have easy answers.

1) We are not born again until the Lord returns, so we will remain sinful.
2) It's not a binary distinction (I hate black and white contrasts). I can be sinful and yet live by the Spirit (or else nobody is saved). There is a constant battle between my desires and conscience. I'll concede the battle has slowed down over time as I've grown closer to God, but the conflict remains. I'm sinful, yet I can also love others and live by the Spirit. It's a balance.

I find that most of the time, regardless of who I'm talking to, people tend to ignore my questions. I'd appreciate if they were directly approached.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

This is the testimony of the Holy Spirit concerning Christ - this is NOT the same as man being "in the spirit(God-nature)". 1Cor 2:14 makes this difference - the natural man "in the flesh(self-nature)" does not accept the things/testimony of the Holy Spirit - only the spiritual man "in the spirit(God-nature)" can discern and accept the things of the Holy Spirit.

You're making my point, not defeating it. Only by the Holy Spirit can a man 'hear' the truth. But it appears you're doing what many do--instantly equating simply hearing the Spirit, and knowing by virtue of that experience that the gospel is true, with being born again. How do you get out of the passage that you cited that Paul is speaking of saved people?

He has now been made aware of the truth - and at this point he does not accept this truth but rejects it, thereby confirming the above - that he is still a natural man in the flesh.

But according to your interpretation of the passage you just cited in 1 Corinthians 2 Agrippa has to be born again to be made aware of the truth--but now you say he's not, and that he is in the flesh. Very confusing. This is why I can't easily discuss things with you. Besides, you really need to be making the connection with this and election.

I would disagree with most of the vocabulary of this above sentence (one remains lost in his faith??) - but since I get what you're conveying, contrast this choice of agrippa with any one of his choices from an earlier time and tell me what "enablement of truth" was required there for him not to have chosen wrongly back then?

I guess you're going to have to explain how James says a person can 'know' the truth--what even he calls 'faith'--yet not be saved by that truth/faith, since the bottom line is you are rejecting that possibility.

And your question...it doesn't make sense. What enablement of truth is required to choose wrongly? Don't get it. Unless you want to know what enabled the people James is talking about (people who have faith) to then not be saved by that faith, suggesting they WOULD be saved if they had faith. But James says they are not.

Also, is there a possibility that the truth about Christ can be presented/preached/given testimony about, without such "enabling of faith" happening?

Yes, if the Holy Spirit is not speaking that testimony. But Paul said Agrippa 'believes' the truth. So even you know, according to your own doctrine, that he has heard the Spirit.

We're regressing here. I'll just have to repeat ad verbatim my earlier post on this -
Firstly, it's a binary thing - either man is in the flesh(self-nature) - or he is in the spirit(God-nature).
Secondly, it does matter - given the Scriptural verses I referenced in my last post on this - which deny attributing this to the flesh.
Thirdly, these are not terms/labels thrown around ... because this is what Paul has written to signify the difference between the flesh and the spirit - and to conclude upon what he deemed important doctrines from that.

I'm basically asking which nature man operates by, when he chooses to believe - by the self-nature(flesh) that he was born in - or by the God-nature(spirit) that he's born again in?

Agrippa proves to us choosing isn't about being lost or saved, and that being the determining factor in order for him to choose rightly. That's what I've been trying to show you.

Choosing isn't about being born-again vs. not being born-again. It's about simply being shown by the power and ministry of the Holy Spirit that the gospel is true (faith) so you can make an educated and informed decision about righteousness and be saved. You have to know the gospel is true before you can decide to be saved by that truth. But you're saying you have to be saved in order to decide to be saved. And worse, I don't even know how you're going to relate that to election.

Given that "believing" is a good work, how are we to reconcile that Jacob was chosen apart from any good he did - and yet, on the basis of this good that he did?

But the 'work' of believing is the very thing Paul contrasts the works that can't justify with!

See? You're doing exactly what most of the Protestant church does--you automatically assign even the 'work' of believing to the works that Paul says can't justify, even though he's clearly contrasting the work of believing with all other work. And because the church has done this, it has given rise to many distorted and erroneous doctrines--the view that election HAS to mean 'elected apart from the decision of the person being elected' being one of them.

I will connect the dots between them again if you want me to. But maybe you can see why you HAVE to believe election is entirely a work of God apart from the consent of man if you believe that even the work of believing is among the works that Paul says can't justify.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If as a Christian I'm already born again, why am I still sinful? There are a couple vital issues here.

1) Why does EVERYONE continue to live in the flesh even after becoming a Christian and being "born again"?
2) If one can only live by the Spirit when they're born again (because it seems we believe this is binary??), how is it that nonbelievers can display the fruit of the Spirit without being born again in the conventional sense.

These questions have easy answers.

1) We are not born again until the Lord returns, so we will remain sinful.
2) It's not a binary distinction (I hate black and white contrasts). I can be sinful and yet live by the Spirit (or else nobody is saved). There is a constant battle between my desires and conscience. I'll concede the battle has slowed down over time as I've grown closer to God, but the conflict remains. I'm sinful, yet I can also love others and live by the Spirit. It's a balance.

I find that most of the time, regardless of who I'm talking to, people tend to ignore my questions. I'd appreciate if they were directly approached.

The old nature and the new nature are the conflicting mindsets about good and evil.

Paul talks about one or the other taking predominance in a person's life in Romans 8, and how you can only please God if you have the mindset of the Spirit, and that it's impossible to please God in a mindset of the flesh.

Saved people are dominated, more and more as you point out, by the mindset of the Spirit. Unsaved people are dominated, more and more, by the mindset of the desires of the flesh.

Paul says to renew our minds through knowledge.

 

[dadoften]

dadof10, long time no see. I was not going to bother with this thread again, but then I saw your nick. You have been a decent chap in the past and I thought I would return and read what you had to say. If I might raise a methodological question here. I am always concerned about the need for careful exegetical methodologies. Your looking at the doctrine of election. You approach the subject with preset conditions or criteria to determine the outcome. You search the scriptures to see if God elects individuals and your criteria is that he must name an individual who is elect unto salvation to determine if this is true. Do you think there is a problem in the way you are approaching the issue? Doe you consider what you did to be careful exegesis of all the possible texts? You have already determined that the only possible criteria by which you can agree with individual election is that an individual must be named. What if the scriptures says speaks of individual election in a way that does not meet your criteria. What then?

Hi Mondar. Nice to see you again. This is actually Dadof10. I got very busy all of a sudden, then when I finally had time and tried to log in, I couldn't. I had to reset my password, but had an old email address...and on and on...blah blah. Anyway, to your points. If they have already been addressed, I apologize.

I don't come into any study with preconceived ideas. I clearly see that the Church as a whole is referred to as the "elect". I don't think this can be denied. John writes his letter to "the elect lady..." which is an obvious reference to the Church. What I don't see is any individual called, or referred to as, the "elect" or even part of the elect. As Chessman says below, the Church is made up of individuals, but I don't see it taught anywhere that the individual person is elected and THEN enters the Church. It's the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that's predestined to never let the "gates of hell" prevail. Whether or not the individual is PART of this elect body is totally up to him because he has free will.

To demonstrate that election does refer to individual persons, I can easily quote 2 Thes 2:13.
2 Thes 213 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
Of course it is not the term "elect" but rather a slightly different word translated "chose." The proposition of the verse is not God chose us to be in the Church. Other passages might affirm that, but not this one. The language of this passage definitely says "God chose you.... unto salvation." Now the word "you" in "God chose you" is certainly plural, but that does not mean we can assume he is speaking of the Church (universal body of Christ) as a corporate body in this context. In fact the universal church is not mentioned in the context. It is much more natural to the context to simply understand the plural "you" as referring to more then one person or individual that is chosen to salvation.

God chose us all for salvation. I believe in predestination, just not double predestination. God created us all for Heaven, we just goof it up because we CHOOSE to reject it.

Another way the scripture speaks of individual election is in Acts 13:48.
Acts 1348 And as the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of God: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
Here it uses the term "ordained" and not chosen, or elected. God, in eternity past, ordained it that when certain individuals would hear the word of Paul and the word of God, that they should believe it. Now this text does not propose that God ordained them because they believed, but rather they believe because God ordained it. Again, the free will is all God's, not ours.

God's ordination is the cause of ANYONE'S believing. I agree with you. It's all Grace. Where we disagree is that certain "elect" are predestined for Heaven and the others are predestined for Hell. This is not taught in Scripture.

Also, if you think about it, Christ is spoken of as elect in the scriptures, Israel is the elect nation in some contexts, even if you could demonstrate that there is a context where the Church is also spoken of in scriptures as elect, it would be logically non-sequitur to assume that this proves that there is no verse on individual election unto salvation.

Christ is sort of a special case, don't you think? Israel is called the "elect", it's true, which makes my point. Here is a group, and organization, if you will that's elected. The people within Judaism are the elect. Whether they STAY elected or decide to reject their election is up to them individually. This foreshadows the Church. Again, of course the Church is made up of individuals, but the elect are the members of this Church, which is a decision. A decision that's made every day.

No, it would prove that there is election for Christ to be savior and fulfill prophecy, it would prove that Israel is an elect nation, it would prove the Church is an elect body, it could even prove that individuals are chosen to prophetic or apostolic ministry, but none of that would negate individual election.

No, it wouldn't. I do think EVERY individual is called or chosen or whatever, for salvation. No one is chosen for damnation, which is really where we disagree. The point is that the vehicle of that election unto salvation is the Church.

To make a universal statement such as "election of individuals to salvation is not found in the bible" one must consider each and every reference. Even if all references refer to something other than salvation, and one reference refers to election or being chosen to salvation, and even though it is not in the terminology you decided it should be found in, you would still loose in your argumentation.

I think you misunderstood my view. All are chosen for salvation, though not all accept this calling and so remove themselves from the ranks of the "elect". Because a person accepts this calling and becomes an "elect" person, doesn't mean he can't, at some time in the future, decide to reject this "election". This is what Scripture teaches.

Nevertheless, even though we might not agree, it is good to see you. Where ever did Francisdesales get to?

Good to see you too. I don't know where Francis got off to. I hope he returns soon though.

 

[dadoften]

Concerning the reference to the "works of the law" - I personally do not hold "all works" to be "works of the law". But what does one mean by 'works of the law' and why exactly is it incapable of resulting in life?

A 'work' can be safely generalized to mean just about any 'state-changing activity' - right from the act of circumcision to even faith as is its connotation in John 6:28-29. Not all 'works' are sinful - as seen in the works borne out of us by God through what we will and do [Php 2:13] and in the reference to the fore-ordained "good works" as seen in Eph 2:10. Only the 'works' that amount to self-righteousness are sinful. So even circumcision, which is so often derided only as a "work of the law" that separates us from the grace of Christ - need not be sinful when it is not done out of self-righteousness [Acts 16:3].

Concerning the works 'of the law' - we'd have to look at what the 'law' is. And we see the Law of works states:
Lev 18:5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them

What is wrong with God requiring adherence to His statutes - nothing. And yet God does away with this Law and brings about the new covenant. Where then did this Law fail and why did God give such a Law in the first place? Rom 3:20 summarizes the answer - the Old covenant required "man in the flesh(self-nature)" to Do God's commandments to Live. This was to show man that he will not be able to do so in the flesh because of sin in the flesh. Having shown this, God proceeds with regenerating him in the spirit wherein God fulfills His new covenant :
Eze 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

Contrast this Declaration from God in the new covenant with the Conditional on man in the old covenant. Also contrast the causative root of works in both covenants - man in the flesh(self-nature) working unto his self-righteousness vs God in the spirit(God-nature) working out His righteousness in man.

So it isn't isolated works or deeds that can be categorized as sinful or not - rather such determination is made by seeing whether it is done in the flesh(self-nature) or in the spirit(God-nature). Accordingly, the reformed view does not accept as true faith that which is claimed by the flesh.

I agree. I have always held that it's the ATTITUDE in which we do "works" that Paul is referencing. If we do anything with a sense of putting God in obligation to us, this is the wrong attitude, and the one prevalent at the time. The Jews thought, and still think, they are saved due to their "Jewishness". God is obliged to save them because they keep his "ordinances and statutes", and they are the chosen people. So, in all his "faith vs. works" passages he is not saying "good deeds done in faith have nothing to do with your salvation", he is saying "keeping the law doesn't save". When Christians bring up Paul's letters to "prove" obedience to God has nothing to do with salvation, they are not taking into consideration that Paul is not talking about obedience, he is talking about the Mosaic law. Acts 15 bears this out.

 

[dadoften]

The predetermined element of election is God's plan for the church itself, not that each person entering into that plan was predetermined to be there ahead of time apart from their own will to be there.

The overall plan for a body of believers, and how you enter into that body, and what it looks like is what is predetermined. It is not, IMO, predetermined by God who will believe and who will not believe, though it's clear God has always known who would respond to the gospel and who would not, even before we were created, and he adjusted the rat maze we're scurrying around in accordingly to accommodate that foreknowledge.

I hope this clears up the misunderstanding about individual election in a predetermined body of believers in mine and dadof10's argument. The body as a whole is what was preconceived and ordained by God, not that individuals will be pre-programmed to believe ahead of time, and some will not. The kingdom will NEVER be overcome. That is predetermined. The fight is on for who will occupy that kingdom of their own free will (with lots of God's gracious help, of course).

Well said.

 

[ivdavid]

You're making my point, not defeating it.

I was only answering/clarifying your queries on my position - I wasn't setting out to defeat anyone's position. Besides, much of our doctrines overlap - so, we'll have to simply discern the points that we actually disagree upon - but for that, we should understand each other's positions well - which is what is being done now.

Only by the Holy Spirit can a man 'hear' the truth. But it appears you're doing what many do--instantly equating simply hearing the Spirit, and knowing by virtue of that experience that the gospel is true, with being born again. How do you get out of the passage that you cited that Paul is speaking of saved people?

Two concepts are at play here (I've split the 2nd concept into sub-parts) -
1) that of man "being made aware of the truth" [ what you call 'knowing' the truth, through 'enablement of faith'] - this is through the testimony of the Spirit.
2a) that of man "accepting/retaining the truth", in this case, "believing/trusting in Christ" / "having faith in Christ" - this is the choice of man.
2b) that of man "rejecting the truth" ie "not believing/trusting/having faith in Christ" [ what you'd call - "not retaining the faith" ] - this is the choice of man.

My position: The above (1) could happen to any man - there is no requirement that man be regenerate. (2a) happening necessarily confirms that that man is already regenerate. (2b) happening necessarily confirms that that man is still unregenerate.

Again, I'd like you to acknowledge my position on - "hearing the testimony of the Holy Spirit" NOT being the same as "being in the spirit(God-nature) [spirit(God-nature) is different from the Holy Spirit].

So as you can see,
A. I do NOT equate "hearing the testimony of the Spirit" with being regenerate. I only equate "accepting/retaining/believing that testimony" with being regenerate.
B. I do NOT equate "regeneration" with "hearing the testimony of the Spirit". I only equate "regeneration" with "being in the spirit(God-nature) [ spirit(God-nature) is different from the Holy Spirit].

But according to your interpretation of the passage you just cited in 1 Corinthians 2 Agrippa has to be born again to be made aware of the truth--but now you say he's not, and that he is in the flesh. Very confusing. This is why I can't easily discuss things with you.

I have never stated the above text in bold - I said, "Agrippa has to be born again to accept[retain/believe] the truth" - he already was made aware of the truth through the testimony of the Holy Spirit without requiring him to be born-again.

Besides, you really need to be making the connection with this and election.

Election is a given, if absolutely no credit is given to the flesh(self-nature).

I guess you're going to have to explain how James says a person can 'know' the truth--what even he calls 'faith'--yet not be saved by that truth/faith, since the bottom line is you are rejecting that possibility.

I believe a person can be "made aware of the truth" [what you call him 'knowing'] - and yet not be saved if he rejects that truth.
I do NOT believe a person can have faith - and not be saved.
I do NOT equate "knowing the truth" with "faith", but I'd adopt these terms to converse with you.

Some clarifying required from your end -
1a) Where does James call such "knowing the truth" as "faith" in James 2:19 ?
1b) If you claim that the word which has never been translated "faith" even once(out of 248 times) in the entire NT, is supposed to have been translated "faith" - what evidence do you have for this claim apart from your own theology?

And your question...it doesn't make sense. What enablement of truth is required to choose wrongly? Don't get it.

You say that this King Agrippa was given an "enablement of faith" so that he could now be "free" to choose to believe or reject the truth. Take any previous sin of Agrippa's - say, him having to judge a criminal justly - but he ended up setting him free for money. Agrippa still was making that choice between being corrupt and not corrupt, right? Why do you say that he didn't have a choice there because of Adam? What could God have done to "enable him to have chosen rightly" there?

Yes, if the Holy Spirit is not speaking that testimony. But Paul said Agrippa 'believes' the truth. So even you know, according to your own doctrine, that he has heard the Spirit.

Of course, the truth of the Gospel of Christ has been presented to Agrippa - and here, he rejects it. Like I've stated above, my doctrine sets no conditions on the hearing of the Gospel - it's only on the acceptance/retaining/believing aspect that my doctrine differentiates on.

But you're saying you have to be saved in order to decide to be saved.

We've already gone over this once - man is permitted to decide to be saved, he chooses not to be saved, he remains in condemnation, is dependent on God's mercy which when shown, saves him by a complete work of God alone.

Actually, both of us are referring to similar events. Both of us agree that man continually chooses evil in the flesh - Both of us agree that a supernatural work of God is required to disable this operation of the flesh, for man to be able to make the right choice. And here we depart - where I call this supernatural work as "regeneration" , you call it "enablement of faith". Where I say this is a permanent work of God, you call it a temporary work dependent on human input. I derive my core theology on this from Rom 8. Where from the Bible do you derive your doctrines on this from primarily?

But the 'work' of believing is the very thing Paul contrasts the works that can't justify with!

I'm not talking about justification at all - I'm limiting it to Jacob's selection alone, which isn't pertaining to personal salvation. How is Jacob's "believing" a basis for God's selection of inheritance lines, when God's election of grace is said to be independent of either boys' works?

 

[Tristan]

The old nature and the new nature are the conflicting mindsets about good and evil.

Paul talks about one or the other taking predominance in a person's life in Romans 8, and how you can only please God if you have the mindset of the Spirit, and that it's impossible to please God in a mindset of the flesh.

Saved people are dominated, more and more as you point out, by the mindset of the Spirit. Unsaved people are dominated, more and more, by the mindset of the desires of the flesh.

Paul says to renew our minds through knowledge.

So perhaps we're looking at a process rather than a single event?

 

[Deborah13]

I was only answering/clarifying your queries on my position - I wasn't setting out to defeat anyone's position. Besides, much of our doctrines overlap - so, we'll have to simply discern the points that we actually disagree upon - but for that, we should understand each other's positions well - which is what is being done now.


Two concepts are at play here (I've split the 2nd concept into sub-parts) -
1) that of man "being made aware of the truth" [ what you call 'knowing' the truth, through 'enablement of faith'] - this is through the testimony of the Spirit.
2a) that of man "accepting/retaining the truth", in this case, "believing/trusting in Christ" / "having faith in Christ" - this is the choice of man.
2b) that of man "rejecting the truth" ie "not believing/trusting/having faith in Christ" [ what you'd call - "not retaining the faith" ] - this is the choice of man.

My position: The above (1) could happen to any man - there is no requirement that man be regenerate. (2a) happening necessarily confirms that that man is already regenerate. (2b) happening necessarily confirms that that man is still unregenerate.

Again, I'd like you to acknowledge my position on - "hearing the testimony of the Holy Spirit" NOT being the same as "being in the spirit(God-nature) [spirit(God-nature) is different from the Holy Spirit].

So as you can see,
A. I do NOT equate "hearing the testimony of the Spirit" with being regenerate. I only equate "accepting/retaining/believing that testimony" with being regenerate.
B. I do NOT equate "regeneration" with "hearing the testimony of the Spirit". I only equate "regeneration" with "being in the spirit(God-nature) [ spirit(God-nature) is different from the Holy Spirit].


I have never stated the above text in bold - I said, "Agrippa has to be born again to accept[retain/believe] the truth" - he already was made aware of the truth through the testimony of the Holy Spirit without requiring him to be born-again.


Election is a given, if absolutely no credit is given to the flesh(self-nature).


I believe a person can be "made aware of the truth" [what you call him 'knowing'] - and yet not be saved if he rejects that truth.
I do NOT believe a person can have faith - and not be saved.
I do NOT equate "knowing the truth" with "faith", but I'd adopt these terms to converse with you.

Some clarifying required from your end -
1a) Where does James call such "knowing the truth" as "faith" in James 2:19 ?
1b) If you claim that the word which has never been translated "faith" even once(out of 248 times) in the entire NT, is supposed to have been translated "faith" - what evidence do you have for this claim apart from your own theology?


You say that this King Agrippa was given an "enablement of faith" so that he could now be "free" to choose to believe or reject the truth. Take any previous sin of Agrippa's - say, him having to judge a criminal justly - but he ended up setting him free for money. Agrippa still was making that choice between being corrupt and not corrupt, right? Why do you say that he didn't have a choice there because of Adam? What could God have done to "enable him to have chosen rightly" there?

Of course, the truth of the Gospel of Christ has been presented to Agrippa - and here, he rejects it. Like I've stated above, my doctrine sets no conditions on the hearing of the Gospel - it's only on the acceptance/retaining/believing aspect that my doctrine differentiates on.

Exactly, Paul says that Agrippa is well versed in the beliefs of the Jews. Later he says Agrippa, believes the Prophets, not the Paul's testimony of Christ. Agrippa believed in a coming Messiah, he did not believe that Christ was the prophesied Messiah.

Act 26:3 Especially because I know thee to be expert in all customs and questions which are among the Jews: wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently.
Act 26:22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
Act 26:27 King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest.
Act 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian. (believer in Christ, the Messiah)

We've already gone over this once - man is permitted to decide to be saved, he chooses not to be saved, he remains in condemnation, is dependent on God's mercy which when shown, saves him by a complete work of God alone.

Actually, both of us are referring to similar events. Both of us agree that man continually chooses evil in the flesh - Both of us agree that a supernatural work of God is required to disable this operation of the flesh, for man to be able to make the right choice. And here we depart - where I call this supernatural work as "regeneration" , you call it "enablement of faith". Where I say this is a permanent work of God, you call it a temporary work dependent on human input. I derive my core theology on this from Rom 8. Where from the Bible do you derive your doctrines on this from primarily?


I'm not talking about justification at all - I'm limiting it to Jacob's selection alone, which isn't pertaining to personal salvation. How is Jacob's "believing" a basis for God's selection of inheritance lines, when God's election of grace is said to be independent of either boys' works?

 

[ivdavid]

If as a Christian I'm already born again, why am I still sinful?

Concept 1:
Rom 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you....

Concept 2:
Rom 8:5 For they that are after[by] the flesh do mind[are inclined to] the things of the flesh; but they that are after[by] the spirit the things of the spirit.
Gal 5:16 But I say, walk by the spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.
Gal 5:17 For the desires of the flesh are against the spirit, and the desires of the spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other...

There are 2 sets of concepts here - being "in the flesh" refers to the natural man who is born in a self-nature(flesh). Such a man "in the flesh" can only operate "by the flesh" - and does not obey God's Law, cannot accept the things of the Holy Spirit and can never be pleasing to God.

When this man is regenerated, he(his soul) is supernaturally caused to be born again "in the spirit" ie in the God-nature(spirit) - and a new spiritual "inner man" is created within the outer flesh. Now this man can operate both "by the flesh" and "by the spirit" - he does good whenever he's working "by the spirit(God-nature)" and does evil whenever he's working "by his own decaying outer self-nature(flesh)". God preserves such a one through sanctification (mortifying the deeds by the flesh).

In the final resurrection, all flesh shall pass away and all those "in the spirit" are given Spiritual bodies to live in the Kingdom of God, where they can operate only "by the spirit".

1) Why does EVERYONE continue to live in the flesh even after becoming a Christian and being "born again"?

After one is born-again, he lives "in the spirit" - within the outer flesh - but can operate both "by the flesh" and "by the spirit".

2) If one can only live by the Spirit when they're born again (because it seems we believe this is binary??), how is it that nonbelievers can display the fruit of the Spirit without being born again in the conventional sense.

As I've stated above, one who is born again "in the spirit" can operate both "by the flesh" and "by the spirit". There is no claim made here that they will always operate "by the spirit" alone.

We discern good and evil by our flawed standards - before God, there is no flesh that does good.

1) We are not born again until the Lord returns, so we will remain sinful.

1John 5:1, 1Peter 1:3,23, Titus 3:5 state otherwise.

2) It's not a binary distinction (I hate black and white contrasts). I can be sinful and yet live by the Spirit (or else nobody is saved). There is a constant battle between my desires and conscience. I'll concede the battle has slowed down over time as I've grown closer to God, but the conflict remains. I'm sinful, yet I can also love others and live by the Spirit. It's a balance.

Of course, we will all be both sinful by ourselves and righteous by Christ in us - but what is binary is that we will always either be sinful by our own self-natures(flesh) or righteous by the God-nature(spirit). One cannot be righteous by the flesh nor can he sin by the spirit. This isn't exactly a balance - it's sanctification through mortification of the deeds by the flesh - the balance is heavily tilted since we have the Mind of Christ and the indwelling Holy Spirit.

So perhaps we're looking at a process rather than a single event?

Regeneration(being born again) "in the spirit" is a single event - sanctification from the deeds "by the flesh" is a process.