What is Election?

[Jethro Bodine]

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)

I hope I wasn't being misunderstood that Agrippa was somehow a Christian.

I was using him to point out that he is educated about Jesus. God has given him the fundamental faith necessary to then believe in Christ (he apparently has not rejected the truth of the scriptures themselves), but he has not put his knowledge of that truth (that God gives) to work in believing and trusting in what he knows to be true.

Does he know that Jesus, specifically, is the Christ? I don't know. It doesn't say. But God said that Paul's ministry would be to testify before Kings, so I don't see how God is not somehow using this opportunity to show Agrippa Jesus is the Christ, and that Agrippa is resisting the faith God is placing in his heart so he can put his trust in Christ. Simply knowing Jesus is the Christ through the enablement of faith to know that is true is not enough to be saved.

Some say 'election' means Agrippa can't believe (trust) in Jesus, and that God decides who will believe in Christ, and who will not. I can't help but to see the connection between that belief and the misguided belief that if we attribute the decision to Agrippa in even the slightest way that will amount to the self-righteous works that Paul says can't justify. But we can see clearly in Paul's letters that believing in Christ is exactly what Paul contrasts with the works that can't justify. That is the very 'work' Agrippa must do in order to be saved.

Off to the brain surgery mill...........next!....

 

[dadof10]

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.

Yes, one can say Desire One was a failure. It didn't happen. That's the definition of failure of desire. The only way "God can have multiple valid desires" fulfilled is if the fulfillment of these two desires don't contradict each other, which these do.

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.

Again, Desire#1 is a failure because, in your scenario, all men don't obey His commands. For Desire#1 to not be a failure it has to be fulfilled, which is impossible if Desire #2 is fulfilled. A person can have two desires fulfilled. What you have constructed is a contradiction. For the "greatest desire" to be fulfilled the lesser has to, by definition, fail.

 

[ivdavid]

It didn't happen. That's the definition of failure of desire.

Perhaps I shouldn't have assumed that it was implied in the context of what we were discussing back then. My statements were in response to primarily this from post#556-
"God picked a will and a purpose that clearly is not in line with the outcome."

I simply showed that God "picks" a desire and a purpose that is always in line with the outcome. Christ purposed Desire#2 to happen - and it did happen. Similarly with the other case. Here in this context, failure is defined not of the unfulfillment of any individual desire - but a mismatch between what God purposes to desire - and the final outcome. So one cannot claim that the final outcome did not match with the lesser desire - since it was never purposed by God anyways.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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

We know election is a legitimate concept. What we're debating is if election means God determines who will, and who won't be able to believe, entirely at his own discretion, apart from any consideration whatsoever of the individual's will.

And I can see how you HAVE to see election that way if you believe that giving any credit for believing in Christ to the person is somehow the work that Paul says can not make a person righteous and which amounts to nothing more than the damnable effort at being declared righteous by what you do.

That's why I ask that someone please show me where Paul says even believing is a part of the works of the law that can't justify. Please show me.

 

[ivdavid]

What we're debating is if election means God determines who will, and who won't be able to believe, entirely at his own discretion, apart from any consideration whatsoever of the individual's will.

Assuming "will" here refers to "one's exercising his ability to choose" - I'm saying that God determines who will be led to believe entirely at His own discretion after consideration of every single man's own individual will.

And I can see how you HAVE to see election that way if you believe that giving any credit for believing in Christ to the person is somehow the work that Paul says can not make a person righteous and which amounts to nothing more than the damnable effort at being declared righteous by what you do.

That's why I ask that someone please show me where Paul says even believing is a part of the works of the law that can't justify. Please show me.

Paul refers to all works in the flesh as pertaining to the Law of works. So, if you can state your belief on whether the work of "believing" is borne out in the flesh or in the spirit, accordingly I can show you how my understanding of election follows.

 

[mondar]

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.

Dadof10, we all come to the text with our traditions in the back of our mind and thus have preconceived ideas or presuppositions. There is no such thing as a person without presuppositions. The key is to be able to measure our own presuppositions against the text, but we all have presuppositions.

I am not sure why you question if an "individual person is elected and THEN enters the Church." That seems to simple to refute to me. I think there must be some misunderstanding on my part of what you were saying. In the "ordo salutus" Eph 1:4 places election in eternity past, when we were brought into the Church is in space time during our lifetimes.

As far as individuals being called "elect" that is what Romans 9 is about. The term election in Romans 9:11 is not speaking of the Church, nor of all fleshly Israel, but of individual Israelites. Notice the individuals named in Romans 9, such as Isaac (7 & 10) and Jacob (13). When in the context and speaking of the reprobate, Paul speaks of individuals again. He mentions Esau (13) and Pharaoh (17).

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.

God chose Israel as a nation for a revelatory purpose as the "Oracles" (Roman 3). God chose the Church, God chose certain apostles and prophets for specific ministries, but where in the bible would you quote a text that says each and everyone was chose. To the extent of my knowledge, no such text exists. Can you point me to one? God chose "us," but not text says God chose "all."

Concerning double predestination, few outside of Reformed circles will properly represent that doctrine. Non-Reformed protestants are the chief culprits. This causes huge confusion. The doctrine of double predestination does not teach that the decree of God for good is equal to the decree of God for evil. Rather it teaches that God is active and causes the good he decreed. With those he decrees for evil, he might restrain sin, and then when he hardens some like the Pharaoh he might stop restraining sin by lifting them up to power, but that is not the same thing as his active involvement in evil. In his decree of evil, God merely chooses whom to let go. This would take a whole conversation just to properly define double predestination.

 

[mondar]

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.

Two things. While its nice to agree, I think we view the phrase "It's all Grace" very differently. You would say that grace is necessary for everything and anything, I would say that Grace is sufficient. The difference is quite great.

Concerning concept of predestination, it is true that the scriptures does not use the term "predestination" with reference to those going to hell. The term predestination is used concerning those going to heaven in Ephesians and Romans 8. I suspect that your are speaking of those going to hell.

I would of course mention that while the term itself is not used of the reprobate, the concept of Gods absolute sovereignty is there. Romans 9:21-22 definitely has such a concept. More than this, other scriptures do speak of God's decree for evil. Acts 2:23 speaks of the determinate council of God deciding that Christ himself would be given over into the hands of evil men. Certainly we agree that this was for a purpose of a far greater good, but it does not nullify that God predetermined an evil in that passage. I guess you mention this below and call it a "special case." Well, no, I think God did this many other times.
---When Joseph was put in the pit and sold into slavery in Genesis, and later his brothers come before him expecting retribution, Jospeh answers them "Am I in the place of God." In other words, it is the place of God to decree what evil will happen. God chooses when to restrain evil, and when not to restrain evil but rather too use it for a greater good. Joseph mentions that it was God's intent to use the evil of the brothers to bring about a greater good, the deliverance of many (from starvation).
---God decreed that Israel (northern 10 tribes) was to be given over into the hands of Assyria for their discipline, but then turned around and destroyed Assyria for their sin.

I would agree that God does not cause evil, but he permits evil for a purpose. There are two purposes for evil, one is to show his goodness is greater than evil. The 2nd purpose is again found in Romans 9:22, it is to display his power. It is so that he might make manifest the full range of his glorious attributes. We are not only to see his mercy, love, and grace, but his glorious power in crushing sin. For him to crush sin, sin must exist. There can only be two possibilities. Maybe God just got lucky and some chose to rebel and he is then able to crush sin. The 2nd choice is that God from eternity past planned for a universe in which specific acts of sin were to come about. He intended for it to happen. He did not participate in the evil, but it did not at all surprise him because he intended it for the purpose of crushing sin and also for the purpose of manifesting his glorious goodness which triumphs over sin.

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.

It seems to me that we have some confusion here. Yes, Israel is elected, but in different senses. Israel is elected to be a vessel of revelation to all mankind. This does not speak of their salvation. On the other hand, individual Israelite's are also elected to salvation in Romans 9. As far as rejecting "it." The Israelites chosen to reveal God to the world will do exactly as decreed. If God decrees their evil behavior, they will do it. They will crucify the Son of God. Israel makes a decision to crusify Christ because God wanted and decreed it to happen.

This issue is related to the nature of prophecy. Think of all those predictive prophecies of Christ, his birth, his death. Do we have these sovereign events that God finds some crystal ball and peers into the future? Or did God know the future because he decreed those events from eternity past. In the first scenario, we have sovereign events that God can see. In the 2nd, we have an all powerful sovereign God who brings all to pass either by his own intervention for good, or his refusal to intervene in the case of an evil decree.

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.

dadoften, we must be cautious here of stepping over lines. We are both aware of issues in the background here.

I would disagree that the Church is the vehicle of salvation or election. That was the shed blood of Christ, and his shed blood alone. This blood is not the possession of any specific denomination.

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.

OK, I do not always get what everyone is saying the first time. I am sure you will clear up what you are saying, as you are.

I do not see any scripture anywhere that teaches universal election. If you do, please provide a text.

It seem to me what is being said by you is not that there is a decree by God. How can God make a decree and men are able to choose not to follow the decree? What kind of a decree is that? Does God control anything at all? Does he just sit back and look into the future and hope he gets lucky? Again, please provide a text for universal election.

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

LOL, yeah it would make it kind of like the "good ole days." Maybe we could once again debate sola scriptura or sola fide. Or maybe we did that enough already... : ).

 

[dadof10]

Perhaps I shouldn't have assumed that it was implied in the context of what we were discussing back then. My statements were in response to primarily this from post#556-
"God picked a will and a purpose that clearly is not in line with the outcome."

I simply showed that God "picks" a desire and a purpose that is always in line with the outcome.

This doesn't make it any less contradictory. I read post 556 and Jethro's point still stands. In your second example, God's will that "All men obey His commands and live" is thwarted by man's concupiscence, his free will to sin and die.

Christ purposed Desire#2 to happen - and it did happen. Similarly with the other case. Here in this context, failure is defined not of the unfulfillment of any individual desire - but a mismatch between what God purposes to desire - and the final outcome. So one cannot claim that the final outcome did not match with the lesser desire - since it was never purposed by God anyways.

Huh? God DESIRES "all men to obey..." yet all men don't. In fact, NO man does, completely anyway. How can you say that God's desire being unfulfilled is not failure?

 

[ivdavid]

How can you say that God's desire being unfulfilled is not failure?

Here in this context, failure is defined not of the unfulfillment of any individual desire - but a mismatch between what God purposes to desire - and the final outcome.

Where have you accounted for God's purposed choice in your last query - and by not doing so, how have you factored in my last response?

This is the sequence of steps:
1. God has multiple desires.
2. God purposefully chooses a set of consistent, non-contradictory desires from among the above to implement.
3. God implements what he has chosen above by His power.

4. The outcome is what results after God's above implementation and the influences of all other causative factors.

Now, the premise under consideration is very specifically if God's chosen desires (will) [step 2] always get fulfilled in the step 4 outcome. I am stating that this is always so.

So hypothetically, if God had chosen to implement His desire to have all men obey Him and live - He would not have created any in the flesh but have created all in the spirit - and therein would have the final outcome again in accordance with what He chose to implement. But God did not purposefully choose to implement this desire - He chose to implement the one where man gets to see God's glory in Righteousness, Justice, Mercy, Grace, Sovereignty etc. - and the outcome is so with this chosen desire.

 

[dadof10]

Two things. While its nice to agree, I think we view the phrase "It's all Grace" very differently. You would say that grace is necessary for everything and anything, I would say that Grace is sufficient. The difference is quite great.

Concerning concept of predestination, it is true that the scriptures does not use the term "predestination" with reference to those going to hell. The term predestination is used concerning those going to heaven in Ephesians and Romans 8. I suspect that your are speaking of those going to hell.

I would of course mention that while the term itself is not used of the reprobate, the concept of Gods absolute sovereignty is there. Romans 9:21-22 definitely has such a concept. More than this, other scriptures do speak of God's decree for evil. Acts 2:23 speaks of the determinate council of God deciding that Christ himself would be given over into the hands of evil men. Certainly we agree that this was for a purpose of a far greater good, but it does not nullify that God predetermined an evil in that passage. I guess you mention this below and call it a "special case." Well, no, I think God did this many other times.
---When Joseph was put in the pit and sold into slavery in Genesis, and later his brothers come before him expecting retribution, Jospeh answers them "Am I in the place of God." In other words, it is the place of God to decree what evil will happen. God chooses when to restrain evil, and when not to restrain evil but rather too use it for a greater good. Joseph mentions that it was God's intent to use the evil of the brothers to bring about a greater good, the deliverance of many (from starvation).
---God decreed that Israel (northern 10 tribes) was to be given over into the hands of Assyria for their discipline, but then turned around and destroyed Assyria for their sin.

I would agree that God does not cause evil, but he permits evil for a purpose. There are two purposes for evil, one is to show his goodness is greater than evil. The 2nd purpose is again found in Romans 9:22, it is to display his power. It is so that he might make manifest the full range of his glorious attributes. We are not only to see his mercy, love, and grace, but his glorious power in crushing sin. For him to crush sin, sin must exist. There can only be two possibilities. Maybe God just got lucky and some chose to rebel and he is then able to crush sin. The 2nd choice is that God from eternity past planned for a universe in which specific acts of sin were to come about. He intended for it to happen. He did not participate in the evil, but it did not at all surprise him because he intended it for the purpose of crushing sin and also for the purpose of manifesting his glorious goodness which triumphs over sin.


It seems to me that we have some confusion here. Yes, Israel is elected, but in different senses. Israel is elected to be a vessel of revelation to all mankind. This does not speak of their salvation. On the other hand, individual Israelite's are also elected to salvation in Romans 9. As far as rejecting "it." The Israelites chosen to reveal God to the world will do exactly as decreed. If God decrees their evil behavior, they will do it. They will crucify the Son of God. Israel makes a decision to crusify Christ because God wanted and decreed it to happen.

This issue is related to the nature of prophecy. Think of all those predictive prophecies of Christ, his birth, his death. Do we have these sovereign events that God finds some crystal ball and peers into the future? Or did God know the future because he decreed those events from eternity past. In the first scenario, we have sovereign events that God can see. In the 2nd, we have an all powerful sovereign God who brings all to pass either by his own intervention for good, or his refusal to intervene in the case of an evil decree.



dadoften, we must be cautious here of stepping over lines. We are both aware of issues in the background here.

I would disagree that the Church is the vehicle of salvation or election. That was the shed blood of Christ, and his shed blood alone. This blood is not the possession of any specific denomination.


OK, I do not always get what everyone is saying the first time. I am sure you will clear up what you are saying, as you are.

I do not see any scripture anywhere that teaches universal election. If you do, please provide a text.

It seem to me what is being said by you is not that there is a decree by God. How can God make a decree and men are able to choose not to follow the decree? What kind of a decree is that? Does God control anything at all? Does he just sit back and look into the future and hope he gets lucky? Again, please provide a text for universal election.



LOL, yeah it would make it kind of like the "good ole days." Maybe we could once again debate sola scriptura or sola fide. Or maybe we did that enough already... : ).

We haven't done it nearly enough because you still don't reject them

Mondar, I don't have the time to address every point above. Let me try to boil down how I see the "predestination" verses, especially Eph. 1.

Are you familiar with the Manning family? I don't know if you watch football, but since you live in America (Pennsylvania, I think), it's hard to escape the name "Manning" this time of year. Anyway, if you aren't, Archie played quarterback for the New Orleans Saints in the late 60's early 70's. He has three boys Cooper, Peyton and Eli. He groomed all three of them to play quarterback from a very young age. They all played in high school, but Cooper switched to receiver in his sophomore year (I think). He went on to become a successful businessman, not a quarterback. Peyton and Eli, on the other hand, are both playing quarterback in the NFL.

Archie could say that all three of his sons were predestined to play professional football. This was his wish for them and he groomed them for this purpose. Peyton could truthfully say about he and Eli that "We were predestined to be NFL quarterbacks." This would not negate the fact that Cooper was also "predestined" yet chose, by his own free will, another path.

Paul is speaking of himself and the other believers. This doesn't negate the fact that ALL are predestined for salvation, yet some choose another path. Certainly this analogy doesn't take into consideration the fact that Archie Manning is not omniscient and outside of time, but it does help show that because Paul says "he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him", doesn't mean He didn't choose ALL to be "holy and blameless", yet some chose another path.

 

[Tristan]

We haven't done it nearly enough because you still don't reject them

Mondar, I don't have the time to address every point above. Let me try to boil down how I see the "predestination" verses, especially Eph. 1.

Are you familiar with the Manning family? I don't know if you watch football, but since you live in America (Pennsylvania, I think), it's hard to escape the name "Manning" this time of year. Anyway, if you aren't, Archie played quarterback for the New Orleans Saints in the late 60's early 70's. He has three boys Cooper, Peyton and Eli. He groomed all three of them to play quarterback from a very young age. They all played in high school, but Cooper switched to receiver in his sophomore year (I think). He went on to become a successful businessman, not a quarterback. Peyton and Eli, on the other hand, are both playing quarterback in the NFL.

Archie could say that all three of his sons were predestined to play professional football. This was his wish for them and he groomed them for this purpose. Peyton could truthfully say about he and Eli that "We were predestined to be NFL quarterbacks." This would not negate the fact that Cooper was also "predestined" yet chose, by his own free will, another path.

Paul is speaking of himself and the other believers. This doesn't negate the fact that ALL are predestined for salvation, yet some choose another path. Certainly this analogy doesn't take into consideration the fact that Archie Manning is not omniscient and outside of time, but it does help show that because Paul says "he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him", doesn't mean He didn't choose ALL to be "holy and blameless", yet some chose another path.

A good football analogy gets you

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Assuming "will" here refers to "one's exercising his ability to choose" - I'm saying that God determines who will be led to believe entirely at His own discretion after consideration of every single man's own individual will.

Without any explanation I have nothing to comment on about your viewpoint.

I think God uses his foreknowledge concerning who he knows will or won't, in their own free will, believe. But it has nothing to do with God determining by his own design who will believe, and who won't believe. It goes back to the analogy of the rat maze. Man's free will is allowed to move about in the boundaries of God's will. He doesn't determine each person's will by design. He accommodates what he knows ahead of time what a person will do with the truth. That is how Judas was appointed to do what he did without having been programmed by God to do what he did. Same for Pharaoh.

Paul refers to all works in the flesh as pertaining to the Law of works.

Really the thing you have to show is if 'believing' (trusting in the blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sin) can be something a person can do without the inspiration and revelation and power of the Holy Spirit. I personally don't think so. IOW, I don't believe 'believing in the flesh' is possible that it should be addressed by Paul as belonging to the works he says can not justify.

So, if you can state your belief on whether the work of "believing" is borne out in the flesh or in the spirit, accordingly I can show you how my understanding of election follows.

I have to ask, "Do you think works of the law done 'in' the Spirit removes sin guilt (justifies)?" Is that what you are suggesting we are to get out of Paul's teaching? That it isn't the 'what' that you are doing, but the 'how',or 'why'? I disagree.

Only the blood of Christ can remove sin guilt. There is no amount of righteous work done in or out of the Spirit that can remove sin guilt. That's why it's a free gift, and why it can only be a free gift. That's why removal of sin guilt through the blood of Christ (justification) can only come by applying that blood. The way that blood is applied is through trust in that blood. That's why the free gift comes through faith.

I'm of the opinion that man is completely incapable of believing (trusting) in the gospel except by aid of the Spirit. He can't even know it's true except by the gift of faith to know it's true. That's why God gets the credit, not the man who chose of his own free will to believe the gospel. There is no such thing as 'believing' in the flesh. Belief only happens through God's gracious gift of revelation of the truth--IOW, believing only happens because God reveals the truth to a person by faith. The person is then saved when they trust in what God has shown them to be true by the power of faith. Some people reject the Spirit of faith showing them the truth and they are lost.

 

[ivdavid]

I think God uses his foreknowledge concerning who he knows will or won't, in their own free will, believe....It goes back to the analogy of the rat maze. Man's free will is allowed to move about in the boundaries of God's will. He doesn't determine each person's will by design. He accommodates what he knows ahead of time what a person will do with the truth. That is how Judas was appointed to do what he did without having been programmed by God to do what he did. Same for Pharaoh.

I hold as true, all of your above quote - except perhaps my calling it man's will and not man's freewill.
1. So, we have God using His foreknowledge to know who will believe and who won't by their own will(choosing). This is what I hold to be God's consideration of human will concerning the truth of the Gospel.
2. I now proceed forth from this point - to say that God is entitled to uphold His judgement and condemnation of sin in every single man who chooses to reject the truth of the Gospel.
3. And after having found them worthy of condemnation, God is also entitled to show mercy upon whom He sovereignly wills - which is what happens through the reformed understanding of the election of grace.

I can even see the exact place we differ upon -
You believe that in step1 itself, some men choose to accept/believe the truth of the Gospel 'enabled by the power of the testimony of the Holy Spirit', after which they are given the new nature,heart etc. I believe that the natural man does not and cannot accept/believe the powerful spiritual testimony of the Holy Spirit without also being given the new nature(spirit),heart etc.(my understanding of being enabled) by His grace and mercy (after step 3).

Would you agree with this being the core point of difference?

Really the thing you have to show is if 'believing' (trusting in the blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sin) can be something a person can do without the inspiration and revelation and power of the Holy Spirit.

But this wasn't my question at all in the first place. I've constantly kept clarifying that whenever I ask if man is "in the spirit" - this term 'spirit' is not referring to the Holy Spirit but to man's own spiritual nature. Both of us agree that the powerful testimony of the Holy Spirit is a Must - but does man's choosing to believe/trust proceed forth from his self-nature(flesh) or his God-nature(spirit)?

 

[ivdavid]

I have to ask, "Do you think works of the law done 'in' the Spirit removes sin guilt (justifies)?"

Again, clarifying that "in the spirit" refers to being within the spiritual God-nature of man - I'd say it's a misnomer to call it "works of the law" done "in the spirit". The Law pertains to the flesh - hence "works of the law" actually refers to "works of the flesh" which clearly doesn't justify because of sinful flesh. How can these "works of the flesh" be done "in the spirit", given that the spirit(God-nature) is the direct opposite of what the flesh(self-nature) is?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

3. And after having found them worthy of condemnation, God is also entitled to show mercy upon whom He sovereignly wills - which is what happens through the reformed understanding of the election of grace.

I think we both know that man can only make a choice for salvation if God offers it in the first place. What I see contradictory to God's own words about his desire to see all men saved is the belief that God chooses to withhold his calling to salvation to accountable people that if he had called them would have responded and been saved.

I can even see the exact place we differ upon -
You believe that in step1 itself, some men choose to accept/believe the truth of the Gospel 'enabled by the power of the testimony of the Holy Spirit', after which they are given the new nature,heart etc. I believe that the natural man does not and cannot accept/believe the powerful spiritual testimony of the Holy Spirit without also being given the new nature(spirit),heart etc.(my understanding of being enabled) by His grace and mercy (after step 3).

But you call the giving of that nature salvation itself. But it's clear that it is the presence of the Spirit in power to help someone decide to believe and trust in what he's hearing and then be saved. If that wasn't true then we have no choice to conclude that your doctrine says only people who God knows will be saved are called (can you see that?). But the Bible clearly says many are called but only a few are chosen.

Would you agree with this being the core point of difference?

Not the core.

But this wasn't my question at all in the first place. I've constantly kept clarifying that whenever I ask if man is "in the spirit" - this term 'spirit' is not referring to the Holy Spirit but to man's own spiritual nature. Both of us agree that the powerful testimony of the Holy Spirit is a Must - but does man's choosing to believe/trust proceed forth from his self-nature(flesh) or his God-nature(spirit)?

Fallen man is always in his own spirit.

And as I say, it's impossible for a person to make a choice for the gospel without the Holy Spirit somewhere in the mix. When man does choose it is he himself choosing but by an abounding measure of God's grace by the Holy Spirit coaching and encouraging that choice.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Again, clarifying that "in the spirit" refers to being within the spiritual God-nature of man - I'd say it's a misnomer to call it "works of the law" done "in the spirit".

"In the Spirit" means "by the Spirit". There is no 'spiritual God-nature of man'. Either the Holy Spirit guides him, or He does not. By the very definition, man has no capacity for spiritual discernment. If a man is 'spiritual' it is because he has the Holy Spirit operating in him to some extent.

The Law pertains to the flesh...

Only if that's the only way a person understands 'law'. And this is what I was getting at. The Protestant church can only understand 'law' in regard to it being a way that a person tries to be justified. So every time 'law' is mentioned they instantly attach that connotation. But that is hardly the only meaning of 'law'.

...hence "works of the law" actually refers to "works of the flesh" which clearly doesn't justify because of sinful flesh.

If that's how you use the phrase, then that's what it means. But 'works of the law' does not categorically mean 'trying to to justified by the works of the law'.

Saved people uphold the works of the law through the power of the Spirit. That hardly means they're trying to be justified by not violating the requirements of the law by living a righteous life through the power of the Holy Spirit.

How can these "works of the flesh" be done "in the spirit", given that the spirit(God-nature) is the direct opposite of what the flesh(self-nature) is?

The problem is you have been taught by the church that any and all obedience to the law--even through the power of the Holy Spirit--amounts to nothing more than a fleshly effort to be justified by that work.

God gave us the Holy Spirit to satisfy the requirements of the law, not trample on them.

This is the fundamental reason why 'election' HAS to mean 'predetermined by God apart from any willful input of man'. Because if man did put any willful input into it that would amount to a sinful 'work of the law' which Paul says can not justify. I ask,"show me where Paul says believing in Christ is a sinful work of the law." I see him directly contrasting believing in Christ to be justified with performing works of the law to be justified.

 

[ivdavid]

I think we both know that man can only make a choice for salvation if God offers it in the first place.

2. I now proceed forth from this point - to say that God is entitled to uphold His judgement and condemnation of sin in every single man who chooses to reject the truth of the Gospel.

Man did have that offer in all that you described in your post#592 - which I confirmed my agreement with as my point 1 before proceeding on to my points 2 and 3 in my post#593. How then have you concluded that my beliefs imply the offer was never made? Aren't "Many called" in my point 1 - which is your very description of the rat maze etc.?

Fallen man is always in his own spirit.
There is no 'spiritual God-nature of man'.

What is this "man's own spirit" according to you?

Saved people uphold the works of the law through the power of the Spirit. That hardly means they're trying to be justified by not violating the requirements of the law by living a righteous life through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Are you by any chance referring to the "Law of works" as the set of OT commandments given by God to man - because I'm referring very specifically to just the single verse in Lev 18:5 as the very Law of works itself?

When man does choose it is he himself choosing but by an abounding measure of God's grace by the Holy Spirit coaching and encouraging that choice.

Do you at least differentiate between the "outer flesh" and the "inner man" ? If so, what is the difference - and does that difference apply in the context of man's choosing to trust in Christ?

Won't be able to reply promptly as I'm travelling all over, this week.

 

[mondar]

Hi Jethro, you keep making statements like the one above. I pretty sure you don't mean the "church" as in "the body of Christ", do you? The only denomination that I know of that believes that one is regenerated/born again, before they believe and repent, is SOME of the Calvinists. You will not find this teaching in churches such as AoG, or other Pentecostals (not speaking here of charismatics). SPURGEON, did not believe that either. Here's a quote from Spurgeon and a link to the whole sermon.

"If I am to preach the faith in Christ to a man who is regenerated, then the man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him to believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate. " [Sermon entitled The Warrant of Faith]. C. Spurgeon
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0531.htm

In order to use the word regeneration to mean the Holy Spirit preparing hearts, they must change the meaning of the word regeneration (renewed) or they are saying that one is saved, before believing or even knowing their need to repent in order to be saved. Which is what I hear Spurgeon saying.

Hope you had a great Thanksgiving.

All Calvinists believe that regeneration preceeds faith in the ordo salutus. On the other hand, not even one Calvinist believes that regeneration occurs before faith in time.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

All Calvinists believe that regeneration preceeds faith in the ordo salutus. On the other hand, not even one Calvinist believes that regeneration occurs before faith in time.

Which doesn't make sense since you have to have faith to be regenerated. But I guess that's the point.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

How then have you concluded that my beliefs imply the offer was never made?

Because you say the ability to see the truth, revealed by the Holy Spirit, is in and of itself regeneration.

You're saying the faith God gives people to see the gospel truth, so they can make a decision about it, is itself salvation. Therefore, your doctrine says the called are also the chosen, with no distinction made between the two. But the Bible makes a very clear distinction between the two, even saying there are many called, but few chosen.

What is this "man's own spirit" according to you?

What is it? It's the spirit of a man.

It's not God's spirit. It's the spirit of the individual. That doesn't make the spirit of a man 'spiritual', as in 'holy and good'. It simply means the spirit part of a person--one of the three parts of a person--spirit, soul, and body.

Are you by any chance referring to the "Law of works" as the set of OT commandments given by God to man - because I'm referring very specifically to just the single verse in Lev 18:5 as the very Law of works itself?

No.

You're using the word law as in 'a law of works as a way to be justified'. The problem is, when a person thinks that's the only aspect of law there is they make the mistake of thinking that even 'believing', if attributed to coming from the person themselves, is somehow a work in a 'law of works' that can not justify. But Paul contrasts 'believing' as a way to be justified with 'keeping the law' as a way to be justified, not equates them. But your doctrine equates them.

Most in the church, even if they don't hold your doctrine specifically, think that if we say we are responsible for whether we choose to believe, or not, that amounts to trying to earn a declaration of justification yourself. I say, show me where the Bible says this. The only way you can show this is to suggest that what Paul means by 'works of the law' is that doing anything yourself in your own strength is equal to trying to justify yourself.

It's a fundamental misunderstanding of Paul's faith/works teaching. Paul is saying there is nothing you can do to remove sin guilt. It can only be washed away by the blood of Christ. The way you get the blood to do that is believe that it will do that. That's hardly the equivalent of doing works of the law to earn a declaration of justification.

Do you at least differentiate between the "outer flesh" and the "inner man" ? If so, what is the difference - and does that difference apply in the context of man's choosing to trust in Christ?

Of course I differentiate between the flesh body of a person, and the spirit of a person. They are different because they are two distinct parts of a human being--just as body and soul are two different and distinct parts of a human being.

God's Spirit speaks to the spirit of a person. That doesn't mean every person's spirit is 'spiritual', as in 'godly' spiritual. It simply means every person has a spirit. A spirit to which God communicates by his Spirit. And a spirit to which God joins his spirit to when that person believes in (not just knows about) the gospel.