I chose God..Or God chose me...

[JIM]

You will be correct when you present the man who has successfully chosen (accomplished) never to sin in thought, word and deed throughout his life.

All could, none have.

I am curious, Eleanor, what sin have you committed that you had no choice to not commit. You don't have to tell us; but think about it and tell us if you think there was/is one such sin.

 

[Eleanor]

All could, none have.

I am curious, Eleanor, what sin have you committed that you had no choice to not commit. You don't have to tell us; but think about it and tell us if you think there was/is one such sin.

Can sinful thoughts be controlled by one's own power?

Can sinful feelings be controlled by one's own power?

Can sinful desires be controlled by one's own power?

Etc.

 

[makesends]

Neat graphic indeed.

View attachment 437

Neat graphic. Source?

Neat graphic indeed.

Josheb and Johan, do you see the RC and Orthodox as theologically that dependent on sacrament? I know that practically, they are —specially the RCC— but from what I have heard of their theological authorities, that is secondary to all else. But then, I never do hear the whole story, but a sort of fence-straddling, at least, on the part of the RCC.

And, Freddy, too. Exactly what does 2-sacrament salvation mean, and what does 7-sacrament salvation mean?

 

[makesends]

JIM said:
I am curious, Eleanor, what sin have you committed that you had no choice to not commit. You don't have to tell us; but think about it and tell us if you think there was/is one such sin.

Can sinful thoughts be controlled by one's own power?

Can sinful feelings be controlled by one's own power?

Can sinful desires be controlled by one's own power?

Etc.

Jim, you seem to misunderstand what Eleanor is getting at, and what the Scriptures teach. It is not a question of whether or not one has a real choice to commit vs not commit sin. It is a question of what the unregenerate mind of flesh ALWAYS WILL choose.

But, I'd like to dig on that scab a bit. If given the choice to obey or disobey, "Thou shalt not covet", for example, even their momentary 'choice to obey' is only "obedience" from a soul and mind/heart of sin, and at enmity with God. Their supposed obedience is not submission, but compliance. The unregenerate heart CANNOT generate the faith that depends on God, producing obedience.

 

[Josheb]

Josheb and Johan, do you see the RC and Orthodox as theologically that dependent on sacrament? I know that practically, they are —specially the RCC— but from what I have heard of their theological authorities, that is secondary to all else. But then, I never do hear the whole story, but a sort of fence-straddling, at least, on the part of the RCC.

And, Freddy, too. Exactly what does 2-sacrament salvation mean, and what does 7-sacrament salvation mean?

Relevance to the op?

I'll answer this way: Calvin was a reluctant Protestant Reformer. He hoped the RCC would change, and he wrote a series of articles known as "The Institutes of the Christian Religion" in which he posted his views for reform. Calvin was RCC and he attributed his salvation to his childhood baptism (which is a Sacrament - a Sacrament, not a sacrament). No one in Reformed circle thinks that way nowadays.

 

[makesends]

ELECTION/PREDESTINATION AND THE NEED FOR A THEOLOGICAL BALANCE

Election is a wonderful doctrine. However, it is not a call to favoritism, but a call to be a channel, a tool, or means of others' redemption! In the Old Testament the term was used primarily for service; in the New Testament it is used primarily for salvation which issues in service. The Bible never reconciles the seeming contradiction between God's sovereignty and mankind's free will, but affirms them both! A good example of the biblical tension would be Romans 9 on God's sovereign choice and Romans 10 on mankind's necessary response (cf. Rom. 10:11,13).

The key to this theological tension may be found in Ephesians 1:4. Jesus is God's elect man and all are potentially elect in Him (Karl Barth). Jesus is God's "yes" to fallen mankind's need (Karl Barth). Ephesians 1:4 also helps clarify the issue by asserting that the goal of predestination is not heaven, but holiness (Christlikeness). We are often attracted to the benefits of the gospel and ignore the responsibilities! God's call (election) is for time as well as eternity!

Doctrines come in relation to other truths, not as single, unrelated truths. A good analogy would be a constellation versus a single star. God presents truth in eastern, not western, genres. We must not remove the tension caused by dialectical (paradoxical) pairs of doctrinal truths:

1. Predestination vs. human free will

2. Security of the believers vs. the need for perseverance

3. Original sin vs. volitional sin

4. Sinlessness (perfectionism) vs. sinning less

5. Initial instantaneous justification and sanctification vs. progressive sanctification

6. Christian freedom vs. Christian responsibility

7. God's transcendence vs. God's immanence

8. God as ultimately unknowable vs. God as knowable in Scripture

9. The Kingdom of God as present vs. future consummation

10. Repentance as a gift of God vs. repentance as a necessary human covenantal response

11. Jesus as divine vs. Jesus as human

12. Jesus as equal to the Father vs. Jesus as subservient to the Father

The theological concept of "covenant" unites the sovereignty of God (who always takes the initiative and sets the agenda) with a mandatory initial and continuing repentant faith response from mankind (cf. Mark 1:15; Acts 3:16,19; 20:21). Be careful of proof-texting one side of the paradox and depreciating the other! Be careful of asserting only your favorite doctrine or system of theology!

From a Texan Baptist minister.

Where would you place this on your list?

Johan said:
Take note @JIM -no one is answering this. Free human volition is a "no no"

My travels have kept me away for a while, so I didn't see this till now, but maybe nobody answered it because they don't want to deal with @Josheb handing them a demerit for wandering off-topic. Start a thread on this and invite me so I don't miss it, and I'll answer it.

But since the OP is about election, I will answer the remarks you gave concerning that. (By the way, I can't tell for sure whether the Tex minister or you said the first few things, or even, if he said it all, whether you agree with him or not. My guess is, you agree with it, since you deemed it important enough to post it.)

Why do you (or he) say Election is a call, at all?! Election is a call? Certainly the Elect are called, but to say that Election is a call, seems a mighty weak way to put God's purpose for creation.

God didn't choose the Elect from a pool of possibles, for his purposes. He CREATED the elect for his purposes.

Ok, Josheb, look the other way, while I say this concerning his other remarks: If God doesn't see a paradox or tension, why must we 'hold to both sides' or even believe in either side? Our trust in our own concepts as though they are the substance of truth, borders on insanity. As with Election, everything God does is first —even as the Tex said— initial, and with purpose beyond just the event or principle. Everything else follows, and does not lead. Everything else is a result of God's decree. And the truth isn't in the middle of some supposed tension.

 

[makesends]

Relevance to the op?

I'll answer this way: Calvin was a reluctant Protestant Reformer. He hoped the RCC would change, and he wrote a series of articles known as "The Institutes of the Christian Religion" in which he posted his views for reform. Calvin was RCC and he attributed his salvation to his childhood baptism (which is a Sacrament - a Sacrament, not a sacrament). No one in Reformed circle thinks that way nowadays.

Thanks. And, no particular relevance. It just hit me strangely that they would actually believe the sacraments save, as a theological stance in itself.

 

[fastfredy0]

And, Freddy, too. Exactly what does 2-sacrament salvation mean, and what does 7-sacrament salvation mean?

Seven sacraments is an RCC thing I believe. I'm too lazy to look it up. Stuff they do to earn heaven and a shorter stay in purgatory.

What does "Two sacrament salvation" mean ... hmmm.... I'm not sure. I don't use the term.

 

[Josheb]

Ok, Josheb, look the other way..........

(maybe just this one time)

 

[JIM]

JIM said:
I am curious, Eleanor, what sin have you committed that you had no choice to not commit. You don't have to tell us; but think about it and tell us if you think there was/is one such sin.

Jim, you seem to misunderstand what Eleanor is getting at, and what the Scriptures teach. It is not a question of whether or not one has a real choice to commit vs not commit sin. It is a question of what the unregenerate mind of flesh ALWAYS WILL choose.

But, I'd like to dig on that scab a bit. If given the choice to obey or disobey, "Thou shalt not covet", for example, even their momentary 'choice to obey' is only "obedience" from a soul and mind/heart of sin, and at enmity with God. Their supposed obedience is not submission, but compliance.

No, it is more about what you. and others who believe as you do, that whatever the unregenerate does is wrong, that the unregenerate cannot do anything right. You have a lot to say about what the unregenerate cannot do. I am not certain where that comes from biblically. I think I might know, but it is not something that is written out in the scriptures. So I am suspect of any doctrine that is wholly dependent upon that concept; and that to the point that I believe it is wrong.

The unregenerate can indeed obey God. They don't always do so, but neither does the regenerate. There is the notion within Calvinism that when the unregenerate mother nurse her baby it is sin, but when the regenerate does so it is not. That is absolutely nuts.

The unregenerate heart CANNOT generate the faith that depends on God, producing obedience.

I do not believe that. I don't believe God has said that.

 

[fastfredy0]

The unregenerate can indeed obey God. They don't always do so, but neither does the regenerate. There is the notion within Calvinism that when the unregenerate mother nurse her baby it is sin, but when the regenerate does so it is not. That is absolutely nuts.

You don't understand the Reformed position. Sin is defined the same way for the regenerate as the unregenerate. It is not sinful for the unregenerate to nurse her baby according to the Reformed position; that is nuts .
The Reformed position is that the unregenerate cannot "please" God (Heb. 11:6) and that the wrath of God is upon them as evidenced by their eternity being spent in hell. Both the unregenerate and regenerate can obey God to a degree; both can take the trash out when dad so orders for example.

 

[Carbon]

You don't understand the Reformed position. Sin is defined the same way for the regenerate as the unregenerate. It is not sinful for the unregenerate to nurse her baby according to the Reformed position; that is nuts .
The Reformed position is that the unregenerate cannot "please" God (Heb. 11:6) and that the wrath of God is upon them as evidenced by their eternity being spent in hell. Both the unregenerate and regenerate can obey God to a degree; both can take the trash out when dad so orders for example.

Yep

 

[JIM]

The Reformed position is that the unregenerate cannot "please" God (Heb. 11:6) and that the wrath of God is upon them as evidenced by their eternity being spent in hell. Both the unregenerate and regenerate can obey God to a degree; both can take the trash out when dad so orders for example.

So then God is not pleased the unregenerate mother nurses her baby? Does that really mean that God is displeased with that mother for caring for her baby? Absolutely not. You are getting the wrong message to Hebrews 11:6.

Heb 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

The message there, I believe, is simply that you cannot please God if you don't even believe there is a God. It is a statement about the unregenerate, not a statement about what God does or does not like. It means God does not reward, i.e., save, someone who does not believe He exists. That may be a subtle distinction, but an important one.

 

[JIM]

Yep

Nope

 

[Bob Carabbio]

There is so much controversy over these two testimonies from believers

I never chose God, he chose me...I never chose to be birthed in the Spirit.

Thoughts please?

Does the living word of God teach that we can choose to be birthed in the Spirit?

NOBDY comes to Christ except for God's "DRAWING" (John 6:44)

 

[fastfredy0]

So then God is not pleased the unregenerate mother nurses her baby? Does that really mean that God is displeased with that mother for caring for her baby? Absolutely not.

Definition: PLEASED = "experiencing pleasure"

God is unaffected by what we do. (Job 7:35-36)
God is immutable which means He's not pleased at one moment and "not pleased" at another. Therefore, you premise and conclusion don't make sense as they attribute attributes to God that He does not have.

You are getting the wrong message to Hebrews 11:6.

Well, one or both of us doesn't know what they are talking about. We both think it's the other person. *giggle*

IMO your underlying philosophy also wrongly asserts that people at times are the CAUSE of what God does; that God reacts to what we do; that people can affect God. Everything goes God's according to God's desire/plan; that plan existed before creation. Your view of God makes us the potter and God the clay in an example like mother's nursing babies. Your ideas of God gives reason to boast in what we do; for example: She nursed the baby and made God pleased/happy. God owes her for what she did and God is thankful for what she did. It doesn't work that way. Most people see God through a anthrocentric lens rather than a theocentric lens.

Aside: Yeah, I know .... you think I'm wrong. *Kewl* Probably best that we don't waste each other time much longer.

 

[JIM]

IMO your underlying philosophy also wrongly asserts that people at times are the CAUSE of what God does; that God reacts to what we do; that people can affect God.

The OT is one long history of God reacting to people, both believers and unbelievers, both being pleased and being angry. The idea that He doesn't is pure foolishness.

Everything goes God's according to God's desire/plan; that plan existed before creation.

Yes, He planned even before creation to react to His creation. The fact that He knew before creation what He would react to and what His reaction would be does not preclude His reactions.

Your view of God makes us the potter and God the clay in an example like mother's nursing babies.

No, it doesn't.

Your ideas of God gives reason to boast in what we do; for example:

I don't think so. But I am sure that He is happy for the baby when it gets taken care of. I guess you think He isn't. Interesting.

 

[fastfredy0]

The OT is one long history of God reacting to people, both believers and unbelievers, both being pleased and being angry. The idea that He doesn't is pure foolishness.

Your logic goes as follows IMO:
Premise 1: We are the cause of God's reactions.
Premise 2: God does not change.
Conclusion: This is a contradiction. One of your premises is WRONG. Granted, you have not stated that is God is immutable. If you want to state God is mutable, we can go down that road. Otherwise, you have an unsolvable contradiction.

The idea that He doesn't is pure foolishness.

One or both of us is spouting foolishness. You stating the foolishness is my argument is self-serving and not a meritorious argument.

Yes, He planned even before creation to react to His creation. The fact that He knew before creation what He would react to and what His reaction would be does not preclude His reactions.

More logic that does not bare scrutiny which follows.
Premise 1: We are the cause of God's reactions.
Premise 2: God knew before creation what would happen (I agree to this)
Premise 3: From nothing, nothing comes (ex nihilo nihil fit)
Conclusion: The only source of God's knowledge before creation was God Himself as nothing else existed. Therefore, it is not possible for God for premise 1 to be true. Therefore, you're wrong IMO.

fastfredy0 said: Your view of God makes us the potter and God the clay in an example like mother's nursing babies.

No, it doesn't.

*giggle* .. you're entire thesis is that what we do causes God to react. This is analogous to Man being the Potter to some degree and god being the clay. Man does "X" to the clay (God) and the clay (God) is shaped (reacts) to our actions. Logically, you make man into God to the degree that you make man sovereign over God. In your heart I imagine you don't think this is true, but your statements, if followed to their logic end, supports my statements. (IMO *giggle*)

 

[JIM]

Your logic goes as follows IMO:
Premise 1: We are the cause of God's reactions.
Premise 2: God does not change.
Conclusion: This is a contradiction. One of your premises is WRONG. Granted, you have not stated that is God is immutable. If you want to state God is mutable, we can go down that road. Otherwise, you have an unsolvable contradiction.

Premise 1 is yours, not mine. [edit by mod] Even if Premise 1 were true, those two premises do not pose a contradiction. [edit by mod]

 

[Mr GLee]

There is so much controversy over these two testimonies from believers

I never chose God, he chose me...I never chose to be birthed in the Spirit.

Thoughts please?

Does the living word of God teach that we can choose to be birthed in the Spirit?

I would suggest look to the law of faith

God by the seed of His living word . . . "Let there be a Chicken laying eggs" and "it was good."

"Let there be a new heart and soul" and"it was very good"

Why did the chicken cross the road???? LOL