Theology Question For Calvinist/Reformed Members

[DialecticSkeptic]

Are the elect created to belong to Christ and is the choosing that God does choosing to create those specific persons for Christ, for His glory, and as His inheritance? That would certainly change one's perspective from redemption being man centered to being God centered.

I think your question is apt to trigger the infralapsarians, while causing the supralapsarians all to shrug and say, "Of course." I find myself hanging out a lot more in the latter camp lately.

I would recommend for your consideration the modified post-Barthian doctrine of creatio continua ex electione as conceived by David W. Congdon, "Creatio Continua Ex Electione: A Post-Barthian Revision of the Doctrine of Creatio Ex Nihilo," Koinonia 22 (2010): 33-53). The creation by God of all reality that's distinct from God took place on the basis of the pactum salutis and with a view to its execution. That is to say, God's decision to elect Jesus Christ is simultaneously God's decision to create; God elects, and creation is brought into intelligible existence. Election is logically antecedent to creation but they are chronological coincidents. Thus creation has an intelligible Christological context, establishing a material connection between creation and redemption, insofar as they coincide in the person of Jesus Christ as the Word in the beginning through whom creation came to be. This means that the purpose of creation is not simply to exist, but rather to participate in God's plan for the redemption of the world. In this framework, creation is not only a historical event, but also an ongoing process that is continually sustained and upheld by God's election of the world and its creatures. And if creation is a continuous Christological event, an ever-new occurrence, then very little (if any) distinction remains between creation and providence (or the continuous giving of intelligible existence to creation).

Some, such as John Walton, want to maintain a critical distinction between creation and preservation. He interprets Genesis 1, of course, "as the establishment of the cosmic temple in which the sabbath is the fulfillment of the six days precisely because it is the event in which God descends to dwell within the temple," Congdon notes. "For this reason, the distinction between the six days and the seventh—between creation and preservation—is essential to preserve the sabbath-oriented temple theology that forms the heart of the Genesis account" (p. 50, n. 50]).

 

[GeneZ]

God is not Jewish man as King of kings.

You are not going to get what I am saying....
I am looking for someone who can.

 

[ReverendRV]

I think your question is apt to trigger the infralapsarians, while causing the supralapsarians all to shrug and say, "Of course." I find myself hanging out a lot more in the latter camp lately.

I would recommend for your consideration the modified post-Barthian doctrine of creatio continua ex electione as conceived by David W. Congdon, "Creatio Continua Ex Electione: A Post-Barthian Revision of the Doctrine of Creatio Ex Nihilo," Koinonia 22 (2010): 33-53). The creation by God of all reality that's distinct from God took place on the basis of the pactum salutis and with a view to its execution. That is to say, God's decision to elect Jesus Christ is simultaneously God's decision to create; God elects, and creation is brought into intelligible existence. Election is logically antecedent to creation but they are chronological coincidents. Thus creation has an intelligible Christological context, establishing a material connection between creation and redemption, insofar as they coincide in the person of Jesus Christ as the Word in the beginning through whom creation came to be. This means that the purpose of creation is not simply to exist, but rather to participate in God's plan for the redemption of the world. In this framework, creation is not only a historical event, but also an ongoing process that is continually sustained and upheld by God's election of the world and its creatures. And if creation is a continuous Christological event, an ever-new occurrence, then very little (if any) distinction remains between creation and providence (or the continuous giving of intelligible existence to creation).

Some, such as John Walton, want to maintain a critical distinction between creation and preservation. He interprets Genesis 1, of course, "as the establishment of the cosmic temple in which the sabbath is the fulfillment of the six days precisely because it is the event in which God descends to dwell within the temple," Congdon notes. "For this reason, the distinction between the six days and the seventh—between creation and preservation—is essential to preserve the sabbath-oriented temple theology that forms the heart of the Genesis account" (p. 50, n. 50]).

Infralapsarian here; though some days I feel Supra!

I think the Key, is determining whether God Chooses Some Vessels for Honor and some Vessels for Wrath; from the same Lump of Fallen Clay, or from the same Lump of Unfallen Clay...

 

[Mr GLee]

You are not going to get what I am saying....
I am looking for someone who can.

Hi thanks

I get what you are saying but do not agree.

You offered (Why done in and by the Son alone?)

The Son of man Jesus was not alone. The Father unseen head was working with him. The father striking the Son of man, bruising his heel, crushing the head of the serpent. By his wounds inflicted by the Father we are healed

You offered. . (Because, like Philippians 2:6-8 tells us. He was able to first make Himself become as a man while in the process!)

God never became a man .That kind of idea brings the wrath of God (Roman 1: 18 -32)

That's the goal of the father of lies of Satan deceiving mankind God is a Jewish man as King of kings .

 

[Mr GLee]

I think your question is apt to trigger the infralapsarians, while causing the supralapsarians all to shrug and say, "Of course." I find myself hanging out a lot more in the latter camp lately.

I would recommend for your consideration the modified post-Barthian doctrine of creatio continua ex electione as conceived by David W. Congdon, "Creatio Continua Ex Electione: A Post-Barthian Revision of the Doctrine of Creatio Ex Nihilo," Koinonia 22 (2010): 33-53). The creation by God of all reality that's distinct from God took place on the basis of the pactum salutis and with a view to its execution. That is to say, God's decision to elect Jesus Christ is simultaneously God's decision to create; God elects, and creation is brought into intelligible existence. Election is logically antecedent to creation but they are chronological coincidents. Thus creation has an intelligible Christological context, establishing a material connection between creation and redemption, insofar as they coincide in the person of Jesus Christ as the Word in the beginning through whom creation came to be. This means that the purpose of creation is not simply to exist, but rather to participate in God's plan for the redemption of the world. In this framework, creation is not only a historical event, but also an ongoing process that is continually sustained and upheld by God's election of the world and its creatures. And if creation is a continuous Christological event, an ever-new occurrence, then very little (if any) distinction remains between creation and providence (or the continuous giving of intelligible existence to creation).

Some, such as John Walton, want to maintain a critical distinction between creation and preservation. He interprets Genesis 1, of course, "as the establishment of the cosmic temple in which the sabbath is the fulfillment of the six days precisely because it is the event in which God descends to dwell within the temple," Congdon notes. "For this reason, the distinction between the six days and the seventh—between creation and preservation—is essential to preserve the sabbath-oriented temple theology that forms the heart of the Genesis account" (p. 50, n. 50]).

Thanks for that I have learned few new words like (supralapsarians) which I do agree.

What I do have some difficulty is the idea of temples? Why ?

 

[Arial]

The key to this Divine Quagmire is knowing how God, who is omniscient, could have had each persons soul *initially* created without knowing how that person would choose if given the opportunity to reject His authority.

If that is the key, then one must redefine omniscient.

 

[GeneZ]

Hi thanks

I get what you are saying but do not agree.

You offered (Why done in and by the Son alone?)

The Son of man Jesus was not alone. The Father unseen head was working with him. The father striking the Son of man, bruising his heel, crushing the head of the serpent. By his wounds inflicted by the Father we are healed

You offered. . (Because, like Philippians 2:6-8 tells us. He was able to first make Himself become as a man while in the process!)

God never became a man .That kind of idea brings the wrath of God (Roman 1: 18 -32)

That's the goal of the father of lies of Satan deceiving mankind God is a Jewish man as King of kings .

You are still not getting it...
And, I must say its not able to be productive coming from your bias.

Its the way you misapply what is needed to stay on thought that you will wander away from.
So, in a gentle way, I am putting you on Ignore.
I tell you that so you will know why I will not be responding to your comments.

I have something to say. But, you keep trying to drag it into where it does not belong so it can be attacked.

Have a nice day...

grace and peace!

 

[GeneZ]

If that is the key, then one must redefine omniscient.

If one must define omniscient at this point in our walks?
It becomes a diversion......

And, while we are at it?

How do you define it?

 

[Arial]

If one must define omniscient at this point in our walks?
It becomes a diversion......

And, while we are at it?

How do you define it?

I did not say define omniscient. It means what it means. I said redefine it from what it means. What it means is, knows everything and therefore, must learn nothing.

 

[Mr GLee]

You are still not getting it...
And, I must say its not able to be productive coming from your bias.

Its the way you misapply what is needed to stay on thought that you will wander away from.
So, in a gentle way, I am putting you on Ignore.
I tell you that so you will know why I will not be responding to your comments.

I have something to say. But, you keep trying to drag it into where it does not belong so it can be attacked.

Have a nice day...

grace and peace!

Why would that stop you from saying what you want . . . . . Say it.

It surely does not come from your bias . God is not a man as us and neither is the any fleshly infalible interpreter, that stands between God and dying mankind

Its not that difficult it would seem.

Two questions..

Is Jesus the Son of man your brother in the lord as it is written?

When Jesus the Son of man said a mankind must be born again. Did it include Himself ?

Matthew 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Mark 3:35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

 

[GeneZ]

I did not say define omniscient. It means what it means. I said redefine it from what it means. What it means is, knows everything and therefore, must learn nothing.

Correct.
Jesus when he entered into time and space and came to earth (according to Philippians 2:6-8)
allowed only one of his two natures to be his core as a man.

That is why.. He had to learn like a man learns. He had to grow in wisdom like a man.

Luke 2:52 tells us that He successfully became the perfect sinless MAN.

For he volunteered before the Father and willed Himself to deny Himself of his right to be functioning simultaneously as God.

​

Luke 2:51-52​

​

Then he went down to Nazareth with them and was obedient to them. ​

But his mother treasured all these things in her heart. And Jesus grew ​

in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.​

God does not grow in wisdom and stature! Therefore, Jesus did not function as God.

Philippians 2:6-8​

​

​

Who, though He eternally existed in the essence of God,​

did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;​

rather, he made himself nothing​

by taking the very nature of a servant,​

being made in human likeness.​

And being found in appearance as a man,​

he humbled himself​

by becoming obedient to death—​

even death on a cross!​

That is the golden key.....

It was through how Jesus manifested Himself when all things were created through him,
that God kept creating man free from the intrusion of His omniscience until after someone was created.

God found a way! To keep us free to be a life onto ourselves that must choose to stay with God.
Its not audacious. Its God establishing the guidelines for freedom. God lets us choose.
Which should not be a bad thing to do...

Yet for God to create truly an autonomous life?
It must be free to disagree.
Otherwise, God only created sophisticated hand puppets with man.

Its by God making Himself to be as a man that He guaranteed our freedom to be real lives when God had us created through the perfect man.

All things were made and came into existence through Him; and without Him ​

was not even one thing made that has come into being." John 1:3​

Whatever was to be created had to go through Him (impeccable humanity) before God's power would create it!

​

Colossians 1:16​

​

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, ​

whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created ​

through him and for him.​

His humanity (soul) did all the designing, and was to be created for Him... as to have what was created to be relatable to humanity.


grace and peace to all.....

 

[Arial]

Correct.
Jesus when he entered into time and space and came to earth (according to Philippians 2:6-8)
allowed only one of his two natures to be his core as a man.

That is why.. He had to learn like a man learns. He had to grow in wisdom like a man.

Luke 2:52 tells us that He successfully became the perfect sinless MAN.

For he volunteered before the Father and willed Himself to deny Himself of his right to be functioning simultaneously as God.

You have completely changed the subject. It was not about the incarnate Christ, but about God. Follow the trail and you still see that is so.

Are the elect created to belong to Christ and is the choosing that God does choosing to create those specific persons for Christ, for His glory, and as His inheritance?

This was your response:

The key to this Divine Quagmire is knowing how God, who is omniscient, could have had each persons soul *initially* created without knowing how that person would choose if given the opportunity to reject His authority.

You present a contradiction in terms unless you redefine omniscient as not omniscient. You have God being omniscient and at the same time creating someone but not knowing how that person would "choose."

The OP question is framed around election, not choosing, as it is addressed to Calvinist/Reformed.

 

[GeneZ]

You have completely changed the subject. It was not about the incarnate Christ, but about God. Follow the trail and you still see that is so.

Its still about God.

About what God can do through Christ, who is both fully man and fully God.

Jesus' manifestation on earth as a man revealed what God can do when He wills to.
That's the fine point needed to be understood, and needed to be concentrated upon.

Not everyone is going to get what I say....
So, its not personal to me if you do not.

I pray.. Someone else might...

grace and peace .............

 

[GeneZ]

You present a contradiction in terms unless you redefine omniscient as not omniscient. You have God being omniscient and at the same time creating someone but not knowing how that person would "choose."

Its not a contradiction if we understand the Two Natures of Christ in union.

Before the Lord God of Israel came down to earth? And, with His soul entered the body provided through Mary?
Was he not omniscient as God before the Incarnation? He was! He was reigning as the Lord God of Israel.

The Lord God of Israel always was being a union of two natures!

God and Humanity as revealed in OT Scripture!

And they began to remove the foreign gods from their midst and to serve Jehovah,
so that his soul became impatient because of the trouble of Israel. Judges 10:16​

​

​

Jehovah himself examines the righteous one as well as the wicked one,
and anyone loving violence his soul certainly hates." Ps 11:5​

​

​

“Bring no more futile sacrifices; Incense is an abomination to Me. The New Moons,
the Sabbaths, and the calling of assemblies— I cannot endure iniquity and the sacred
meeting. Your New Moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; They are a trouble
to Me, I am weary of bearing them.. Isa 1:13-14​

Deity + Soul? = Two natures in union for the Lord God of Israel prior to the Incarnation!

Jesus said, God is 'spirit." (John 4:23-24)
And? Being 'spirit' is not soul.

There is no insight without a fight...
In the end, the Spirit makes the hearers standing as right.


grace and peace .............

 

[Arial]

Its not a contradiction if we understand the Two Natures of Christ in union.

To say He is omniscient and also say He doesn't know something is a contradiction no matter how you try to spin it. The question in the OP has nothing to do with the the two natures of Jesus or with the incarnation. You are simply trying to move the conversation to something you want to talk about. The place you are trying to move it, has nothing to do with the OP and you are not even Reformed or Calvinist, so why are you trying to answer the question?

The Lord God of Israel always was being a union of two natures!

Deity + Soul? = Two natures in union for the Lord God of Israel prior to the Incarnation!

God does not have two natures. The Son took on two natures in the incarnation for the purpose of redemption.

The soul is not a nature.

 

[Arial]

Its still about God.

About what God can do through Christ, who is both fully man and fully God.

Jesus' manifestation on earth as a man revealed what God can do when He wills to.
That's the fine point needed to be understood, and needed to be concentrated upon.

Not everyone is going to get what I say....
So, its not personal to me if you do not.

I pray.. Someone else might...

grace and peace .............

Let me repeat the question.

Are the elect created to belong to Christ and is the choosing that God does choosing to create those specific persons for Christ, for His glory, and as His inheritance?

 

[GeneZ]

To say He is omniscient and also say He doesn't know something is a contradiction no matter how you try to spin it.

Jesus did not have two natures in union? He did.
Two distinctly different natures? Or, not?
Then it would be only one nature, and no union.

Was his humanity omniscient? No.
Was His Deity in need to grow in wisdom as Jesus had? No.

Once you understand the two natures and that Jesus did not have only one nature?
It can become clear...

Sorry.... those details are needed to be understood.

 

[GeneZ]

Let me repeat the question. Are the elect created to belong to Christ and is the choosing that God does choosing to create those specific persons for Christ, for His glory, and as His inheritance?

The elect were created by God knowing that they were to be chosen to become the Bride of Christ (which is the Church).

Not all who believe throughout history were destined to become the Bride of Christ.
That is what we have been elected for.

The Son chose a Wife.
Chose us out from all God knew would believe to be His Bride.


John the Baptist stated that he was not the Bride of Christ.
But, said he was the friend of the Groom.

The bride belongs to the bridegroom. The friend who attends the bridegroom waits ​

and listens for him, and is full of joy when he hears the bridegroom’s voice. ​

That joy is mine, and it is now complete." John 3:28​

Not all believers throughout history will be the Bride of Christ!

So, only certain souls out of all God knows will believe were predestined for becoming the Bride after their salvation.

How were we predestined by God to be the Bride?
God predestined us by having us to be born during the Church age for that very reason!


grace and peace ................

 

[Mr GLee]

esus when he entered into time and space and came to earth (according to Philippians 2:6-8)
allowed only one of his two natures to be his core as a man.

That is why.. He had to learn like a man learns. He had to grow in wisdom like a man.

Luke 2:52 tells us that He successfully became the perfect sinless MAN.

For he volunteered before the Father and willed Himself to deny Himself of his right to be functioning simultaneously as God

He was born of earth. Son of man. just like any creation . . .Not a space and time thing.

As dying flesh signified as sinful. It was needed to put away sin in the flesh. A perfect example of the first born again Son of God Jesus. . . like us son of God

Sinful flesh was needed to do what Melchizedek (a vison) The theophany could not do.

Romans 8:2-4King James Version2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (Not the Son of man ) hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law (letter death) could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law (the letter dead ) might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

 

[Mr GLee]

The Son chose a Wife.
Chose us out from all God knew would believe to be His Bride.


John the Baptist stated that he was not the Bride of Christ.
But, said he was the friend of the Groom.

The head of the bride Christ, the bridegroom . He prepared the heavenly city. Named after his bride "Christian" = residence of the eternal city of Christ.