Who has been elected? Individuals or a group (Israel)?

[His clay]

Your edit left the misrepresentation that I mentioned. It seems that you didn't think to edit that away.

I'll take some time to respond to it. Thanks for pointing this out.

 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Your edit left the misrepresentation that I mentioned. It seems that you didn't think to edit that away.

I've operated with integrity here.

If you have a problem with me, well... forgiveness will benefit you far more than me.

-Jarrod

 

[David1701]

I've operated with integrity here.

The evidence suggests otherwise.

If you have a problem with me, well... forgiveness will benefit you far more than me.

-Jarrod

I've no problem with you personally, just with lack of integrity.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

I notice that you omitted the rest of what I said.

So then, you don't want to talk about John 6, where that verse occurs?

I saw nothing of value in "the rest of what you said". What point are you attempting to make???

 

[His clay]

Batting verses back and forth in an effort to "win" on the Internet is childish. Quoting single verses taken out-of-context is the opposite of productive conversation.

Isaiah chapter 45 contains a good discussion of Israel as the elect. Chapter 65 of the same book talks about the adoption of Gentiles into Israel as the elect.

(post 1 of 2)

A few thoughts:

(1) Your opening sentence is a straw man fallacy. I did not call for a "batting verses back and forth in an effort to 'win'." Ever since my first response I have only wanted you to support your opinions with the actual words of Scripture. This has been my repeated call. The reason for this is rather simple and obvious. God's word trumps your opinion, and if you are going to be persuasive at all, then you will need to reference a higher authority than yours, namely God's authority. This is basic stuff. My call has been clear, and thusly your straw man is also rather clear. A fallacy is when you fail in your reasoning. In this case, you have failed to properly represent my position and words. Because of the repetition of my point, this also calls into question your character. Your honesty is called into question. I'm not directly accusing you, for you may have just simply made a mistake, but beware deliberate misrepresentation.

(2) Your opening sentence is an example of the poisoning the well fallacy. Not only was my position misrepresented, but the poster has seen fit to call the misrepresentation a "childish" activity. This is a demeaning style of comment. And thusly, your comment seeks to demean or belittle a position as if it were an argument. Again, this is the poisoning the well fallacy. This is yet another example of failure in your reasoning ability.

(3) The first sentence is a red herring fallacy, since it ignores the issue that I raised. Again, this is not about batting verses back and forth, but rather it is about you supporting your opinion with God's higher authority. And because God is a higher authority than your opinions, His word is much more persuasive. I've actually been trying to help you with your persuasive ability, but you have chosen to dodge the issue with your first sentence. However, unfortunately, this is yet another demonstration of your lack of ability to reason properly; that's what fallacies are.

(4) Your second sentence is another straw man fallacy. You state, "Quoting single verses taken out-of-context is the opposite of productive conversation." First of all, we are in agreement that proof-texting out-of-context verses is bad. However, this does not correctly represent what I said. What I actually said, and you omitted the last two sections in your quote of me, was the following.

Feel free to bring up the actual words of scripture that deals with election. Until you do, your comments are still unsupported. Don't you know this?

The standard is chapter and verse, in context, not horrible gloss overs of the whole OT. And don't forget that there is a NT also.

This is now the second time you have unsupported claims. Strike two.

As we can all see, you are critiquing "taken out-of-context". And my actual position is the diametric opposite of what you critique. I stated that the standard is chapter and verse, in context, not horrible gloss over of the whole OT. Again, the standard is that you support your opinions by the higher authority of the word of God by referencing chapter and verse, in context, and not doing horrible gloss overs of the whole OT, like your prior post did. In the quotation of myself above, I also reminded you that there is a New Testament as well. This is important so that you don't commit the selective evidence fallacy, for obviously the New Testament does have a great deal to say about election.

(5) Your second sentence is demonstrating a double standard fallacy. We can also note that in the very same post you warn of "verses taken out of context" being "the opposite of productive conversation," you fail the very principle you raise. You took my comments out of context, omitted the final two lines, and created straw men. You have failed your very own principle: the principle of words being properly understood in context. It seems that you have committed yourself to what you criticize: unproductive conversation. To help you to take your own advice, I recommend a basic hermeneutic book like Grant Osborne's book on hermeneutics.

 

[His clay]

Batting verses back and forth in an effort to "win" on the Internet is childish. Quoting single verses taken out-of-context is the opposite of productive conversation.

Isaiah chapter 45 contains a good discussion of Israel as the elect. Chapter 65 of the same book talks about the adoption of Gentiles into Israel as the elect.

(post 2 of 2)

(6) Thankfully, your third and fourth sentences have, at least, a minimal amount of substance. You raise Isaiah 45 and 65 as support for your view. 45 deals with Israel and election, and 65 deals with the "adoption of Gentiles into Israel as the elect," according to your view. Notice my prior sentences, I'm giving you an example of what an actual paraphrase and quote does. It actually correctly represents, or at least seeks to accurately portray another's real position, in context, something you did not demonstrate the ability to do previously (points 1 and 4). I'm trying to help you learn how to properly represent others, since you have demonstrated the opposite. A paraphrase is when you seek to put another's words/ideas into your own words in a way that is as close as possible to the original author's intent. Paraphrasing is something I learned back in 5th or 6th grade; you would do well to begin learning it.

Paraphrasing tutorial aside, let's consider the quality of your final two sentences. Probably the kindest way of putting it is that your two sentences exemplify a rather extreme aversion toward work. The reader only sees that maybe somewhere in each of those chapters he/she might find what you have said was there. Let me remind you, the standard is the actual words from God. The standard is not your opinion, and while this is much better than your previous gloss over of the whole Old Testament, this is still lacking the most basic standard. You have not taken the time to quote chapter and verse, in context; and I still don't see anything at all of what the New Testament has to say on the matter. A few other items are also missing, and these would be necessary if your post would be convincing.

-Again, your post is completely missing the actual words from God, in context.
-Your use of Isaiah 45 and 65 is without any argument regarding the immediate context, which would couch the specific verses you have in mind.
-Any reader who has actually studied this issue knows that the number of verses covering the issue of election in its various forms is significantly larger. Hence, your evidence sample here is remarkably truncated and completely insufficient.
-I see no argument using the original languages: lexicons, syntax, analytical outline, linguistic analysis, etc.
-I see no historical context presented.
-We also see no discussion of how Gentiles were included, in the New Covenant, into the Abrahamic covenant.
-We see no discussion over how the Old Covenant differs from the New Covenant.
-We also see no discussion over the continuities and discontinuities atoning for sin has experienced in the OT compared to Christ.

In short, your opening post and the posts I have received from you have consistently betrayed an aversion toward the necessary work to be even remotely persuasive. There is a word that describes this negative character trait your posts have demonstrated.

(7) However, let's take what you say in the final two sentences and assume it is true. It is still insufficient to support your opening post.

Isaiah chapter 45 contains a good discussion of Israel as the elect. Chapter 65 of the same book talks about the adoption of Gentiles into Israel as the elect.

Supposing that everything you say here is completely true. We still have the issue that there are multiple types of election. As Bruce Demarest's book, The Cross and Salvation ch3, pointed out, pointing to only Israel's election and the Gentile inclusion does not adequately deal with the different types of election and how exactly the Gentiles were included in a New Covenant context. In short, your selective evidence fallacy does not deal with the full scope of the doctrine of election in the Bible, and thusly your opening post leaps to an unwarranted conclusion on the basis of selective evidence. We can still note how you haven't even tried to examine anything in the NT yet, in spite of my encouragement.

Take some time and actually study the subject, for your posts thus far have demonstrated almost no ability to deal with the issues.

(8) In summary, the post I'm critiquing consists of a straw man fallacy, poisoning the well fallacy, a red herring fallacy, another straw man fallacy, a self-refuting double standard fallacy, an extreme aversion toward effort, which lastly leads to the selective evidence fallacy. Your post is extremely sub par. It would receive a failing grade in seminary, Bible college, and high school. Which brings us to an assessment of the level of your work being at an elementary school level. Even the Cubbies in AWANA can at least quote scripture, which you failed to do. I see lots of opinion and fallacy clothed in sarcasm in your posts to me. You give nearly every impression of an internet troll.

Most significant is your repeated failure to present the actual words from God as your source of persuasive authority. God is God, and you are not. Strike three...

On account of the previous 7 points and conclusion, I believe it best to move onward. I hope that you will take my advice and study, for your posts have demonstrated an extreme lack of ability. I really do wish you well, and that is why I spent a great deal of time trying to help you learn a few basics. This is my last post to this poster in this thread. God bless.

 

[His clay]

The evidence suggests otherwise.


I've no problem with you personally, just with lack of integrity.

I have spelled this out in rather painful detail, and that will be my final posting to WS in this thread. The evidence definitely suggests otherwise.

 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

God bless.

Absolutely hilarious that you sign off your post that way after going on that long, misguided diatribe.

Yeah I think I'm done with you too, "brother." Time to use that ignore function.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I thought my argument was pretty clear, but you snipped that part out when you quoted it, so ... I guess I'll just say it again?

I am not exactly sure why this would need to be explained to you but, sure, I guess I can help with that. What I quoted was the essential material that I wanted to address, namely, your verb tense argument. Since the related material about Jesus speaking to and about those who were standing in front of him wasn't strictly relevant to that, I did not include it in the quoted material.

But it was related, as I said, so I did address it—without quoting you, admittedly, but I tackled it directly. I find it rather curious that you didn't acknowledge that segment of my response and even acted as if it wasn't made. Please, instead of repeating your argument like this, address the response I made to it.

How do you reconcile the existence of lost sheep with your view that all the sheep are guaranteed to believe?

If the lost sheep are those elect who do not yet believe (they wander outside his one fold; cf. Luke 15:7), but they are guaranteed to believe (they know his voice and will follow him), then there is nothing that needs reconciling. They do not yet believe, but it is guaranteed they will. They will listen to his voice, and there will be one flock and one shepherd (John 10:16).

There is no guarantee that every lost sheep will believe or be saved, because it is not guaranteed that every lost sheep will even hear the message.

That is the opposite of the message given by Jesus in the gospel of John alone, chapters 6, 8, 10, and so forth. Some of this I have addressed, which you have left unaddressed.

 

[TibiasDad]

Salvation is equated with our adoption as children of God. This is not like a foster home arrangement, which can shunt the children from one foster set of parents to another home. It is an adoption performed by God who does not rescind His adoption of us as His children.

Rom 11:17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

 

[3 Resurrections]

Rom 11:17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

You must also reconcile this passage whose context ends with Paul's concluding remark in Romans 11:29. "For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance."

 

[TibiasDad]

You must also reconcile this passage whose context ends with Paul's concluding remark in Romans 11:29. "For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance."

You must reconcile your interpretation of 11:29 based on 11:17-28, which comes before and is the foundation of the conclusion in 11:29, not the other way around!


Doug

 

[3 Resurrections]

You must reconcile your interpretation of 11:29 based on 11:17-28, which comes before and is the foundation of the conclusion in 11:29, not the other way around!

Christ was an ethnic Israelite by birth - being called both "the root and the offspring of David". Not all natural-born ethnic Israelites were of the true Israel. "They are not all Israel which are of Israel". They grew up as part of the ethnic Israelite root, but because they were not elect and abode still in unbelief, they were cut off from association with the New Covenant and Christ, the true root of the true "Israel of God". Only the elect from among ethnic Israel were called "beloved".

God had always considered all, both Jew and Gentile, to be in unbelief in their natural state as unregenerate from conception, but He chose to elect individuals from both Jew and Gentile who would believe and become the "Israel of God" under the New Covenant with the "One new man" reality. All of that "Israel of God" would be saved to the uttermost and participate in a bodily resurrection.

There is no being parted from this association with the Israel of God, if one is part of that elect status. God finishes what He starts. Those whom He predestinated by election, He calls: those He calls, He justified by His death and resurrection in real time. Those He justified, He also glorifies in a final resurrection process.

This is an unbreakable sequence in Romans 8:30-31. Our close fellowship with God can be lost by disobedience, but never our elected status as part of the "Israel of God". To be "cut off" - what if this means to lose fellowship, or even to physically die?

 

[TibiasDad]

Christ was an ethnic Israelite by birth - being called both "the root and the offspring of David". Not all natural-born ethnic Israelites were of the true Israel. "They are not all Israel which are of Israel". They grew up as part of the ethnic Israelite root, but because they were not elect and abode still in unbelief, they were cut off from association with the New Covenant and Christ, the true root of the true "Israel of God". Only the elect from among ethnic Israel were called "beloved".

God had always considered all, both Jew and Gentile, to be in unbelief in their natural state as unregenerate from conception, but He chose to elect individuals from both Jew and Gentile who would believe and become the "Israel of God" under the New Covenant with the "One new man" reality. All of that "Israel of God" would be saved to the uttermost and participate in a bodily resurrection.

There is no being parted from this association with the Israel of God, if one is part of that elect status. God finishes what He starts. Those whom He predestinated by election, He calls: those He calls, He justified by His death and resurrection in real time. Those He justified, He also glorifies in a final resurrection process.

This is an unbreakable sequence in Romans 8:30-31. Our close fellowship with God can be lost by disobedience, but never our elected status as part of the "Israel of God". To be "cut off" - what if this means to lose fellowship, or even to physically die?

Salvation is not a purely legal contract, it is a relational construct based on a contingency of faith. Where fellowship is lost, there is a legal obligation of separation. Adoption doesn’t mean the adoptee is in good standing with their parents. The parent has the right to not support or facilitate the adoptee’s behavior or grant benefits of inheritance.


Doug

 

[3 Resurrections]

Salvation is not a purely legal contract, it is a relational construct based on a contingency of faith.

Of course it's not just a legal contract, but that definitely is part of it. God is called "the Judge of all the earth", so legal aspects are included with our salvation.

Where fellowship is lost, there is a legal obligation of separation. Adoption doesn’t mean the adoptee is in good standing with their parents. The parent has the right to not support or facilitate the adoptee’s behavior or grant benefits of inheritance

The lost sheep did not cease to be a sheep when it had gone astray.

 

[TibiasDad]

Of course it's not just a legal contract, but that definitely is part of it. God is called "the Judge of all the earth", so legal aspects are included with our salvation.

The lost sheep did not cease to be a sheep when it had gone astray.

<Sigh> When will people learn to not take a metaphor beyond its purpose?

Doug


Doug

 

[3 Resurrections]

<Sigh> When will people learn to not take a metaphor beyond its purpose?

The metaphor of "sheep" versus "goats" is pretty simple. How about the prodigal son? You used language in your last post referring to this kind of interrupted fellowship demanding "tough love" in response. The prodigal son did not cease to be a son, even when he was in the process of wasting His father's inheritance in riotous living which caused a break in fellowship between himself and his father.

 

[Eleanor]

Salvation is not a purely legal contract, it is a relational construct based on a contingency of faith. Where fellowship is lost, there is a legal obligation of separation. Adoption doesn’t mean the adoptee is in good standing with their parents. The parent has the right to not support or facilitate the adoptee’s behavior or grant benefits of inheritance.


Doug

God is not a fickle father.

 

[TMSO]

This discussion comes from the topic What Type of Calvinist am I? but it was off-topic there, so let's have a separate space for this.

@David1701 said:


If one holds to the mis-understanding that the atonement is for pre-selected individuals, that would be true.

But I believe that the Atonement was for a group - Israel.

Perseverance isn't required because group membership is fluid. One can leave the group, in which case they may not be saved. Yet the atonement is not universal, but only for a selected group.

-Jarrod

God spoke to it as individuals. He told Elijah that He set aside a specific number of individuals (7000 I believe) who had not bowed to Baal, and were God's chosen. As such, to be exactly 7000, it would have to be on an individual, let's count them, basis.