Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
“No” to the three questions.
God didn’t ask man in advance to be a participant, or to be chosen, or to be called.
The Covenant Context of Salvation
- Thread starter JoshebB
- Start date
God didn’t ask man in advance to be a participant, or to be chosen, or to be called.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
No, my friend. That’s the ongoing assumption of several other Forum members*, (see post 119) and, I have built my posts as if that was also your assumption. I am very happy it is not… please accept my apologies for having misinterpreted you.
* NOTE: In the opinion of many of our brothers who actively post in this Forum, what a man knows, understands and confesses, in terms of doctrine, is not only relevant, but an unavoidable requirement for God forgiveness.
When I say “doctrine” I am not only including Christology, but even escathology or cosmology! For example, one a forum member has accused Christian theologians and leaders who support natural evolution of having “betrayed the faith”. I have found evangelicals who condemn evolutionists, universalists, Calvinists, Catholics, Mormons, JWs to eternal hell, because of their doctrinal mistakes.
The Bible says many are called but few are chosen. That implies that the calling comes before the choosing and that they are two distinct events. That is my view.
(Matt 22;14) “For many are called, but few are chosen.”
I see "chose" in the sense that you are describing "called". So if you substitute "chose" for "called" in what you wrote above, I would agree.
JoshebB
Active member
That would be true if the covenant is stated to include all those people and all people meet the stipulated qualifications of the covenant. The Christological salvific covenant does not reconcile with your hypothetical and, once again, you're off topic and could/should have known that before posting the hypothetical.
The group could include all winged orange striped minotaurs, too, but it does not.
Great.
In summary so far...
- Salvation always occurs within a covenant relationship with Christ the person (You originally answered that question, "No," but Acts 4:12 explicitly states Jesus the person, and his name, are the only means by which anyone may be saved).
- God is always the initiator of God's salvific covenant. No human, especially not any sinful human, ever initiates a salvific covenant with God.
- Once God initiates His covenant, He chooses and calls the covenant participants, and He chooses and calls those individuals/groups as covenant participants.
- God does not ask the covenant participants if they want God to initiate a covenant, they are not asked before God initiates the covenant if they want to participate, and they are not asked beforehand if they want to be chosen or called.
Next question:
- Is it then correct to note that, after having chosen and called the covenant participants God then commands them to do something?
- Is it correct to understand God's post-choosing, post-calling command is commanded with a divine expectation of obedience?
- Is it correct that there is no record of God's initial post-choosing, post-calling command ever being commanded with any indication disobedience is an option?
Example: God chose Abram. Although Abram did not know at the time he had been selected to participate in a God-initiated covenant, He was chosen, and called by God, and then, after having been chosen and called, he was commanded to leave Ur. Is there any indication in the text he could have disobeyed God, not left Ur, and still been a covenant participant? God commanded Abram/Abraham to do many things, but the first command God gave him after having chosen him and called him was the command to leave Ur. Is there any indication in scripture that and expectation of obedience to that command was optional? Did God give the command with an expectation of obedience and an accompanying expectation of disobedience was an option? In other words, this question asks about God will and purpose, not Abram's psychological faculties.
.
Last edited:
JoshebB
Active member
I will (likely) address all those matter in the due course of time. For now, very specific questions have been asked, and they've been asked intentionally. One of the reasons these specific questions have been answered is to focus the conversation, establish a consensus and, having gradually established a consensus to also establish and agreed upon rationale and understanding of scripture. Peripheral to those purposes, as I have stated, is so that any specific point of disagreement can be identified.
I will, therefore, ask you and encourage you not to get diverted, or baited, into discussing digressions unrelated to the specific questions asked. I ask ALL the participants in this thread to abide by that standard. One of the reasons I ask this is because it's nearly impossible to have the kind of conversation I am endeavoring to form because when it comes to soteriology many people like to hijack an op for their own agenda.
Ignore all who do that.
Logically speaking, the creature's ignorance has no bearing on God's revealing of God covenant. That is axiomatic and that's all that needs to be said on the matter. Fools who disagree can and should be ignored simply because the premise is irrational. Likewise, trolls who wish to divert a thread for their own purposes should also be ignored. This thread will move rapidly and move rapidly with an increasing consensus when the questions asked are answered and it does no one any good for anyone to anticipate what I may (or may not) ask and answer unasked questions.
That's just nuts
.Hijackers and trolls do not come with neon signs announcing their identity.
JoshebB
Active member
It is true Matthew 22:4 says many are called but few are chosen, but that is not an answer to the question asked. Neither are the implications of Matthew 22:4, and neither are your personal views on divine choosing and calling, and the words are not interchangeable. God could choose a person without their knowing they've been chosen, but once He has called them (especially when He calls them by name) then those individuals/groups know they've been chosen. One can be chosen without yet having been called, but one cannot logically be called without also having been chosen.
So would you please answer the questions asked. When it comes to a salvific covenant in Christ that God alone initiates....
- Is it correct that God first chooses a person?
- Is it correct that God then calls the person?
.
JoshebB
Active member
I'll take those as three nos and again express my appreciation for succinct answers (noting matters of possibility are irrelevant to the questions asked thus far
).To summarize the answers provided thus far....
- Salvation always occurs within a covenant relationship with Christ the person (You originally answered that question, "No," but Acts 4:12 explicitly states Jesus the person, and his name, are the only means by which anyone may be saved).
- God is always the initiator of God's salvific covenant. No human, especially not any sinful human, ever initiates a salvific covenant with God.
- Once God initiates His covenant, He chooses and calls the covenant participants, and He chooses and calls those individuals/groups as covenant participants.
- God does not ask the covenant participants if they want God to initiate a covenant, they are not asked before God initiates the covenant if they want to participate, and they are not asked beforehand if they want to be chosen or called.
Next set of questions:
- Is it correct to note that, after having chosen and called the covenant participants God then commands them to do something?
- Is it correct to note God's post-choosing, post-calling command is commanded with a divine expectation of obedience?
- Is it correct that there is no record of God's initial post-choosing, post-calling command ever being commanded with any indication disobedience is an option?
Example: God chose Abram. Although Abram did not know at the time he had been selected to participate in a God-initiated covenant, He was chosen, and called by God, and then, after having been chosen and called, he was commanded to leave Ur. Is there any indication in the text he could have disobeyed God, not left Ur, and still been a covenant participant? God commanded Abram/Abraham to do many things, but the first command God gave him after having chosen him and called him was the command to leave Ur. Is there any indication in scripture that and expectation of obedience to that command was optional? Did God give the command with an expectation of obedience and an accompanying expectation of disobedience was an option? In other words, this question asks about God will and purpose, not Abram's psychological faculties.
.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
"Yes" to the three questions.
JoshebB
Active member
Great.
Adding to the summary of answers so far...
- Salvation always occurs within a covenant relationship with Christ the person (You originally answered that question, "No," but Acts 4:12 explicitly states Jesus the person, and his name, are the only means by which anyone may be saved).
- God is always the initiator of God's salvific covenant. No human, especially not any sinful human, ever initiates a salvific covenant with God.
- Once God initiates His covenant, He chooses and calls the covenant participants, and He chooses and calls those individuals/groups as covenant participants.
- God does not ask the covenant participants if they want God to initiate a covenant, they are not asked before God initiates the covenant if they want to participate, and they are not asked beforehand if they want to be chosen or called.
- After God has imitated His salvific covenant and chosen and called the participant(s) - none of whom were ever asked if the wanted any of it - God then commands the covenant participant with an expectation of obedience that has no other option but obedience.
Next question:
Is it correct to observe that the occasion or opportunity to make a choice is provided only after all of the bullet points above have occurred?
Instead of Abram, I'll use Israel as an example because the example is explicit and obvious, easily and readily observed. Israel (as defined as those in whom God perseveres) was included in the covenant God had first initiated with Abraham centuries before Israel even existed. They, therefore, could not possible have been asked their opinion on the matter. When the time came for Israel to be freed and return to the land promised Abraham (and his progeny of promise, Isaac, and Jacob), God called those he'd chosen and commanded them, again, without asking their opinion on the matter. It was not until after they'd reached the promise land that they were asked to choose. The covenant relationship had already been established and its participants chosen, called, and commanded before the occasion or opportunity for any choice was provided.
.
False. What is the state of the person between those 2 events, when one is chosen in Christ and not yet called to repent and believe in Christ? To be chosen in Christ means to be alive in Christ because Christ is Life. To not yet repent and to not yet believe in Christ means that you are still dead in your sins. Therefore, that person is a Living Dead person, which is an impossibility and proves my decision.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Yes.
(Just a comment: Israel voluntarily subscribed to the covenant right away, in Mount Sinai (Exodus 19:8). I don’t think people waited until they had entered the promised land.)
Last edited:
JoshebB
Active member
Got scripture for any of that?
JoshebB
Active member
Let's take it line by line.
I would like all the readers, the participants and lurkers of this thread, to examine this Matthew 22 verse. Start at Matthew 21:18 and read all the way through to Matthew 26:5. Why? Because Matthew was recording the events of a single day, a day that began with Jesus' return to the city after his celebrated entrance and continued until that evening when - while he was sitting on the Mount of Olives talking to his disciples - the Sadducees and Pharisees were plotting his death. Five+ chapters accounting for a single day. Two days later Jesus would be dead. Once you all have read that five-chapter narrative examine what preceded it because in Matthew's gospels Jesus' parables being to shift away from the kingdom on to the subject of judgment as he approaches Jerusalem.
What is the specified topic of this thread? The covenant context of salvation.
You have eight posts in this thread. Three of them (56, 72, & 80) contain the word "covenant" and two of those three posts repeat themselves. None of them contain any scripture to support their position and at least two of them are contextually wrong because you have failed to correctly discriminate who does what, in or out of the covenant relationship. We have one point of agreement: Post 72's "All salvific covenants between God and man have been initiated by God. Man cannot offer himself that which he has no power over (i.e.: the ability to save himself)." Post 80's claim, "God's gift of salvation is conditionally offered to all," is wrong and it contradicts itself. "Conditional gift" is an oxymoron. I have purposefully taken the time and put in the effort to take this thread through one question and one answer at a time. All attempts to run ahead and assert other agendas has been refused (I am not singling you out).
So please do not do this again. Matthew 22:4 has been misapplied by neglecting its covenantal context and if you're patient we'll all get to who does what and when in the Christological covenant of salvation God alone initiates when He calls and chooses its participants without asking their opinion.
Covenantally speaking, there are no such people. You, apparently, think to create some sort of dispute or dissent based on the single verse, Matthew 22:14. The problem with that is that Jesus is not speaking to a covenant people about a covenant relationship. He is, in fact, indicting his audience because they incorrectly imagined themselves to be covenant participants when they, in fact, were not. The man without wedding attire was rejected, bound and tossed out.
I would like all the readers, the participants and lurkers of this thread, to examine this Matthew 22 verse. Start at Matthew 21:18 and read all the way through to Matthew 26:5. Why? Because Matthew was recording the events of a single day, a day that began with Jesus' return to the city after his celebrated entrance and continued until that evening when - while he was sitting on the Mount of Olives talking to his disciples - the Sadducees and Pharisees were plotting his death. Five+ chapters accounting for a single day. Two days later Jesus would be dead. Once you all have read that five-chapter narrative examine what preceded it because in Matthew's gospels Jesus' parables being to shift away from the kingdom on to the subject of judgment as he approaches Jerusalem.
That is true. That is a point completely consistent with everything I have posted and if that is not understood in what I have posted then go back and re-read my posts. Those chosen by God to be participant members in God's God-initiated Christological covenant of salvation are all alive in Christ.
That too is correct. Covenantally speaking, who is it that repents? Those in the covenant God initiated, or those outside the covenant God initiated? So, once again, that's a valid point and it reconciles with what I have posted.
No, Post 131 is incoherent. It proof-texts a single verse, ignoring the multiple contexts in which it was originally spoken and abjectly fails to consider the explicitly specified stipulation of this op. I told you before: If you want to post about irrelevancies than go muck up someone else's op or expect me to ignore your posts. You made what I took as a goodwill effort to recapture your own involvement in the thread, but you've only sabotaged the effort with a red herring and false equivalence.
What is the specified topic of this thread? The covenant context of salvation.
You have eight posts in this thread. Three of them (56, 72, & 80) contain the word "covenant" and two of those three posts repeat themselves. None of them contain any scripture to support their position and at least two of them are contextually wrong because you have failed to correctly discriminate who does what, in or out of the covenant relationship. We have one point of agreement: Post 72's "All salvific covenants between God and man have been initiated by God. Man cannot offer himself that which he has no power over (i.e.: the ability to save himself)." Post 80's claim, "God's gift of salvation is conditionally offered to all," is wrong and it contradicts itself. "Conditional gift" is an oxymoron. I have purposefully taken the time and put in the effort to take this thread through one question and one answer at a time. All attempts to run ahead and assert other agendas has been refused (I am not singling you out).
So please do not do this again. Matthew 22:4 has been misapplied by neglecting its covenantal context and if you're patient we'll all get to who does what and when in the Christological covenant of salvation God alone initiates when He calls and chooses its participants without asking their opinion.
JoshebB
Active member
The Hebrews did voluntarily say, "All that the LORD has spoken we will do." The Hebrews, the sons of Israel said that.
Not Israel.
Go back and read what is stated in that chapter. Then do a study of the word "Israel," because you will find "Israel" is not used in the geo-political nation-state definition for several generations, long after those Hebrews, the sons of Israel, clear out and settle the promised land. There is only one single, sole, solitary mention of "nation" in Exodus 19 and that is God's promise to make those who obey Him into a nation of priests. It is a covenant promise, or a promise made inside the God-initiated, already established, Christological covenant of salvation. What does scripture later state about that promise to make a nation of priests?
1 Peter 2:4-12
As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,” and “A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.” But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.
The chosen race, the royal priesthood, the holy nation turns out to be those who believe in Jesus - the one about whom all the Law and the prophets testified. Most of the people standing at Sinaia that day they pledged to do everything God had spoken lied. None of them did everything God had said. Each and every single one of them eventually proved themselves to be covenant-breakers..... except for two.
However, the salient point is simple and singular: God did not ask them their opinion on anything leading up to that point and it was not until after the Christological covenant of salvation had been initiated, and its participants chosen, called, and commanded, that any explicit opportunity to choose anything was provided. Technically, God did not offer a choice in Exodus 19. It is true those people said they'd obey God, and we can reasonably infer that promise was voluntary, but that is not an episode of covenantal choice. For that group, the opportunity, the event of choice occurs much later, in Deuteronomy.
Deuteronomy 30:15-20
See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity; in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the LORD your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it. But if your heart turns away and you will not obey but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you today that you shall surely perish. You will not prolong your days in the land where you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess it. I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, by loving the LORD your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, that you may live in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.
Having already been chosen, called, and commanded they were then and only then given a choice. When scripture is examined covenantally, this proves to be the uniform pattern.
Next question:
Once the covenant is initiated and God has chosen, called, and commanded its participants without regard to their knowledge or wishes (covenantally speaking), and given them the post-establishment opportunity to choose..... What is the proof or maintenance of their choice based? Covenantally speaking, upon what is the post-establishment choice predicated upon going forward form that moment?
(Hint: the answer is not "Works" or "Obedience")
.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Perhaps I'm not understanding what you mean by "covenantal choice".
When a contract / covenant / pact is presented, it is implicit that both parts have to agree and "sign" in some way for the covenant to take place. That's the first "covenantal choice". Then, as time goes by, each part has the choice to keep what was agreed, or else violate it and suffer the consequences.
"If you do the dishes every day as I am asking you, I'll give you five dollars per day" I can tell my son.
If he answers "OK, I'll do the dishes" he is making a covenantal choice.
My son didn't initiate the covenant. I did.
He didn't have a choice to be part of the covenant I am offering. I chose him, and not his sister or my wife.
He does have the choice to agree to the covenant I am offering. That's his choice. If he doesn't agree, I wont' give him the five dollars every day.
God was making it clear to the children of Israel that he was proposing a pact, a covenant:
Now therefore, if you will faithfully obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My special possession out of all the nations, for all the earth is Mine. And you will be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.” (19:5,6)
So, by saying “All that the Lord has spoken we will do.” (verse 8) that group of people was choosing to agree to the terms of the covenant.
They were not making a promise out of the blue. They were agreeing to the terms of the covenant being proposed by God through Moses. It is natural to think that God expected a response from the people and that's why Moses goes back to God with their response. Let's read the passage again:
Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain, saying, “Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob and tell the children of Israel: ;‘You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I lifted you up on eagles’ wings, and brought you to Myself. Now therefore, if you will faithfully obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My special possession out of all the nations, for all the earth is Mine. And you will be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel.”
So Moses came and called for the elders of the people and laid before them all these words which the Lord commanded him. Then all the people answered together and said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do.” And Moses brought back the words of the people to the Lord.
Last edited:
GodsGrace
Well-known member
Lydia was a God fearing woman who knew nothing about the gospel or soteriology.@Pancho Frijoles and @Dizerner,
Thank you for your responses. Can either of you cite for me an example from the Bible of someone having a salvific relationship with God outside that which exists with His resurrected Son Jesus (the person and/or the "Truth")? And Diz, I don't want to belabor the point or digress far afield of the op but why would we entertain or consider those who misunderstand covenant as a form of legalism for the purposes of this op's inquiry? Let's not couch the discussion in an appeal to the extremes or argumentum ad absurdum. @Pancho Frijoles, I do not mind any non-Christian participating in the discussion as long as the tou is abided. This forum has no requirement pertaining to any board or any op necessarily being about Christianity (which I consider a lapse on the part of those creating this forum). This op is posted in the Soteriology - Doctrine of Salvation, which normally refers to Christian soteriology, the Christian doctrine of salvation and not the Hindu. Buddhist, Jewish, Islamic, Celtic, Arioli, Bahai, or Cargo religions' doctrines. I will, therefore, ask everyone to speak Christianese
GodsGrace
Well-known member
Which Covenant are you referring to?
Just got here.
Something sounds wrong....
Are you saying that ALL Covenants are Bilateral?
GodsGrace
Well-known member
Not in all Covenants do both paries agree.
ONLY in Bilateral Covenants.
Some are Unilateral...only God makes the rules.
I so much enjoy the perspectives you bring to the discussions Pancho. I have long since believed and also argued that a "covenant" is an agreement between two or more entities. In this discussion, we are talking about God's Covenants. God initiates the Agreement, "If you do so and so, I will do so and so". God initiates this agreement of His own free will, AKA "Grace". And we choose to either accept or reject the Agreement, also of our own free will.
I would only add one important part of God's Covenant that the Pharisees omitted from their preaching. And that is the part about who God offered His agreement to.
Ex. 12: 48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof. 49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and "unto the stranger" that sojourneth among you.
Lev. 19: 33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. 34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; "for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt": I am the LORD your God.
So in the analogy you made concerning the agreement to do the dishes, if a stranger wanted to hang out with your son and partake of the covenant you made with him to wash dishes for $5 a day, the stranger would not be turned away, rather, he would be treated as if he were also your son.
Great discussion.
Similar threads
