Diserner
Well-known member
Assertions are not arguments.
The Elect
- Thread starter The Rogue Tomato
- Start date
Assertions are not arguments.
Exactly. That is why I stated you provided no proof
for example you stated
Jesus paying a ransom,- paying a ransom to the devil is not paying for sin
Jesus conquering death says nothing about paying for son,
Jesus conquering the devil says nothing about paying for sin
Jesus being a a good moral influence, says nothing about paying for sin
etc
Its not there
Clay
Active member
The meaning of 1st John 2:15
Following his words to three distinct sets of believers, John instructs all three groups not to be overly attached to worldly (non-spiritual) things. Believers are to love God and one another, not the world or possessions. The term "world" is not a reference to the planet, or even to all material things. In this context, the term "world" is a reference to the fallen, man-centered system, or way of life. John gives a specific definition of this term in verse 16. Someone who loves the way this world operates, including its control by sin, is a person who cannot also focus on the Father's will.
John emphasizes this theme by saying that those who love the world, in that sense, cannot really love God. These strong words highlight the contrast between love of the world and love of the Father. Jesus offered an example of this contrast when He was tempted by Satan in the wilderness. Satan told Jesus He could rule all the kingdoms of the world—if He would bow down to him. Jesus replied, "Be gone, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve'" (Matthew 4:10)
The meaning of John 3:16
Some consider John 3:16 as the "theme verse" for the entire Bible. John 3:16 tells us of the love God has for us and the extent of that love — so great that He sacrificed His only Son on our behalf. John 3:16 teaches us that anyone who believes in Jesus Christ, God's Son, will be saved.
In order to guard their fictitious Doctrine. Calvinist engage in radical reinterpretations of the clear meaning of the Bible.
Diserner
Well-known member
Finally. Actually dealing with an argument.
What's it paying for then?!
Negative karma?!
Tell me the alternative... of course the devil cannot kidnap righteous people, lol.
Where did the death come from then?!
Show me one place in Scripture where death is not connected to sin... I'll wait.
Or admit your argument here is completely invalid.
On our behalf it does, because all the world is under the power of the evil one.
Everywhere Satan's dominion is connected to sin.
Show me one place where it's not.
Of course it depends on your soteriology.
If you are self-righteous, and think you can be good without God's grace in Christ, then you don't need Christ for anything.
But Jesus sacrificing himself to suffer for our sins is clearly a good moral example for us to sacrifice too.
Why do you hate the Biblical idea of God paying for your sin?
Is it your pride that thinks you're too good for that?
Or is God just not really that holy, he lets it slide?
You are greatly deceived by others, whom you have believed without critical thought.
Bronson
Active member
I concur. One of the clearest text that demonstrate the university of the extent of Christ's atonement can be found in 1 John 2:2.
My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
Along with this one
1 Timothy 2:5–6 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.
The Rogue Tomato
Well-known member
Free willers guard their pride with the illusion that they contributed to their own salvation (synergism) by exercising their free will.
65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”
Anyone who believes in Jesus Christ, God's Son, was necessarily enabled to believe by the Father, not enabled to believe by their own free will.
civic
Well-known member
Preach it bruddah
Release from captivity
Jesus conquering death says nothing about paying for sin,
Resurrection conquers death
Again Jesus conquering the devil says nothing about paying for sin
In the ransom theory (one view of it)
Jesus gave himself up to ransom man who the devil supposedly had a legal claim to. Satan thought it was a good idea so he accepted it.
Unfortunately he could not hold him
Jesus dying to reason of moral influence showing love for your neighbor says niotyhing at all about paying for sin
I don't hate anything
Show me where in the bible it is explicitedly stated Christ paid for sin
I will show you what the bible does say
Romans 3:21–26 (NASB 2020) — 21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 but it is the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in God’s merciful restraint He let the sins previously committed go unpunished; 26 for the demonstration, that is, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
The bible teaches forgiveness not payment which is not forgiveness. Because of Christ sacrifice, men can be forgiven when they believe
not automatically, as would be the case in a commercial transaction
And sorry, i have given this far more critical thought than you have.
Yes many passages
God's love was extended to the whole world. In that He gave Christ for the whole world, not a select few unconditionally selected. but all who would trust in Christ for salvation
So great was his love for the world.
Tranquil
Member
Election simply means a “choice.” When we speak of “divine election,” we are referring to the choice, or even choices, of God. Simple enough, right? Well, theologians have been known to overcomplicate relatively simple biblical concepts.
Systematic theology can be a wonderful tool to help us understand the doctrines of the Bible by organizing them according to categories. I think of it as a learning tool. What you have to watch out for is an overcomplication through the conflating of those categories and adding unbiblical philosophical baggage to the meaning of words, in an attempt to make one’s own theological system fit within the whole of Scripture. We're probably all guilty of it at one time or another.
I firmly believe this is what has happened with the doctrine of divine election, particularly influenced by most clearly and demonstrated by the theological system known as Calvinism.
The otherwise simple idea of God making choices has been systematized in such a way to align virtually all God’s choices within one overarching soteriological category—thus limiting the biblical concept of election to the unilateral choice of God to save some people rather than others—regardless of the beliefs, choices, or behaviors of the individual, even from before the person was created. To me that's extremely dogmatic.
According to this approach, the biblical doctrine of divine election has a hyperfocus on soteriology—the doctrine of salvation—and tends to make huge categorical errors when interpreting the Scriptures.
The correct approach is a clear distinction between the biblical choices of God, which are not conditioned upon the merits of those chosen, versus the Calvinist system, which logically entails the unbiblical principle that God secretly made arbitrary choices before the foundation of the world, unilaterally fixing the eternal destiny of every individual.
Systematic theology can be a wonderful tool to help us understand the doctrines of the Bible by organizing them according to categories. I think of it as a learning tool. What you have to watch out for is an overcomplication through the conflating of those categories and adding unbiblical philosophical baggage to the meaning of words, in an attempt to make one’s own theological system fit within the whole of Scripture. We're probably all guilty of it at one time or another.
I firmly believe this is what has happened with the doctrine of divine election, particularly influenced by most clearly and demonstrated by the theological system known as Calvinism.
The otherwise simple idea of God making choices has been systematized in such a way to align virtually all God’s choices within one overarching soteriological category—thus limiting the biblical concept of election to the unilateral choice of God to save some people rather than others—regardless of the beliefs, choices, or behaviors of the individual, even from before the person was created. To me that's extremely dogmatic.
According to this approach, the biblical doctrine of divine election has a hyperfocus on soteriology—the doctrine of salvation—and tends to make huge categorical errors when interpreting the Scriptures.
The correct approach is a clear distinction between the biblical choices of God, which are not conditioned upon the merits of those chosen, versus the Calvinist system, which logically entails the unbiblical principle that God secretly made arbitrary choices before the foundation of the world, unilaterally fixing the eternal destiny of every individual.
Amen. Theologians have added all sorts of baggage to that term
Diserner
Well-known member
Well said.
The Rogue Tomato
Well-known member
If election stems from a free will choice, I now declare myself to be president elect in 2024.
Unfortunately, the people would have to confirm your declaration as
After all, they have a free will choice as well.
Tranquil
Member
Since those in Christ share in his identity, history, and covenant blessing, generally what is true of Christ the covenant head is true of those who are in him.
Election is “in Christ”, it's a consequence of our union with him, which makes election conditional on union with Christ. When you're in Christ you're part of the elect.
That also makes election conditional on faith in Christ since union with Christ is by faith, according to Paul’s theology found in Romans 9. Election is conditional on union with Christ, and union with Christ is conditional on faith. Therefore, election is conditional on faith in Christ.
Election is “in Christ”, it's a consequence of our union with him, which makes election conditional on union with Christ. When you're in Christ you're part of the elect.
That also makes election conditional on faith in Christ since union with Christ is by faith, according to Paul’s theology found in Romans 9. Election is conditional on union with Christ, and union with Christ is conditional on faith. Therefore, election is conditional on faith in Christ.
Absolutely
That also makes election conditional on faith in Christ since union with Christ is by faith, according to Paul’s theology found in Romans 9. Election is conditional on union with Christ, and union with Christ is conditional on faith. Therefore, election is conditional on faith in Christ.
amen
Diserner
Well-known member
One problem is, the word is used in more than one sense or meaning, that also creates some confusion.
I believe in both personal and corporate election in different senses.
Tranquil
Member
They are different, no doubt about it. And I'll be the first one to admit that it definitely can get confusing.
The best view of corporate election is to see that the election of God’s people in the Old Testament was a consequence of the choice of an individual who represented the group such as Abraham.
Our election is based on being in Christ. He represents Christianity. He is the head.
Every spiritual blessing is found in Christ, which is a way of saying that every spiritual blessing is given to those in Christ because they are in Christ—that is, every spiritual blessing is given as a consequence of our union with Christ. Thus, election is “in Christ”, a consequence of union with him, which makes election conditional on union with Christ.
Tranquil
Member
the corporate view of election
soteriology101.com
The Corporate View of Election
To hear Professor Flowers give a clear concise summary of the corporate view of election CLICK HERE. Here is an another excellent concise summary of the doctrines of conditional election and predes…
soteriology101.com
Diserner
Well-known member
I am indeed familiar with it.
But Scripture says things like "I called you by name" and "before you were in the womb I knew you."
It uses the language of individuality, and those are personal terms.
For a full length description of my own thoughts see here:
