Are you part of the elect?

[PinSeeker]

"Received Him", and "believing in His name", these are "active voice" verbs, so they are done by the person themself.

Agreed, but that's a distinction without a difference, really. Or... it seems you think I'm making a distinction between the two, and I'm not.

Do you consider yourself Calvinist?

Yes. But again, that's just a label. At least for the most part, I believe what Augustine and Calvin after him taught regarding the order of salvation.

Much love!

To you also. Grace and peace to you.

 

[marks]

Agreed, but that's a distinction without a difference, really. Or... it seems you think I'm making a distinction between the two, and I'm not.

The distinction would be in the presuppositions. I think you are presupposing that the one who "active voice" receives is changed so that they will in fact receive, and my presupposition is that the one who receives is changed so that they are able to in fact received.

In the question of "who caused the receiving", by the syntax from the verse alone, I'd be forced to conclude it was the one who received.

This might not be your answer, but a common answer opposing my view would be that they were not able to receive, and therefore were changed, and as a direct and inevitable result of that change, they then did receive Jesus. Does that represent your thinking on this?

I agree, all sin, all are depraved. I agree that of ourselves, we do not seek God. But I think God doesn't leave us like that, and I don't think there is anyone God prefers to not be saved. I look at passages such as "If I be lifted up from the earth (crucified) I will draw all men to Myself", and, "For the grace of God unto salvation has appeared to all men . . ."

I would call my view prevenient grace, that is, grace that is useful ahead of time, but please don't align me with either Calvin or Arminus. And I was reluctant to ask that question of being Calvinist, I'm not into labels, but it does help me get a focus on how you are thinking of things.

Much love! And grace and peace to you also!

 

[Bob Estey]

almost certain our current concept of hell came from norse/angle scribes who just had no better word to translate the original into, Bob; so you might look that phrase up. Anyway, the Bible states many times, many different ways, that that scenario just isnt true, and i guess you can look these up too,
and you and your sons will be here with me
that’s Samuel (accepted) speaking to king saul (rejected) through the Witch of Endor
all go to the same place
No one has ever gone up to heaven…
There is only One Immortal
All sins will be forgiven
The Father judges no one, but has given all judgement to the Son

and some others, and i guess you’ll want to read the religious refutes to those too but you’ll find them, and it is for you to decide if they hold water or not. Now Tartarus is also xlated as “hell,” and that could be made to fit our concept i guess, but near as i can tell not only do the “repentant” not go to hell, no one does.

Now might it seem that Scripture is inferring an “afterlife?” sure! It is written so as to hide wisdom from the wise right, and Constantine, being firmly Cult of Sol Invictus like most ppl in that region were then, i guess just basically dragged all of that into Christianity when he “converted.” Our “afterlife” is supposed to begin when we are “converted” i think? “Buried with Him in death, raised to new life in Him” sound fam?

Ps and if you hear the word “sin” being discussed by the people who are supposed to be bringing Good News then i would run, run like the wind, Bob. Look for ppl talking about forgiveness imo. Which i say bc the hell talkers are also preoccupied with sin, and fwiw they will even demonstrate in their speech/posts that they are still firmly “under the law,” once you learn what to listen for; “its like this, its like that, this is the ‘truth,’ you have to do this, you cant do that, i know what im talking about, you are obviously lost,” on and on.

I think of heaven as peace of mind, and hell is the lack of peace of mind. Read Matthew 4:17.

 

[TEXBOW]

I think of heaven as peace of mind, and hell is the lack of peace of mind. Read Matthew 4:17.

We get into trouble when we rely on what we think and do not accept the scripture in its plain reading.

 

[PinSeeker]

I think you are presupposing that the one who "active voice" receives is changed so that they will in fact receive, and my presupposition is that the one who receives is changed so that they are able to in fact received. In the question of "who caused the receiving", by the syntax from the verse alone, I'd be forced to conclude it was the one who received.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say, here... :) If God purposes to save a person, He sends His Spirit, and that person is born again of the Spirit. Having been given new life in the Spirit, that person has a new heart/nature that is of God, and the person subsequently -- and inevitably; he cannot do otherwise -- makes the free-will choice to repent and believe on Christ as his Lord and Savior. The heart is changed, and the heart drives the will. To be quite honest, I'm not sure if that refutes or agrees with what you have said here.

...a common answer opposing my view would be that they were not able to receive, and therefore were changed, and as a direct and inevitable result of that change, they then did receive Jesus. Does that represent your thinking on this?

Well, again, this seems a bit discombobulated. I'll just put it in football terms and say if God kicks off, man is going to receive. I think I would rephrase what you said here by just saying, they are then not able to reject Jesus. This is not because they are incapable of rejecting Him, but to do so would be to go against their very nature, against their heart, and they will not do this. Again, to be quite honest, I'm not sure if that refutes or agrees with what you have said here.

I agree, all sin, all are depraved. I agree that of ourselves, we do not seek God. But I think God doesn't leave us like that, and I don't think there is anyone God prefers to not be saved.

Good; I totally agree with this.

I look at passages such as "If I be lifted up from the earth (crucified) I will draw all men to Myself", and, "For the grace of God unto salvation has appeared to all men . . ."

Sure. There is a general call that goes out (is offered and available) to all. But there is also particular call issued by God via His Holy Spirit, and that is given only to His elect.

I would call my view prevenient grace, that is, grace that is useful ahead of time, but please don't align me with either Calvin or Arminius.

I am not labeling you in any way or aligning you with Calvin or Arminius. Only you can actually align yourself with anything; no one can do that for you. However, It is certainly possible to have Arminian beliefs, while not aligning yourself with Jacobus Arminius. And by the same token, it is certainly possible to have Calvinistic beliefs, while not aligning yourself with John Calvin.

Having said that, prevenient grace (or enabling grace) is a Christian theological concept rooted in Arminian theology (though it appeared earlier in Catholic theologies). Prevenient grace, as I'm sure you well know, is the supposition that the grace given by God precedes the act of a sinner exercising saving faith in Jesus Christ. It's the latter part of that sentence that is the problem; it makes faith out to be a work, and that is directly opposed to what Paul says in Ephesians 2:8-10...

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."​

Faith is the gift of God subsequently manifests itself in the form of the fruit of the Spirit -- good works.

And I was reluctant to ask that question of being Calvinist, I'm not into labels, but it does help me get a focus on how you are thinking of things.

Sure, no worries.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[marks]

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say, here... :) If God purposes to save a person, He sends His Spirit, and that person is born again of the Spirit. Having been given new life in the Spirit, that person has a new heart/nature that is of God, and the person subsequently -- and inevitably; he cannot do otherwise -- makes the free-will choice to repent and believe on Christ as his Lord and Savior. The heart is changed, and the heart drives the will. To be quite honest, I'm not sure if that refutes or agrees with what you have said here.

What I'm coming to understand is that your POV is that without anything to do with what the man thinks or does, God gives rebirth to the man, who then goes on into the Christian life, beginning with repentance and believing in Jesus. Is that correct?

My POV is that rebirth follows the man believing in and receiving Jesus. You would say that man requires a grace gift from God before he can do anything, and that grace gift is regeneration. I would also say man requires a grace gift, and that gift is the ability to make a choice whether to believe or not.

One question I'd ask . . . why would the man need to choose to repent and believe if he's been reborn into a new heart/nature? Wouldn't that new heart/nature already believe? Already been cleansed of sin?

Much love!

 

[marks]

Good; I totally agree with this.

I'm surprised at this. Does that mean you are universalist? That God chooses those who will be saved, all whom God chooses for salvation will be saved, and God prefers all to be saved? But I'm not getting the idea you are saying God saves everyone.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Sure. There is a general call that goes out (is offered and available) to all. But there is also particular call issued by God via His Holy Spirit, and that is given only to His elect.

This "general call", is it honest? Or more like were I to call my dead cat?

Much love!

 

[marks]

Having said that, prevenient grace (or enabling grace) is a Christian theological concept rooted in Arminian theology (though it appeared earlier in Catholic theologies). Prevenient grace, as I'm sure you well know, is the supposition that the grace given by God precedes the act of a sinner exercising saving faith in Jesus Christ.

OK, so, I learned that term years after I reached my conclusions from my own studies. Just sayin' . . .

You said "the grace given by God", but I'd sooner say "a grace".

I also had some hesitation using that term, just the same, I knew it would point you to the way I think.

God gives us faith to believe, and we have to mix it with His Word, or none of it will do us any good.

At the end of the day, I'm thinking your idea is that God is assembling for Himself a family, and my idea is that God is assembling for Himself a family of those who want to be His family.

It's nice to have someone here to discuss this stuff with that can be nice about it!

is the supposition that the grace given by God precedes the act of a sinner exercising saving faith in Jesus Christ.

This would describe your view also, is that right? But the difference being maybe degree of grace? or the effect of that grace?

Much love!

 

[TEXBOW]

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."

You see "not your own doing" as saved through faith. I see "not your own doing" as given grace. Without God's grace, we could not have salvation by faith. Grace is God's free gift and not our own doing. In other words, we cannon manufacture grace, we cannot earn grace, we cannot purchase grace. Nothing we can do can earn grace. God has a gift of grace for us but we have to have faith. I do not see "works" as a thought. I see works as an action. I think the definition of works is routinely abused.

 

[TEXBOW]

It's simple to see that my views and beliefs are predestined.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

I think you are mischaracterizing my comment. I believe heaven is open to all that obey the Lord's commandments.

I think you missed my joke.
You said something about the gate to heaven, and you look similar to the leader of the Heaven's Gate cult that made the news in the late '90s.
I have a weird sense of humor. What can I say?

 

[Bob Estey]

We get into trouble when we rely on what we think and do not accept the scripture in its plain reading.

But when we obey Jesus and repent of our sin, we understand what happens when we repent of our sin.

 

[Bob Estey]

I think you missed my joke.
You said something about the gate to heaven, and you look similar to the leader of the Heaven's Gate cult that made the news in the late '90s.
I have a weird sense of humor. What can I say?

I am much better looking than the other guy.

 

[Brakelite]

Is a life-long sinner part of the elect? Aren't the elect called to turn away from all sin?

 

[Curtis]

Jesus is THE Elect Servant. We receive every blessing we receive In Him. We are elect in Christ, only.

Much love!

The error of Calvinist interpretation of their proof texts, is they take corporate election - the nation of Israel; the body of Christ - and make it into individual election.

 

[Lifelong_sinner]

Andddd heres curtis, the catholic right on time to talk about things he doesnt know.

 

[Lambano]

You might want to be a little less quick in writing-off what Curtis just said. (At least the corporate election part.) Think about it. Why is being "cut off from the people" in the OT a punishment? Why does Paul have to spend so much time in Romans, Ephesians, and especially Galatians addressing the issue of letting Gentiles into the People of God? Where does our identity come from?

For you are a holy people to the Lord your God, and the Lord has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.

For you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God.

 

[PinSeeker]

The error of Calvinist interpretation of their proof texts, is they take corporate election - the nation of Israel; the body of Christ - and make it into individual election.

It may seem to some that people who believe as Calvin did soft-pedal in some way corporate election as opposed to individual election, but this is not the case. Both are true: God's elect is surely a corporate entity, the Body of Christ. But individuals are members of this corporate entity and thus themselves members of God's elect.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[marks]

The error of Calvinist interpretation of their proof texts, is they take corporate election - the nation of Israel; the body of Christ - and make it into individual election.

I don't really know much about that . . .

Much love!