Election is corporate, not individual. All who believe become part of the people of God. All who reject God and persist in rebellion remain out of relationship with God (not part of the elect). Election is not arbitrary. Reconciliation is not unilateral. God desires all to be saved, but love relationships are not caused nor coerced. Those who are not saved are responsible, not some hidden decree in God, contrary to His revealed desire.
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1
- Thread starter ChristisKing
- Start date
- Status
That's not what the text says. For you to maintain this claim, you must contradict scripture.godrulz said:
To be technically and grammatically precise, you should have said, "Each one who believes manifests God's election of that individual."godrulz said:
Again, to be technically and grammatically precise, "Each one who rejects God and persists in rebellion remains out of relationship with God (is not one of the chosen ones)."godrulz said:
Sure it is. That's what election means. And it is often in the plural, according to the Greek. And even when the word describe election in the singular, it refers to the electing of individuals. See the following: Mt 20:16; 22:14; 24:22,24,31; Mr 13:20,22,27; Lu 14:7; 18:7; Joh 15:16; Ac 6:5; 15:22,25; Ro 8:33; 1Co 1:28; Eph 1:4; Col 3:12; 1Th 1:4; 1Ti 5:21; 2Ti 2:10; Tit 1:1; Jas 2:5; Re 17:14. For example, note that Eph 1:4 has the singular verb (because of the subject-verb agreement with the One Who does the electing), exelexato, but it refers to the individuals (i.e. plurality, not collective or corporate entity) whom God individually chose. Note the following passages. The first one is the biblical version, the second is the Open-View version:godrulz said:
Eph 1:4-9: According as he hath chosen us [plural = individuals] in him before the foundation of the world, that we [plural = individuals] should be holy and without blame before him; in love having predestinated us [plural = individuals] unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us [plural = individuals] accepted in the beloved. In whom we [plural = individuals] have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; Wherein he hath abounded toward us [plural = individuals] in all wisdom and prudence; Having made known unto us [plural = individuals] the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
Eph 1:4-9, retooled for the Open View: According as he hath chosen it [the corporate entity called 'the elect'] in him before the foundation of the world, that it should be holy and without blame before him; in love having predestinated it unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made it accepted in the beloved. In whom it has redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; Wherein he hath abounded toward it in all wisdom and prudence; Having made known unto it the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
Eph 1:4-9, retooled for the Open View: According as he hath chosen it [the corporate entity called 'the elect'] in him before the foundation of the world, that it should be holy and without blame before him; in love having predestinated it unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made it accepted in the beloved. In whom it has redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; Wherein he hath abounded toward it in all wisdom and prudence; Having made known unto it the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
No, but election is. Two different concepts entirely.godrulz said:
Yes, all the elect (plural).godrulz said:
Caused, yes. Coerced, no. Election doesn't require coercion.godrulz said:
Those who are not saved are indeed responsible, all according to God's decrees, and contrary to His prescriptive will.godrulz said:
Godrulz, will you maintain your theory of corporate election even in the face of glaring textual evidence to the contrary?
RobE said:
I have a better question for you.
Would God be morally good if He was not so by an act of His will (i.e. by choice)?
Evil cannot be KNOWN before hand, Rob. It can be expected and planned for but not KNOWN, there's is a difference in spite of the fact that you intentionally refuse to see it. If an act is KNOWN in advance of the engagement of a person's will then the "choice" is an illusion at best and the act is no longer a moral one because the person could not have done other that what was KNOWN in advance.
The error you make Rob is that the actual existence of evil is not a necessary condition for morality but only the possibility of it. It was not a forgon conclusion that Adam and Eve would rebel against God. God gave them a choice. It was a genuine choice and they could have chosen rightly but did not. The fact that it was a genuine choice that could have gone either way right up until the moment they actually made the choice is what makes open theism different than the settled view. The two are mutually exclusive.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Corporate election is not based on one proof text looked at through the lens of Calvinism. "God's strategy in human history" spells it out systematically. The great Calvinist, F.F. Bruce, wrote an introduction to their book stating that the ideas deserve careful consideration, even though he personally did not hold to them. I am satisfied that election is corporate and can be resisted. God's predestines that all who believe will become part of the people of God (Israel; Church). Since billions of people have not existed from all eternity, He would not pick one twin or one parent to be saved, and non-elect the other family member trillions of years ago. This contradicts the weight of biblical evidence that shows the gospel is freely preached to all men, not just a so-called elite elect class, with the expectation that they can believe or reject the convincing/convicting of the Spirit. This does not rely on proof texts out of context, but is the self-evident revelation of God's impartial love for all men, not wanting anyone to perish. His plan of redemption is efficacious for all who believe. All are able to believe. Those who love darkness more than light will remain condemned and perish. God decrees that those who reject Him will perish. He does not decree that person x will believe and that person y will not believe. This would negate responsibility and any sense of love, relationship, freedom. It is God's sovereign choice to give us such freedom, so don't bother saying this makes man more powerful than God or brings God down to our level. This is the wisdom of God to allow for love, mercy, justice, holiness, accountability, transformation, etc.
http://www.amazon.com/Strategy-Huma...=pd_bbs_1/002-0626009-2757638?ie=UTF8&s=books
(sorry, I do not have time to spoon feed you on what should be a simple concept)
God's election can also involve service/mission, not individual salvation. Israel was called for a purpose. She did not always fulfill her destiny. The individuals that make up the people of God share the purpose/destiny of Israel/Church. If they remove themselves or never identify with the group, they do not share the purposes. Their identification with the group is not foisted on them. They freely receive or reject truth. They freely maintain their standing or chose to fall away. If your hyper-sovereignty views were correct, we would expect universalism to be true. There is no good reason for God to save some, but damn others that He could save if only He wanted to. This is explicitly contrary to His self-revelation of love and holiness. Putting a wrong view of sovereignty (meticulous vs providential control) above biblical understanding of love and holiness impugns the character of God. Shame on you.
http://www.amazon.com/Strategy-Huma...=pd_bbs_1/002-0626009-2757638?ie=UTF8&s=books
(sorry, I do not have time to spoon feed you on what should be a simple concept)
God's election can also involve service/mission, not individual salvation. Israel was called for a purpose. She did not always fulfill her destiny. The individuals that make up the people of God share the purpose/destiny of Israel/Church. If they remove themselves or never identify with the group, they do not share the purposes. Their identification with the group is not foisted on them. They freely receive or reject truth. They freely maintain their standing or chose to fall away. If your hyper-sovereignty views were correct, we would expect universalism to be true. There is no good reason for God to save some, but damn others that He could save if only He wanted to. This is explicitly contrary to His self-revelation of love and holiness. Putting a wrong view of sovereignty (meticulous vs providential control) above biblical understanding of love and holiness impugns the character of God. Shame on you.
lee_merrill
New member
I would say not!godrulz said:
So how is it that God chooses first one group, now another, and later the first group again? This is not describing corporate election of one group for us very well.
Nor Isaac over Esau, before they had done anything good or bad, so that it would not be due to man willing or running, but God choosing to show mercy?
I agree that God wants all to be saved, thus I hope they will be--there is another alternative here, it seems.
As in making one vessel a vessel of mercy, another, a vessel of wrath?
Which is why Paul raises the question of why God still blames us (no need to ask this question if this passage is about corporate election!), and also asks who resists his will?
The answer here should be, well, Joe and Bill and Sue and Sally? No, clearly the answer is that no one resists his will.
Isaiah 43:13 "Yes, and from ancient days I am he. No one can deliver out of my hand. When I act, who can reverse it?"
Who indeed? and no one, no one can...
Blessings,
Lee
To Godrulz:
All according to God's decrees, obviously,
Jim
Of course not. It's based on the teaching of the entire corpus of scripture, which you seem happy to contradict by your bald assertion.godrulz said:
Then you are satisfied to contradict the obvious and ineluctable teaching of God's word on individual election.godrulz said:
By using the word "all," you've contradicted your own claims. "All" is a plural pronoun, referring to many, not a singular collective.godrulz said:
Straw man, GR. I've never claimed that the preaching of the gospel is limited to an elite class.godrulz said:
Only those whom the Father gave to Jesus heard the Holy Spirit (Jn 6:37-40). The Spirit can only be heard by, and thereby only bring conviction to those who have already been regenerated. See Jn 3:6-8. When he came to Jesus by night, Nicodemus had already been regenerated, which is why he could hear the Spirit (See Jn 6:8). Not all of elect Israel had yet been regenerated, so there were those who had not yet heard the Spirit.:godrulz said:
Jn 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee [i.e., Nicodemus, singular pronoun], Ye [i.e. all elect Israel, plural pronoun] must be born again. 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou [Nicodemus] hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
I'm not the one contradicting scripture, GR.godrulz said:
Self-evident? Do you even know what you're talking about? I think you need to study this term and then come back and use it correctly.godrulz said:
True, and those who believe are the ones given by the Father to Christ.godrulz said:
No, Romans 8:7 says the carnal mind is unable to believe. Those without ears to hear are unable to hear unless the Spirit first gives them the ability to hear. The blind are unable to see unless the Spirit first gives them sight. This is the teaching of scripture, which you flatly contradict with your unsupported "self-evident" assertions.godrulz said:
Why do you suppose they love darkness more than light, GR?godrulz said:
That's not what the scriptures say. All those verses I cited above show you that God elects individuals. You maintain your claim in contradiction to God's Word.godrulz said:
Only according to your existentialist humanism. According to Scripture, there is clear and comprehensible compatibility between responsibility and exhaustive sovereignty (redundancy intended).godrulz said:
It is humanism. It is the sin of Adam. It is the lie of Lucifer. You're in good company, GR.godrulz said:
I agree, which accounts for the cases of election in which individuals perish. But that is not what Paul is talking about in the passages you're satisfied to contradict.godrulz said:
I agree, but there is a redemptive calling and election for individuals that Peter talks about in 2Pe 1:10 and Paul talks about in Eph 1:14. This is what your unfounded statements so blatantly contradict.godrulz said:
On the contrary, GR, God chooses to hate some (most) and to love others. That's not universalism.godrulz said:
There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. Since godrulz can't fathom a "good reason for God to save some, but damn others," it cannot be true. This, again, is the lie of Lucifer: "Hath God said that He raised Pharaoh up for a good reason? ("... that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth." Ro 9:17) Hath God said that He fitted the vessels of wrath for a good reason? ("... willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory ..." Ro 9:22,23)." According to Godrulz, there could be no good reason for God to save the elect of Israel, but damn Pharaoh; there could be no good reason for God to fit vessels of wrath for destruction and vessels of honor for glory; there could be no good reason for God to save some, but to damn others; just as Lucifer convinced Adam that there could be no good reason for God to withhold from them the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So, like Lucifer and Adam, Godrulz presumes to know better than Paul, better than Moses and better than God Himself.godrulz said:
All according to God's decrees, obviously,
Jim
sentientsynth
New member
What Hilston has here written delineates the standard Open Theist policy and procedure, ladies and gentlemen. Make careful note of it and look for it in their polemics. When you recognize what you're looking for, you'll realize just how pervasive this mentality is throughout TOL.
All according to God's decree. :chuckle:sentientsynth said:
Hey Jim, you need to add to your standard disclaimer.....
Now it should read....
All according to God's decrees, although God is not responsible for anything, to anyone, ever. - Jim Hilston
Now it should read....
All according to God's decrees, although God is not responsible for anything, to anyone, ever. - Jim Hilston
Jim and Lee:
The election of the individuals you bring up in Romans are national as the individuals represent nations (cf. explicit principle in Genesis and Malachi...see context of Romans quotes from OT). They also relate to calling for mission and service, not the salvation or damnation of individuals (including Pharaoh who potentially could have repented and been saved...he hardened his own heart, then God further judiciously hardened it).
The election of the individuals you bring up in Romans are national as the individuals represent nations (cf. explicit principle in Genesis and Malachi...see context of Romans quotes from OT). They also relate to calling for mission and service, not the salvation or damnation of individuals (including Pharaoh who potentially could have repented and been saved...he hardened his own heart, then God further judiciously hardened it).
lee_merrill
New member
So Pharoah represents Egypt? Yet some Egyptians went out with the Israelites. And which nation does Isaac represent?godrulz said:
Yet this passage is clearly about salvation.
Rom. 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers...
How is this speaking of Paul's service? No, it clearly refers to his salvation. This is clearly saying "Paul not saved, and my brothers saved." This is at the head of the chapter, and thus sets the tone for the whole discussion.
Rom. 9:7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children.
This is not talking about service! It's speaking of belonging, and really belonging to Abraham means salvation.
Rom. 9:9 "At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son."
Not a servant!
Rom. 9:15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
This must also mean salvation, how could compassion refer to a choice for service?
Rom. 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."
Pharaoh is serving God's purpose! Though he was hardened, and not chosen.
Rom. 9:21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
All these vessels are for a purpose, they are serving, but again, some are not chosen for belonging:
Rom. 9:25 As he says in Hosea: "I will call them 'my people' who are not my people."
Not "I will call them 'my servants' etc."
Rom. 9:23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—
For glory! Not for service.
Rom. 9:31 but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it.
Service? No, they did not attain righteousness, which means ... salvation.
Blessings,
Lee
Jacob/Esau are identified in the Bible as synonyms for nations (explicit). The same is not true about Pharaoh. Pharaoh's issues were not about his personal salvation or supposed damnation from before he was born. He rejected God and God used this circumstance to demonstrate His power for His people. Each individual or context must be interpreted in its own context. Israel and Judah were aspects of a nation. Pharaoh was an individual (he also represented the Egyptians, but was not elected or non-elected like Israel/Church/Jacob was).
sentientsynth
New member
Like fireworks.Hilston said:
Oooohhh....
Ahhhhh.....
WHOAH!!!!!!!
Now that ... what was THAT?!?
Hilston said:
Re: Romans and Jacob/Esau:
The great Calvinist, F.F. Bruce, says this: The quotation is "from Malachi 1:2 f, where again the context indicates it is the NATIONS of Israel and Edom, rather than their individual ancestors Jacob and Esau, that are in view." The Lord has loved the nation of Israel but hated the nation of Edom. Extrapolating this to mean the election and non-election of individuals for salvation is going to 'amazing' lengths to twist Scripture to support a specious, deductive, preconceived, deterministic theology (so-called).
I'm really tempted to post my "tracing of Paul's argument in Romans 9-11" thing again, but for some reason or another that thing seems to be a thread killer, and I wouldn't want to kill a thread that has been going for so long...
Perhaps I did such a poor job with that post that nobody has a clue what I'm saying.
Perhaps I did such a poor job with that post that nobody has a clue what I'm saying.
RobE
New member
Clete said:
According to the o.v. does it matter when God 'allowed' evil or not? Let's stick to the subject.
I can't accept that evil is immune from knowledge which reveals the future to us in our day to day lives.
Clete, let me take a step back here. What if I were to say that I agree that the future does NOT exist in reality. That the future wasn't certain, but only probable. That right now at this moment you are correct in your assertion that the future can only be "expected and planned for".
I will also point out that expectations and plans are based upon reason and knowledge. Do you agree?
Knowledge does exist now, in the present, even though the future does not.
Do you agree?
At the end of this sentence I am going to press the quotation key and the A key and then the quotation key again - "A".
My knowledge which existed when I started typing the above sentence was certain. The outcome wasn't certain even though I expected and planned to type what I did. The future didn't exist until I actually typed it("A")......however, my knowledge of the future was certain before I typed it("A")!!!
I was completely able to do otherwise even though my knowledge asserted I wouldn't.
It was a foregone mathematical certainty that Adam and Eve would rebel against God. A foreknown outcome based upon probability unless you want to use backwards reasoning. I agree that it was not necessary because another possibility existed, but that possibility never had the chance since it would be overwhelmed by natural probability.
The two aren't mutually exclusive because they agree on many of the same points. The o.v. presumes foreknowledge to prove its case, and the s.v. requires man to be free unless Calvin was right. I agree that it was a genuine choice, I just disagree that it was an even choice.
Rob
Twice you've called Bruce "the great Calvinist." That speaks volumes to me. The Open Theist is desperate for proof of their anti-individual election concept, even in the face of scriptures that contradict their view. So what do they do? They quote a Calvinist, making sure they label him as "great," as if a witness for the prosecution is going to help their case.godrulz said:
Ignoring the obvious differences between non-redemptive choosing/calling/election (i.e. Judas) and redemptive choosing/calling/election (2Pe 1:10 Eph 1:3-9), the Open Theist has to ignore or twist passages that teach individual redemptive election:
Eph 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us [plural pronoun = individuals, not singular corporate] with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: 4 According as he hath chosen us [plural pronoun = individuals, not singular corporate] in him before the foundation of the world, that we [plural pronoun = individuals, not singular corporate] should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us [plural pronoun = individuals, not singular corporate] unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us [plural pronoun = individuals, not singular corporate] accepted in the beloved. 7 In whom we [plural pronoun = individuals, not singular corporate] have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; 8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us [plural pronoun = individuals, not singular corporate] in all wisdom and prudence; 9 Having made known unto us [plural pronoun = individuals, not singular corporate] the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
Really? Then why does the prophet refer to the individual constituents of Edom with plural pronouns? If Open Theists were correct in their claims of corporate election, the verse would read this way:godrulz said:
Mal 1:4 Whereas Edom saith, I am impoverished, but I will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the LORD of hosts, he [Edom] shall build, but I will throw down; and he shall call him, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever.
But it doesn't read that way. Here's what it really says:Mal 1:4 Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever.
Do you see that? If individuals were not in view, then the pronouns would be singular, but they're not. They're plural. Compare this to De 10:12 And now, Israel [corporate], what doth the LORD thy [singular pronoun = corporate Israel] God require of thee [singular pronoun = corporate Israel], but to fear the LORD thy [singular pronoun = corporate Israel] God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy [singular pronoun = corporate Israel] God with all thy [singular pronoun = corporate Israel] heart and with all thy [singular pronoun = corporate Israel] soul, ...
Do you see that, GR? Your constant complaint against determinism has ever been your misplaced disdain for deductive theology (i.e. theology that begins with an overarching doctrinal premise and then reinterprets scripture to fit that premise). How fitting it is to see your own accusations brought against you. Your preconceived notion of corporate election forces you to deny passages that obviously point to the election of individuals. The notion of corporate election is so vital to your deductive theology that you go as far as quoting a "great Calvinist" to support your anti-scriptural conjecture. And you dare tell me that I should be ashamed? Please.All according to God's decrees, for which God does not have to answer to anyone, ever, obviously.
Jim
Funny...'us' sounds plural/corporate to me. It is made up of individuals, but they become part of the elect as they believe. Israel and the Church, the people of God, have promises and privileges as a group. All those who believe become part of the group in real space-time, not from a decree trillions of years ago when the individuals only existed as a possibility vs certainty. An individual could also apostasize and fall away from the truth, forfeiting the promises and privileges that are still enjoyed by those who remain indentified with the people of God.
The airplane is predestined to go from Chicago to NY. Only those who buy the ticket and get on the plane and do not jump out of the window will arrive at the destination. If someone buys a ticket for them, they will benefit, but they must be willing to board the plane. The plane, not the individuals, were scheduled far in advance. Which individuals actually get on may change at the last minute. This is an imperfect analogy, so save your breath pointing out where it breaks down in the detail. I just look stupid. :box:
We would need to do a detailed study on this topic. I am not prepared to do so. It is a non-issue for me and self-evident.
The airplane is predestined to go from Chicago to NY. Only those who buy the ticket and get on the plane and do not jump out of the window will arrive at the destination. If someone buys a ticket for them, they will benefit, but they must be willing to board the plane. The plane, not the individuals, were scheduled far in advance. Which individuals actually get on may change at the last minute. This is an imperfect analogy, so save your breath pointing out where it breaks down in the detail. I just look stupid. :box:
We would need to do a detailed study on this topic. I am not prepared to do so. It is a non-issue for me and self-evident.
- Status