Just a quick note, I am not a seminarian I am armcharian in theology so if you havent already noticed Im outgunned.

That being said I do love God’s word and its enjoyable to me to engage in some exegesis with others who disagree with my understandings.

In regards to “particular election” or the election of individuals I believe the scriptures teach such and its everywhere to be found.

Could we go to 1 Peter? with a small excursion back to Ex and Deut.
Let me first say that national election is generic its used in scripture to denote the combined 12 tribes “Hebrews” or “my people” Exo 3:7 And the LORD said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows; and again, Exo 7:16 And thou shalt say unto him, The LORD God of the Hebrews hath sent me unto thee, saying, Let my people go… These two verses combining all tribes under God’s ownership calling them ‘my people’.
So I dont wrest the scripture to say that God uses generic terms to denote the ‘Hebrews’ as His people. Nor is it out of context to show that these ‘Hebrews’ were chosen Deu 10:15 Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day.
So from these texts and many others can be called upon, God chose a people whom He called ‘His people’. He also left out others for He said ‘above all people’ showing that these Hebrews were special and accepted over others. Lastly Deu 7:6 For thou art a holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.
Deu 7:7 The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:
Deu 7:8 But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers…

We begin to see that Gods chosing and his blessing walk hand in hand. We see that His chosing and his love are connected.
This forms the basis of understanding Gods election. For when we begin to speak of election we do not speak of man electing himself by his own choice, but God initiating choice and love before anyone is aware of it. God goes so far as to say “you are chosen for the Fathers sakes”, and again because of an oath He made to their fathers.

This and many many other texts teach us a simple lesson in where love comes from and where blessing comes from. The answer is simple. Gods own choice to do so.

Ill turn now to 1Peter: Hoping of course that my small excursion was sufficient to establish just one thing. God’s people are so by way of God’s own choice to make them a people for himself. We see this nationally, and the context says so clearly in Deut 7.

1Pe 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

Who are these elect? They are the strangers that are dispersed among the regions. These strangers are not nations but individuals and the context would not have you press nations upon ’strangers’.
parepide?mos
Thayer Definition:
1) one who comes from a foreign country into a city or land to reside there by the side of the natives
2) a stranger
3) sojourning in a strange place, a foreigner

anyway its late and work be a comin quickly…more tomorrow

John

Thank you for being so forthcoming and for showing a desire to discuss matters of faith without getting caught in some “heretic hunter” game. Such stuff is depressing and nauseating to me.

I hear what you are saying about pulling Athanasius’ works out on free will as unfair, but I don’t see it as a strawman. My purpose for moving there was two fold – one, Travis asked if any early church fathers wrote about the things I’m writing about and two, because it shows that prior to Augustine, the thought and insight behind Athanasius’ works, especially that of On the Incarnation, I feel do well to sum up the general consensus of the early church – ie., the general state of humankind (depraved) and God’s posture toward them (love). Athanasius also highlight (no, revels in!) the great expanse of God’s love and the totality of the work completed on the cross (very different from limited atonement theories).

I hope that helps clear up why I find Athanasius important in this particular discussion. I have lots of Calvinist friends (many of whom I am in seminary with) and the majority of them (those that are learned) realize that they are subscribing to a “system” of thought that has a long history – a history comprised of fallible men and women who earnestly sought after God’s heart. They certainly feel that their “system” is one that most closely captures the scriptures (else, they wouldn’t hold it) but yet they realize that it is not the only way, and that there are other equally “valid” (that’s for you, Stephen) ways of examining these issues – none of which are “heretical” or some spawn of antichrist (that’s for you, Bob). With these friends in Christ I don’t need to discuss Athanasius because they already know the history of revealed thought and truth and accept it. Here, however, I am less convinced that this is the case (until, that is, you came along, John).

You said I didn’t offer anything to substitute Election to Mario, but I thought I had. I believe I said something along the lines of God’s election almost always being communal in nature (nations, for example) and rarely particular. Do we see cases of particular election in scripture? Sure we do – Paul’s conversion could be cast in such a light. But I don’t believe such cases reveal a God who picks only some to be saved while damning the rest. And yes, I do believe God loves everyone, and thus, so should we (for what that’s worth).

I’ll close here. I just spent the day painting our basement to get it ready for the 2 children we are adopting from Ethiopia (praise God!) and I feel like I’m about to pass out from fume exposure! Sorry if this seems muddled.

peace,
Chad

Grace and Peace,

speedy

I have assesed your “alternative” and I disagree that it is perfectly valid.

Steering the discussion toward OIC is a red herring and is a waste of time, seeing that it is not authoritative or inspired in the least. Athanasius had many good/right things to say as well as many bad/wrong things to say. I don’t mind if you appeal to Athanasius or any other church infant as long as it is supportive only, not authoritative.

I take it youre the “Ive got my own brand of Arminianism” and I can debate well with it kinda fellow…. so lets talk. Now just so you know, I cant get back to you as fast as Id like so be patient with me.

I happen to love Athanasius myself and I appreciate the incredible way he hammered out the Trinity. But I wouldnt make Athanasius the ark bearer of free will because some homilies cater to your liking. Thats unfair to Athanasius and only setting up some strawman to waste time over.
I too happen to subscribe to the Historical grammatical approach to scripture interpretation, you should understand then I will take this route in advancing my own propositions.

I realize Mario just tossed numerous verses for you to interpret and you also realize (I hope) that you will not be taken seriously if you cant interpret the texts honestly within their context and intent. So, its far more dangerous to deal with scripture than with “Athanasius said” arguements.

In one of your posts you said
“No doubt that for every verse I pull out of the Bible to demonstrate free will you will be able to pull one out that demonstrates something other. No doubt every verse I pull out that demonstrates slavery and racism are not actions in line with God’s character someone else could find one that says it is. See my point?” I see your point.

But Im hoping that instead of scripture nullifying proof texting we will both be able to enjoy a godly examination of scripture.

Since the crux of the reformed view of salvation lays its stress upon the sinfulness and depravity of man I will build upon texts that reveal mans natural condition.
Then, since redemption is Gods determinate plan for the Elect I will look with you at what God revealed about his Election.

In reading your previous posts I notice you dont offer actual doctrine to substitute Election, but offer questions back to Mario.

Let me know your intentions and we can go forward.

Thanks for being willing to come here and go over these things.

John

Speedy:
No problem on the double post – I do that often You ask some good questions.
First, you ask: Chad,
Do you have a verse for your claim that free will is a gift???

The short answer would be, sure. We could pull out verses like our being made in the image of God and discuss the implications of that. We could talk about Joshua putting before the people to “CHOOSE this day whom you will serve.” We could talk about John’s gospel and the assumption that lies in the text that “whosoever believeth” is talking about responsibility of humankind. There are many other passages that we could talk about but before we do that there is another greater issue.

For starters, I disagree with the notion put forth in this video that the Bible is just a big book full of propositional truths for us to figure out and live by. It certainly DOES have propositional truths in it, but that is not what the Bible IS. If this were all it is (as the video seems to suggest) than why do we need to Bible any longer? It would seem that you guys already have all the truths “pullled” from the text and we can now just live by your blogs, books and systematic textbooks. That would seem far easier and less confusing than continuing to read the Bible, wouldn’t it?

But in fact, we don’t do that and no one would suggest we should (quite rightly). That is because the Bible is FAR MORE than just a code book of propositions that fell from the sky. It’s a beautiful narrative that renews our minds as we read it in concert with the Holy Spirit who leads us into truth. As such, I do not get caught up in pulling a verse here or there to try to “prove” my side and “knock” someone down. No doubt that for every verse I pull out of the Bible to demonstrate free will you will be able to pull one out that demonstrates something other. No doubt every verse I pull out that demonstrates slavery and racism are not actions in line with God’s character someone else could find one that says it is. See my point?

Sorry this is so long but it is crucial to understand where each of us is coming from when we approach God’s Word. When I read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation I find in it a grand narrative – a wonderful story – about God’s Creation, how God’s creation chose to worship something other than their Creator, and God’s passionate and unquenchable love for ALL his Creation to redeem it and bring it ALL back to rights. See, I believe that God is working in history and that history is going somewhere wonderful – to the new heavens and new earth that will be joined together in the Lord’s final coming. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is indeed so sovereign and mighty that even despite giving humans the capacity to choose that God is able to bring about his final purposes in the end and who gives and receives love not out of compulsion or manipulation but out of genuine desire.

You then ask about the doctrine of ELECTION. Though I would disagree that it is one that is “clearly taught” (or else, we wouldn’t be having this conversation) I will agree that it is taught, just not as clear as some think. God’s election in the Bible is almost always in regards to nations and communities. Ephesians 1 says nothing of individual election, I would argue, but rather sings the praises of God who has now grafted in ALL nations with Israel. The OT proclaims again and again that Israel is to be a light to all the world, to ALL nations, and that one day God will graft them into his divine economy. In Christ, one could argue that God has elected all humanity, Jew and Gentile alike. They are all loved by God. Sadly, many will refuse to recognize Christ as Lord of heaven and earth and will go about worshipping their own idols.

SPEEDY: Also, what do you know about the “justice of GOD” in ref to your question:

“If God is sovereign in this sort of way, why send his Son to die on a cross? Is He not powerful enough to just declare those whom He has already predestined as “saved”? Can’t he just make it so by divine fiat?

How does that reconsile the old testament teaching on HIS justice need blood to be shed for the remission of sin, HEB 9:22 ????

CHAD: Good question. Does Heb. 9:22 and following really teach that it is GOD’S justice that needs to be met? I would say that it does, but probably not in the way you are stating it.
Regarding reconciling Hebrews with the OT, what do you make of Isaiah 1:11ff where God says he’s had enough of burnt sacrifices and offerings and all he wants is that the people cease doing evil, learn to do good, seek justice, rebuke the oppressor,defend the fatherless and plead for the widow. (Again showing God’s love and concern for ALL humanity).

A great answer though to your question of why God’s Son was Incarnated and why he had to die on the cross is answered in the 300’s by St. Athanasius in his little book, On the Incarnation of Christ. I HIGHLY recommend it. It shows just how the early church viewed God’s love for ALL the WORLD and what the word JUSTICE really means for God and us. If you are really interested I would be happy to take the time to outline some of the major points,but everyone really should read it – especially during Advent.

sorry this is so long….grace and peace!
Chad

Have you read Athanasius’ On the Incarnation of Christ?

Matthew 10:34ff is what you could call a mashal, or, a paradoxical saying – one that sounds at first unbelievable. It is a common way to write for the Hebrews and is meant to draw attention, to cause one to stop and consider what is being said (Jesus was a Jew and the way he worked, talked, acted and thought came from such a Jewish context).

This is a mashal because we stop and we ask “how can Jesus say that? Isn’t he the ‘Prince of Peace?’” If he did not come to bring peace, then how can the following passages be true: Ps. 72:3, 7; Luke 1:79; 2:14; 7:50; 8:48; John 14:27; 16:33, 20:19, 21; Rom. 5:1; 10:15; 14:17; Eph. 2:14; Col. 1:20; Heb. 6:20-7:2? Don’t all of these proclaim in the strongest sense that Jesus is the one who brings Peace?

This is why it is a mashal – it causes one to stop and think about what Peace is and how Christ can bring peace but yet the very nature of Jesus being the Christ will also bring division.

So here Jesus is teaching that loyalty to him will bring persecution. And it did. Most of the disciples died a martyrs death. Rome persecuted Christians for the first 3 centuries of the church’s young life. In the Roman world it was OK to be Jewish – but as soon as you proclaimed Christ as Lord instead of Caesar, you were asking for the sword. So yes, Christ’s coming brings peace, but it also brings division – division between who though? It is those who profess Christ as Lord over and against everything and everyone the world professes as lord. And for family? Christ is not ENDORSING family strife and division, as I’m sure you would agree. He is, however, bringing into sharp relief one of the commandments (honor your father and mother) and laying that beside fidelity to Christ. If a young Jewish son or daughter becomes a Christian in the first few centuries they were disowned and left for dead for fear of Roman retaliation. Yes, being a Christian caused such divisions – but it was because people clung to Christ more than anything else, as we are all called to do.

Do you agree with this? If not, why? Do you think that Matthew 10 is a carte blanche given to Christians to fight against fellow Christians? I’m trying to understand why you think this is so important.

peace,
Chad

No, you didn’t. The “alternative” is in no way “perfectly valid.” You are the one who has stated that such a position does not exist. But when you say your asserted alternative is perfectly valid, to which objective point of reference do you posit perfect correspondence? If you shall answer “Scripture,” I will engage you in a point-by-point exchange, comparing your assertions to what is revealed in Scripture.

One last time: Are any of you willing to discuss ANYTHING of any substance?

Have any of you ever had a real conversation with another person who loves Jesus?

peace,
Chad