Conditional Election

[Old-Pilgrim]

I tried to post this already but had some network issues, so I apologize if it's a duplicate response.

I don't 100% understand exactly what you're saying, so if I've misunderstood, please correct me. I seems we agree that everyone has the opportunity to seek God. I would further argue that everyone is called to make a faith-based response to the Gospel for salvation.

John 12:32-33 - And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die.

Since Jesus was, in fact, lifted up, then He is drawing everyone to him. What evidence do you offer to assert that only a select few are then enabled to respond to being drawn (which I'll refer to as calling for ease of discussion)? Further, how do you reconcile limited enablement (or special preparedness) to respond to the calling since it would mean that the calling was feigned or dishonest to most people?

>>> I would further argue that everyone is called to make a faith-based response to the Gospel for salvation.<Since Jesus was, in fact, lifted up, then He is drawing everyone to him. What evidence do you offer to assert that only a select few are then enabled to respond to being drawn (which I'll refer to as calling for ease of discussion)?<<

Mt 20:16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

>>>Further, how do you reconcile limited enablement (or special preparedness) to respond to the calling since it would mean that the calling was feigned or dishonest to most people?<<< I'll respond to that one latter hopefully If I get the time.

[TheSword]

>>> I would further argue that everyone is called to make a faith-based response to the Gospel for salvation.<Since Jesus was, in fact, lifted up, then He is drawing everyone to him. What evidence do you offer to assert that only a select few are then enabled to respond to being drawn (which I'll refer to as calling for ease of discussion)?<<

Mt 20:16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

>>>Further, how do you reconcile limited enablement (or special preparedness) to respond to the calling since it would mean that the calling was feigned or dishonest to most people?<<< I'll respond to that one latter hopefully If I get the time.

To John 6:44 I respond again with the aforementioned John 12:32-33. If everyone is drawn, then everyone can come.

To Matt 20:16, I assert that the context suggests the lesson of the parable which it wraps up (Matt 20:1-16) refers to the eternal reward of faithful service regardless of time spent serving. It immediately follows Peter's question in Matt 19:27-30 about what rewards they will receive for abandoning everything to follow Jesus in contrast to the rich man who would not give up his wealth. The thrust of the passage is the upending of the social order (first -> last, last -> first) because of people's unwillingness to respond to Jesus' call because they would have to sacrifice something. I think it is a stretch to get a limited enablement interpretation out of it; it would be a rather vague reference at best. In light of clearer passages to the contrary, I believe it to be invalid.

[Old-Pilgrim]

To John 6:44 I respond again with the aforementioned John 12:32-33. If everyone is drawn, then everyone can come.

To Matt 20:16, I assert that the context suggests the lesson of the parable which it wraps up (Matt 20:1-16) refers to the eternal reward of faithful service regardless of time spent serving. It immediately follows Peter's question in Matt 19:27-30 about what rewards they will receive for abandoning everything to follow Jesus in contrast to the rich man who would not give up his wealth. The thrust of the passage is the upending of the social order (first -> last, last -> first) because of people's unwillingness to respond to Jesus' call because they would have to sacrifice something. I think it is a stretch to get a limited enablement interpretation out of it; it would be a rather vague reference at best. In light of clearer passages to the contrary, I believe it to be invalid.

>>>To John 6:44 I respond again with the aforementioned John 12:32-33. If everyone is drawn, then everyone can come.<<<

Or perhaps everyone is drawn but some are turned away by the Father, in a similar way to which John the Baptist turned away some because they obviously weren't ready to enter the Kingdom. Any theology which would disannul John 6:44 based on John 12-32-33 is lakking even if you did put up a good argument to support the position. This may not be a moral sin but it must be an intellectual shortfall. I am acknowledging both to be true, because both are plain, and then looking at the reasons and verses and principles involved  which would allow or hinder individuals from coming to the faith, unbelief being one of them, the example you gave there of the rich young ruler, his love of money. But According to, Ga 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith', the reasons are all tied up in our dealings with God through the Law principle and the working of His Spirit. and in John 6:45 we see all have been taught and also that in order to be among the elect we must have 'learned'. So Again the responsibility is on 'us' or 'the lost' to learn of the father, via the Law and the spirit, in order that he then grants us the sight to see, the right to pass etc.

I believe the lessons might be many little things, like cornelius and his alms (deeds motivated by compassion) Ac 10:4. The Scripture is full of Works leading to enlightenment but They are quickly dismissed because we know that salvation is a Free Gift, we do need to be in a childlike frame of mind in order to receive it.

So I am not arguing that God has chosen certain individuals, but that he has chosen all individuals who are 'down to standard'.

I know for a fact, as sure as I believe that America exists, that there is some people in the world who are completely atheist, Because I was one of them, I did not choose to not believe, and I did not choose to believe, it happened, it came about in the process of time in the passing of events, like the course of the sun in the sky it was seemingly out of my Hands. I wasn't born believeing in God, I was born blind and unconscious I was taught that I was Catholic. 

Edited June 23, 2015 by Old-Pilgrim
spelling

[Old-Pilgrim]

2Th 3:2 And that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men: for all men have not faith.

[Old-Pilgrim]

Here's another thing to ponder. Would you agree that saved people can be seduced, tempted or deceived? I would certainly say so. Yet notice this...

Mar 13:22

For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.

That little word "if" tells me that it is impossible to deceive "the elect", So how can we understand that? Well, we do know that the saved have two (2) natures; the new nature and the sin nature. The new nature cannot sin, has no fear, and has the mind of Christ so I would be thinking that maybe "the elect" is somehow closely related to the indwelling Spirit. Our old natures can in fact be "seduced" but the new nature cannot; it is impossible. That part is sinlessly perfect. (1 John 3:9)  Only God can get the credit for that. The only part we have is in obediently choosing life and blessing instead of death and cursing. God says "choose life".  (Deuteronomy 30:19) And you cannot even get the credit for "choosing" because it is God who invites and "draws" "all men"(John 12:32)

Lost another post., gutted

 

Edited June 23, 2015 by Old-Pilgrim

[Old-Pilgrim]

>>>>Here's another thing to ponder. Would you agree that saved people can be seduced, tempted or deceived? I would certainly say so. Yet notice this...

Mar 13:22
    
For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.

That little word "if" tells me that it is impossible to deceive "the elect", So how can we understand that? Well, we do know that the saved have two (2) natures; the new nature and the sin nature. The new nature cannot sin, has no fear, and has the mind of Christ so I would be thinking that maybe "the elect" is somehow closely related to the indwelling Spirit. Our old natures can in fact be "seduced" but the new nature cannot; it is impossible. That part is sinlessly perfect. (1 John 3:9)  Only God can get the credit for that. The only part we have is in obediently choosing life and blessing instead of death and cursing. God says "choose life".  (Deuteronomy 30:19) And you cannot even get the credit for "choosing" because it is God who invites and "draws" "all men"(John 12:32)//<<<<

I agree in part, I believe we have a spiritual man, and a sin nature, That which is born of God even our faith shall overcome the world, that which is born of God cannot sin, not even once. The Fire of Gods Judgement will burn away the flesh and its works to reveal the pure gold of our faith. I believe it is the revelation of this which is the rock upon which Christ is building His Church.

But I think Deut 30:19 is talking about the Old Covenant which was about long life on earth, not Reconciliation to God in Christ, that only came with the Faith and the new Covenant.

I believe Rom 10 Contrasts the Law of Deuteronomy  to The Faith of Christ.

Ro 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
Ro 10:5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
Ro 10:6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise… what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
Ro 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

 

[heartstrings]

Old Pilgrim,

The point of quoting (Deuteronomy 30:19) is that God wanted them to choose.. Just like He wanted them to do here in the NEW Testament..........

Matthew 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Edited June 24, 2015 by heartstrings

[TheSword]

>>>To John 6:44 I respond again with the aforementioned John 12:32-33. If everyone is drawn, then everyone can come.<<<

Or perhaps everyone is drawn but some are turned away by the Father, in a similar way to which John the Baptist turned away some because they obviously weren't ready to enter the Kingdom. Any theology which would disannul John 6:44 based on John 12-32-33 is lakking even if you did put up a good argument to support the position. This may not be a moral sin but it must be an intellectual shortfall. I am acknowledging both to be true, because both are plain, and then looking at the reasons and verses and principles involved  which would allow or hinder individuals from coming to the faith, unbelief being one of them, the example you gave there of the rich young ruler, his love of money. But According to, Ga 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith', the reasons are all tied up in our dealings with God through the Law principle and the working of His Spirit. and in John 6:45 we see all have been taught and also that in order to be among the elect we must have 'learned'. So Again the responsibility is on 'us' or 'the lost' to learn of the father, via the Law and the spirit, in order that he then grants us the sight to see, the right to pass etc.

I believe the lessons might be many little things, like cornelius and his alms (deeds motivated by compassion) Ac 10:4. The Scripture is full of Works leading to enlightenment but They are quickly dismissed because we know that salvation is a Free Gift, we do need to be in a childlike frame of mind in order to receive it.

I think you're grasping at straws here and I'm not sure you're really open to any evidence that counters your prior conclusions:

"Any theology which would disannul John 6:44 based on John 12-32-33 is lakking even if you did put up a good argument to support the position."

Why? Should a proper interpretation of both passages affect the overall conclusion? Why do you think it would be disannulled at all? My analysis didn't disannul either passage, but rather showed how they were in harmony and worked together to show a larger point.

So I am not arguing that God has chosen certain individuals, but that he has chosen all individuals who are 'down to standard'.

Regardless of how you spin this statement, it asserts a works-based salvation because it bases God's choosing to salvation those who meet a certain standard. Further, its straight up Calvinism via double-predestination by your prior assertions that God is the one that enables one to get "down to standard", but only those He chooses.

 

I'm not sure this discussion is going to be fruitful. You're not really interacting with my detailed explanations of the various passages to show why the interpretation is wrong; but simply restate your interpretation with some tangential passages. Unless you can show and explain why my interpretation is wrong based on the context and grammar (i.e. the exegesis) then you have no grounds to support an opposing position. In my posts, I explain exactly why I disagree in detail and offer my analysis; but you, for the most part, only offer a restatement of your position. In this case, you didn't show why I was wrong to use John 12:32-33 to illuminate John 6:44, you simply dismissed it and again argued for your position on pre-salvation sanctification without interacting with the analysis of Matt 20:16 which disproved your prior assertion on selective enablement.

In short, I don't think we're truly going to get anywhere with this discussion, so I'm going to politely disengage and respectfully decline to contribute further.

[Old-Pilgrim]

Hi,

>>>I don't think we're truly going to get anywhere with this discussion<<<

This is no surprise, (and no problem, thanks for you input) since you have different definitions from me of just about every key word and theme which we are discussing, and no one can or should just change their understanding of a word or theme at every wind of doctrine. Essentially it is as if we are using different languages which just happen to contain words which are spelled the same.

>>>You're not really interacting with my detailed explanations of the various passages to show why the interpretation is wrong<<<

I haven't responded to every point you have made and nether have you responded to every point I have made.

As far as your interpretation of the Greek text, If all the reformation translators were unable to translate the text properly, what are you proposing that I just trust your rendering of the Greek over all of the translations? Should we all learn Greek? I know we can come up with different understandings based on the plain English, so I don't think disagreeing  in Greek would really make any difference, as  is evidenced by the fact that there are Greek scholars from every denomination, not to mention that The Pharisees knew Greek and Hebrew and still missed the point, yet prostitutes and fishermen got it. Not that I'm saying that I'm a prostitute or that you are a Pharisee, but English is ok for me. 

>>>>Regardless of how you spin this statement, it asserts a works-based salvation because it bases God's choosing to salvation those who meet a certain standard. Further, its straight up Calvinism via double-predestination by your prior assertions that God is the one that enables one to get "down to standard", but only those He chooses.<<<<

A works based election maybe, a totally different thing.

>>>because it bases God's choosing to salvation those who meet a certain standard.<<<

And I did provide scripture to support this point. Which Scripture in the most part you never acknowledged, Sorry I don't know of any Theological position which supports the scriptures which I provided.

For Example Remember Ps 50:23 Whoso offereth praise glorifieth me: and to him that ordereth his conversation aright will I shew the salvation of God.

Notice it doesn't say 'I will save', no, just 'I will shew' , and there are many many scriptures say the same thing. There is no theology supports these Scripture, so it is difficult for people to 'see' them, we have a tendency to fit all the scriptures into the channel which we has been already hewn out.

[Old-Pilgrim]

Old Pilgrim,

The point of quoting (Deuteronomy 30:19) is that God wanted them to choose.. Just like He wanted them to do here in the NEW Testament..........

Matthew 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

Hello heartstrings, I often use that same scripture and argument when discussing with my Calvinists brethren, It could be argued that The Lord (in OT times) was using the Law and the Spirit and prophecy in order to gather his people, but they rejected sound council and so he blinded their eyes. Lu 13:35 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

you said before >> The only part we have is in obediently choosing life and blessing instead of death and cursing. God says "choose life".<<

and that is a OT quote but you were applying it to the NT Gospel, but the Gospel is to as many as  'believe'.

Notice the following

2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

why the love of the truth and not just 'the Gospel' ?

No I believe it is the Lord who actually has to enlighten us, and that he has conditions, basicly we need to be meek. and so even harlots and all sorts of scoundrels can be saved with little knowledge of God.

[Old-Pilgrim]

You seem to be trying to way over-think this.

Hey

BTW I liked the way you said 'trying to way over-think this.' lol, you have that right.

I do think allot. And I try to make my thoughts coherent.  I usually stick with a topic for months or years or longer, not that I intend discussing any topics as long as that.