Revisiting doctrines and topics

[SolaDude]

The concept relates to God's choosing nature, i.e., he chose Israel, he chose the church, etc., meaning that that He elected them, they did not elect themselves.

The ancient Hebrews thought in terms of God's covenant relationship with the corporate body. So when God called Abraham, the idea was that God was also calling at the same time all those in the corporate body who would come through the line of Abraham (through the promised son). In the ancient Hebrews' way of thinking, the individual who is part of the corporate group benefits from the blessings that God bestows on the corporate group.

The Western way of thinking is that God calls the individual. If we read the scriptures outside its ancient Hebrew context, then we might (IMO) mistakenly conclude that God arbitrarily chooses the individuals He wants to save (in order to demonstrate his love and mercy) while allowing the rest to perish.

It seems that God chose both at the individual level and at the group level throughout the OT. And in the case of Abraham, it seems there were both of those dynamics going on, that is, that he chose him individually, but also as a "father"-type figure of a group of those who would believe, a group which would be enlarged to an even wider group led by "the seed", Christ, providing the blessings of the covenant with Abraham to all in the enlarged group via faith. So, as mysterious as it all is, there would seem to be predestination dynamics going on at both individual and group levels, even into the NT, ISTM.

[KLP]

Peter was under the impression that Christians needed to make effort to confirm their calling and election and to make it "sure". Peter seems to not have had a full revelation yet of how no amount of effort or works could possibly effect God's elect. 2 Peter 1

[teresa]

It seems that God chose both at the individual level and at the group level throughout the OT. And in the case of Abraham, it seems there were both of those dynamics going on, that is, that he chose him individually, but also as a "father"-type figure of a group of those who would believe, a group which would be enlarged to an even wider group led by "the seed", Christ, providing the blessings of the covenant with Abraham to all in the enlarged group via faith

.
Yes, Abraham was chosen as an individual, and so was Noah, who failed in his calling. The ancient Hebrews saw these "elections" in the broader context of (1) God having created a well-functioning world with harmonious relationships, (2) humankind having lost trust in God's good intentions and choosing to go their own way, resulting in an increasingly broken world and hurtful relationships, (3) God wiping out the whole world to start over with Noah as the new representative covenant head of the human race, (4) Noah and his family failing in this election to set the world to rights, (5) God electing Abraham as the covenant head of a smaller group within the human race, which group God tasked with being a light to the nations, called to set the world to rights, (6) Israel not only failing to fulfill the purpose of her election in setting the world to rights, but also failing herself to be loyal and obedient to God--which obedience is different from meeting a performance standard, (7) Israel helpless to heal her now damaged relationship with God and unable to carry out her God-given mission of setting the world to rights, waiting for God's forgiveness and intervention, (8) the Hebrew prophets anticipating that Israel's suffering will somehow bring healing between God and all the nations, (9) the prophets anticipating a new world order, in which the world has been set to rights, with Israel restored as God's elected people, with the nations now streaming to Jerusalem to worship God.

continued below

[teresa]

continued from above

And from the early church's view of the broader context and continuing narrative (10) Jesus as the "seed" of Abraham accomplishing -- as the representative head of Israel, and on behalf of Israel in her Suffering Servant role -- the mission that God had given to Israel, to be a light to the world and to usher in a new world order. And as the apostle Paul saw it (11) God adding individual gentile Christ-followers to the corporate body of Israel, the cultivated olive tree of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and ultimately Jesus the Messiah. And God "breaking off" from the cultivated olive tree those individual Jews (not the Jews as a corporate body) who failed to embrace Jesus as the Messiah, until the time they repented at which time they would be grafted in again into the corporate body of Israel (12) God having inaugurated the new creation, God giving the responsibility to the "elect" group of Christ-followers to participate in setting the world to rights and bringing about the new world order.

All of which is to say, that in the ancient Hebrews' way of thinking, salvation primarily involved God accomplishing his purpose through his "elect" corporate people. And this salvation involved setting the world to rights, as it had been in the beginning, but this time in a way where humankind would know God, trust God, and thus be loyal and obedient to God (obedience not being a performance standard). It was understood that individuals would be involved, of course, in this corporate salvation, but the idea of God acting to call (or "elect") an individual in order for that individual to receive the gift of eternal life, was not how the ancient Hebrews (including the apostle Paul) understood God's election, IMO.

[ena]

Just wondering how you came up with this conclusion about Calvinism and why it seems so clear to you?

With Calvinism either you are predestined to be saved or not. There is no personal responsibility or choice. That how I have heard it described by Calvinists. If one is raised in the overly guilty CoC it would be a relief. You might see it differently. I could be wrong but that is how I see it


The problem is that the true Christian is predestined for salvation not by his own work but by the sacrifice of Jesus. You have to chose Jesus first. If not you will be judged by the law. That is how the law gets nailed to the cross for the Christian. It does not mean do not consider the Old Testament. The Church of Christ throws out the Old Testament with the Old Covenant. God is still the same God he did not change as much as human society. Primitives would not understand. The Jews were not yet ready until some type of order was established. Hence the wandering, the judges, the kings with many eras depending on how you slice it. According to Daniel we are in the period of iron mixed clay. The CoC mucks up many things.

[SolaDude]

Just wondering how you came up with this conclusion about Calvinism and why it seems so clear to you?

With Calvinism either you are predestined to be saved or not. There is no personal responsibility or choice. That how I have heard it described by Calvinists. If one is raised in the overly guilty CoC it would be a relief. You might see it differently. I could be wrong but that is how I see it

That is fine and you are free to not believe in predestination or election, however, those concepts do not preempt personal responsibility or choice at all, and I have never heard mainstream Reformed believers say such a thing (perhaps you were speaking with very mistaken extremists??), which is essentially viewing it as determinism, which it is not. In other words, a predetermined choice is not the same as a preordained choice, with the element of freedom being omitted by the former, but preserved by the latter.

[ena]

That is fine and you are free to not believe in predestination or election, however, those concepts do not preempt personal responsibility or choice at all, and I have never heard mainstream Reformed believers say such a thing (perhaps you were speaking with very mistaken extremists??), which is essentially viewing it as determinism, which it is not. In other words, a predetermined choice is not the same as a preordained choice, with the element of freedom being omitted by the former, but preserved by the latter.

The five points of Calvinism are:

!. Total depravity: You are born a sinner and will be a sinner. You are helpless.
2. Unconditional election: You are chosen by God regardless of your state sinner or not.
3. Limited atonement: The sacrifice of Jesus is sufficient for the elect.
4. Irresistable Grace: God saves who he wants to save regardless.
5. Perserverence of the Saints: These are people chosen by God. Not canonized saints.

The first letters spell TULIP. This mnemnonic is used remember the five points.

The link below to see a more complete definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism ... _Calvinism

Calvinism is counter to the God as I see him in many ways. Humans are limited in ways God is not. Do you know a person's hormone status which could be high testosterone for a guy so he acts out sexually. Is he to blame. Well the answer is maybe and maybe not. God can determine this. The CoC will line up to take over God's job. Humans can't judge it. That is the problem with the CoC is that it is very Judgmental. Is God? You have no way of knowing. Calvinism is well organized along a track. It's reward is that you don't have to take responsibility. I could spend hours dismembering it with scripture but not personally interested. I have run into extremists.