Elect according to the foreknowledge of God

[Butch5]

Ultimately both will go down into the Lake of Fire, but their fates are still different, regarding salvation. You see, in Rev. 20, after the 1000 years of the millennial kingdom, Satan will rally an army and wage a war against Christ and the saints. How is it possible that anybody , having literally reigned with Christ and lived in a real utopia, would rebel against the Lord? And their own inheritance? How could co-heir with Christ to that? I believe this is talking about those who are cast into utter darkness, or in your word, those who are lost. You can't imagine salvation with no inheritance, I can't imagine inheritance with rebellion.

The first resurrection takes place before the 1000 year reign. Those who are raised at the first resurrection are believers. They will reign with Christ. There are others who are not Christians who will enter into the millennial reign. They won't have access to the Kingdom. However, only the righteous will be raised at the first resurrection. If one turns back or loses faith , they will be lost. They won't be raised until the Great White Throne judgement.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

The first resurrection takes place before the 1000 year reign. Those who are raised at the first resurrection are believers. They will reign with Christ. There are others who are not Christians who will enter into the millennial reign. They won't have access to the Kingdom. However, only the righteous will be raised at the first resurrection. If one turns back or loses faith , they will be lost. They won't be raised until the Great White Throne judgement.

How could one enter into the millennial reign without access to the Kingdom? The millennial kingdom will cover the whole earth, and don't take my word for it, go read King Nebuchadnezzar's vision of the giant statute. In the end, Christ smashes that statute as a meteor and blows away all the debris, and then it becomes a mountain and covers the WHOLE EARTH.

Also, loss of faith happens, everyone has their own backsliding phase, everyone makes mistakes, being saved doesn't make you immune to sin, on the contrary you'll be more aware of your sins and Satan will tempts you harder, but by the power of the Holy Spirit, it can be overcome. "Sin is crouching at your door, it desires to have you, but you must rule over it." That's not just God's admonishment to Cain, but to all of us. Got lost? Follow the Spirit and find direction. Holy Spirit always directs to Christ, the true Christ, through the gospel and testimonies.

 

[Butch5]

How could one enter into the millennial reign without access to the Kingdom? The millennial kingdom will cover the whole earth, and don't take my word for it, go read King Nebuchadnezzar's vision of the giant statute. In the end, Christ smashes that statute as a meteor and blows away all the debris, and then it becomes a mountain and covers the WHOLE EARTH.

Also, loss of faith happens, everyone has their own backsliding phase, everyone makes mistakes, being saved doesn't make you immune to sin, on the contrary you'll be more aware of your sins and Satan will tempts you harder, but by the power of the Holy Spirit, it can be overcome. "Sin is crouching at your door, it desires to have you, but you must rule over it." That's not just God's admonishment to Cain, but to all of us. Got lost? Follow the Spirit and find direction. Holy Spirit always directs to Christ, the true Christ, through the gospel and testimonies.

Revelation says there will be those outside the city.

As I pointed out, we have 300 years of church history that taught that salvation can be lost. That was the original teaching of the church. Something that came along several hundred years later that opposes that can't be correcf.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Revelation says there will be those outside the city.

As I pointed out, we have 300 years of church history that taught that salvation can be lost. That was the original teaching of the church. Something that came along several hundred years later that opposes that can't be correcf.

No we don't. That's the kind of false teaching that brings forth "replacement theology", that the original Israel was lost and replaced with the gentile church, and it's thoroughly debunked in Rom. 11. Believers who sin will be punished, harsher than unbelievers, but salvations won't be lost.

 

[Butch5]

No we don't. That's the kind of false teaching that brings forth "replacement theology", that the original Israel was lost and replaced with the gentile church, and it's thoroughly debunked in Rom. 11. Believers who sin will be punished, harsher than unbelievers, but salvations won't be lost.

Yeah, we do. If you look at early church history you find that the idea that salvation can be lost was refuted universally by the church. If people studied the original faith, as opposed to deriving their own interpretation of Scripture, there'd be much more unity and less denominationalism in Christianity. As I pointed out, the idea that salvation can't be lost was a Gnostic doctrine and flatly rejected by the early Christians.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Yeah, we do. If you look at early church history you find that the idea that salvation can be lost was refuted universally by the church. If people studied the original faith, as opposed to deriving their own interpretation of Scripture, there'd be much more unity and less denominationalism in Christianity. As I pointed out, the idea that salvation can't be lost was a Gnostic doctrine and flatly rejected by the early Christians.

What comes from gnostic doctrine is the separation of body and mind, so as long as the mind is pure with good intention, the body can freely sin with impunity. That’s why grace is somehow turned into a license to sin, and you’ve got people “spiritualize” everything.

If you truly believe that salvation is about rising from the dead, then that cannot be lost. From those who sin so egregiously and appear to have lost their salvation, maybe they weren’t saved in the first place, for “how shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?” (Rom 6:2). I don’t care about your “early church history”, you’ve got no scripture to back it up.

 

[Butch5]

What comes from gnostic doctrine is the separation of body and mind, so as long as the mind is pure with good intention, the body can freely sin with impunity. That’s why grace is somehow turned into a license to sin, and you’ve got people “spiritualize” everything.

If you truly believe that salvation is about rising from the dead, then that cannot be lost. From those who sin so egregiously and appear to have lost their salvation, maybe they weren’t saved in the first place, for “how shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?” (Rom 6:2). I don’t care about your “early church history”, you’ve got no scripture to back it up.

Well, you should care about early church history. It's those early Christians who tell us who wrote the New Testament. How do you know that Mathew wrote the gospel of Mathew? How do you know it was actually Mark who wrote his book, etc.? There are quite a few false gospels out there that claim to be written by the apostles. How do we know they weren't? The answers to those questions is the Early Christians. It's their testimony that tells us that it was Mathew that wrote the gospel that bears his name. It's those same Christians who tell us that Peter didnt write the gospel that bears his name. If we reject their testimony we reject the validity of the New Testament. If we do that we have no basis our beliefs.

Regarding the Biblical evidence, we do have Scripture. We have it from Jesus Himself. He said some believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. The context of the passage is the word of God. It's actually the idea that salvation can't be lost that has no Scriptural support. It's simply supported by way of inference.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Well, you should care about early church history. It's those early Christians who tell us who wrote the New Testament. How do you know that Mathew wrote the gospel of Mathew? How do you know it was actually Mark who wrote his book, etc.? There are quite a few false gospels out there that claim to be written by the apostles. How do we know they weren't? The answers to those questions is the Early Christians. It's their testimony that tells us that it was Mathew that wrote the gospel that bears his name. It's those same Christians who tell us that Peter didnt write the gospel that bears his name. If we reject their testimony we reject the validity of the New Testament. If we do that we have no basis our beliefs.

Regarding the Biblical evidence, we do have Scripture. We have it from Jesus Himself. He said some believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. The context of the passage is the word of God. It's actually the idea that salvation can't be lost that has no Scriptural support. It's simply supported by way of inference.

Early church was right on a lot of things, but not this. If salvation can be lost, then the Lord died in vain. A Christian can sin and get lost, but don’t use that to vilify salvation. It’s not the doctor’s fault if the patient fails to comply with the treatment.

 

[Butch5]

Early church was right on a lot of things, but not this. If salvation can be lost, then the Lord died in vain. A Christian can sin and get lost, but don’t use that to vilify salvation. It’s not the doctor’s fault if the patient fails to comply with the treatment.

It was the only teaching of the church until the 1500's. How you or I view the Scriptures has no relevance to the facts of history. There's nothing in Scriptuee that says a believer cannot be lost. We actually find the opposite. As I said the OSAS doctrine is supported by inference, not Scripture.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

It was the only teaching of the church until the 1500's. How you or I view the Scriptures has no relevance to the facts of history. There's nothing in Scriptuee that says a believer cannot be lost. We actually find the opposite. As I said the OSAS doctrine is supported by inference, not Scripture.

Oh really? Then what about Rom. 8:39 - "nothing can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord?" The opposite we find only shows that they probably had no unity with God in the first place. Those who are lost CHOOSE to get lost because they've committed the unpardonable sin by denying the holy spirit.

 

[Butch5]

Oh really? Then what about Rom. 8:39 - "nothing can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord?" The opposite we find only shows that they probably had no unity with God in the first place. Those who are lost CHOOSE to get lost because they've committed the unpardonable sin by denying the holy spirit.

Ask yourself this question, can this passage be understood differently? If the people who were there and spoke the language natively didn't understand the passage as you do how did the understand it? They had to understand it differently. Why did they understand it differently?

One of the things I find to be a hindrance to us today is that we are often reading a translation. We're referred to as "second handers". A second hander is someone who relies on a translation to read and understand the Bible. That means we're relying on what someone else "thinks" the Bible means. When we look at an English Bible, or any language translation for that matter, we say, Paul said this or John said that. But, what we're really saying is the translaor(s) think Paul said this or John said that.

I think what we should do when we get to critical passages is to stop and examine them. Let's do some research on them. Break them down word for word and do word studies on these words to see if they can be understood differently than what the translators have suggested. I'll give an example. In Reforemd theology Ephesians 1 has a passage that is critical to the foundation of the doctrine. 'He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world'. From this those that hold the Reformed doctrines claim that God chose believers before creation. But, there's another way to translate this passage. The Greek word translated foundation literally meam to throw down or to cast down. The word translation world literally means an organized system. So, this passage could also be translated, 'He chose us in Him before the casting down of the system'. The casting down of the system could very well be speaking of the fall when God took the creation that He said was very good and put a curse on it. We find support for this translation of the passage in Geneis. Before God cursed the land He told Satan that the seed of the woman, Christ, would crush his head. So, before He cursed the land, cast down the system, He already had chosen a plan to bring forth Christ and that plan included the Jews. So, they literally were chosen before the casting down of the system. If this is what Paul is saying then there's no basis for the claim that believers were chosen before the creation of the world. That would mean that one of the most critical passages to support Reformed theology doesn't exist.

It's all about the presuppositions and perspective we bring to the text. We should always ask ourselves, can this be understood differently. Many times it can be.

 

[Brightfame52]

Limited Atonement and Election !

The fact that God called and separated Israel from the rest of the Nations of Mankind, and even in that Nation called in Abraham Gen 12:1-3, there was only a remnant of the True Chosen to Salvation Matt 22:14

For many are called, but few are chosen.

Rom 9:27

Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

BTW, this scripture confirms that God never purposed to save all Israel the ethnic Nation !

So God's Salvation is restricted to God's Purpose of Election, His Israel Spiritual Isa 45:17

But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.

Rom 9:11

For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth )

Rom 11:5-6

5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

For God has only promised to save Israel, that is why the Apostle to the Gentiles said Acts 13:23

Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:

Isa 45:15

Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour.

And even as God's saving Purpose went beyond the physical boundaries of the called nation israel, and into the other Nations of the World, it was still only to gather in Israel or the Elect among the Nations, so we see language like this Rom 11:26

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

And once all Israel is gathered and saved, that is God saving His World, the Total Collection of the Israel of God !

And we never understand the True God aright until we are made to bow and embrace the Gospel Truth of God's Gracious Sovereign unconditional Election, and that it is not purposed that God gives Saving Grace equally to all men without exception, for with some He did Purpose Rom 9:11, and the rest He did not Rom 11:7, according to His Own Will, and if this True fact is not settled in the heart, and you even find yourself in opposition to it, you serve an idol of your own imagination and not the God of Israel, who is the God of the Whole Earth ! Isa 54:5

For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Ask yourself this question, can this passage be understood differently? If the people who were there and spoke the language natively didn't understand the passage as you do how did the understand it? They had to understand it differently. Why did they understand it differently?

One of the things I find to be a hindrance to us today is that we are often reading a translation. We're referred to as "second handers". A second hander is someone who relies on a translation to read and understand the Bible. That means we're relying on what someone else "thinks" the Bible means. When we look at an English Bible, or any language translation for that matter, we say, Paul said this or John said that. But, what we're really saying is the translaor(s) think Paul said this or John said that.

I think what we should do when we get to critical passages is to stop and examine them. Let's do some research on them. Break them down word for word and do word studies on these words to see if they can be understood differently than what the translators have suggested. I'll give an example. In Reforemd theology Ephesians 1 has a passage that is critical to the foundation of the doctrine. 'He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world'. From this those that hold the Reformed doctrines claim that God chose believers before creation. But, there's another way to translate this passage. The Greek word translated foundation literally meam to throw down or to cast down. The word translation world literally means an organized system. So, this passage could also be translated, 'He chose us in Him before the casting down of the system'. The casting down of the system could very well be speaking of the fall when God took the creation that He said was very good and put a curse on it. We find support for this translation of the passage in Geneis. Before God cursed the land He told Satan that the seed of the woman, Christ, would crush his head. So, before He cursed the land, cast down the system, He already had chosen a plan to bring forth Christ and that plan included the Jews. So, they literally were chosen before the casting down of the system. If this is what Paul is saying then there's no basis for the claim that believers were chosen before the creation of the world. That would mean that one of the most critical passages to support Reformed theology doesn't exist.

It's all about the presuppositions and perspective we bring to the text. We should always ask ourselves, can this be understood differently. Many times it can be.

It's more about an issue of perspective than translation. God is, first and foremost, the Creator of the universe, the Bible is like the script of His movie. A writer knows his own book, and is it any surprise that he views every passage from a holistic approach that is different from the reader's? A lot of verses, especially words directly from God in the OT and then Yeshua in the NT, have deep prophetic meanings. They reveal the Creator's design, His intention and His plan for the future. Somewhere in Isaiah says that "the end is declared from the beginning," the blueprint was already laid out in the first week of Creation.

One simple example, in Gen. 4:1, when Eve gave birth to Cain, "a man acquired from God," she actually praised God and erroneously exalted Cain as the Messiah - because why not? Didn't God promised "her Seed" to beat Satan in Gen. 3:15? The very verse you mentioned? And Cain was the first man born in human history? But we know it better that this was talking about Yeshua the real Messiah, Gen. 3:15 was God's plan of redemption in the future. Actually, this helps us understand why Cain got so mad that he rose to kill his brother. He probably grew up believing he's the savior, the promised Seed, and he thought he as the firstborn savior was entitled to all kinds of rewards from God. So when God respected Abel for Abel's offering and not him, he got mad. Therefore it's not just about translation. In this case, if you can't make the connection between the "Seed” and the virgin birth of Yeshua, then no matter how knowledgeable you are at ancient Hebrew and Greek, you still won't get it.

 

[Brightfame52]

Unconditonal discrminatory Election does not make God a respector of persons, for if that was the case, it could not be rightfully called The Election of Grace Rom 11:5

5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

And to top that off, His Election of Grace has not been restricted to just one particular ethnicity, but it accounts for The redeemed that is out of every nation, tongue, kindred and people Rev 5:9

9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

And these all constitute the Israel of God

Notice vs 10

10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Now who was this said to before ? Ex 19:6

And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

Now Rev 5:10 has been renedered thusly:

ESV and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.”

 

[KingJ]

Do we choose God, or does God choose us? The words “elect” of God means that we are “chosen” by God. Predestined by God means God had “foreknowledge” of whom He would predestine to be His “chosen” people. We see mention of this in God’s “chosen” people Israel. We see mention of this in God’s “chosen” priesthood. We see God chose Zion, we see God chose His holy city. We see God chose Jerusalem; where God also chose to place His name. Don’t you know God’s chosen people are Zion? Don’t you know God’s Holy City, and God’s New Jerusalem are His “chosen” people? As Peter said, we are the “elect” according to the “foreknowledge” of God.

We choose God. God does not choose us.

He chose the Jews, as He chose Abraham. Abraham was chosen because Abraham was a good man. He passed God tests.

To suggest that God pre-selects His elect is ''wicked''. You are teaching the lost that my God is wicked.

Peter grasped that God is impartial Acts 10:34.

God wills that all be saved 1 Tim 2:4.

If you believe God pre-selects / Calvinism, you provide ammunition to slavers and racists. You do realize that don't you?

'''Christians'' are the elect. Anyone can become a Christian. Not Person A and not person B who were chosen to be Christians. You are reading into the verse.

 

[Brightfame52]

kingj

We choose God. God does not choose us.

Thats error friend, backwards and anti scriptural Jn 15:16

16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

Jesus here speaking is God

Ps 65:4

4 Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy temple.

Eph 1:4

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

 

[KingJ]

kingj


Thats error friend, backwards and anti scriptural Jn 15:16

16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

Jesus here speaking is God

Ps 65:4

4 Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy temple.

Eph 1:4

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

You are simply failing at grammar. The whomsoever accepts Jesus is ''the chosen'' John 3:16.

We are not pre-selected.

STOP teaching that God is wicked and pre-selects people. Unless false teaching is your goal.

 

[Brightfame52]

You are simply failing at grammar. The whomsoever accepts Jesus is ''the chosen'' John 3:16.

We are not pre-selected.

STOP teaching that God is wicked and pre-selects people. Unless false teaching is your goal.

That's not what Jn 3:16 says! And you opposed scripture!

 

[B-A-C]

Acts 10:34; Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality,

Rom 2:11; For there is no partiality with God.

God does not choose one group of people over another.

Jas 2:9; But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.

Rev 3:20; 'Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.

It doesn't say He opens the door, it says "anyone" (you) opens the door... It's up to us to open the door.

 

[Brightfame52]

Peter grasped that God is impartial Acts 10:34.

Acts 10:34; Opening his mouth, Peter said: "I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality,

Rom 2:11; For there is no partiality with God.

God does not choose one group of people over another.

Jas 2:9; But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.

Rev 3:20; 'Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.

It doesn't say He opens the door, it says "anyone" (you) opens the door... It's up to us to open the door.

God has not just chosen Jews for salvation but some gentiles as well.