The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Election & the Love of God

Pilgrim,

If I wanted to simply find information, I'd browse, google, and read all day. I'd rather test ideas in a group of people who apparently know something about the subject. In other words, I'd rather participate in a forum.

That the administrator of this forum finds these questions and methods ineffective is troubling - for surely a forum is designed for debate and discussion!

I think it may be a matter of letting other people debate these things. You've started this forum, you help manage it, maybe it's time to step back and give others the reins. I feel bad, because you've probably seen almost all of these discussions at one time, but can you possibly allow that for some of us they're brand new!

Thank you very much for opening this space. I hope you keep it open.

I had a question about the present active participle of pisteuo, and wanted to know if it was used elsewhere instead of elektos to denote "elect." Your answer is below:

"The present active participle of pisteuo is translated as "the ones believing (continually)", "believing ones". The interpretation of pisteuwn in John 3:16 demands that it be understood as "the elect" for it was God's eternal purpose to send Christ for them so that they would not perish."

And I think this is a "no."

I believe election is not unto salvation. I can back up my belief with scripture, too. But at the end of the day, I think it's imporant to realize that the word "elektos" could in your mind be used here - but it is not.


Mike

Pilgrim,

One last thing: God is love. He that loves not, doesn't know God. Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

I wish I could disabuse you of the belief that God hates certain people. God hates sin. God hates evil. Most of the verses you mentioned have to do with God hating certain actions - but to say God has an abiding hate for certain people through all eternity - decreeing they be damned in hell forever - that is certainly a dangerous claim to make, on only a few verses.

I'll only mention that your inclusion of Malachi is helpful in perhaps perceiving how the word "Esau" and "Edom" are interchangeable. I don't believe God hated Esau personally enough to damn him. I don't believe God hates anyone to that point. But in these verse from Malachi, and then from Romans 9, it appears to me that God is using Esau to represent Edom, and Jacob, Israel.

Mike

Getting rather obnoxious aren't you? You have already been forewarned about your attitude here. We don't cater to .

I had a question about the present active participle of pisteuo, and wanted to know if it was used elsewhere instead of elektos to denote "elect." Your answer is below:

Well, that is profitable... "No!" Wow, that's one succinct rebuttal. But unfortunately, I'm not convinced you are right after reading your response. Try again? My reference to "the elect" was my interpretation NOT a translation. Surely, you can do better than this, eh? Perhaps you can find a quote from C.S. Lewis that would be more convincing?

Outside of John's Gospel, Acts 13:39 is another place where the word pisteuwn is used in the same manner as John 3:16; likewise Rom. 9:33, Rom. 10:11, I Pet. 2:6 (these quoting Isa. 28:16); and I John 5:1,5,10. Attempting to understand precisely who is meant by "believing ones," we must ask, "Who will believe?" And the answer to that is, partly, contained in Acts 13:48: "and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." The ordination to eternal life precedes belief. True belief is the mark of the elect.


Not all election is unto salvation, even in Scripture; that much is true. But I'm not sure that it is particularly relevant to the question at hand.

Sin has no existence apart from the sinner. God's hatred is directed toward sin & the sinners who sin. Thus Scripture does not sharply distinguish between sin & sinner, e.g., Prov. 6:16-19, Ps. 5:5, Ps. 11:5. God punishes sinners in hell, not their sinful deeds. See "Does God Love the Sinner and Hate Only His Sin?"


Does God ultimately damn anyone, on your view? You do not characterize the eternal hellfire awaiting those who die in their unbelief as "God's love," do you?

You can not disabuse me of believing what Scripture clearly teaches. Why won't you submit to God's inspired infallible Word?

Psalms 5:5-6 (ASV) "The arrogant shall not stand in thy sight: Thou hatest all workers of iniquity. Thou wilt destroy them that speak lies: Jehovah abhorreth the blood-thirsty and deceitful man.

Please tell me how "workers" and "man" equates to actions done by someone and not what it plainly says. God hates workers and abhors blood-thirsty and deceitful man. (notice not "men")

Psalms 11:5-6 (ASV) "Jehovah trieth the righteous; But the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth. Upon the wicked he will rain snares; Fire and brimstone and burning wind shall be the portion of their cup."

Again, individuals are specifically mentioned as being hated by God. And, their end has been set; damnation.

Romans 9:11,13 (ASV) "for [the children] being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

Paul makes specific mention of two individuals; identical twins. One is loved of God, the other hated of God. And, fyi the Greek word translated "hate" is emisnsa (misew). There is no other meaning of misew other than hate.

Matthew 7:21-23 (ASV) "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

This phrase, which Christ issues against those who "work iniquity", is equivalent to, "I never loved you", i.e., I hated you. Does this sound far-fetched? It shouldn't because the Bible uses the word "know" in this way in many places, e.g., cf. Gen 4:1 (Adam 'knew' Eve and consequently she gave birth to a child. It can hardly be suggested that because knew things about her that she became pregnant); Ps 1:6 (God knows [loves] the way of the righteous but [hates] the wicked who shall perish. This is a Hebraism where the phrase can be rightly reversed.) cf. Ps 37:18-24; Job 23:10; Nah 1:7; Jh 10:14; 2Tim 2:19 and Rom 8:29 where "foreknew" is rightly understood to mean, "fore-loved".

This is one of the favorite attempts of semi-Pelagians to rebut the doctrine of sovereign free unconditional election. But even a cursory reading of this passage IN CONTEXT immediately shows this argument to be nothing less than hermeneutical and grammatical gymnastics. Everywhere Paul uses specific names and personal pronouns to indicate individuals and not nations. Secondly, Paul is laboring to show that salvation is of God's sovereign choice, for He shows mercy to WHOM He wills to show mercy, and conversely, He hardens those WHOM He wills to harden. He then brings in the matter of the creation of individuals and how He, the sovereign God purposes their existence for His glory. Some are created to honor (salvation) and the rest are created to dishonor (damnation). Lastly, he shows that individual Gentiles are also part of God's electing grace along with certain individuals of the Jews, aka: a remnant.

Mike said:
Your view is remarkably similar to a discussion I recently had with another Arminian.
He quoted Eph. 1:4 as proving that God chose the character of the saved, not people themselves. He believes that if God did choose people rather than the character of the saved, it would mean that there is darkness in God.
Eph.1:4 says "Accordingly he hath chosen us, in him before the foundations of the world, that we should be holy and with out blame before him in love."

Do you support the view that this verse and its context talk about the character of the chosen, rather than the chosen themselves?

Could you please exegete this verse?

Tom

Mike said:
Suppose you are correct about Esau representing Edom and Jacob Israel.
I might be missing something, but are not both Edom and Israel made up of individuals?

Tom

1. How many verses are required before a doctrine can be established? The irony here is that you have taken one verse, James 2:24 and interpreted it in such a way that it contradicts myriad other verses, particularly those penned by Paul which teach that salvation is ALL of Grace and not of works [of any kind whatsoever]. Thus you have stated that you believe that works [good] somehow contribute to one's salvation, aka: synergism. I find this inconsistent.

2. FYI, I think you would be hard-pressed to find anyone on this board who is a "follower" of John Calvin. Most of us here appreciate many things about John Calvin; what he wrote, what he implemented, the resulting benefits derived from what he wrote, etc. Yet, we also find things in Calvin which we must disagree. We are "followers" of Christ and of His Word only. There are myriad men who have written wonderful and true things, according to God's Word, to which we can agree. But all men are fallible and thus we read discerningly. The open hostility you have shown here with your disparaging words in regard to John Calvin has to make one wonder if you have, in fact, read much of anything of his writings. Have you read through his Institutes of the Christian Religion? Have you referenced his Commentaries? Have you read any of his tracts or treatises? Have you read any of the Confessions of Catechisms he was instrumental in their forming? Have you read many of his sermons? Contrariwise, I can say I and probably many here have read a number of C.S. Lewis' books.

3. One of your first statements you made on this board was that you were interested in finding out what Calvinism teaches. Yet, when we have referred you to articles, books and sermons written by those who are faithful adherents to historic Calvinism, you have openly refused to consult them. I find this rather hypocritical. If nothing else, these references show that we stand in the line of historic Calvinism and that we are not some rogue group of people who have our own unique ideas and deceptively call ourselves Calvinists, which btw, is quite prevalent today, i.e., there are those who refer to themselves as Calvinists but who are either opposed to it in doctrine, fail to practice that which Calvinism teaches, or redefine what Calvinism teaches.

4. Lastly, I would once again ask you to stay on topic in these threads. You seem to have a penchant to run off on several unrelated directions in your replies. In the Board Guidelines, which you had to agree to it states that one is to adhere to posting messages which are appropriate to the respect forums, and by implication the subjects within the threads within those forums. It also states that inflammatory messages are not allowed. I would recommend that you re-read those Guidelines and make the necessary changes to your participation here.

Pilgrim wrote:

[Again, individuals are specifically mentioned as being hated by God. And, their end has been set; damnation.


Romans 9:11,13 (ASV) "for [the children] being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."]

Did Esau serve Jacob? Their descendants served the descendants of Israel. But I don't think any mention of Esau serving Jacob is found in scripture.

Furthermore, the election mentioned in these verses clearly refer to wordly tasks. Do you equate "serving" with damnation?

[This phrase, which Christ issues against those who "work iniquity", is equivalent to, "I never loved you", i.e., I hated you.]

You go from "never knew" to "never loved" to "hated." Never have I seen a theology based so much on turning words into something they are not. First off, not loving someone is clearly not the same as hating them! Second, I'm not so convinced that "yada" as used in reference to the relation Adam had with Eve can somehow tell us how a word written thousands of years later in another language means, simply because they have the same English translation.

[Does this sound far-fetched?]

Yes.

[It shouldn't because the Bible uses the word "know" in this way in many places.]

And I'm sure the Bible uses the actual word for love in many places, too. It must be very hard to read the Bible and have to constantly change simple words like "world" or "know" into things they are not!

To build a theology around God's hate of individuals would require some very strong evidence, since God is love. You do provide some verses from the OT that I'll have to look at, to be sure. As you keep repeating, we should look at CONTEXT. Psalm 5, for example, is - a psalm. It's not a clearly delineated treatise or argument on the nature of God. I think we should be careful about how David characterizes God, and not be too hasty to draw theological conclusions from a song. The way you have twisted Matthew 7 tells me all I need to know about this doctrine of "hate".

Tom writes:

[Do you support the view that this verse and its context talk about the character of the chosen, rather than the chosen themselves?

Could you please exegete this verse?]

Eph 1:4 is not talking about salvation, but being holy and blameless. The way I tell this, is that the verse says "holy and blameless" and it doesn't use the word "salvation." To make it say "salvation", you have to add something to the verse, I'm sure it's called CONTEXT. But as I look around at other verses, I don't see the word their, either. In which case, if you want to see salvation there, you have to impose a meaning on the text that isn't there. And the other side of the coin - damnation - isn't anywhere to be found at all. That's another meaning you have to put into the text to make it work there.

Kyle writes:

[Outside of John's Gospel, Acts 13:39 is another place where the word pisteuwn is used in the same manner as John 3:16; likewise Rom. 9:33, Rom. 10:11, I Pet. 2:6 (these quoting Isa. 28:16); and I John 5:1,5,10.]

I don't follow you here. All of these are translated "whosoever believes" or something like that. You can turn that into "believing ones" via the participle if you want, but none of them are translated "elect", as far as I can tell. So what is your issue here? I think I was asking if pisteuo is translated as elect in the Bible. I only looked at a few of them, so maybe I missed one, please let me know.

Tom asks:

[Suppose you are correct about Esau representing Edom and Jacob Israel.
I might be missing something, but are not both Edom and Israel made up of individuals?]

Yes, but you'd be hard-pressed to defend the position that every single descendant of Jacob is saved, and every single descendant of Esau is damned. I *really* don't think that's what Paul is getting at there. And again, it says the elder shall serve the younger - it doesn't say anything about damnation or salvation.

Pilgrim admonishes:

[ It also states that inflammatory messages are not allowed. I would recommend that you re-read those Guidelines and make the necessary changes to your participation here.]

Can you please point to a few of my posts that have been inflammatory? I have to be honest with you: your rhetoric is very demeaning. Here are a few of the ways you have characterized me: hypocritical, willingly ignorant, obnoxious, etc. Where have I characterized you, or anyone else in like manner?

You, sir, have been maligning my character for quite a while. Please follow your own guidelines, and I will do the same.

If you are willing to distance yourself from Calvin, then when I call into question his credentials neither you nor anyone else should feel personally insulted.

Mike

Again, you have totally ignored the CONTEXT which I clearly pointed out to you speaks incontrovertibly of salvation demonstrated in God showing mercy to WHOM He will show mercy, etc. in the following verses. The antagonists to whom Paul dialogs with in those texts surely were not livid over Esau serving Jacob or the plight of a couple of then non-existent nations.

As to the rest of your weak response in regard to your consternation of the "changing of words", as I have previously pointed out at least a couple of times, we do not hold to a "psycho-statistical-mean" hermeneutic. Words have various meanings determined by CONTEXT (remember? A text out of context is nothing less than pretext!) Even C.S. Lewis was more than aware of this self-evident truth and even he used words in various ways that had differing meanings. This usage of words exists in all languages. Better get up to speed with such fundamentals if you are going to understand anything you read.

Very unwise...!!

I have never felt "personally insulted" by your pejoratives thrown at John Calvin. If anything, I was embarrassed for you. And, I do not intend to "distance" myself from the man Calvin as he was an extraordinary servant of God who has benefited mankind more than most. And once again, I am asking you directly, What have you read of John Calvin? ... be specific, please.

Apart from Esau selling his birthright to Jacob, Esau did not personally serve Jacob that I can recall. But don't miss the fundamental point: In this passage Paul is arguing that God chooses some individuals & not others on no basis other than His own good pleasure (v. 18). Salvation is not on the basis of fleshly descent (vv. 6-7), but on the basis of God's choice (v. 11 - "so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls"). It is not obtained by the man who wills or runs, but by God's act of mercy (v. 16).


No, it does not clearly refer to "worldly tasks." The passage is part of a larger section spanning chapters 9-11, answering the question why the Jews, on the whole, have not accepted the gospel.


No one is building a theology around God's hate of individuals - what an invidious way to characterize what we have argued! So, besides the fact that Calvinism is predisposed toward force, passes the buck for our sins to God, and makes us incapable of rational thought, it is now built around God's hate of certain individuals! If you have come here to LEARN, Mike, you will cease to IMPUGN.


Indeed, Mike, let us not be too hasty to conclude from Psalm 5 that:

-God takes no pleasure in wickedness;
-no evil dwells with God;
-the boastful shall not stand before God;
-God destroys liars;
-God will grant David entrance to God's house by God's abundant lovingkindness;
-God blesses & protects the righteous.

Let us be careful lest we attribute to God what the INSPIRED PSALMIST may have uttered too hastily concerning His nature!


So, if being made "holy & blameless" does not count for salvation, of what does salvation consist if not at least:

-adoption as sons through Jesus Christ (v. 5);
-redemption through His blood & the forgiveness of our trespasses (v. 7);
-obtaining an inheritance (v. 11);
-being sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise (v. 13)?


Of course that wouldn't be necessary, given the nature & purpose of what Paul is writing here. But it is the logical corollary: if some are chosen for salvation out of the midst of the children of wrath (2:3), others are left. And elsewhere Paul affirms that there are vessels of wrath prepared for destruction (Rom. 9:22).

"The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil" (Prov. 16:4).


I did not say that pisteuwn is translated "elect" in any of those passages. I was simply providing some passages where the "believing ones" must be understood, in context, as the "elect," as Pilgrim had previously argued. This is not to say that "believing ones" should be translated as the "elect," since that is not the actual meaning of pisteuwn; the word rather indicates something - belief - that is characteristic of the elect. Which is why I had, after providing those verses, gone on to say as follows:


Is there some reason you failed to notice these further comments?

Just a note: in general, I think Mike has behaved himself in a respectable manner. He has been honest about his dislike for Calvinism, but the questions he is asking are for the most part reasonable ones.

In addition to that, while he is asking hard questions and giving his honest opinions about what he thinks of our answers, he isn't clearly unwilling to revise his position if his position has been incorrect. I sometimes argue the same way. Simply because I defend something vociferously doesn't mean that I am unwilling to relinquish it if compelled by the arguments. I suspect MikeL is in the same boat right now. He isn't some hard-core Arminian who digs up Calvinist discussion boards for fun. His sisters became Calvinists and, although he doesn't like Calvinism, he wants to learn more about it. It appears to me that the way he wants to learn more about it is by putting it to the test to see whether it stands up to scrutiny. Calvinism does, after all, endorse some positions that aren't immediately obvious to a lot of people. We may have different explanations of why they are aren't immediately obvious, including sin. But that doesn't mean that we should scold anybody who has the audacity to not be compelled by our first few attempts to offer compelling answers to his questions.

So, chill out everybody. We're all adults here, and MikeL is not going out of his way to annoy us. Let's be careful that we don't go out of our way to get annoyed.

Your friend,
John

Mike

You said:
I must say that I am a little taken back that you don’t see salvation in the context of Ephesians chapter one. However, I shouldn’t be at all surprised, since your understanding of the passage is consistent with another person I recently talked to.


Eph. 1:4 says "Accordingly as he hath chosen us in him before the foundations of the world, that we should be holy and with out blame before him in love." KJV


The words "Accordingly as he hath chosen us in him before the foundations of the world," indicate people God has chosen in Christ, before the foundation of the world."

The words "that we should be holy and with out blame before him in love." Indicate that the people whom God has chosen should be holy and with out blame before him in love.

It should be fairly clear from this verse and many others, that it is people whom God chooses, not their actions.
The second part of the verse starts with the word "that".
The word "that" indicates something following salvation; which is their sanctification. This is a life long process.

As for your claim that there is nothing in the context of the passage to indicate salvation. Verse 5 should put that claim to rest. “Having predestined us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to his good pleasure and will.”

What do the words “adoption of children…” mean?

By the way, just in case you are interested in knowing a little bit more about the conversation I had with another Arminian about Eph. 1:4, you can do so in the following thread .

Tom

John,

MikeL has not, to my mind, demonstrated a tone indicative of one who has come here with the intention of actually learning about Calvinism. He has instead several times stated his unwarranted and unduly negative assessments without even adequately addressing much that has already been said in response to him. No one here demands that he be convinced by the explanations we offer - he may even disagree with what we say & give his reasons why. But his efforts thus far, with several responses that have been dismissive or flippant, leave much to be desired. Perhaps you have not read all of his posts, in which case you may very well see of what I speak by reviewing the posts made by him.

At any rate, this Board does not exist for the purpose of providing space for mockery of the Reformed faith. Mike has already stated that Calvinism leads to insanity & the end of thought, has said that it provides a good reason to use force rather than persuasion, has intimated at length his low opinion of John Calvin & his theology, has stated that John Calvin wanted to blame his life on his sinful nature (with obvious implications for Calvinism!), and has now accused Pilgrim of building a theology around God's hate of individuals. This behavior is unacceptable, as I & Pilgrim have already made clear.