Does this verse prove election?

Eli,

bmerr here. No.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

I wouldn't use that verse alone to prove election, but that is an example of election.

 

Ditto.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

I have studied the arguments for "election" (in the usual way this term is used) and I do not think the Scriptures support it.

I therefore believe this text speaks about "the wicked" as a general class, not as specific individuals....

 

There have to be individuals in the class, and they are called wicked. Unless of course, an individual can not be wicked in your opinion. Those individuals God created to be in that class according to this and other verses.
So as Bro James said, it is only one of many verses that supports election, but no verse should be used alone for any teaching.

 

Not true. When someone says "God made the wicked for the day of evil" it is perfectly legitimate to read this as "God made the world in such a way as to ensure that some people will be wicked in order to fulfill his purposes, without specifying which specific persons these will be"

And I am interested to know what texts you think support election.

 

maybe you should rerad some of the threads on the topic of election, becasue many many verses have been shown to teach election.

 

Romans 9 also lays it out quite clearly.


Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

You should know that I am not new to this matter. Please tell me what texts you think support election.

 

GE:

Maybe it will be a good thing to keep in mind, 'Behind the explosion of multiplied interpretations there is the sinister plot of the devil to undermine the belief that the bible is the word of God', and that Election is by the will of God, sovereignly -- that is, God, only, and, alone.

 

"The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil."

The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, BUT NOT, the wicked for the day of evil.

Make your choice, Andre.

 

GE:

Not so easy! You cannot escape this one! In fact, the word, 'even', equals 'in fact', 'precisely', etc. "The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, ACTUALLY AND SPECIFICALLY (as over against "all things (otherwise)), the wicked for the day of evil."

 

You think it is the will or by the will of the wicked that he or they is going to get the "day of evil"? Then you know nothing!
So by whose will else then SHALL, the wiched get their "day of evil", i.e., hell, for their not only inevitable and deserved, but, by God gauranteed rewarded, "day of evil"?

 

This is not a valid counterargument to the interpretation that I have raised. Here is the text again:

The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil

Even if you what you are claiming is true, this does not damage my argument. I can claim that this text is saying God "precisely, actually and specifically, made the class of wicked people for the day of evil, without enumerating specific members of this class". We are not required to read this text as enumerating or specifying specific persons for the day of evil.

 

This is simply not a choice I am forced to make. Please refer to my preceding post. The "choice" you put before me is like asking me that famous question: "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

 

It is only in the sometimes odd and sometime intellectually inbred world of fundamentalist Christianity that such statements are made. When presented with an alternative explanation, and lacking no argument against it, a person can always invoke the tired "the person who does not share my view is a minion of Satan" argument. I would hope that we can do better. Imagine if a member of the scientific community reacted to challenges to the standard scientific worldview with such rhetoric. They would laughed out of town. And rightly so.

 

GE:

The Word says, "the wicked (men)" -- the damned, their names NOT being written in the Book of Life Jesus Christ, but written, in the books opened in the judgement. They are known by name and person as are the saved. From before the foundation of the world. According to God's will.

Why not accept it? Because you cannot trust God? Then whom would you rather trust?

 

GE:

If I be laughed out of town for maintaining and stating, Election is by the will of God, sovereignly -- that is, God, only, and, alone, then so be it with great joy on my part. In fact, I am right here laughed out of town by you, Andre, for it. If it were otherwise, I would have worried.

 

Andre, you remind me of a theologian (feminine, late 19th century), who categorically stated something like this (it was very long ago): "There is no election but the election whereby man elects God".