Election primer

No debate?



OK for a quick down and dirty . . . those whom He forknew, these He predestined to become conformed to the image of Christ (loosely from Romans 8).

Many Baptists have held to a 'new-light' calvinistic approach to election. It has often been taught that those whom He forknew (their decision to accept Christ) these (same ones) He elected to salvation.

The 'elect' is usually used in reference to the 'True' believers that make up the True Church. Ephesians 2:8 & 9 is often used as a primary reference.

 

No disrespect, but, since this is a debate board, it will be inevitable that those who oppose the Doctrine of Grace (Election, etc) will jump in either civilly or otherwise, and before you know it, your thread is hijacked way out of topic.

If you're really serious about understanding Election, try a search of the net.

Again, no disrespect intended, either to you, to those who hold to thie Doctrine of Grace, or those who oppose it.

 

PS

Where one falls on the scope of predistination will affect how one chooses to define 'the elect'.

Determinists (super hyper calvinists) define the elect differently than do Arminians (actual 'arminian' is close to charismatic in the doctrine of Grace & Salvation).

I define the elect as those that God has chosen to spend eternity with Him in Heaven.

 

Bad question...very bad :tonofbricks:

The difference surrounds the question of whether man has the ability to freely chose to come to God independent of an irresistable call or not. To put it another way, must God regenerate the sinner before the sinner can respond to God, or does natural man have the capacity prior to regeneration. No arminian will call their view a works salvation, afaik.

 

Yes, and while it is good to search the net, there is absolutely nothing wrong with asking a question in this forum about free will and God's sovereignty. There are lots of very sharp minds here that have a good grasp of the subject. The debate is healthy.

No disrespect intended.

 

Yes I do, and that is why I have participated in the C/A debates. I think both sides have excellent arguments backed by scripture. They can't both be right, but they are certainly not completely wrong. There must be a middle ground somewhere. I can't help but think it is beyond our comprehension. However, I will continue to study it, I have learned more lately than ever before.

 

That's why I can't figure out why either camp is so popular. It seems pretty obvious that both sides have some of it right. But, by the same token, it seems equally as obvious that both sides have some of it wrong.

 

Only to the extent that every single person only sees part of the picture and ignores the rest. Some see more than others, and some ignore more than others.

Since I am a curious Calvinist I would like to know what it is that Calvinists are ignoring. I sure hope you don't say John 3:16 or some other comman passage like that, because 1) we do not ignore it and 2) it would likely start a debate.

 

I must jump in here... The word "world" in John 3:16 doesn't mean every single person who has ever or will ever live for the very same reason that it doesn't mean that in John 17:9 where Jesus says he prays for His followers and those who will believe on Him through their witness but He does not pray for the world. Or 1 John 2:15, where John tells us not to love the world.

I happen to believe that John 3:16 is telling us that God loved Gentiles as well as Jews and anyone in either of those groups who believes will be saved. It is a universal text as far as the offer of salvation. Not a problem for Calvinists.

Written to a church talking about re-establishing fellowship, not talking about salvation of individuals.

A problem exists for anyone in this passage. If Jesus is in fact the propitiation (or satisfaction of God's wrath) for the sins of every person who ever existed, then God is unjust for punishing anyone in hell. Everyone must be saved.

You either have to re-define propitiation to mean "possible propitiation if they will take advantage of it" or you have to understand world to mean "Gentiles as well as Jews." I opt for the second, since it is possible to use it this way, whereas it is not possible to use the word propitiation this way.

The gospel goes out to the uttermost parts of the earth (all the Gentiles) and those whom God has elected (ordained to eternal life) will believe. This is one of the strongest passaged that talks about God's sovereignty and man's responsibility and how it works.

Is your question about the extent of the preaching of the gospel or the requirement for salvation?

Same understanding as John 3:16. World means people from every tribe under heaven, not just Jews.

 

It does mean world. The big question is, as all throughout the gospel of John, is what does John mean by "the world"? Check out how many other times John uses the term where it cannot possibly mean "every single person without exception".

Keep in mind what Revelation 7 says about the elect - "After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, 'Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!'" This is what we think John meant by "the world", a multitude which no man can number, not just a few that God picked while letting most of mankind go to hell.

Well, that was written to a church, so maybe it is not best to read it as though it were written to all of unbelieving mankind. But the invitation really is there for all of mankind, and all who repent and believe will be saved.

See above on John 3:16.

I do believe that salvation is for the uttermost part of the earth and that all who are ordained to eternal life will believe. I am not sure why you brought this one up - what are you thinking?

Absolutely true, and does not negate election unto salvation at all.

See above on John 3:16.

I will discuss but I do not want to debate. I will tell you what I believe. I will not tell you what you should believe. I hope you don't mind. :flower:

 

Well, how about a quote?

 

I will only respond to this for now. I did not add a qualifier to that verse. In fact, what I had said earlier was "the invitation really is there for all of mankind, and all who repent and believe will be saved", and I encourage you to read my response to the Mark passage and find where I added anything.

This kind of false charge is one reason that C/A debates usually turn bad here. If you want to talk about what Calvinists really believe and reply to what we actually say then I am game. If you don't then that's fine too, but I would like to know which it is going to be.

 

I would argue that Calvinists and Arminians are both right, one is God's point of view and the other is man's point of view. The most common misconception is that free-will and predestination are mutually exclusive. Does the Bible not clearly teach both? The free-will is much more practical to the everyday Christian struggle, but God wants us to realize that He is the one who has chosen us. It makes the relationship alot more personal I think.

 

Hi mk,

There is another possibility - that the passage doesn't say anything about the idea either way.

Whe I speak of election I am speaking strictly of God's choice to save certain people. Election and predestination are not the same thing (as in "whom He foreknew He predestined ..."), and election is not concerned with how God brings His plan about, only with the fact that He will bring it about.

Maybe this will help. I do believe that all who believe will be saved, and that all who refuse to believe will be damned. The cause of unbelievers damnation is their refusal to believe, according to John 3:16-18. I affirm this wholeheartedly without adding any words to what John recorded. But this does not contradict the fact that God chose who would believe and passed over the rest, leaving them to receive the end that they choose by their refusal to believe.

1. God chose who would believe and be saved.

2. All who believe will be saved and the rest will be condemned.

I still do not see why you think there's a contradiction in these two statements. Can you clarify?

I hope this clarifies the issues for you, and I hope the kids like you.