The Elect --- Question 1

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Crabtownboy, Nov 17, 2009.

  1. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,632
    Likes Received:
    158
    Is it possible for a member of the elect to loose their salvation?

    This question came to my mind as I read the book, The Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner by James Hogg. The book was published in 1824.
     
  2. Benefactor

    Benefactor
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Messages:
    264
    Likes Received:
    0
    I personally land on the side of "once saved always saved". I know that some don't like these words but like it or not I personally embrace it but I do so loosely.

    1) A person claims: I am elect / saved
    2) The person at a point in time starts living as if not saved
    3) Were they saved at the beginning of their claim or not?
    4) If they were then is their present state lost or erring child?

    The answers are just as many if not more with varying shades of difference:

    1) Was never saved
    2) Is saved but wavering
    3) Was saved and lost their salvation

    It is not an easy answer when it is being considered. For many the struggle of this question has come and gone and settled in that mind for the moment or perhaps for eternity.

    The reason I fall to the OSAS side is because of how I have evaluated my life in light of the Word of God, but this can and I am sure will be stated by those who differ with what I say.

    I have a confidence that gives me peace. This is not to be confused with any uneasiness that I may experience over other things. We all have issues or things we are uneasy about and if anyone says they don't - don't believe them.

    We are told to work out our own salvation, to make sure we are in the faith, and that is an odd statement for the writer to direct at a believer. Could it mean that a person is lost but thinks they are saved and if they examine themselves they may find out they are lost and then get saved? If we tack on the scrutiny to all verses as we do to the ones on election where would that take us?
     
    #2 Benefactor, Nov 17, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2009
  3. Soulman

    Soulman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    You cannot do anything to gain it. I don't believe you can do anything to lose it as it is not based on works.
     
  4. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    If a person adheres to Reformed Theology, as per John Calvin, then one would believe in the concept of eternal security. It's the idea that, once you have accepted Christ as savior, he has paid for all your sins, past present and future. Aside from later on rejecting salvation outright, there is no act one can do to lose one's salvation.
     
  5. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is going to sound very confusing to some. I do not believe a person can lose their salvation. I believe in the Preservation of the Saints, not Perseverance.

    But...

    The unelect can become the elect through faith.

    Before you laugh, here it is in scripture.

    Rom 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
    8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear; ) unto this day.
    9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
    10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
    11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
    12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
    13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
    14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
    15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
    16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
    17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
    18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
    19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
    20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
    21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
    22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
    23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
    24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?


    The Jews are God's chosen people, his elect. They are here compared to an olive tree. They are called the "natural" olive tree or branches.

    The Gentiles are called the "wild" olive tree or branches.

    Here Paul explains that Jews have been broken off of their tree through unbelief, and that Gentiles have been graffed into this tree through faith.

    Rom 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
    21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.


    Now, these verses almost seem to argue that a person can lose their salvation. It tells us the Jews were broken off because of unbelief. Well, didn't they have to originally belong to this tree to be broken off? And then Paul warns us not to be highminded and says if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. However, in verse 7 it says the elect "hath obtained it", which is speaking of God's grace shown in Rom 11:5-6.

    And the scriptures say to make our calling and election sure.

    2 Pet 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

    Now, this verse flies in the face of Calvinism. If only God determines who is the elect, then why does Peter tell us to give diligence and make our calling and election sure? What could a man possibly do to make his calling and election sure if Calvinism is true? Nothing. I believe this verse is saying to make sure you are truly trusting in Christ alone to save you.

    But back to Romans 11, note that these unbelieveing Jews who have been broken off the natural olive tree through unbelief can be graffed back into their own tree again. And that word "again" argues that they were originally the elect, became unelect through unbelief, and can become elect again if they repent and believe.

    Rom 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
    24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?


    So, you are not first elected, and then God causes you to believe. No, your election is based on whether you believe or not. And a person who is at this time the unelect through unbelief can repent and believe and become the elect.

    I am convinced that the elect are the Jews. But it is a believer that is a true Jew.

    Rom 2:26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
    27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
    28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
    29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
     
    #5 Winman, Nov 17, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2009
  6. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    No! If God chooses them, regenerates them, gives them saving faith and repentance, pardons them, justifies them, adopts them, brings them into union with Jesus Christ, and sanctifies them, He can certainly keep them for His kingdom.:godisgood:
     
  7. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is where General Baptists, Freewill Baptists, Methodists, Catholics and other Arminian, Semi-Pelagian or non-Calvinists are more consistent that most other kinds of non-Cal Baptists.

    They believe that if you have free will, you are able to choose to repent and trust Christ for salvation--and also able to unchoose, unrepent and untrust.

    Most Baptists on this board, I suspect, will argue that all have the ability to exercise their free will to choose, but don't have the ability to unchoose.

    Just an observation.
     
  8. AresMan

    AresMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,636
    Likes Received:
    0
    Or, they are antinomians. They believe that salvation just requires a "moment" of faith. After that, since they still have libertarian free will, they can technically just completely discard all of the Christian faith and be an atheist and God just "preserves" them as "saved" because of the one past "moment" of "assenting" to a prayer. Believe me, this is what most of the "non-Cals" I know personally believe. I think it is the most common form: the four-point Arminian with the fifth point being "Preservation of the Saints" where "preservation" means that they are "eternally secure" by a faithful prayer, but still have the completely "free will" ability to reject the faith outright. Just as the Holy Spirit cannot "guarantee" justification in an unregenerate on whom He works, so the Holy Spirit cannot "guarantee" sanctification in a justified one in whom He works.

    It's the new evangelical Fundamentalism, and it is obsessed with numbers. Numbers are the indicator of God's blessing a ministry. If one complains about the numbers emphasis or believes that some of the numbers may not be genuine converts, he is chastised for not caring enough or scrutinized for not doing enough "soul winning."
     
  9. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==Jesus directly answers that question in John 6:37-40.

    He tells us that:

    "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out" - vs. 37.

    The Father gives certain people to Jesus, those people come to Jesus (believe) and are given (as a gift) eternal life (Jn 3:13, 17:2). Since the Father has given them to Jesus, He will not cast them away. After all, why would the Son cast away a gift the Father has given Him?

    So, those who truly believe in Christ are elect and will not be cast away when they come to Jesus in faith.

    Then He says:

    "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent Me..." - vss. 38-39a.

    He has spoken of the elect coming to Him, now He speaks of what happens once they belong to Him. The Father gives them to Him, they come to Him, and now we will see what Jesus will do with them.

    But it is very important to notice that in verses 38-39 we are talking about God the Father's will for God the Son. Therefore this verse cannot be compared to passages like 3Peter 3:8-9 or 1Tim 2:4.

    The issue in verses 38-39 is God the Son's action towards those the Father has given Him. The passages are not speaking about what we, as those who have come to Christ (the elect), can or might fail to do.

    He goes on...

    "...that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day" -vs. 39b.

    What does the Lord Jesus do with those the Father has given to Him? Once they come to Him, and they will come to Him, He does not cast them out and He does not allow them to perish or be lost.

    You see, the term translated "lose" in this verse is the same term translated "perish" in Scriptures like John 3:16 or 10:28. So the idea behind the term "lose" is to "perish". The Son will not allow one of those the Father has given to Him to perish (ie...be lost).

    Therefore, since the Son does the will of the Father (Jn 5:30, etc) not one person who is elect, who truly come to Christ, will ever be cast away or lost.

    Instead, the elect are given eternal life (vs 40) and will be raised up by Christ on the last day (vs40).

    The doctrine of eternal security is so clearly taught in this section of Scripture that it truly amazes me that anyone can deny it.
     
  10. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,632
    Likes Received:
    158
    The belief you bring up ... and the OSLS ides is the root of my question. In the book mentioned in the OP The Private Memoirs and Confessions of A Justified Sinner by James Hogg, deals with this topic. The main character is a staunch Calvinst who is convinced he is one of the elect because of his beliefs and also his adopted father, a famous Calvanist preacher, has told him he is of the elect, reaches the conclusion that his sins are covered. He then proceeds to murder those who he views as heretics.

    It seems that the belief of OSAS and of the elect, as described by, if not all, some Calvinists a very dangerous theological stance.

    This is not an attack on Calvinism for I am sure Calvin would not agree with many modern Calvinist. I spoke with an well known professor from England who is a Calvinist and he agreed with this statement. Unfortunately he had an appointment and did not have time to disucss this further.

    ps ... the book mentioned above can be downloaded free and read on your computer or IPOD.
     
  11. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    27
    The conclusion drawn is ignorant. If someone with similiar beliefs to your own uses their beliefs to go out murder people, does that make your beliefs wrong or dangerous. I would guess you would say no.

    If a person takes a gun and goes on a killing spree does that make guns bad? To morons, yes. To sober minded people not living in a parallel universe no.
     
  12. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,632
    Likes Received:
    158
    No need for insults. This is a discussion, not an argument.

    Now, if a person is of the elect does that not mean their past, present and future sins are already forgiven?

    If the answer is yes, than would ot the sin of murder already be forgiven?
     
    #12 Crabtownboy, Nov 20, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2009
  13. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    27
    Notice I said the argument of the OP is ignorant, which it is. And it is moronic to suppose that guns are bad if someone uses one to murder. There is nothing wrong with the gun, but the person.

    To answer your question, only a question is an appropriate answer: Is murder something God's elect do?
     
  14. AresMan

    AresMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,636
    Likes Received:
    0
    To believe that one can lose salvation is a slap in God's face. God is just some pitiful, powerless observer who watches people "freely" enter in and out of His family, making Him wring His hands in despair. It is the ultimate man-centered gospel and is the logical conclusion of pure libertarian free will.

    God saves and God keeps!
     
  15. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,632
    Likes Received:
    158
    There is no argument in the OP. There is a question and nothing is said about a gun or any weapon. To refresh memories here is the OP:

    Why would prevent a member of the elect from committing murder? If they did that sin would already have been forgiven ... right? If the Calvinist position is correct. Can a member of the elect commit any sin?
     
  16. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    27
    An argument is being presentedin the OP in the form of a question. This is evident by your subsequent points.

    Are you unfamiliar with analogies? The gun thing is called an analogy.

    Does a saved person, born of God, have eternal life abiding in them if they are a murderer? Ues Scripture in your answer.
     
  17. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    I do believe in once saved always saved, or as I state it - Once saved always changed.

    However, in answer to your question about if one of God's elect would murder... What say ye of King David?
     
    #17 Allan, Nov 20, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2009
  18. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    27
    You reconcile it.

    "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." 1 John 3:15
     
  19. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,632
    Likes Received:
    158
    I simply see it as a question.

    There was no mention in your post of the gun being an analogy. I do not think comparing the action of a gun as that of a person holds. Also, all analogies break down when examined closely.

    Compelling scripture can be used on both sides of this issue ... as is true with many issues. We have to look at the Bible as a whole and also draw logical conclusions from a belief.
    I forget where I read that quote, but it does contain truth.


    You ask if a member of the elect can commit murder? I ask why not, are all members of the elect exempt from being able to commit a sin of any kind? If they can sin, but their sins are already forgiven, then what? Isn't this a dangerous theological stance that justifies anything a person of the elect does? Rasputin must have held this view, or something very close to it.
    I am convinced that scripture can be used on both sides of this discussion. We have to look at the Bible as a whole and also at the logical conclusion of a belief.
     
  20. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    27
    My God...an open mind let's the air in.

    Which tells me....nothing.

    Why does the question "Can the elect be a murderer?" Mean "The elect cannot sin at all?"
     

Share This Page

Loading...