TULIP: Unconditional Election

GE:

“God never predestined them to hell”? Who are ‘they’? Innocent? No! Guilty! God never predestined them guilty; He predestined the guilty, to hell.

You free-willers CONSTANTLY PRESUPPOSE INNOCENT VICTIMS OF AN UNJUST GOD.

Therefore alleging “Calvinism is wrong on the idea that Christ predestined them to failure” is the CONJECTURE of the free-willers; not what Calvin or the Scriptures teach, accusing CHRIST and the SCRIPTURES falsely.

“EVEN though He said "O How I WANTED to spare your children...but you would not"”, just like in the beginning God WANTED to spare his children...but they would not. And that was when they were sinless, and showed how invariably free-willers SHALL exercise their ‘free-will’ even in a (supposed) state of sinlessness and unspoiltness; how are their corrupted offspring to fare? ‘It’s up to them’, say the free-willers. Yes! To seal their eternal fate once more and ever so secure …BUT FOR THE GRACE OF GOD IF GOD WILLED.

 

GE:

God is not driven by contingency.

 

TCassidy post 103 referring....

What shall I say? What can I? Than, In Jesus' Name, Amen!

 

It almost sounds like you are trying to number the elect... Where in the Scriptures does it say or do that?

It also almost sounds like you are trying to suggest that a doctrine like election is not in the Scriptures, but of course, you are wrong. It is all over the place.

Cannot God elect as God sees fit, or are WE to judge whether or not God is just by our own view of things? The way I see an attitude like that is that it is rebellion against the utter sovereign kingship of God.

That is not to dismiss human free will, but are we not to bow before our King with our free will?

 

Gerhard: The highlighted portion of your statement is the "Gotcha!".

The whole "Premise" of missionary/evangelizing is based on "what you said" by those of the TULIP group whom I've asked.

With that understood, my "Why oh why?" seems most appropriate.

Where is the zeal to evangelize if the reason is as you posted above??????

To "enlighten" those that are already saved? I.E... to just "inform" them of the "great news".....and not be bringing the "walking dead" the message of "life"?

So what an evangelist is doing in the Calvinist realm is akin to "machine gunning" the masses, with the confidence that the "elect" will respond and the "walking dead" will just stay dead?

 

Where -- EVER -- in the Scriptures does it say that the elect are "saved?" The elect are just the elect. Salvation still needs to happen. Election is but one component part of the process called salvation, as is rengeration, adoption, the effectual call, faith, repentance, justification, sanctification, and ultimately glorification.

 

You seem to indicate that persons who are Calvinistic are not evangelistic. You are wrong. Some of the most evangelistic people who have ever lived are and have been committed Calvinists in their theology.

I keep wondering when people will set aside their faulty propositions based on human logic about Calvinsim and actually take a look at the facts of the people who adopt a Calvinist position. I keep hearing these horror stories, but I can't find the people who are that horrible!

Perhaps you can help by pointing out some Calvinist churches and pastors who are anti-mission or anti-evangelistic for me. (Good luck with that...)

 

As Gerhard said..........We Calvinists are here to bring the "Knowledge and Joy of their salvation".

So the salvation and elect are clumped in the same ball of dough.

We are just helping them to enjoy what they already have as we are giving them the knowledge of their "saved state" and introducing them to the "Why" of how they ended up the elect/saved.

So, what comes of the elect you die in the Marshal Islands or the Congo, who never hear the "Knowledge or joy" of their salvation.

Are they still saved, but "un-informed".

The last post(glfredrick) said that there is a "distinction" between "the elect" and the "saved".

It seems that even Calvinists aren't sure about the distinction between "elect" and "saved"?

Could you elaborate on this please?

 

Not really a "distinction" but rather that election is but part of the process of salvation. Salvation as a theological term is more like an index term that describes a series of actions, not one thing that stands alone. That is partially why we have so many discussions -- folks treat the term as if it is a singular issue instead of a pointer to a host of issues.

Merely being "elect" is not salvific. If so, that would negate all else that the Scriptures share and command regarding evangelism, justification, adoption, etc. It may mean that those who are elect will complete the process, however.

 

I think your right in your evaluation. Interesting to see where this goes.

 

The foundations of the Calvinist model (in true 5 point fashion) dictate that what the speaker says and what the listener chooses are not at all factors in the outcome of who is saved and who is lost.

Thus in the true Calvinist evangelistic meeting the logically "consistent" evangelistic appeal WOULD be to day "What you choose and what I say here tonight matter not one single whit in determining who will be saved tonight and who will remain lost. So let us dispense with this evening's Bible study. We will all just sit in silence and then watch to see who it is that God has just-so-happened to predestined to come forward and be saved". And then he is seated.

After all -- in the true 5 Point model the speaker CANNOT claim with conviction "God Loves YOU listener and God wants YOU to come forward and accept the Gospel". For all the speaker knows - God does not love a single person that is there.

At least in the 5 point model.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Trying to number the elect? How so? I see nothing in my post above about numbering.

The idea of arbitrary selection where God loves some but not others, dies for some but not others, wakes up one while passing by another -- is ok every day in 5 point Calvinism's model - but is not in the Bible.

in Christ,

Bob

 

GE:

Again, AMEN!

 

GE:

Always you free-willers --- and most of all, you, BobRyan --- first create your own caricature of Calvinism, set it up a comfortable target, and let loose everything you've got against it; and congratulate yourself on your markmanship.

The cliche, Build a straw man to set it alight.

 

In that post I describe what a consistent Calvinist evangelistic meeting would consist of -- but in reality Calvinists drop calvinism entirely when they engage in evangelism and they go 100% for the Arminian POV telling the audience that God loves them, telling the audience that they need to come forward right now and choose to accept Christ as their savior. Telling the people that if they will make that choice God will accept them.

In other words when the rubber really meets the road - the Calvinists KNOW that the Arminian POV is the only Gospel that is supported in scripture that WORKS in real life!

in Christ,

Bob

 

You have just demonstrated that you are completely ignorant of the Spurgeon type of Calvinism.

The Arminian when on his knees prays like a Calvinist. You never hear an Armininian pray "God, you and I are waiting for Lost Joe to make a decision for Christ and I know you and I are both powerless in this thing and so I will just wait with you God and hope Joe comes to Christ"

Unconditional election demands there is a people to reach with the gospel that will come to Christ. Unconditional election has chosen the persons as well as the means to their salvation. God has CHOSEN the foolishnes of the gospel to save and when the gospel comes in power (1 Thes. 1:5) the elect (1 Thes. 1:4) are saved. Unconditional election gives incentive to preach the gospel and call sinners to come to Christ and tell them that God loves "SINNERS" (as we do not know who the elect are other than sinners) but we do know that God will effectually call them out when the gospel is preached:

Acts 18:9 Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace:
10 For I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city.

Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

 

Yes: The zeal is not from a Calvinistic model, but ends up coming from a "hope" in the "freewill" model of man.

So there is this deep-down hope that engenders the will of the Calvinist to push in evangelistic directions with the Gospel.

How could there be one ounce of zeal if one only sees man as "possibly" one of the "elect"?

*******
Gotta run now. Church starts in a few minutes. Not sure if I'm the elect, but I sure do the love the Lord.