What is calvinism?

Larry

...

Again Larry --

Mt 24:22 - the days are shortened for the elect's (those who are saved) sake.

Mt 24:23 - AC would deceive the very elect (already saved believers).

Mt 24:31 - He sends His angels to gather the elect (believers, Lar, not unbelievers).

Rom 8:33 - who shall lay anything to God's elect (believers already).

Titus 1:1 - I, Paul, a servant of God ... according to the faith of God's elect (believers).

Election -- 4 times in Rom 9-11 concerning ISRAEL, not indvidual salvation.

1Pet 1:10 -- make your calling and election sure. What was that order, Lar? Calling (when one is saved) and election (when one fulfills God's purpose for their life).

The point of all of these is you don't see any "elect" who are not believers -- ergo, election follows belief and faith.

Would YOU please supply verses to the contrary (if you can).

skypair

 

Elect before the foundation of the world ( Eph.1:4 ) . Belief is quite a bit after they were originally chosen in Him . Acts 13:48 was a verse I was mentioning the other day on a thread . Those who were ordained to eternal life believed . Election is before they had any being . Jacob was elect long before ( inadequate words ) he was born .

 

Yes, if it is confessed. Unbelief is not what Christ was talking about in the unpardonable sin passage.

The death of Christ is the ground of common grace for all men; it is the ground of saving grace for the elect. It did not atone for the sins of the unbelievers, the non-elect. If it did, then they would not go to hell.

They aren’t spiritually alive before they are called. You need to read closer and think better. In Calvinism, regeneration and faith and repentance are instantaneous. There is no “before” except in a logical or causative sense. Surely you know that by now.

John 6:31 to the end of the chapter.

You are simply wrong. 1 Cor 2 says nothing of the sort. Sorry.

[quote

Larry, only the last of those verses even uses the word "elect." You're "pressing" your theology into scripture.[/quote]Eph 1:4 has the word elect in it; 2 thess 2:13 uses the word chosen (which is a synonym of elect); 2 tim 2:10 uses the word elect. In all cases, they are elect before they believe.

Please tell me you are kidding. In Greek, there are two word groups for the idea of elect or chosen: haireomai and eklegomai. Eph 1:4 and 2 Tim 2:10 use a form of eklegomai, and 2 Thess 2:13 uses a form of haireomai. How can you make such a simple mistake if you have actually studied this topic? Get out the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, volume 1, and look under “Elect, Choose.” It is fairly short, from page 533-542. It will help your understanding of this topic.

Yes, elect refers to believers after salvation as well as before salvation. But your verses do not tell us that they became elect because they believed. And that is a major failure on your part. You are reading your theology into Scripture and ignoring the verses that clearly contradict you.

Nope, doesn't help at all because it is wrong. The purpose for which they are chosen is to be saved. That is what the verses I cited clearly say. And they are chosen before they believe and befoer they have salvation.




Why do you feel the need to ignore the verses or to change what they say?

 

That's bad logic to a great degree. Taking into account the whole of Scripture, we see that the reason they are believers is because they are elect. That's why, in those verses, you don't see elect who aren't believers. You just have it backwards becuase you fail to acknowledge the teaching of Scripture.

Would YOU please supply verses to the contrary (if you can).[/quote]I did. And you didn't even know that the words were the same words. You did not explain how one can be elect from the foundation of the world and not elect until after they beleive. You didn't explain how one can be elect and yet not have received salvation. In other words, you didn't even address the verses.

 

Skypair, all of those verses, in context, refer to believing jews. I just wanted to clarify that when "elect" is used, the author is referring to jewish beleivers, not gentile believers.

 

Romans and Titus are clearly not referring to Jews. In the context of soteriology, "elect" doesn't refer to Jews alone, but to all who are chosen for salvationn.

 

Romans 8 is a precursor to Romans 9 dealing with the "jewish problem" (not personal salvation), and in Titus, Paul is speaking of the faith of "the elect" (believing jews)...as the only reference he makes about the "elect" in all of his letters is in regards to the jews. Notice that he uses "elect" when speaking to Titus, a gentile, in linking both jew and gentile together "in Christ" ("...true son in our common faith")

 

Romans 9 doesn't not deal with "the jewish problem" but with individual salvation. That is why individuals are named and used as examples. Secondly, both were written to the church and refer to members of the church as "the elect." The church is made up of both Jew and Gentile.

 

This is where we differ, then, as I do see Romans 9 dealing with the jewish problem and God's divine sovereignty, 10 dealing with the jewish problem and man's responsibility, and ch. 11 dealing with the jewish problem in regards to God's final purpose. The individuals were only used to show and drive these points home. We will have to agree to disagree with your view of Titus and Romans. Titus was written to a church? I thought it was written to Titus....

 

I am not sure what you mean by "jewish problem," but the focus in on individuals, not nations or groups. I think that is hard to overcome.

But in any case, Romans is still written to a church made up of believers. As for Titus, you are correct it was written to Titus. Brain lapse there, for a moment. It was written to Titus concerning how to lead the church on Crete.

 

The jewish problem is if Jesus was the Christ, why was the chosen nation apparently outside the circle of divine favor? To the unbelieving jew it seemed that He could not be the Christ, and to the believing jew it seemed as if the promises of God to Israel were about to fail...nothing to do about individual salvation, but the nation. This was the entire purpose of Romans.

 

Hello webdog. :)

Only the Lord is able to open men's eyes man.

What's in a name? It is better to understand the one you are talking to rather than what he should believe.

Limited atonement must stand or all men are saved. What is true is that there was a sufficiency in the death of Christ to atone for a universe full of sinners but it is of no worth to those it wasn't given for. Like Eli's kids, 1 Sam 3:14. :)

If God, in His Sovereignty decided that man could make a decision then that does not affect His Sovereignty. What would affect His Sovereignty is if the person makes a choice of his own. Sovereignty resides in the choice. If a man decides anything then that would be a sovereign choice and God would not be Sovereign in it. Giving men choice would inhibit God's Sovereignty.

john.

 

I don't think that was the Jewish problem entirely. The Jewish problem was if Jews were God's chosen people, then why are they on the outs while Gentiles are included. Jews thought they had an inside track (you are right this far), but they could not understand how Gentiles were also included in the divine favor of election.

Paul's point is that God can choose whomever he wants, Jew or Gentile, and he has demonstrated that through individuals. He is not bound just to choose Jews. Nor is being Jewish enough.

Paul was making the point that spiritual status is not about ethnic identity but about spiritual election and the faith that comes from it. That is why 9-11 focuses on those issues.

 

Eli

Eli was a good story, sometimes we spend so much time in our own relationship with God we forget about our children.

The scripture teaches us we a to train our children in the way they should go and they will not stray from it.

It really shows how important for us to continue in our faith in God as we teach our children.

For unbelief we can be cut out of the elect of God to salvation. It really shows that it is not our election, but in our faith in Jesus that keeps us safe.

God wanted to gather all of Israel, it was not God who wasn't willing but them.

God foreknew so He also predestined. These goes hand in hand to we are saved by grace through faith.

Not in election that we can be cut out of for unbelief.

 

And still no Scripture ...

 

Chief cornerstone

See to take out the chief cornerstone election and replace it with Jesus thier whole building would fall down.

Like the pharisees they are not willing to do that.

 

And still no Scripture ...

Just false accusations against others. Why not post the Scritpure that supports your position that election comes as a result of faith? Surely that isn't too hard is it?

 

Yes it is. It's virtually impossible.

 

Hello psalms109:31.

Scripture? Rom 9:6 It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned."
God was not willing to save all of the nation of Israel.

What of those not chosen for salvation, will they be included for faith?

It's not our faith that keeps us safe but we are kept by Christ.
JUDE 1:1 Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James, To those who have been called, who are loved by God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ: 2 Mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance.
Praise the Lord.

john.

 

Well said. But I think there is also the issue of defining who the elect are in light of "who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect?" in ch 8. If Israel was/is God's "elect" people, then what of them? Paul clarifies that the "elect", as pertains to salvation, are those that are "true" Israel, those that are of the faith of their father Abraham, as distinguished from those that are of Abraham's flesh.

That's why I think Jesus had this flesh vs spirit analogy in mind when He said to Nicodemas "whatsoever is born of flesh is flesh, and whatsoever is born of spirit is spirit". Most people take "flesh" in John 3 to mean the physical body. But I think he is talking about the Jews' trust in their own flesh, as physical descendants of Abraham, as opposed to those that are born of the spirit, which are the children of faithful Abraham. The new birth, "from above", is prerequisite to the familial relationship with the Father.