Featured A Non Elect Person Saved

I believe the contention of election among Calvinists and Non Calvinists is the failure to understand what election is and what it is not, and the differences in the different "elects" through out the Bible: Sorry for the teaser but I'm saving that explanation for another thread on Romans 9-11.

Israel was God's elect. "For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me." Isaiah 45:4. When Jesus came His audience were the JEWS.

"I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" Matthew 15:24.

So up to this point, the "elect" were still the nation of Israel. So far so good.
However, when Jesus made this statement, it was in context of a woman from Canaan who was begging him deliver her daughter from a devil.

"Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour." Matthew 15:21-27.

Three things to notice about this story that is a solid refutation against the Calvinist foundation of total depravity, free will, and election.

1. This woman was NOT ELECT. She was saved because her faith in Christ and her daughter was healed. BUT SHE WAS NOT ELECT.

2. This woman SOUGHT CHRIST, and yet she was not elect. She was not "given repentance" or "given faith". She was an unconverted Canaanite that was outside of the election of Israel, and yet in her unconverted state, she sought Christ out.

3. When Jesus commended her faith, He said "woman great is they faith, be it unto thee even as THOU WILT.

This is a clear example that demonstrates that a person can be dead in sin and seek Christ, be non "elect", and be saved, and do so of her own free will.

 

And that's a rebuttal? Someone needs to give back their ULC ordination and take that "Preacher" out of their name.

 

Do you know what it meant to be called a dog in Jewish tradition? If not, look it up. Jesus wouldn't have called what you consider elect a dog. Jesus said, I came not but to the lost sheep of the HOUSE OF ISRAEL". Jesus response to her alone says that she wasn't part of the elect.

It's amazing that Calvinist will tell you with a straight face that something isn't based on Scripture when you show them in black and white RIGHT OUT OF THE SCRIPTURE. This is almost as bad as talking to a Jehovah's Witness.

Baptist: "In the beginning was the word. The word was with God and the word was God".

JW: "That's not in the Bible".

Baptist: "I am not come to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" "It is not meet to give the childrens bread to the dogs".

Calvinist: "That's not in the Bible.

 

Just all the more evidence towards what I said. Remember, the argument was that a non elect person was blessed because of their faith. Hebrews 11 is called the Hall of Faith, not Hall of Elect.

If the OT were not strict Jewish lineage, then you can't call them elect. You can't read Calvinist theology into something the Bible does't say. The "grafting" did not occur until Israel completely rejected Christ. When Paul was referring the Israel elect, he said "My kinsmen, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH". Romans 9:3. So yes, all the Israeli elect was based on their lineage. But even though they were elect, they still rejected Christ which itself does not bode well with Calvinist theology.

Unfortunately, one of the most misused "proof texts" in the Calvinist system. But I can see how one could make this assumption if you isolate the verse by itself and read it as such.
First, the term "draw" does not mean He draws ONLY elect. John 12:32 says, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me". Plus, you need to see the other uses of "draw" in the scripture to help put this fact in contrast:

"Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him." Hebrews 10:38

Thus "draw" does not mean that God draws a person merely because they are elect, and then imposes repentance and faith on them because a person can DRAW BACK.

That being established, the drawing is based on conditions in John 6 when you read the text surrounding John 6:44:

" I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not." v35-36. "All the that the Father giveth to me shall come to me, and him that cometh to me I shall in no wise cast out" vs 37

Now notice that JUDAS was one of the ones that the Father gave to Jesus. John 17:12, and Judas was lost. Thus it is not simply "all the Father giveth" but "he that cometh".

"It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me" v. 45.

"If ANY MAN eat of this bread, he shall live for ever" v. 51

But:

"Ye WILL NOT come that ye might have life" John 5:40.

Yes but she clearly sought Christ. In Calvinism, only the "elect" are drawn. This woman was not elect, and therefore there is no reason to read into the text that she MUST HAVE been drawn simply because Calvinist presupposition demands it. Calvinism ASSUMES that she "must have" been given faith, and that is clearly the opposite in this text, because Jesus said "as THOU WILT".

This is why Calvinists and Non Calvinists fight over this issue because you assume that by free will choice in coming to Christ, that such implies justifying yourself. Only God justifieth. Faith is NOT a work (Romans 11:6 is clear on this). No man is saved apart from Christ, but faith is what God required in order to bring the Holy Spirit's enlightenment and conviction. A person could knock on the arc, but the door still would have had to been opened for the person to be saved, yet those people blew their chance because they were warned. We we seek and knock, it is still GOD THAT SAVES. Coming to Christ of your own volition has absolutely nothing to do with you "saving yourself". It is still the shed blood of Christ and His resurrection that paid for sin.

What the Calvinist has done is assumed that the coming itself is part of salvation which demeans the gospel because it is not the process by which a man comes to Christ, but CHRIST HIMSELF that is salvation. The process is a means, but the process itself is not salvation and Calvinism has elevated the process above that which the Bible does not support. The coming to Christ is man's free will, the saving of that man is ALL CHRIST.

NOWHERE in the Bible is faith said to be a gift. That is Calvinist presupposition. You can't take a concordance and find one single reference in the Bible where faith is a gift. Only a misinterpretation of ONE passage leads to this error in Eph 2:8 where the gift is SALVATION, not faith. Gifts are used to produce fruit, works. If faith is a gift, then you are calling faith a work, and if you claim to be saved THROUGH FAITH which is clear in Ephesias 2:8, then you are saying also that you are saved THROUGH WORKS if faith is a work.

You were right on target there until after John 5:25. In Acts 10, Cornelius WANTED to come to God, and God said that his alms came up as a remembrance before God, and he had Peter sent to him. The Holy Spirit did not come upon Cornelius until AFTER he believed.

Many Calvinists rely on John 1:13 as a proof text and skip John 1:12, "as many as received him gave he the power to become the sons of God". Notice the RECEIVING came before the POWER.

Having free will and then saying that free will was given to you is an oxymoron and what's called a Hobson's Choice. That's not free will at all. That's duress. God created man with an innate ability to choose good or evil. There is a huge difference in God permitting man to choose because that's how He created them, and then forcing their choices. A man can not be both bound to his will and then free to choose at the same time. The Bible never says you are bound simply because you are unregenerate, that is a misreading of Eph 2:2, it says you are bound by what you OBEY

"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" Romans 6:16

You can either obey by obeying the natural sin nature that you are in, and obey unto death, or you can obey the gospel, and live. Romans 6:17, 2 Thess 1:8-9, Hebrews 11:8, Romans 10:16, 1 Peter 1:22, Galations 3:1.

 

Thanks for the correction, it is plural

However, I also spelled it with a capital "C" and you spelled it wrong both times. I also note that your own name does not have the proper capitalization.

So if you are going to be petty and play grammar police, make sure you take the beam out of your own eye first!

The answer to your question is in post 11.

 

And yet Calvinism refers to THE elect.

The fact that you acknowledge that elect has a plural function, including angels, shows that the Calvinistic presuppositional usage of this term is erroneous. You can not equivocate by using elect as a term for those you consider drawn to Christ in the NT, and then fall back on the actual usage of elect when it is demonstrated that Calvinism has distorted the distinctions between the church and Israel. Pick one or the other, you can't have all the elect cake and eat it to. Elect either means what Calvinism says it does as limited to ONLY those who come to Christ, or it in fact does have different meanings as you readily admit, and therefore renders the classic Calvinistic definition of elect erroneous.

That is almost a very dangerous statement that demeans the deity of Christ if you apply election to Christ in the same way you assume it's definition in Calvinism. Although you don't really expound on what you mean by this, Jesus would only be "elect" in the sense that He was chosen to suffer, die, and rise from the dead which only shows that election is designed for a specific purpose and destiny, but the person "elected" is still obligated to meet the conditions. Christ being "elected" to go to the cross, still said, "Not as I will, but as thou will". Christ CHOSE to lay down His life and that can not be refuted in Scripture.

Again, there is no such thing as a distinction between corporate election and individual election BEFORE SALVATION WAS OFFERED TO NON ISRAELITES. Jesus made this plain as day when He said, "I am not come but to the lost sheep OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL" and "It is not meet to cast the childrens bread and give it to the dogs". That is a clear statement that she was neither corporately nor individually included in ANY election.

Election of Gentiles was not a factor until Israel rejected Christ. Matthew 23:39, Acts 7:51;

" Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." Acts 13:46, the Jews reject Christ in Asia.

"And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean; from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles." Acts 18:6, the Jews reject Christ in Greece, representing Europe.

"Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it." Acts 28:28, which finally led to Israel being set aside, Romans 11:25-26, but they will be raised from the dead during the tribulation, Romans 11:15.

There is absolutely no justification for reading into the text that any non Jewish person was part of any individual election schema before salvation was offered to the Gentiles. That is simply NOT in the Bible.

 

I disagree that genetics was not a factor. It was not a salvific factor, but that was not the argument. That only becomes a contention if you view election as synonymous with salvation. Israels election based on their heritage was not the CAUSE of their salvation, but to the EXCLUSION of all others outside of Israel, and those who became proselytized were the exception, not the rule, and it is the exception itself that proves that Calvinism has misinterpreted the definition of election.

The Calvinist view of election of NT saints can not be consistent with OT saints, or the future remnant of Romans 11 that will saved during the tribulation because the Calvinist view of election is that of a predetermined decree that must remain consistent without alteration. If the election is changed then that alters the course of election. The election of the Gentiles was made IN TIME because of the rejection of Christ by Israel. And hence, this is why the Gentiles were "grafted in".

What this demonstrates is that GOD CHANGED HIS MIND which changed His PLANS. [For those who will select Hebrews 13 "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and for ever" keep in mind this refers to His NATURE, not His plans. Study the references of repent as applied to God throughout the OT] Although God has shown to Paul in Ephesians 3 that because of Israel's rejection that God would include the Gentiles (Isaiah ch 11), this is what God PREDICTED not what He DETERMINED. But because God DESIRED the salvation of the Gentiles because "God so love the WORLD", election would now include the Gentiles. Romans 11:16-26

Election is the PLAN that God has for those who trust Him. Election is not a list of names that God checks off as He imposes repentance against someones will. Election is the description of what occurs to a person that trusts Christ as Saviour. God chose ahead of time what a persons destiny will be IF they meet His conditions, and His condition was simple: believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. A person who forsakes themselves and trusts Christ alone for salvation is a person that HAS repented. When the person believes on Christ, he then becomes partaker of what God has elected for him, which includes salvation by grace that can never be lost, and whatever gifts God bestows on that person to aid in the edification of the body of Christ.

THAT is election and the meaning behind Romans 8:28-30, Eph 2:10 and "many are call but few are chosen". And thus a person can be elected, and REJECT their election. The election includes an inheritance, but that person must become adopted through faith in Christ and only then, in that sense is that persons election complete.