Featured The Great blessing of the biblical teaching of Election

Yeshua1, why do you ask questions that have already been answered. We are chosen through or on the basis of faith in the truth, as determined by God crediting our faith in Christ as righteousness.

 

Icon;
Mr Blake has no scriptural support not even a hint of a verse. Just seems to me he should at least be able to show just one elect Gentile in Gods Word. Maybe because there aren't any?????
MB

 

"From the beginning" could refer to creation and it could also refer to something else. Van doesn't offer anything from the passage showing he believes it to be from. since the passage doesn't offer anything other than "from the beginning" we can assume it's referring to the beginning aka creation. This is true unless, from the passage, you can show that it was referring to something else.

 

Ahhhh, the forseen faith election that barely anyone agrees with. God foreknows them because He elected them from the beginning.


Isaiah 41:1-4

1 Keep silence before me, O islands; and let the people renew their strength: let them come near; then let them speak: let us come near together to judgment.

2 Who raised up the righteous man from the east, called him to his foot, gave the nations before him, and made him rule over kings? he gave them as the dust to his sword, and as driven stubble to his bow.

3 He pursued them, and passed safely; even by the way that he had not gone with his feet.

4 Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the Lord, the first, and with the last; I am he.


Acts 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.


2 Thess. 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:



Election took place in eternity....conversion of the sinner takes place in time....

 

But my point, ignored, was that from the beginning does not refer to before the beginning, i.e. before creation. So yet another evasion.

No one would buy an assumption based on no evidence to the contrary. Did God put invisible pink elephants in orbit around Mars? Can I say this is true, unless from scripture, where you can show me when it says God did not put invisible pink elephants in orbit around Mars. The question that leaps to mind, why would people repeatedly put forth these kind of arguments?

 

Either way, before you were born.

 

In Homer Hoeksema's book :The Voice of Our Fathers :An Exposition of the Canons of Dordrecht he helpfully outlines the planks of the First Head of Doctrine -- Article 7.

1) Election is the unchangeable and eternal purpose of God.
2) The objects of this election are a certain definite number of fallen [people], fallen through their own fault from their primitive state of rectitude into sin and destruction.
3) The source of this election is the free, or sovereign, pleasure of God. Election is pure grace.
4) Election includes Christ, Who is eternally elected and Mediator and Head of the elect and the foundation of election.
5) Election finds absolutely no reason or ground in its object why they should be elect : they are neither better nor more deserving than others by nature.
6) Election includes not only the end, that is, final salvation and glory, but also the means unto that end, that is, union with Christ, calling, faith, justification, sanctification, preservation, and glorification of the elect persons.
7) Election is theocentric : it is for the demonstration of God's mercy and for the praise of His glorious grace.

 

This is one of the biggest gripes I have about this forum. There are some people on here that, unless you respond almost verbatim to their original post, then you are off topic. No discussion is allowed to branch out and make a larger base from which to build.

The "blessing of election" is only apparent in your interpretation of scripture if you already hold to the doctrine of Calvinism. You might as well have labeled your thread "Calvinists Only" if you didn't want to hear non-Cal opinions.

While I admire your conviction to your ideology, I can say the same thing about my non-Cal position. We've neither gained nor lost ground on that part of the discussion.

In post #6 you told me that I need to study more when I said that I don't hold to Calvinist Election.

While I really want to argue this point with you, as I know where I stand with God and I know what I've felt when He leads me to preach, I also know that you're going to twist my words around, as you did earlier, and simply say that "once you're in the Spirit you are a Calvinist."

I have never argued that everyone will be saved, Icon. While I'm sure these people exist, I don't even personally know anyone who thinks everyone will be saved. We know from scripture the descriptions provided by Jesus of a narrow gate with few entering and a broad gate with many entering.

I simply believe that man has a greater choice in the matter than you do. Man was created in the image of God, then presented with a commandment. Man was able to choose whether to obey or disobey that commandment. From what I can gather, Calvinists seem to believe man lost the ability to choose at some point.

Now you've left open a vague door. "Some form of the biblical doctrine of election?" I guess in your eyes I'm a defective Christian, as I don't follow closely to the words of the later JC...

 

And this is the very root of the contention between Cals and nonCals. Scripture is clear, from what I read, that Adam still maintained his ability to choose life as far as Genesis 3:22 declares, otherwise, no need to block his path. Furthermore we have tons of scripture of God commanding the people to choose life. The Cal's position is that although God commands all people to make a choice they really have no choice. Illogical as far as I see it.

 

Icon - I've just now seen your in-depth reply. I plan to reply in depth as well, though it will have to be tomorrow. I have to get up at 4:30am, and as it's already after 10:30pm, I'm losing valuable sleep. If you can wait, I'll deliver my response tomorrow.

 

Brother, in another thread you started, I showed you that eating of the Tree of Life would have given Adam eternal life outside of Christ. The Tree was a symbol of Christ, yet it wasn't Him. If Adam had eaten of the Tree and lived forever, he would have done this through another source not named Jesus Christ.

 

Fair response. I've seen several threads on here that are shut down because someone stepped away from the OP, and that just irks me. Conversation naturally drifts, and I've always been one to write as though I were conversing.

I'll probably tack on another post responding to the whole of Eph 1, as I feel it would benefit the discussion to take the chapter as a whole.

Again, I plan to address the whole first chapter. As to interpretation, I stand by the intent of my statement. When it comes to scriptural doctrine issues, we are left to our interpretation. Naturally, each of us thinks the interpretation we ascribe to is the correct interpretation.

What is the purpose of preaching? To the believer, it is basically a three-fold chord, reproving those who fall, rebuking those who persist in their failure, and exhorting those who hold true to continue their way. To the unbeliever, it is the gospel, and it is the power of Christ unto salvation. It is the means by which faith comes to a person.

Mea culpa. I allowed emotion to get the better of me. Apologies.

I'm not saying that it is your personal ideology, I was merely meaning that it is the ideology you espouse.

All you're saying here, Icon, is that you only see your position as potentially biblically supported. No matter what I relate to you, no matter what scripture I quote, you simply won't accept it as an alternative. And I'm not saying you should. If you stood and preached from a Calvinist point of view, I would have to be like Paul, and be thankful that Christ was preached and just let it be to the Holy Spirit to move upon a person. That's what we do anyway as preachers, so why change?

What we feel is the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Naturally, scripture comes first, as it is the knowledge base from which we grow. The Spirit is a guide and a comfort to us. Though we are commanded to try to the spirits, we can still rest in the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

Anyone who espouses the idea that all people will be saved has obviously never actually studied the scripture. I would like to think that both you and I have studied, as to me we've both shown a pretty solid command on backing up our points with scriptural evidence, even though we disagree.

I'll say this, too. While you and I disagree on the notion of Calvinist Election, I don't believe that should hinder us from worshipping together. From what I've gathered, we both believe in Jesus Christ, we both believe He was crucified and resurrected, we both believe He ascended and will return, and we both believe that Jesus is the way to the Father, and the way to Jesus is through the Father drawing. It appears our key contention is in the mechanics of the drawing of God. (Yes, I realize that is a fairly extreme generalization. I'm working towards clearing it all up.)

I cannot give you a line by line account of full Calvinist belief, in much the same way that I cannot give you an account of why Lutherans believe the way they do. Not being immersed in that church culture means I cannot accurately portray the fullness of their beliefs. I can only present what I've seen on this forum.

I'm hoping my exposition on Ephesians 1 will offer you better answers than what I'm able to cram in here.

 

Obviously this is Paul's greeting to those gathered at Ephesus.

As I mentioned elsewhere, it should be obvious to any Bible reader that not all mankind will be saved. The question then becomes will all men hear the gospel and be given opportunity to repent and turn to God? The Bible even admits that wicked Jezebel, who did not repent, was given a space to repent. That, to me, sounds very much like an opportunity was presented to her.

Under what I've been shown as the Calvinist view of salvation and predestination, God only reveals His truth to those He has already "elected" from before the foundation of the world. If that is so, and only the elect will be moved of God to repent, then why was Jezebel given a space? Was she elect? If so, did she refuse God and resist His grace?

I have heard certain Calvinists state things like "preaching is only for edification of the saints" and "why preach to the lost, you can't do anything for them?" These statements sadden me. We know that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. We know that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the preached word of God. How anyone can say that the lost don't need to hear preaching is beyond me.

We are told in scripture that we are "heirs of God" and "joint-heirs with Christ." You can find also in scripture, in the Book of Ruth, a wonderful type and shadow of a man receiving an inheritance. The inheritance was just foisted upon him, but he had to move to redeem it. Some of the Calvinists I spoken to say that there is absolutely no input from man that has any bearing on their salvation.

I believe the Bible proves this untrue, although the scriptures I've used to make this point are dismissed by Calvinists as not applicable to the lost.

Paul writes of the love he has towards the saints. Jesus commanded the disciples to love one another as He had loved them. But I cannot escape the sense that, from a Calvinist perspective (and this is based solely on the conversations I've had with self-professed Calvinists) that God does not love everyone.

How are we to effectively preach the word and share the gospel if the unavoidable conclusion is that "God is Love" is only applicable to a select few?

At the end of the day, I don't believe everyone will be saved. This does not mean that I don't believe an opportunity will be given to everyone. Just as Jezebel was given a space to repent, I do believe that even the vilest sinner on this earth will have opportunity. The thing is, I believe wholeheartedly that God already knows and has always known who would accept Him as their savior.

I just cannot hold to the Calvinist idea of Election in which God forces irresistible grace on a person. In pretty much every instance of Jesus offering healing of some sort, either the person sought Him out, or He presented the person with a choice. If He offers that choice to a physical body, why would He apply a completely different formula to our soul? To me, He doesn't. The Holy Spirit, acting as the convicting power of God, moves a person to repent of their sins. The person then has to move of their own accord. The Spirit will not force them to repent, and man cannot suddenly lay hands on someone to repent. The idea of irresistible grace, and as I've seen some Calvinists pervert it into to irresisitibility of God, is not something I see in scripture. I see a God, in the form of the Holy Spirit, that can be quenched from moving about, as the scripture tells us to "quench not the Spirit."

I see a God who offers salvation freely to "whosoever will," but I also see a people that must respond to that calling.

I know that's probably not the best explanation in the world. I've never claimed to be a Biblical scholar. I know what the Spirit has convicted me of during my study and prayer. That's all I can stand on.

 

You "showed me"? The truth of what "is written" remains. God had to block Adam BECAUSE Adam still had a free will to choose the tree of life. To deny this truth is simply to ignore the scripture. Yes, it would have been a bad choice, and God was loving enough to prevent Adam because Christ must first be sacrificed, nevertheless, the ability to still choose is the subject and it is painfully obvious that it remained after the fall. Thus Calvinism's T is destroyed!!