Featured Doctrine of Unconditional Election

I have no foundation but I will share a ‘wonder if.”

I have often wondered if the rich young ruler was not Saul (Paul).

the time line would fit, He certainly would have been at the trail as a prominent member. His knowledge of the Scriptures and personal conduct as to keeping the law was extremely remarkable and memorable to the Jewish leadership as shown and acknowledged in the trial before Agrippa.

But the Scriptures do not share.

All I do know is that Paul experienced the seed planted, the seed watered, and God giving the increase.

some seed that is planted and watered does not thrive, does not germinate, is stolen by that old buzzard.

 

Perhaps you might carefully consider 2 Timothy 2:24-26 instead of insulting people that you disagree with?
I hope so, my friend, as I'm sure that you would rather deal with someone who is respectful towards you, even while disagreeing with you.


Paul said, "Who art thou Lord"...didn't he?
To me, he inherently recognized the voice of His Lord and Master, even while asking for His name.

Paul, to whom the Lord gave the privilege of teaching the Gentile churches the principles of election ( though Peter himself said that some things Paul taught were hard to understand ( 2 Peter 3:16 ), was one of God's elect...
"Of God" according to John 8:47, and one of His sheep according to John 10:26-27.

Of course He heard His Saviour's voice...
Paul came to Him when the Lord "called" him.

 

Dave you do it to me you are always trying to correct me so don't hand me the i"m innocent bull. Youive even told me I'm not saved.. The passage never says Paul was saved during the vision
MB

 

Interesting,

When do you place the salvation of Paul?

 

Your theology is what is weak. You assume what you wish to believe not what scripture actually says
MB

 

Paul tells us that it was when the Son was revealed to him. That time was on the Damascus road.

For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.
~ Galatians 1:13-17

 

Austin you are in error again. Faith is not a work as you well know:
Rom_4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,
Gal_2:16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

but it is a condition of salvation:
Joh 6:40 This is indeed the will of my Father, that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life; and I will raise them up on the last day."
And we know that God draws people to Himself through the gospel message
Joh 6:44 No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me; and I will raise that person up on the last day.
Joh 6:45 It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.

I can't believe that you would argue against conditional salvation?

 

There does seem to be a Calvinistic persuasion that is extreme to the point that a person who is saved must consciously avoid doing anything or being concerned about anything other than being elect. Historically, Calvinists taught that there were conditions for salvation - faith being the primary one. But repentance, holiness of life are also "conditions" of salvation. If you don't agree with this that is fine but you are going against Jonathan Edwards, Thomas Watson, Calvin and every other Puritan that I know of plus modern guys like Horatious Bonar and Charles Spurgeon. Being justified before the foundation of the world, having salvation being a realization that you are elect, recoiling every time someone suggests anything that a Christian or a perspective Christian must "do", correcting someone if they mention that Christ is handing out pardons to anyone who comes to him in faith - these positions indicate a hyper-Calvinist tendency that I don't find in classic Calvinist or Puritan literature.

 

Calvinists hold that one will confirm that our election as true and revealed by the fruit of our lives, and new life in Christ now!

 

Virtually every translation mistranslates Romans 9:11.
MLV, ". . . for* the children were not yet born, nor had practiced anything good or evil, in-order-that the purpose of God according-to his choice might abide, not from works, but from the one who is calling. . . ."

 

I agree with that completely. And I understand the desire of people to be theologically precise. But the historic Calvinists insisted that the process of your salvation - though precise in order - were never to be unlinked. They said for instance that though it is important not to get justification and sanctification mixed up - that they were inseparably linked and could not be cut apart. So I still say that yes, what is happening is that elect people are showing the fruit of being saved - but some on this site take anyone to task who says that belief is necessary, or a holy life or repentance. The fact is all those things are essential and anyone who has studied themselves into being more interested in the precise theological order of things than they are about essential principles are leaning towards hyper-Calvinism. And they are going way beyond the Puritans, Edwards, Calvin and more modern guys like Spurgeon. I would love to know what some of the extreme Calvinists would do with Bunyan's Pilgrims Progress. Christian and Faithful seem to be constantly having problems and worrying needlessly when all they had to do was realize they were elect.

 

All we have to do is see in the Romans road of Chapter 8 that there is a lot going on in the salvation process of God on our behalf!

 

I notice that you fail to look at the whole Greek sentence 3-14. What does 13 say
Eph 1:13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Why do you avoid that part of the sentence? Paul is clear about this in:
Rom 10:14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?

The text is clear
1) Those who call on the name of the Lord will be saved
2) They call because they believe.
3) They believe because they heard.
4) They heard because a preacher shared the Gospel.

Gospel → Hearing → Believing → Calling → Salvation.

Salvation sure seems to have a lot of conditions for your so called unconditional election. The bible does not agree with your view does it.

 

Hi Brightfame52. Yes election is unconditional. And your post above is correct. But read down through the thread. The problem I have is some folks posting don't seem to be able to see that election is God choosing individuals whom he will save. Repentance, belief, pursuit of holiness and all the graces that accompany salvation are actually done by the person being saved and they are absolutely essential for salvation. In that sense they are indeed conditions, as Jonathan Edwards says. I am not trying to disagree with the 5 points of Calvinism here. What I am saying is that you can see from some of the responses in this thread that there are folks who have torn the chain of salvation apart and so separated the pieces that they are moving toward hyper-Calvinism.
I cannot dispute original Greek word meanings but I have read classical Calvinist writers extensively and I can tell you they had no problem giving out imperatives on repentance, holy living, faith, avoiding sin in direct, to the person commands. In other word do this and live - don't do this and go to Hell. Yes that is conditional. They did not feel that they needed to preface everything they taught from the Bible with a note on election. If folks here want to to this that's OK as this is a theological discussion forum but I can tell you they are not representing the Puritans or other historical Calvinists.

 

This is one reason I don’t particularly like separating the work of salvation into a to do list, or what has to happen first.

If God is truly the author as well as the justifier, then what right do I have in attaching some sequence.

The obvious is that the Lord opened the hearing and understanding that those that are to believe will hear the message of the Word. The impulses of both the pricks and love impressing upon that person will cause the person to at some point believe, for with the work of the Holy Spirit delivering the Word will cause belief to come (Just as Romans states).

Salvation is all from God, of God, for God’s glory, and nothing of ourself, for we are “His workmanship created in Christ Jesus for…”

 

Yes and because this is a theological board it is OK to try to be precise. So I don't want to sound like I'm knocking folks. But every time you say something about something you can't say everything about it. I believe salvation is "all of God" but I still think I can say to someone "Repent and believe the gospel" without denying a monergistic view of salvation. It is also true that even though salvation is wrought in you it is you who must actually believe. No one believes for you even though like you said it does not come from some virtue within you.