Biblical Election

Is that why we have to continually explain to the Calvinist's that they are wrong?

I would say it is the Calvinist's trying to overthrow all non-calvinist souls.

Calvinism teaches nothing but a prideful and arrogant doctrine. Modern day Pharisees. 'Lord, I thank thee that I am not like that sinner over there...'

Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.

 

Oh really? So when God said this in the Old Covenant:

He was being prideful so He decided that He would not act in a manner consonant with the OT doctrine of election and would now elect based on foreseen faith? I think not.

Where do you think Paul got the doctrine of election? Where in the OT do you find anything approaching electing individuals based on foreseen faith? Answer: Nowhere. God says plainly "I chose you because I loved you." This parallels, "I am that I am." He's saying "I chose you because I chose you and I loved you because I loved you." This is the very definition of prognosko in Romans 8:29. It refers to the love of God in a determinative, covenantal fashion.


There is no reference to foreseen faith or any other synergistic notion here. No text of Scripture bases election on such a thing.


God did not take pity on Israel in Egypt and deliver them on account of their foreseen faith or even their foreseen wickedness. He remembered the covenant He had made with the Patriarchs, and He delivered them for that reason, calling them a chosen people for His own possession.

Reformed theology teaches that the Father and the Son made an eternal covenant to set aside a people for themselves without respect to any merit of any kind in them. To ground this decision in their own purposes but not in anything found in them, because all of them would be worthy of death as sinners. So, when the time was right Christ died for them. Then the gospel was preached, and when each of them heard that gospel at the right time, the Holy Spirit applied the benefits of the cross to those individuals remembering the covenant that the Father and the Son had made with each other. Ergo, they recapitulate the above Scripture, which is very clearly a picture of this, for the Old Covenant is patterned on the New, according to the author of Hebrews.

Ergo your comment applies to the free will position, not Calvinism. This is what y'all don't seem to ever get.

How can this be "prideful and arrogant" when it has nothing to do with any kind of merit and only with God's mercy? God is not looking down the corrridors of time to see who will believe and who will not. On the contrary, it is the contrary view that is conceptually proud and arrogant. Unconditional election is not prideful or arrogant, because nobody is chosen for anything in them at all. If they were chosen for reasons intrinsic to themselves, unconditional election would be prideful, but they aren't.

It's rather ironic you should even make that comment, since it was just 3 days ago that a professor from Liberty Baptist Seminary was at the Founders blog stating, and I quoted, "Elected because I selected." How is this not a proud and arrogant statement?

Reformed Theology teaches that God for reasons sufficient to Himself has chosen whom He will save and whom He will not. This is not merited, and it is unconditional. The word "unconditional" means it is not grounded in anything in that person. It is grounded solely in the mercy of God. It isn't unjust, because nobody has a just claim on the mercy of God. Moreover, justice is satisfied for believers at the cross; in hell for all others.

It is also Trinitarian. In Calvinism, the Father gives a people to the Son. The Son atones for their sins. The Spirit applies the benefits infallibly to those God choses to save.

The contrary system on the other hand turns salvation into a form of remunerative justice, because all people believe for different reasons. Did they believe because they were more fearful? Smarter? More spiritual? It isn't enough to simply say, "one believed and another did not," because all people believe for differing reasons. Reformed theology's answer is "the grace of God." The contrary position gives no answer because to do so would expose its problems.

Arminianism puts election and regeneration after conversion itself and thus outside the work of grace. Neither the work of the Father (election), nor the work of the Spirit (regeneration) is a link in a golden chain which results in a state of grace. Election and regeneration fall outside the grace of God, for they do not create or contribute to a state of grace. On this view, the grace of God is limited to the work of Christ. And it is up to man in a state of nature to respond to the Gospel of Christ. So in this view only the cross is in view, and this makes it functionally Unitarian.

Mercy and justice are separate categories in ethics. To be merciful something must be undeserved. To be “just” either a standard of justice must be satisfied or something must be deserved. Mercy can satisfy justice if somebody else takes the penalty for a wrong act so that the Judge can extend mercy to somebody else. The Arminian, by grounding election in foreseen faith ultimately makes God unjust, because all people believe for different reasons. In fact, it is the same kind of favoritism that James condemns, because this faith arises as an intrinsic foreseen characteristic in those persons. This is not true equality. Calvinists believe the ground, or anchor, the reason for electing (choosing) (by the way, “elect” is another Bible word, thus election is a doctrine taught in Scripture) some and allowing others to continue in sin is found only in God and is not done with respect to either foreseen faith or foreseen wickedness. (Eph. 1, Romans 9).

The charges that God is unloving, unjust, and unmerciful, prideful, etc. all apply to the free will position.

Unloving: Where does Scripture ever say God loves all men without exception the exact same way, e.g. redemptively? If the Arminian objects that God is unloving for predestining some to salvation while passing over others in their sin, he must also explain why God creates those He know will not accept Christ anyway and then says He loves them redemptively. Thus, this charge applies to the free will position with equal force. The Calvinist says God only loves His children redemptively, and all others are passed over and left in their sins. There is nothing unloving about this, since God is under no compulsion to love anybody redemptively if they only deserve condemnation for their sins. In reality, Scripture teaches that God loves all men extensively by common grace, the covenant community (Israel in the OT, the Church in the NT) corporately, and the elect in the covenant community, uniquely as individuals (the OT community was mixed w/unbelievers and believers, the NT community excludes unbelievers) are loved by special grace, viz. election and by adoption.

Unjust: Justice is satisfied for believers at the cross and unbelievers in hell. No principle of justice is violated. Also, since God owes nothing to any person, then He is not unjust by regenerating some but not others. Unequal treatment is only unjust when it denies a party his just claims to something, but no one has a just claim on the "mercy" of God. Thus no principle of justice is violated. However, if Jesus dies for all men extensively, under an Arminian theory of the will, God is either exacting double jeopardy on men’s sins by punishing them in hell for something for which Christ has paid and satisfied God’s wrath or by lying to men and telling them that all their sins have been taken by Christ, and then secretly exempting unbelief. That is unjust.

Also, if God says He loves all men redemptively without exception but then some perish apart from ever having heard the gospel, God is seen to be unjust for not offering them the gospel. Also, if election is based upon who God knows ahead of time will believe in Christ and who will reject Christ, then what He has done is looked into history and made a decision based upon a person’s acts. Why does one person believe and not another? Were they were more spiritual, smarter, more afraid? Whatever, the reason, God has based His decision on something intrinsic in men, and, since all men are different and believe for different reasons, then God has played favorites based on the intrinsic or extrinsic characteristics and acts of men. This is exactly the kind of favoritism that James denounces in his epistle as being unjust. Thus, it is the free will position that portrays God as playing favorites and acting unjustly toward men.

Unmerciful. Actually, this objection is directly attributable the free will view. Mercy and justice are distinct ethical categories. Mercy is about what you do not deserve. Justice is about obligation, e.g. what you deserve. If regeneration is a response to faith, then this is the beginning of salvation by merit, which is in the category of justice, because God has responded to your free will choice and given you the fruit of your labor. This is in the category of justice, not mercy. If regeneration is monergistic and precedes faith, then God has acted unilaterally to save a person and convert them, a person, remember, who deserves only damnation in hell, he does not deserve this. This is, therefore, an act of pure mercy. It is the free will argument that makes God unjust, unloving, and unmerciful, not the predestinarian argument.

Sometimes I hear folks objecting as if there is something wrong about considering yourself one of the elect. First of all, Calvinism has a very strong doctrine of assurance. So, if you think it's prideful to consider yourself one of the elect, then it is prideful to be sure you are saved. In fact Catholicism calls this the sin of presumption.

On the other hand, if you say, "Elected because I selected" or because I was more spiritual or smarter, etc. than other that is prideful, because then God is electing smart people or spiritual people, etc. This is the very Pharisaim you condemn.

On the other hand, a Calvinist looks at this:

And says, it is by the mercy of God alone and nothing good in me and in spite of my sinfulness that this is true. All glory to God.

 

Will somebody please explain these to me, a non-Calvinist who believes the Biblical Doctrine of Grace ?

Please note the context. The Savior had not yet been crucified, not yet declared 'it' is 'finished', not yet gone into heaven with His own blood for the eternal redemption of "us all" as the writer of Hebrews put it, so how could these referred to as 'they' be the Father's ?

And once more the Savior repeats this truth two verses down, that those that the Father gave Him were from the beginning, the Father's:

 

Very skillfully presented and refuted, Gene, thank you.
Those who reject the doctrine of Grace do so because, in the words of the Savior when asked why He spoke in parables, 'Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.' (Matthew 13:11), and most of these think that they alone have the grasp on God's love, mercy, and grace.

 

Christ was talking about the Pharasees in this scripture. Their belief was in themselves not on Him. This has nothing to do with Calvinism but of rejection of Christ.

 

John 17:8.

Straight, if I understand your post, you contend that John 17:6 referes to the Pharisees. If so, how do reconcile that with John 17:8, and the last part of John 17:6

. If I have misread your post my apologies.

Gene, great post.

 

That is a gross mis-characterization. I guess then you think that Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, William Carey, Adoniram Judson and many other men through out chruch history are proud and arrogant. Oh, we might as well through in the Apostle Paul too.

 

So, Straight, you are saying that (1) the Father gave the Pharissees to Christ, (2) that the Pharissees have kept Christ's words, (3) that the Pharisees belonged to the Father ?

I was not born speaking the English language, but, I sure am ready to stake my own life and say that you are dead wrong.

 

Now, here are the commentaries of some who were born and raised in the English language, and to be fair, definitely not Electionists, or Calvinists as they are called in this board.

From Darby (does he believe in Election ?)

From Wesley (now, is Wesley an electionist, or a 'whosoever'):

The Geneva Bible commentators :

 

Would you kindly show me where Spurgeon said anything at all similar to 'Lord, I thank thee that I am not like that sinner over there...'? Because I know that the last thing you would want to do is to bear false witness against your Calvinist neighbors. Thanks in advance.

 

Which Scripture?

 

Is that why we have to continually explain to the Calvinist's that they are wrong?

I would say it is the Calvinist's trying to overthrow all non-calvinist souls.

Calvinism teaches nothing but a prideful and arrogant doctrine. Modern day Pharisees. 'Lord, I thank thee that I am not like that sinner over there...'

Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall. </font>[/QUOTE]Seems you have walked into a hornets nest. I cannot believe how prideful they are either. Claiming everything is so clear yet this debate goes on and on for all time. And yet most reject calvinist doctrine. OH IT SO CLEAR!.. they proclaim. It is worth a laugh. Another is that in thier theology all things are set and determind yet they waste thier time trying to convince others that their theology is correct. It is called talking the walk and not walking the walk./
God bless you Standing Firm.

 

GeneMBridges said:

God was speaking to the Israelites, God's chosen people. We have to remember, the Israelites rejected His Son, so therefore, Salvation was offered after the cross, to every Gentile man, woman, and child.

 

Gene,

Good to see you here on this board! You don't know me, but I regularly appreciate your posts on the Founder's blog.

I just spent 18 pages of posts with StandingFirm and Timtoolman and found it fruitless. After quoting 88 Scriptures, they told me I couldn't name one Scripture that supported my point. After arguing with them in 4 posts that, biblically, regeneration and salvation are separate but connected terms, they still confused the two. After constantly catching them misrepresent the Calvinist viewpoint and pull Calvin quotes out of their hats that didn't exist, I finally gave up.

I will continue to read this thread, but do not wish to waste my time on them any longer. I somehow think you will end up doing the same.

 

As many, many people do confuse the two, sadly. The same with justification.

 

Hi Tim,

Just curious - what is your basis for this judgment?

 

Hi Tim,

Just curious - what is your basis for this judgment? </font>[/QUOTE]Hello again Whatever. That handle is hard to get use too.
I think that in the fact that they think they have a lock on the truth, yet many more disagree.
The fact that they mis-represent those who disagree with the teachings of calvin. I do not have pride becasue I ask what about others Lord. I am saved, I don't concentrate on "why me" but "why not others" I would not want to see my worst enemy go to hell.
Another is that since I disagree with calvinist over choice and man that I am declaring God not soveriegn. That is nothing but an out right lie or a bonehead statement. Bonehead being all bone no brain. I believe God is sov. When calvinist say "no a sov. God would not give man choice " that too me is them telling God how to be sov. It would be no different If I said God, while reading the Bible, and seeing that He wanted to gather Isreal as a Hen and her chicks. And the fact that didn't happen I now declare God not sov.
God has picked how man is too be saved and it is his choice. Now I believe I can see how it works and why God chose to do it that way. Give man choice.
It really appears to me that there is a manual of answers too certain questions and if you ask some other question they try to lump yhou in with some strawman. Or even a term that they use that does not even agree with what you are proclaiming. For instance arminian or calvinist. Its not right. There is much more out there. It is not honest to debate a perosn and not listen to what THEY are saying.
I coud go on and on but I think you are getting my pt.