Unconditional Election means Unconditional Reprobation

I do not believe in any form of merit system. Salvation is all of grace [Ephesians 2:8 & 9] and is received on our part as sinners through faith in Jesus. [Romans 5:1] I too, believe in the perfect security of the true believer.

 

This has been answered before. The answer is "nothing". God's choice of any person is not due to anything intrinsic to that person.

If God chose according to anything intrinsic in a person, then salvation would indeed be according to merit. Elect people would merit salvation by having something intrinsic to them that non-elect people don't have.

 

Pastor Larry..
I do not think that the number of times that you have answered this question is the problem. If this answer is indicative of the first: I think that the problem is, your answer does not reconcile with a clear preponderance of scripture. And what you think is crystal clear is really muddy and unscriptural.

I do not wish to offend you, yet i will tell you the truth. When you give what you believe to be a crystal clear answer, you leave room for even a child to poke holes in your answers.

A hundred ways exist in the bible where we could be to the praise of his glory, and we never have to touch that elect stuff; yet you trumpet that answer as tho it is the only possibility in scripture. It is not.

Perhaps what is lacking in your responses is detail, instead of so many generalities....

 

Where have I ever said that it is the only possibility? I have never said that. I have simply said what Scripture says.

If a child can poke holes in my position, then start. You have failed to do so so far. You have not dealt with John 6 that I showed explicitly contradicts your position. You have not dealt with Ephesians 1. YOu have not dealt with Romans 8:29-30. I will engage in all the detail you desire. How deep do you want to go? At the bottom line, the problem is not that my views don't reconcile with Scripture. They have been shown to many times. And it is muddy only for those who do not accept the plain words of Scripture.

You cannot stomach 1 Thess 1:4 for what it says. You must change it to agree with your position. You cannot accept 2 Thess 2:13 for what it says. You must change it to agree with your position. The plain text is what I appeal to. If you think I have muddied something, feel free to demonstrate it. I will give you as much detail as you want.

 

Did you read what I wrote above? I answered this question directly. How did you miss it?

We are correct. I will never receive your position as God's truth until you are able to demonstrate it from Scripture. So far you have confirmed that you are unable to do so. You are not willing to deal with actual passages like John 6 that expressly contradicts you. There is a tremendous responsibility placed on teachers and I take it very seriously. I am concerned for those who claim teaching status while refusing to deal with Scripture as it speaks.

You say that you do not believe in merit salvation. Yet as I demonstrated from your own words, that is the position you hold practically speaking since you insist, as you did above, that there must be something in man for God to save him. I reject that completely and that is my number one problem with your position. I believe salvation depends on nothing in man and election is fully and freely of God. You suggest that God elects people on the basis of their belief. As a demonstration of your unwillingness to conform your theology to Scripture, you have refused for months to provide one verse that substantiates your view. I have offered verses that show belief as a result of election. You will not support yoru view from Scripture. You support only from your logic and what you think God must do. I appeal to you again, get back to Scripture. Deal with what God says, not what we think he must be like.

Now, this forum has grown heated in the last few days in several different places. I am again encouraging people to back off a bit, get back to Scripture and quit trading charges. If you desire to make your point from Scripture, then make it from Scripture.

 

Regarding John 6...

Some thoughts:

Here are some thoughts on the John 6:37-44 passage in the larger context of the 'Bread of Life' discourse (6:25-59) and the Gospel of John as a whole.

* The many passages teaching about the need for human 'belief' (the word appears 98 times apparently and always in verbal form to stress faith as a dynamic act)

* The strong universalistic strain in the salvific invitation of God (1:7-9, 3:16, 12:32, etc.)

* Christ's warnings to abide in Him (15:1-10, 16:1-4, etc.)

* Christ's severe indictments against the Jews for their unbelief and His exhortations for them to believe (5:37-47, 10:34-42, etc.)

All the above makes ideas about 'irresistable grace' and 'predestination for reprobation' less than absolutely convincing. We believe it makes no sense to say that God has issued the invitation to everyone, yet has secretly withheld the possibility of salvation for some. Likewise, why warn people against falling if they never could?

Therefore, in exegeting the passages which may suggest the Calvinist understanding of predestination, we need to bear in mind those other verses which highlight the need for human faith-decision, God's desire that everyone be saved, His warnings, etc. We must not theologise and feel secured in our salvation at the cost of forfeiting the integrity of such texts.

Arminians feel there are far better ways to hold together divine sovereignity and human responsibility in the process of salvation than what Calvinists have given us (which is to deny the latter idea altogether).

So, does John 6:37-44 follow the Calvinist thought? Hardly.

For starters, John 6:27 already has Jesus telling His audience to "not work for the food that spoils, but for food that ensures to eternal life...". Note that people are told to 'WORK' for food which God will 'GIVE' - God's sovereignity and human freedom are twin factors at play, although certainly the former is primary. The way forward is to acknowledge that without God salvation is impossible and it is only by His power that anyone is kept. Yet human decision is something that God does not coerce, and the ability to grieve/refuse God is always possible (at least in our present 'unglorified' state!).

(Also, this is the same audience whom He just fed with five barley loaves and two fishes (6:5-13) - are we to suggest that after feeding them He then teaches that there will be some among them who have been 'elected unto damnation' and can NEVER come to Him?)

And in John 6:28-29, Jesus teaches that God REQUIRES them to do His work, which is to believe in the one He has sent. How can God require of them something they can never do?

Likewise, with passages like John 10:26-27 ("...you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me."). Marshall footnotes Hoskyns & Davey, and explains: "...the thought of an unalterable exclusion from salvation is excluded by the fact that the same Jews are exhorted to believe in verses 37f."

Jesus asks the very same 'not-His-sheep' people to believe in Him ("...believe the miracles that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.", 10:38b), which should make us pause and rethink any notion of groups of people hopelessly un-elected to salvation. Is Jesus holding out to them a gift that He has made impossible for them to accept? And does not 1:11 ("He came to that which was His own, but his own did not receive Him") suggest that not all of Jesus' own actually receive Him?

(Moving on to the key passage, 6:35 onwards...)

John 6:35 sees a repeat of His invitation, "He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty". (Are we to add the clause, "But only some of you can really come - the rest of you will always be thirsty no matter what you do"?)

John 6:36 ("You have seen me and still you do not believe...")should be understood as a rebuke cum challenge to repent. Jesus wants His hearers to believe in Him (John 5:34, 6:27). In fact, immediately following John 5:34, we have Jesus rebuking the Jews or refusing to believe what Moses wrote about Himself, even saying that if they had believed Moses they would believe Jesus(!) (5:46). The target of Jesus' scoldings is an unrepentant and evil heart (5:42) which veils from itself the truth of God in the Scriptures, which denies truth even when it's staring them in the face. This is a VERY COMMON theme in the OT: the people sin continually and deny the activity of God in their lives, persecuting the prophets, etc. We need not postulate that God has determined their evil and their salvific destinies even before Day 1.

John 6:37-40 ("All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day...") subsequently can be seen as (re)emphasizing the sovereign initiative, faithfulness and unity of Jesus and the Father in the salvific process.

Jesus will never drive away anyone as all who come to Him have been given by the Father. And the Father's will is that none be lost and that everyone who looks to the Son and believes will have eternal life and resurrection. (To say that God's will here cannot be resisted would be incredible, as not only is it not mentioned in the text but later on Jesus quotes from Isaiah, a book which leaves no doubt of the fact that God's will in the people's lives CAN be frustrated - Isa 65:2-7, 30:1, etc.).

The emphasis here is on God's love to everyone and His plans and reliability in protecting those who believe, not on the limited-ness of the atonement (more so in light of the previous passages we looked at). God has a loving plan for everyone if only they believe, and Jesus is right now inviting all to reach out and accept His gift of life, asking them to believe that they can trust Him and He will never drive them away.

John 6:44 ("No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day...") is another affirmation of the divine initiative in salvation from beginning to end. The 'drawing' here, it must be stressed, should not be understood as irresistible election, or else we would have universalism in John 12:32.

John 6:45 ("It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God'. Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me..."), again, tells us of God having already revealed Himself to all in Israel. Remember that Isaiah 54:13 was to be read by the whole of Israel, everyone of whom were recipients of the covenant of peace (54:10). It simply isn't the case that only those 'predestined unto salvation' are the ones to whom this verse applies.

The next couple of verses in this discourse tell us - yet again - that he who BELIEVES has everlasting life (6:47), ANYONE can eat of the bread of life (6:51) which was given for the life of the WORLD (6:52). These themes are repeated again from vs.53 to 58.


In conclusion, the Bread of Life discourse tells us that the protection and providence of God for the believer is something he can rely on, as is the love of God for all mankind. Jesus also wanted to make clear His unique relationship with the Father, and challenge people to believe in Him (not least. the unrepentant Jews).

-- Alwyn Lau

 

Ray:
The difference between heaven and hell is grace.
How did you, or anyone else, come to have faith whereas a lost neighbor, friend, or relative didn't have faith? Did you choose Christ because you were more humble? Wiser? More spiritual? What was the reason you chose Christ?

Rev. G

Rev. G

 

Ray:
The difference between heaven and hell is grace.
How did you, or anyone else, come to have faith whereas a lost neighbor, friend, or relative didn't have faith? Did you choose Christ because you were more humble? Wiser? More spiritual? What was the reason you chose Christ?

Rev. G

Rev. G</font>[/QUOTE]It was a choice I made vs. one that wasn't made. Many different things come into account, but not necessarily intelligence, humility, spirituality, and so on. Examine the wide variety of Christians, and you'll be able to see some kind of link in WHY they chose Christ.

 

I have not found a single passage in the Bible that says a person once justified by God ever becomes unjustified by God.

Ken
A Spurgeonite

 

I do see a link, do you? I see the link of GRACE, and GRACE ALONE.

Rev. G

 

Interesting comments, Scott, although I think I am to understand they are not yours. (I don’t blame you … I wouldn’t put my name on them either ) Let me address some of it. I won’t address much of it because of space and because of the weakness of the presentation. It simply doesn’t have much to offer.

1. You continue with the idea that Calvinists refuse to admit human responsibility. You have been previously corrected. Why do you persist? No one denies that we are to abide in him, that human belief is necessary, that unbelief is condemned. Those are non-issues and unrelated to this discussion; we agree on them.

2. You make a comment argument: How can God require of them something they can never do? … Yet it is a fallacious one since there are many things that God requires that we simply cannot do. In Lev 18, Israel was told to keep the commandments that they might live. Yet it was impossible for them to do. In Matt 5, we are told to be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect, something that is impossible. Other commands could show this but would lengthen a point already shown. This is a fallacious argument.

3. John 6:35 sees a repeat of His invitation, "He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty". (Are we to add the clause, "But only some of you can really come - the rest of you will always be thirsty no matter what you do"?) . In vv. 63-64 Christ makes that exact statement so I guess that should answer your question.

4. Jesus will never drive away anyone as all who come to Him have been given by the Father. And vv. 63-64 give the alternative that no one can come unless the Father gives it to him. Thus there are two groups: Those given who come and those not given who cannot come. There is no third group. Where do you find this third group?

5. John 6:44 ("No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day...") is another affirmation of the divine initiative in salvation from beginning to end. The 'drawing' here, it must be stressed, should not be understood as irresistible election, or else we would have universalism in John 12:32. Now you are beginning to see the problems. However, you have a problem in 6:44 for Christ says that no one can come unless drawn but Christ will raise the one drawn at the last day. So contrary to your assertion that it is not effectual drawing, Christ himself refutes you by promising resurrection to all who are drawn.

In short, this attempt falls far short of a serious interaction with the passage.

 

Supralapsarianism is the correct view. Election was not an afterthought. Election was not an act of mercy, but of love.

 

I received Christ because I was not totally depraved. Genesis chapter one strongly suggests that humans were 'created after Their likeness.' [Genesis 1:26 & 27]. God did not create "dead souls" but as He says, ' . . . and man became a living soul.' [Genesis 1:7]. After the Fall and the Flood He still is found making men and women ' . . . in the image of God.' [Genesis 9:6c] Let's say, six thousand years from Creation--God speaking through James also says that human beings are still being created 'after the similitude of God.' [James 3:9d] Clearly, I was lost because of my Adamic nature plus sins of commission. If I had been totally depraved I would never have yielded my life to Him. Repentance strongly suggests a human response in turning away from sin and heading in the direction of Almighty God. Repentance is an act of a human being; He cannot repent for sinners. God the Spirit was calling me through the witness of the Gospel and I sensed, because of the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that it was the wise thing to do in turning to Him and away from my sins. I never have regretted 'leaning on the everlasting arms.'

 

False. You are totally depraved.

False again. It does far more than strongly suggest it. It declares it to be a fact.

Very true.

Very true.

[/qb=]You were actually lost because of your adamic nature which is synonymous with being totally depraved.

Except your forget that when you were dead, God who is rich in mercy made you alive.

But you again forget or ignore that it is the goodness of God that lead you to repentance.

This is as close as you came in this whole post ...

 

Pastor Larry,

All of the references that I have used about being in the 'image of God' are documented in His Word.

I say this respectfully before God. If we are 'Totally Depraved' as you suggest we believe, this throws a very bad light back of the Triune Godhead. Either He and we are in the 'image of God or we are not.

 

What is your definition of total depravity? Why is it that other people have not turned from their sins? Were you wiser? More sensible? What made you to differ from others?

All human beings are created in the image of God. That has nothing to do with total depravity, unless you believe that you were born "good" and not in the sin of Adam (contrary to Rom. 5:12).

Rev. G

 

I've stated the author at the end: "Alwyn Lau." Thanks.

Human belief can only occur through what Arminians consider "forcing." Those who have been "enlightened" (according to the Arminian standard) MUST believe. We definitely do not agree on this issue, because our terms are different.

Yet in Leveticus 18 and Matthew 5, there is a way out. Romans seems to fulfill this. Ultimately, there was a way they could gain forgiveness. However, in the grand scheme of things, this is something that people would be unable to do in your theology.

Here it is: The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.

Nowhere do you find that they would be UNABLE, merely that Christ knew which one would betray Him. NOWHERE does it speak of inability.

Which third group do you speak of? There isn't a group of those who cannot come. Here are the two groups: Those who come and those who choose not to come. Verses 63-64 merely state that Christ knew who wasn't going to come. Nowhere does it say in those verses that they could not come. You may be speaking of verse 65, which states that only those who are enabled by the Father can come, but there is nothing in the verse that states that the Father only enables a certain number of people - merely that the Father makes the first step.

No - it says "him." We've got to define the pronoun. Read the next verse. The one who is drawn is the one who learns from him. "They will ALL be taught by God," it says, but only the one who learns from Him will come to life.

And I hope I've shown how your protests do not really discount Lau's first interpretation.

 

It is a simple matter to prove that election and reprobation are logically separable in a way that the originator of this thread denies.

Ask the qestion: What would happen to all people if there were NO elect at all, no election to salvation at all. Only reprobate. And unconditionally so.

 

I agree with all of those references and I completely affirm that man is in the image of God. That is not the issue in the debate about total depravity. Some months ago, you and I had this discussion, I clarified for you what total depravity means with relation to the image of God and you accepted my explanation. Now you have reverted to your old ways.

Total depravity, for the umpteenth time, does mean that man is as bad as he could be and it does not mean that every human is equally bad. It means that every area of man's being has been affected by sin. This has no relation whatever to the image of God. The image of God still exists in totally depraved man since even totally depraved men are still men with all the aspects of personality. If we ceased to have the image of God we would cease to be human. The image of God is what makes humans human.

 

Ok, I'm just commenting on the first post because I'm not reading through 3 pages that probably just repeat the same arguments as all of the other cal/arm threads.
First, you're making your analogy based on your human understanding. What is is, and you either trust that God is right in doing it or you don't. And what is? God says that he elects people.Whether he elected them from the beginning just because he felt like it or because he knew what they would choose in what we call the future isn't made clear. (who knows what our future is to God, he obviously isn't bound by time present and past, so that in itself might add another dimension to the whole argument).
What IS made clear is that God gives out grace to those that believe, whether you believe you have to ask for it or not.
Just go with it, fall on your knees and thank God, and don't get too thrown over whether someone else thinks he gave it to you out of 100% grace because you were elect or he gave it to you out of 100% grace because you asked. Either way, you're both believers.
And from the arguments presented over and over on this section of the forum, I'd have to say both sides are getting pretty thrown.
Gina

*Edited because I forgot to take off John's quote. (I usually use the quote reply so I can remember what I'm responding too, then I erase that part)

[ October 10, 2002, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: Chrysoprasus ]