What Is Wrong With The Doctrine Of Election?

Unconditional Election is the doctrine which states that God chose those whom he was pleased to bring to a knowledge of himself, not based upon any merit shown by the object of his grace and not based upon his looking forward to discover who would "accept" the offer of the gospel. God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation (Romans 9:15,21). He has done this act before the foundations of the world (Ephesians 1:4-8).
This doctrine does not rule out, however, man's responsibility to believe in the redeeming work of God the Son (John 3:16-18). Scripture presents a tension between God's sovereignty in salvation, and man's responsibility to believe which it does not try to resolve. Both are true -- to deny man's responsibility is to affirm an unbiblical Hyper-Calvinism; to deny God's sovereignty is to affirm an unbiblical Arminianism.

The elect are saved unto good works (Ephesians 2:10). Thus, though good works will never bridge the cleavage between man and God that was formed in the Fall, good works are a result of God's saving grace. This is what Peter means when he admonishes the Christian reader to make his "calling" and "election" sure (I Peter 2:10). Bearing the fruit of good works is an indication that God has sewn seeds of grace in fertile soil.

 

It may not be that God gives some and not others that people think is unjust, but the fact that people are brought into a situation they couldn't help, and then trapped in that (whether they "like it"--eg "run from God anyway", or not), rather than so much others or anyone else at all being given a chance.
Rom.9 is not describing election to glory or damnation, as it is discussion the role of Israel as a group, compared with "the elect" (Jews or gentiles in Jesus); as has beed explained many times now.
The tension is in how election and foreknowledge work out in time, with man having a responsibility to choose. There is no need to add this idea of people being "passed over" or shut out, to this, and then claim we can't understand it/the bible doesn't explain why.

 

~ T. P. Simmons

 

Below is an article from the Spring 2003 Vol. II Issue I of The Oldline Messenger I emailed Elder Brian Moore for permission to include it here, the link to this and other articles can be found at the end of:

web page

Check it out sometime when ever you need a break from the C/A carnage.

Here is the article:

Elder Ralph Harris

I agree with this article.
Bro. Dallas Eaton
Matt. 27.25

 

When I received the current issue of The Old Line Messenger and read that article by Elder Harris and then read your post, I thought it was a good place to add it.

God Bless
Bro. Dallas

Matt. 27.25

 

It's not election per-se that people are saying is "dangerous" for "shutting people out". Since the word is in the Bible, nobody denies there is any such approbative act.
It's preterition, which is the corollary of such a limited intent election, plus the reasoning used to support it (God charged them with Adam's sin and made it "their own fault" they didn't want Him, so not giving them any chance is quite "just") that people are "enemies" of.
People may not mope that they are not elect* now, but then once they are in Hell, then they could very well wonder what were they supposed to do?
What's "dangerous" is setting up a contradiction involving God's intent, and then claiming this is a "biblical paradox", and trying to shut up all questioning of it by appealing to "God's higher purposes". As I mentioned before, you do not have to draw this conclusion before you realize that the way God works in time is not completely understood by us.

*(but this is not even quite true, because there are many who have heard the doctrine, and fear they are not elect because they have such doubt, and are very troubled as they can do nothing about it!)

[ June 23, 2003, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

what is wrong with election? NOTHING! yup, it's a positive thing, that solves the problems of a few. it is, however, incomplete to focus only on election and admire the goodness and sovereignty of God with it without looking at the "other side of the coin".

one should also ask, how was it necessary that men went to that point of needing election? how was it that each born child is either elected or condemned since birth? the answer? simple! it's because of the same thing - God's sovereignty! God decided to impute Adam's sin to each one and made each one worthy of condemnation. sovereignty acted equally on both condemning and electing each one regardless of each one's volition. God's goodness, however, exists only in election. it's extreme opposite exists in God condemning each one.

a borh child was born. God imputed him the sin of Adam, but nevertheless elected Him. this is sovereignty on each aspect.

the born child was elected alright. this is God's love. another born child, sovereignly imputed of Adam's sin and made worthy of condemnation, was not elected. by the same logic on how calvinism admire God's graciousness is God's cruelty existing in condemnation.

again, what's wrong with election? well, nothing. but if one looks at the big picture of TULIP, one will see that there really is nothing wrong with looking only at election. otherwise, one will see an equally cruel thing as grace is good from God.

[ June 23, 2003, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: Aki ]

 

Congratulations to Glen for his opening post making the "perfect quote" for the classic "Calvinist Future Scenario".

Here is the update for your critque.

Yelsew's excellent point about the monster known as Saddam and Pastor Larry’s point about our Joy that God would arbitrarily select US to be saved - deserves a follow up illustration.

Here is a direct quote of one of our Calvinist brethren overjoyed on this very point.

Notice the “focus” is always on “you” the one that is arbitrarily selected and then justifying the callous disregard of your precious child under the guise of “Well God does not HAVE to care about ANYONE just be glad YOU made it”.
Fascinating!


All well and good for the Cavlinist position - but what about the Arminian view?

Corrections? Suggestions?


In Christ,

Bob

 

There's scripture on both sides of this debate. Personally, I'm beginning to believe that both sides are right. In a way not completely understood by us some are elected into salvation and some accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

 

The fact that God "knows the future" is not an argument in Calvinism's favor since BOTH Arminian and Calvinist argue that one point.

God's saddness over the lost and His expressed desire that they come to salvation "is real".

God "So loved the World that He gave....Really!"

That is the "distinctive" for the Arminian position. And of course, the Calvinist future scenario above - "illustrates" that point.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Still yet,what God has joined together, let not man put asunder.

What I see in teaching that man is able to choose is a weak God and a strong man.

God desires but is unable to do; man becomes his own maker, his own justifier, deliverer, redeemer, kinsman, and saviour.

Where is Christ?

Let everyman be what he is according to the Grace of God, there is none who can make himself any bit more.

This is what bothers arminians, it is not that they desire the souls of men any more than God, but that they have no choice they cannot stomach.

I believe God is Sovereign in all things. That is what I believe.

Bro. Dallas Eaton
Matt. 26.6-16

 

Even though I am reformed in the doctrines of salvation, I don't spend much time on this forum because I think arguing in favor of Grace with those who don't believe it is kind of contradictory for the "calvinist."

However one feels about and interprets the doctrines, there are a lot of scriptures to be dealt with. Here are some. I am not going to argue about this. Just deal with the passages. (And this is only one aspect of the whole topic...)

Election/Predestination Notes

Words Associated With Predestination and election
Boule, which means counsel or purpose—Acts 2:23, Acts 4:28, Acts 20:27, Eph 1:11 Heb 6:17,

thelema—which means will or pleasure. Eph 1:5 Eph 1:9 Eph 1:11

Thelesis—which means will Heb 2:4

boulomai—which means “to will” or “to intend” or “to determine” Heb 6:17, James 1:18,

Thelo—to choose to do or to will Rom 9:18, Rom 9:22 , Col 1:27

Eudokia—wish, purpose, desire, good pleasure, will Mat 11:26, Eph 1:5, Eph 1:9

eudokeo—to think well of, i.e. approve, to take pleasure, be willing. Gal 1:15, Col 1:19

protasso—to pre-arrange, i.e. prescribe, appoint before. Acts 17:26

prothesis—a setting forth, a purpose.—Rom 8:28 Eph 1:11 2 Tim 1:9 Eph 3:11

protoimazo—to set up in advance, to ordain before, to prepare afore—Rom 9:23, Eph 2:10

procheirizo—to. proclaim in advance—Acts 22:14

Procheirotoneo— to elect in advance:--choose before—Acts 10:41

Horizo—to mark out as in "horizon", to appoint, decree, specify:--declare, determine, limit, ordain—Luke 22:22 , Acts 2:23

tasso—to arrange in an orderly manner, i.e. assign or dispose (to a certain position or lot):--appoint, determine, ordain, set.
Acts 13:48, Acts 22:10, Rom 13:1,

Proorizo—to limit in advance, to predetermine:--determine before, ordain, predestinate—Acts 4:28, Rom 8:29-30, 1 Cor 2:7, Eph 1:5, Eph 1:11

Proginosko—to know before—Acts 2:23, Acts 26:5, Rom 8:29, Rom 11:2, 1 Pet 1:2, 1 Pet 1:20

Other instances in both testaments of Chosen, elect, etc.
Deu 7:6, Deu 14:2 , Deu 18:5, Deu 21:5, 1 Sam 10:24, 1 Sam 16:8-10, 1 Ki 3:8, 1 Ki 8:16, 1 Ki 8:44, 1 Ki 8:48
1 Ki 11:13, 1 Ki 11:32, 1 Ki 11:36, 1 Ki 12:21, 1 Ki 14:21, 2 Ki 21:7, 2 Ki 23:27, 1 Chr 15:2, 1 Chr 16:13, 1 Chr 28:4-6,
1 Chr 28:10, 1 Chr 29:1, 2 Chr 6:5-6, Psa 33:12, Psa 89:3 Psa 89:19 Psa 105:6 Psa 119:30, Psa 119:173, Psa 132:13, Psa 135:4, Isa 41:8-9, Isa 42:1 , Isa 43:10 , Isa 43:20, Isa 44:1-2, Isa 49:7, Isa 65:9, Isa 65:15, Isa 65:22 , Mat 12:18, Mat 20:16, Mat 22:14, Mat 24:22, Mat 24:24, Mat 24:31, Mark 13:20, Mark 13:22, Mark 13:27, Luke 6:13 , Luke 18:7, Luke 23:35, John 6:70, John 13:18, John 15:16, John 15:19, Acts 1:2, Acts 9:15, Acts 13:17, Acts 15:7, Acts 22:14, Rom 8:33, Rom 9:11 , Rom 11:5, Rom 11:7, Rom 11:28 , Rom 16:13, 1 Cor 1:27-28, Eph 1:4, Col 3:12, 1 Th 1:4, 1 Tim 5:21 , 2 Tim 2:10, Titus 1:1 , 1 Pet 1:2, 1 Pet 2:4, 1 Pet 2:6, 1 Pet 2:9, 1 Pet 5:13, 2 Pet 1:10, 2 John 1:1 , 2 John 1:13, Rev 17:14

Names Written Down—Phil 4:3, Rev 3:5, Rev 13:8, Rev 17:8, Rev 20:15, Rev 21:27
Psa 56:8 Psa 139:16

 

Frogman,

You know, there is a saying that if you love some one, set them free. If they come back they always were yours, if they do not come back they never were yours. But you'll never know unless you risk losing them. God desires that none should perish, but rather than keep us close to him, he sets man free to choose, gives us the way back to him, then leaves it up to us. If we are His, we come back. If we are not his we keep on going.

God desires, even encourages man, is fully capable of doing his will with man. Jesus's justifies, delivers, redeems, is by our adoption, our brother, and He most definately is our savior, but not unless we want Him to be.

On this day in man's time, He is at the right hand of the Father waiting for the Father to make His enemies his foot stool. By the power of the Holy Spirit, he is in the believer's heart preparing the heart for eternity.

That is not entirely true, because God gave man the ability to change by choosing.

It is not as you say that Arminians "desire" choice, it is that all men have choice, an existing condition.

True Christians hold this to be true!

[ June 29, 2003, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Yelsew ]

 

Thanks Major B and Yelsew,

Yelsew, in some things I rejoice because I can agree with you.

Major B, I have studied the instances you provide, unfortunately I have not studied it in the depth which you outline, but I thank you for the time you have given in providing that outline.

God Bless
Bro. Dallas Eaton
Matt. 26.6-16

 

Dallas,

I keep this as a fold-out in the back of my daily planner, along with similar sheets on the Trinity and other doctrines. Handy to have sometimes.

BTW, were you a SEAL or a Navy diver?

See my poll, you might be interested in it.

 

11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

 

Graceforever, The doctrine of election may be a biblical doctrine and I don't think anyone who reads the bible can deny that. But what is questionable is the definition of "the Elect". There are several definitions given in Scripture, and not one of them definitive enough to make the doctrine a sure thing.

On the other hand, the Doctrine of Salvation is definitive in that Salvation is available to ALL who believe in Jesus, even on His Name. Scriptures make it clear that Faith alone is what saves one from the Second death, hence, Salvation. Scriptures clearly indicate that Each and ALL of mankind will be individually judged and those with faith in God are spared from the Lake of Fire, while those who do not have faith in God are cast into the Lake of Fire.

The Doctrine of Election, while it may be supported in scripture is not definitive, while the Doctrine of Salvation is most definitive and ALL inclusive.

 

well said, Yelsew

we may have radically different views in many aspects of salvation, but in your last post i see a good response.