A Non Elect Person Saved

[DrJamesAch]

I believe the contention of election among Calvinists and Non Calvinists is the failure to understand what election is and what it is not, and the differences in the different "elects" through out the Bible: Sorry for the teaser but I'm saving that explanation for another thread on Romans 9-11.

Israel was God's elect. "For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me." Isaiah 45:4. When Jesus came His audience were the JEWS.

"I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" Matthew 15:24.

So up to this point, the "elect" were still the nation of Israel. So far so good.
However, when Jesus made this statement, it was in context of a woman from Canaan who was begging him deliver her daughter from a devil.

"Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour." Matthew 15:21-27.

Three things to notice about this story that is a solid refutation against the Calvinist foundation of total depravity, free will, and election.

1. This woman was NOT ELECT. She was saved because her faith in Christ and her daughter was healed. BUT SHE WAS NOT ELECT.

2. This woman SOUGHT CHRIST, and yet she was not elect. She was not "given repentance" or "given faith". She was an unconverted Canaanite that was outside of the election of Israel, and yet in her unconverted state, she sought Christ out.

3. When Jesus commended her faith, He said "woman great is they faith, be it unto thee even as THOU WILT.

This is a clear example that demonstrates that a person can be dead in sin and seek Christ, be non "elect", and be saved, and do so of her own free will.

 

[agedman]

You have no proof that this woman was not part of the elect.

It is total supposition that is unsupported by the Scripture text you used.

Good try, though.

 

[convicted1]

I believe the contention of election among Calvinists and Non Calvinists is the failure to understand what election is and what it is not, and the differences in the different "elects" through out the Bible: Sorry for the teaser but I'm saving that explanation for another thread on Romans 9-11.

Israel was God's elect. "For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me." Isaiah 45:4. When Jesus came His audience were the JEWS.

"I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" Matthew 15:24.

So up to this point, the "elect" were still the nation of Israel. So far so good.

What about Rahab and Ruth? They weren't Israelites, and yet they were mentioned in Hebrews 11, the "faith chapter".Though the Law was given to the Israelites, it wasn't entirely for them only. Those who entered into the Law Covenant with them(Gentiles), were "grafted in" so-to-speak. Now, Israel made up the largest portion of the "elect", but the OT "elect" weren't strictly Jewish lineage.

However, when Jesus made this statement, it was in context of a woman from Canaan who was begging him deliver her daughter from a devil.

Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour." Matthew 15:21-27.

Wonderful story!!

1. This woman was NOT ELECT. She was saved because her faith in Christ and her daughter was healed. BUT SHE WAS NOT ELECT.

No one cometh to me except My Father which sent Me, draw him. John 6:44

She couldn't truly know who Jesus was except God first act upon her heart, ears, and eyes. She had to see that Jesus was THE Son of God, not through her eyes, heart, and ears alone, but by God acting to open them up to receive the works of Him. There were scorcerers at that time that fooled many, because God hadn't acted upon them to really see them as the charaltans they were. Simon was one, and then the woman who Paul and Silas cast out a demon and got cast into prison because she was their "moneymaker". These had multitudes fooled. Jesus did many signs and wonders, and those who God hadn't revealed this to, believed He had a devil, was a phoney, etc. She saw Jesus for who He really was, because God had revealed it to her.

2. This woman SOUGHT CHRIST, and yet she was not elect. She was not "given repentance" or "given faith". She was an unconverted Canaanite that was outside of the election of Israel, and yet in her unconverted state, she sought Christ out.

No one will seek after God w/o an unctioning of the Lord first and foremost. She most assuredly had faith, because w/o it, it's impossible to please Him. Without faith, this woman's daughter would not have been healed.

. When Jesus commended her faith, He said "woman great is they faith, be it unto thee even as THOU WILT.

This is a clear example that demonstrates that a person can be dead in sin and seek Christ, be non "elect", and be saved, and do so of her own free will.

If faith comes from us, then we justified ourself, because God has to justify the heathen(nations) through faith. Faith is a gift of God, and He doles it out however and whenever He pleases. I, personally believe that Christ died for everyone, but there are somethings that I just leave in His hands. I have lost loved ones who I pray for so hard, and yet, if they die lost, I'm going home in the Morning. I have no desire to see anyone lost, yet alone, die lost. But all we can do is proclaim the full counsel of God and let Him do the saving.

Three things to notice about this story that is a solid refutation against the Calvinist foundation of total depravity, free will, and election.

We, as sinners, are totally depraved, and have no way of saving ourselves. Now, I agree that the dead sinner can, and does hear God. And they who are dead and hear, shall live(John 5:25). But God has to first act upon that sinner before He can be saved. In our condmened state, we had no desire to come to Him. God must first call/draw us to Him, before we would even want to come to Him....or at least that's how it was with me.

Election is more to do with Christ than anything. Read Isaiah 42, and then John 15. Election should be focused on Him, and not man. Now, I agree that we have free will, but not the "willy nilly" flavor. We don't have a multitude of options to choose from. When He calls, we must be obedient to that call, or we won't be saved.

 

[preacher4truth]

That's exegesis? Someone needs to get their money back for their 'doctorate' unless said 'doctorate' is in eisegesis. :wavey:

- Blessings

 

[DrJamesAch]

That's exegesis? Someone needs to get their money back for their 'doctorate' unless said 'doctorate' is in eisegesis. :wavey:

- Blessings

And that's a rebuttal? Someone needs to give back their ULC ordination and take that "Preacher" out of their name.

 

[DrJamesAch]

You have no proof that this woman was not part of the elect.

It is total supposition that is unsupported by the Scripture text you used.

Good try, though.

Do you know what it meant to be called a dog in Jewish tradition? If not, look it up. Jesus wouldn't have called what you consider elect a dog. Jesus said, I came not but to the lost sheep of the HOUSE OF ISRAEL". Jesus response to her alone says that she wasn't part of the elect.

It's amazing that Calvinist will tell you with a straight face that something isn't based on Scripture when you show them in black and white RIGHT OUT OF THE SCRIPTURE. This is almost as bad as talking to a Jehovah's Witness.

Baptist: "In the beginning was the word. The word was with God and the word was God".

JW: "That's not in the Bible".

Baptist: "I am not come to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" "It is not meet to give the childrens bread to the dogs".

Calvinist: "That's not in the Bible.

 

[Greektim]

Do you know what it meant to be called a dog in Jewish tradition? If not, look it up. Jesus wouldn't have called what you consider elect a dog. Jesus said, I came not but to the lost sheep of the HOUSE OF ISRAEL". Jesus response to her alone says that she wasn't part of the elect.

It's amazing that Calvinist will tell you with a straight face that something isn't based on Scripture when you show them in black and white RIGHT OUT OF THE SCRIPTURE. This is almost as bad as talking to a Jehovah's Witness.

Baptist: "In the beginning was the word. The word was with God and the word was God".

JW: "That's not in the Bible".

Baptist: "I am not come to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" "It is not meet to give the childrens bread to the dogs".

Calvinist: "That's not in the Bible.

I wonder if you have considered other reasons why Jesus would only go to Israel.

First of all, the best way to make sense of Israel, her mission, and why God chose a nation is imperative. Israel's election was not for privilege but for ministry: to bless the nations.

Second, when Jesus only comes for Israel, he is calling them to fulfill their mission for the nations.

Third, the nations will not come to God until Israel fulfills her mission. Thus in Acts 15, you have the early church use Amos in a non literal way stating that Israel's mission was and is being completed in Jesus and currently in the church (Israel redefined). Thus the nations are being gathered because Israel has been restored... just not in the way expected by nationalistic Jews (or Zionists such as yourself).

Good article (and short) that explains this.

 

[Dale-c]

It's amazing that Calvinist will tell you with a straight face ......

Who is "calvinist"? I would think that it was a typo and that you meant "calvinists" plural but you have typed it several times.


As far as a straight face: tell me, can someone come to Christ without the Father first drawing him?

 

[preacher4truth]

Hmmmm...I wonder to whom 'the lost sheep of the House of Israel' refers?

All the elect and all the seed of Abraham which includes the woman in the story:

'I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice." Genesis 22:17-18

 

[Winman]

It's amazing that Calvinist will tell you with a straight face that something isn't based on Scripture when you show them in black and white RIGHT OUT OF THE SCRIPTURE.

Well, it's not in what they consider scripture;

 

[DrJamesAch]

.

What about Rahab and Ruth? They weren't Israelites, and yet they were mentioned in Hebrews 11, the "faith chapter".Though the Law was given to the Israelites, it wasn't entirely for them only. Those who entered into the Law Covenant with them(Gentiles), were "grafted in" so-to-speak. Now, Israel made up the largest portion of the "elect", but the OT "elect" weren't strictly Jewish lineage.

Just all the more evidence towards what I said. Remember, the argument was that a non elect person was blessed because of their faith. Hebrews 11 is called the Hall of Faith, not Hall of Elect.

If the OT were not strict Jewish lineage, then you can't call them elect. You can't read Calvinist theology into something the Bible does't say. The "grafting" did not occur until Israel completely rejected Christ. When Paul was referring the Israel elect, he said "My kinsmen, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH". Romans 9:3. So yes, all the Israeli elect was based on their lineage. But even though they were elect, they still rejected Christ which itself does not bode well with Calvinist theology.

No one cometh to me except My Father which sent Me, draw him. John 6:44

She couldn't truly know who Jesus was except God first act upon her heart, ears, and eyes. She had to see that Jesus was THE Son of God, not through her eyes, heart, and ears alone, but by God acting to open them up to receive the works of Him. There were scorcerers at that time that fooled many, because God hadn't acted upon them to really see them as the charaltans they were. Simon was one, and then the woman who Paul and Silas cast out a demon and got cast into prison because she was their "moneymaker". These had multitudes fooled. Jesus did many signs and wonders, and those who God hadn't revealed this to, believed He had a devil, was a phoney, etc. She saw Jesus for who He really was, because God had revealed it to her.

Unfortunately, one of the most misused "proof texts" in the Calvinist system. But I can see how one could make this assumption if you isolate the verse by itself and read it as such.
First, the term "draw" does not mean He draws ONLY elect. John 12:32 says, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me". Plus, you need to see the other uses of "draw" in the scripture to help put this fact in contrast:

"Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him." Hebrews 10:38

Thus "draw" does not mean that God draws a person merely because they are elect, and then imposes repentance and faith on them because a person can DRAW BACK.

That being established, the drawing is based on conditions in John 6 when you read the text surrounding John 6:44:

" I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not." v35-36. "All the that the Father giveth to me shall come to me, and him that cometh to me I shall in no wise cast out" vs 37

Now notice that JUDAS was one of the ones that the Father gave to Jesus. John 17:12, and Judas was lost. Thus it is not simply "all the Father giveth" but "he that cometh".

"It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me" v. 45.

"If ANY MAN eat of this bread, he shall live for ever" v. 51

But:

"Ye WILL NOT come that ye might have life" John 5:40.

No one will seek after God w/o an unctioning of the Lord first and foremost. She most assuredly had faith, because w/o it, it's impossible to please Him. Without faith, this woman's daughter would not have been healed.

Yes but she clearly sought Christ. In Calvinism, only the "elect" are drawn. This woman was not elect, and therefore there is no reason to read into the text that she MUST HAVE been drawn simply because Calvinist presupposition demands it. Calvinism ASSUMES that she "must have" been given faith, and that is clearly the opposite in this text, because Jesus said "as THOU WILT".

If faith comes from us, then we justified ourself, because God has to justify the heathen(nations) through faith. Faith is a gift of God, and He doles it out however and whenever He pleases. I, personally believe that Christ died for everyone, but there are somethings that I just leave in His hands. I have lost loved ones who I pray for so hard, and yet, if they die lost, I'm going home in the Morning. I have no desire to see anyone lost, yet alone, die lost. But all we can do is proclaim the full counsel of God and let Him do the saving.

This is why Calvinists and Non Calvinists fight over this issue because you assume that by free will choice in coming to Christ, that such implies justifying yourself. Only God justifieth. Faith is NOT a work (Romans 11:6 is clear on this). No man is saved apart from Christ, but faith is what God required in order to bring the Holy Spirit's enlightenment and conviction. A person could knock on the arc, but the door still would have had to been opened for the person to be saved, yet those people blew their chance because they were warned. We we seek and knock, it is still GOD THAT SAVES. Coming to Christ of your own volition has absolutely nothing to do with you "saving yourself". It is still the shed blood of Christ and His resurrection that paid for sin.

What the Calvinist has done is assumed that the coming itself is part of salvation which demeans the gospel because it is not the process by which a man comes to Christ, but CHRIST HIMSELF that is salvation. The process is a means, but the process itself is not salvation and Calvinism has elevated the process above that which the Bible does not support. The coming to Christ is man's free will, the saving of that man is ALL CHRIST.

NOWHERE in the Bible is faith said to be a gift. That is Calvinist presupposition. You can't take a concordance and find one single reference in the Bible where faith is a gift. Only a misinterpretation of ONE passage leads to this error in Eph 2:8 where the gift is SALVATION, not faith. Gifts are used to produce fruit, works. If faith is a gift, then you are calling faith a work, and if you claim to be saved THROUGH FAITH which is clear in Ephesias 2:8, then you are saying also that you are saved THROUGH WORKS if faith is a work.

We, as sinners, are totally depraved, and have no way of saving ourselves. Now, I agree that the dead sinner can, and does hear God. And they who are dead and hear, shall live(John 5:25). But God has to first act upon that sinner before He can be saved. In our condmened state, we had no desire to come to Him. God must first call/draw us to Him, before we would even want to come to Him....or at least that's how it was with me.

You were right on target there until after John 5:25. In Acts 10, Cornelius WANTED to come to God, and God said that his alms came up as a remembrance before God, and he had Peter sent to him. The Holy Spirit did not come upon Cornelius until AFTER he believed.

Many Calvinists rely on John 1:13 as a proof text and skip John 1:12, "as many as received him gave he the power to become the sons of God". Notice the RECEIVING came before the POWER.

Election is more to do with Christ than anything. Read Isaiah 42, and then John 15. Election should be focused on Him, and not man. Now, I agree that we have free will, but not the "willy nilly" flavor. We don't have a multitude of options to choose from. When He calls, we must be obedient to that call, or we won't be saved.

Having free will and then saying that free will was given to you is an oxymoron and what's called a Hobson's Choice. That's not free will at all. That's duress. God created man with an innate ability to choose good or evil. There is a huge difference in God permitting man to choose because that's how He created them, and then forcing their choices. A man can not be both bound to his will and then free to choose at the same time. The Bible never says you are bound simply because you are unregenerate, that is a misreading of Eph 2:2, it says you are bound by what you OBEY

"Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" Romans 6:16

You can either obey by obeying the natural sin nature that you are in, and obey unto death, or you can obey the gospel, and live. Romans 6:17, 2 Thess 1:8-9, Hebrews 11:8, Romans 10:16, 1 Peter 1:22, Galations 3:1.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Who is "calvinist"? I would think that it was a typo and that you meant "calvinists" plural but you have typed it several times.


As far as a straight face: tell me, can someone come to Christ without the Father first drawing him?

Thanks for the correction, it is plural

However, I also spelled it with a capital "C" and you spelled it wrong both times. I also note that your own name does not have the proper capitalization.

So if you are going to be petty and play grammar police, make sure you take the beam out of your own eye first!

The answer to your question is in post 11.

 

[saturneptune]

This is a clear example that demonstrates that a person can be dead in sin and seek Christ, be non "elect", and be saved, and do so of her own free will.

You can add to the non elected Humphrey, McGovern, Ford, Mondale, Dukakis, Dole, Gore, McCain, and Romney.

 

[Greektim]

The main assertion in the OP makes an extremely fallacious blunder by equating all uses of "election" to 1 kind of election: Israel's election. The Bible points out various elections. Angels are elect, but they certainly aren't ethnic Israel. Jesus was elect, but in the context of Peter not in the sense of the nation Israel. And saints individually are elect, both Jew and Gentile.

So in one sense, the OP is correct in that a non-elect person was "saved". But the election that the person was not participating in was the election of Israel the nation. However, she certainly participated in the individual election and therefore the OP is incorrect in that regard.

 

[DrJamesAch]

.

The main assertion in the OP makes an extremely fallacious blunder by equating all uses of "election" to 1 kind of election: Israel's election. The Bible points out various elections. Angels are elect, but they certainly aren't ethnic Israel. Jesus was elect, but in the context of Peter not in the sense of the nation Israel. And saints individually are elect, both Jew and Gentile.

The Bible points out various elections.

And yet Calvinism refers to THE elect.

The fact that you acknowledge that elect has a plural function, including angels, shows that the Calvinistic presuppositional usage of this term is erroneous. You can not equivocate by using elect as a term for those you consider drawn to Christ in the NT, and then fall back on the actual usage of elect when it is demonstrated that Calvinism has distorted the distinctions between the church and Israel. Pick one or the other, you can't have all the elect cake and eat it to. Elect either means what Calvinism says it does as limited to ONLY those who come to Christ, or it in fact does have different meanings as you readily admit, and therefore renders the classic Calvinistic definition of elect erroneous.

Jesus was elect,

That is almost a very dangerous statement that demeans the deity of Christ if you apply election to Christ in the same way you assume it's definition in Calvinism. Although you don't really expound on what you mean by this, Jesus would only be "elect" in the sense that He was chosen to suffer, die, and rise from the dead which only shows that election is designed for a specific purpose and destiny, but the person "elected" is still obligated to meet the conditions. Christ being "elected" to go to the cross, still said, "Not as I will, but as thou will". Christ CHOSE to lay down His life and that can not be refuted in Scripture.

So in one sense, the OP is correct in that a non-elect person was "saved". But the election that the person was not participating in was the election of Israel the nation. However, she certainly participated in the individual election and therefore the OP is incorrect in that regard.

Again, there is no such thing as a distinction between corporate election and individual election BEFORE SALVATION WAS OFFERED TO NON ISRAELITES. Jesus made this plain as day when He said, "I am not come but to the lost sheep OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL" and "It is not meet to cast the childrens bread and give it to the dogs". That is a clear statement that she was neither corporately nor individually included in ANY election.

Election of Gentiles was not a factor until Israel rejected Christ. Matthew 23:39, Acts 7:51;

" Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." Acts 13:46, the Jews reject Christ in Asia.

"And when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean; from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles." Acts 18:6, the Jews reject Christ in Greece, representing Europe.

"Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it." Acts 28:28, which finally led to Israel being set aside, Romans 11:25-26, but they will be raised from the dead during the tribulation, Romans 11:15.

There is absolutely no justification for reading into the text that any non Jewish person was part of any individual election schema before salvation was offered to the Gentiles. That is simply NOT in the Bible.

 

[Greektim]

And yet Calvinism refers to THE elect.

The fact that you acknowledge that elect has a plural function, including angels, shows that the Calvinistic presuppositional usage of this term is erroneous. You can not equivocate by using elect as a term for those you consider drawn to Christ in the NT, and then fall back on the actual usage of elect when it is demonstrated that Calvinism has distorted the distinctions between the church and Israel. Pick one or the other, you can't have all the elect cake and eat it to. Elect either means what Calvinism says it does as limited to ONLY those who come to Christ, or it in fact does have different meanings as you readily admit, and therefore renders the classic Calvinistic definition of elect erroneous.

You misunderstand me. I am not saying election has a "plural function." I am saying there are plural elections of various types.

That is almost a very dangerous statement that demeans the deity of Christ if you apply election to Christ in the same way you assume it's definition in Calvinism. Although you don't really expound on what you mean by this, Jesus would only be "elect" in the sense that He was chosen to suffer, die, and rise from the dead which only shows that election is designed for a specific purpose and destiny, but the person "elected" is still obligated to meet the conditions. Christ being "elected" to go to the cross, still said, "Not as I will, but as thou will". Christ CHOSE to lay down His life and that can not be refuted in Scripture.

I'm not sure I agree that the election of Jesus is a dangerous statement since Peter uses that language himself. While Jesus did lay down his own life, it was the Father's will and desire to kill him (Isa. 53).

Again, there is no such thing as a distinction between corporate election and individual election BEFORE SALVATION WAS OFFERED TO NON ISRAELITES. Jesus made this plain as day when He said, "I am not come but to the lost sheep OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL" and "It is not meet to cast the childrens bread and give it to the dogs". That is a clear statement that she was neither corporately nor individually included in ANY election.

That could simply be because the concept of election as developed with the progress of revelation simply unveiled other types of revelation. I would grant you that the OT seems to only focus on national election of Israel (for the purpose of ministry, mind you). But the NT further reveals other "elections" if you will.

There is absolutely no justification for reading into the text that any non Jewish person was part of any individual election schema before salvation was offered to the Gentiles. That is simply NOT in the Bible.

This is why you need to understand the mission of Israel. Salvation was always offered to gentiles in a real sense. Their election was for the blessing of the nations. And so individual election went along w/ Israel's national election.

 

[AresMan]

I believe the contention of election among Calvinists and Non Calvinists is the failure to understand what election is and what it is not, and the differences in the different "elects" through out the Bible: Sorry for the teaser but I'm saving that explanation for another thread on Romans 9-11.

Israel was God's elect. "For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me." Isaiah 45:4. When Jesus came His audience were the JEWS.

"I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" Matthew 15:24.

So up to this point, the "elect" were still the nation of Israel. So far so good.
However, when Jesus made this statement, it was in context of a woman from Canaan who was begging him deliver her daughter from a devil.

"Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour." Matthew 15:21-27.

Three things to notice about this story that is a solid refutation against the Calvinist foundation of total depravity, free will, and election.

1. This woman was NOT ELECT. She was saved because her faith in Christ and her daughter was healed. BUT SHE WAS NOT ELECT.

2. This woman SOUGHT CHRIST, and yet she was not elect. She was not "given repentance" or "given faith". She was an unconverted Canaanite that was outside of the election of Israel, and yet in her unconverted state, she sought Christ out.

3. When Jesus commended her faith, He said "woman great is they faith, be it unto thee even as THOU WILT.

This is a clear example that demonstrates that a person can be dead in sin and seek Christ, be non "elect", and be saved, and do so of her own free will.

Under the Old Covenant the nation of Israel was "elect," but the faithful remnant throughout that God reserved to Himself were the "Israel within Israel"--the real elect. This elect nation consisted of mostly Jews and some Gentiles who became proselytes. God never made a promise to Jews based solely on their genetics. They had the Word of God first made readily available, but Gentiles from other nations could always become part of Israel and intermarry. The laws about intermarriage had nothing to do with genetics, but everything to do with avoiding paganism. Rahab and Ruth were in the line of Christ, and they were not pure Jews.

Under the New Covenant, "all shall know Me from the least to the greatest of them." This all is Israel under the constitution of the New Covenant--the faithful remnant of Jewish Israel with Gentiles grafted in by faith--the new olive tree. Now, all God's elect by definition of covenant have faith.

Tit 1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;

 

[DrJamesAch]

Under the Old Covenant the nation of Israel was "elect," but the faithful remnant throughout that God reserved to Himself were the "Israel within Israel"--the real elect. This elect nation consisted of mostly Jews and some Gentiles who became proselytes. God never made a promise to Jews based solely on their genetics. They had the Word of God first made readily available, but Gentiles from other nations could always become part of Israel and intermarry. The laws about intermarriage had nothing to do with genetics, but everything to do with avoiding paganism. Rahab and Ruth were in the line of Christ, and they were not pure Jews.

Under the New Covenant, "all shall know Me from the least to the greatest of them." This all is Israel under the constitution of the New Covenant--the faithful remnant of Jewish Israel with Gentiles grafted in by faith--the new olive tree. Now, all God's elect by definition of covenant have faith.

Tit 1:1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;

I disagree that genetics was not a factor. It was not a salvific factor, but that was not the argument. That only becomes a contention if you view election as synonymous with salvation. Israels election based on their heritage was not the CAUSE of their salvation, but to the EXCLUSION of all others outside of Israel, and those who became proselytized were the exception, not the rule, and it is the exception itself that proves that Calvinism has misinterpreted the definition of election.

The Calvinist view of election of NT saints can not be consistent with OT saints, or the future remnant of Romans 11 that will saved during the tribulation because the Calvinist view of election is that of a predetermined decree that must remain consistent without alteration. If the election is changed then that alters the course of election. The election of the Gentiles was made IN TIME because of the rejection of Christ by Israel. And hence, this is why the Gentiles were "grafted in".

What this demonstrates is that GOD CHANGED HIS MIND which changed His PLANS. [For those who will select Hebrews 13 "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and for ever" keep in mind this refers to His NATURE, not His plans. Study the references of repent as applied to God throughout the OT] Although God has shown to Paul in Ephesians 3 that because of Israel's rejection that God would include the Gentiles (Isaiah ch 11), this is what God PREDICTED not what He DETERMINED. But because God DESIRED the salvation of the Gentiles because "God so love the WORLD", election would now include the Gentiles. Romans 11:16-26

Election is the PLAN that God has for those who trust Him. Election is not a list of names that God checks off as He imposes repentance against someones will. Election is the description of what occurs to a person that trusts Christ as Saviour. God chose ahead of time what a persons destiny will be IF they meet His conditions, and His condition was simple: believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. A person who forsakes themselves and trusts Christ alone for salvation is a person that HAS repented. When the person believes on Christ, he then becomes partaker of what God has elected for him, which includes salvation by grace that can never be lost, and whatever gifts God bestows on that person to aid in the edification of the body of Christ.

THAT is election and the meaning behind Romans 8:28-30, Eph 2:10 and "many are call but few are chosen". And thus a person can be elected, and REJECT their election. The election includes an inheritance, but that person must become adopted through faith in Christ and only then, in that sense is that persons election complete.

 

[quantumfaith]

And that's a rebuttal? Someone needs to give back their ULC ordination and take that "Preacher" out of their name.

:applause::applause::applause::applause:

 

[canadyjd]

...."I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" Matthew 15:24...."Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. ...... Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour." Matthew 15:21-27.

Three things to notice about this story that is a solid refutation against the Calvinist foundation of total depravity, free will, and election.

Ok, let's take a look.

1. This woman was NOT ELECT. She was saved because her faith in Christ and her daughter was healed. BUT SHE WAS NOT ELECT.

No where in the passage does it say the woman was saved, or that she was seeking salvation. She came searching for Jesus because of His reputation as a miracle worker and her daughter needed help. She bowed down before Him (worshipped Him) as someone begging for help for her daughter, not for her salvation.

2. This woman SOUGHT CHRIST, and yet she was not elect. She was not "given repentance" or "given faith". She was an unconverted Canaanite that was outside of the election of Israel, and yet in her unconverted state, she sought Christ out.

Again, she sought Christ for the help He could give to her daughter, not as a sinner looking for forgiveness.

3. When Jesus commended her faith, He said "woman great is they faith, be it unto thee even as THOU WILT.

Yes, He did. He didn't say, "you're sins are forgiven" or "you're faith has saved you", as He did in other places. He commends her for her belief that He is able to heal her daughter, and then He gives her the desire of her heart which is to have her daughter healed.

A beautiful story demonstrating our Lord's compassion toward sinners.

This is a clear example that demonstrates that a person can be dead in sin and seek Christ, be non "elect", and be saved, and do so of her own free will.

I do understand that you believe that, but it is far from clear, and the text actually points against, the woman sought Christ out because of repentance for sins or for personal salvation. She sought Christ for her daughter's sake, and Christ gave her the desire of her heart, which wasn't salvation from sins, but healing for her daughter.