Calvanism Application

[Pastor Larry]

I know who it's in reference to. We are in Christ...it's actually quite simple.

But Scripture applies the word "elect" or "chosen" to people other than Christ, and to people before they are "in Christ." On what basis does it do so?

 

[Amy.G]

But Scripture applies the word "elect" or "chosen" to people other than Christ, and to people before they are "in Christ." On what basis does it do so?

Hi Pastor. Where does scripture speak of "the elect" in reference to those who are not in Christ?

 

[MB]

"We are often told that we limit the atonement of Christ, because we say that Christ has not made satisfaction for all men, or all men would be saved. Now, our reply to this is, that, on the other hand, our opponents limit it: we do not. The Arminians say, Christ died for all men. Ask them what they mean by it. Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of all men. They say, "No, certainly not." We ask them the next question--Did Christ die so as to secure the salvation of any man in particular? They answer, "No." They are obliged to admit this, if they are consistent. They say, "No, Christ has died that any man may be saved if..." --and then follow certain conditions of salvation. Now, who is it that limits the death of Christ? Why, you. You say that Christ did not die so as to secure the salvation of anybody. We beg your pardon, when you say that we limits Christ's death; we say, "no my dear sir, it is you that do it." We say Christ so died that he infallibly secured the salvation of a multitude that no man can number, who through Christ's death not only may be saved, but are saved, must be saved and cannot by any possibility run the hazard of being anything but saved. You are welcome to your atonement; you may keep it. We will never renounce ours for the sake of it."
Charles Spurgeon

I don't claim to be an arminian thankyou. However the fact is Calvinist do limit the atonement by election from before the foundation of the earth. In that no one is saved with out first being elected. How ever when the Ninevites are mentioned they then claim they were elected when God sent them Jonah. Yet at the time Jews were the only elect. Ninevites were Gentiles

I do not believe the atonement is limited because Salvation has been made availiable to all by the atonement. The atonement it self saves no one. I agree with some things never the less Calvinist believe if you're elected you will be saved. I believe God is Sovereign. I do not believe man is regenerated before Salvation so that he may believe.
Election is in Christ as the bible says it is. it is never apart from Christ so unless you weren't born in sin youy are not elected until you are in Christ.
I believe we are first called or drawn by God if we weren't we would never come to Christ. Not because we can't but because we will not come to the light.(JN 3) I believe that through the hearing of the gospel and the working of the Holy Spirit opening our minds we become convinced of the truth. During the whole process we can rebel although rebellion is our only choice. Yes we are undeserving, yes we can believe before regeneration if we become convinced of the truth by God and we all are who are saved.

It doesn't just end there and every thing is fine. Because since Salvation is all of God our belief alone can't save us. The Jews believe in God yet they aren't saved. The reason is submission to His righteousness which is submitting to His Son Rom 10:1-4.

We are first convinced by God and the conviction produced by the convincing takes us to our knees in submission. With out our giving up the rebellion we cannot be saved. And with out the faith of Christ we cannot be saved.
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Gal 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
Gal 2:18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
Gal 2:19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Gal 2:21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

What do I mean by the faith of Christ. Lots of people don't believe Christ had any faith.
His faith was demonstrated in His going to the cross and laying down His life down for us and then taking it up again on the third day. His faith was perfect faith because through His faith He was successful in all that He planned. His faith was a selfless act on our behalf and He gave up His life for us willingly. No one took it from Him, He gave it for our sins. We are saved by His faith and that is how it is all of God. It is not works to be willing. Works is keeping the Law and there is no such law to be willing.

MB

 

[Pastor Larry]

Where does scripture speak of "the elect" in reference to those who are not in Christ?

I didn't say the Scripture used "elect" in reference to those who are not in Christ.

Eph 1 clearly uses it with reference to "before the foundation of the world" when no one was in Christ. 2 Thess 2 uses it without any reference to being in Christ.

 

[Me4Him]

Me 4 Him: The will of God none perish is actually over ruled by the Law and man's will on the day of Judgment.

This is absurd! God's will overruled?.....NEVER!
When He says that He is not willing that any shall perish, THEN none perishes. He is speaking of His people. The people that Christ came to save.

Stop making God out to be a failure.

I'm glad you recognize the error of your position,

If people perish against God's will, then quite obviously, they wasn't "predestined" to perish "by God's will".

And that is point, God's will is not on trial, but "MAN'S WILL", to believe or not believe.

Ro 6:16 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?

God's will is not involved in the process, God/Jesus provided the means that we "might be" saved,

But the choice to believe or not, is left up to the "Will of man", and man's will, whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness, is what Judges the person.

God is looking for people, who of their own "free will", choose God, and if we believe him, he'll chose us to saved.

God doesn't sort out whom he wants to save, we do the sorting ourselves by our belief/unbelief.

 

[webdog]

But Scripture applies the word "elect" or "chosen" to people other than Christ, and to people before they are "in Christ." On what basis does it do so?

We are all one in Christ...what applies to Him applies to us.

 

[webdog]

I didn't say the Scripture used "elect" in reference to those who are not in Christ.

Eph 1 clearly uses it with reference to "before the foundation of the world" when no one was in Christ. 2 Thess 2 uses it without any reference to being in Christ.

Christ was the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world...we are in Christ...like I said, it's quite simple...but you err in your statement that no one was in Christ then. If we are in Him, we were.

 

[Pastor Larry]

We are all one in Christ...what applies to Him applies to us.

Really? So we are interceding for ourselves with the Father? We are the light of the new Jerusalem? We are the propitiation for our own sins?

Do you want to rethink that or should I continue?

Christ was the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world...we are in Christ...like I said, it's quite simple...but you err in your statement that no one was in Christ then. If we are in Him, we were.

So we didn't have any choice? You mean to tell us that non-existent entities (an oxymoron for sure) were in Christ by virtue of doing absolutely nothing (which is the only thing a non-existent entity)? You mean that these non-existent entities who had never believed were considered "in Christ"?

You are more of a Calvinist than I am if you actually believe that. Of course, I don't think you actually believe that.

 

[Amy.G]

I didn't say the Scripture used "elect" in reference to those who are not in Christ.

Eph 1 clearly uses it with reference to "before the foundation of the world" when no one was in Christ. 2 Thess 2 uses it without any reference to being in Christ.

"Since the foundation of the world" means that it was God's plan long before He created anything. It was His plan to elect Christ as the Savior and all those who believe in Him to also be elect.

 

[Jarthur001]

"Be a Bible man, go so far as the Bible, but not an inch beyond it. Though Calvin should beckon you, and you esteem him, or Wesley should beckon, and you esteem him, keep to the Scripture, to the Scripture only." ---Charles Spurgeon

and yet all you do on Calvinism threads is quote Spurgeon. Out of context at that.

Why not back your views from scripture? Just a thought.

 

[webdog]

Really? So we are interceding for ourselves with the Father? We are the light of the new Jerusalem? We are the propitiation for our own sins?

Non sequitur...I never said we were 'gods', nor does this apply to the discussion of salvation.
Will you deny that we are joint heirs with Christ? Will you deny we shared in His death, burial and resurrection?

Do you want to rethink that or should I continue?

You can continue, but there is nothing to rethink.

So we didn't have any choice? You mean to tell us that non-existent entities (an oxymoron for sure) were in Christ by virtue of doing absolutely nothing (which is the only thing a non-existent entity)? You mean that these non-existent entities who had never believed were considered "in Christ"?

You aren't making any sense, and are erecting strawmen as I am not telling you anything of the sort. If these so called "non existent entities" were elect before the foundation of the world as you stated, what are you arguing against? Who said we never had a choice?

You are more of a Calvinist than I am if you actually believe that. Of course, I don't think you actually believe that.

Believe what?

 

[Jarthur001]

First this thread is not a discussion about creation but Calvin and Calvinism and its applicability.

Yes I know this

I'm not discussion creation but John Calvin.

This I also know. I point out that your logic is in error across the board, not to jump subjects.

I'm showing Calvins historical background.

This is what you asked me "thinking".
You asked..

Ask yourself this question what was his occupation in France before Geneva?

I gave the right answer

He studied philosophy at College Montaigu later he studied law at University at Orleans and then went to the University of Borgues to study under Andreas Alcaiti who was a humanist lawyer.

This is about part of his education, not his job.

A movement that emphasised Classical studies.

I'll give you that.

My point was that he was a trained Lawyer and understood Classical Philosophy which is evident in his work.

He did indeed among other things.

You think I'm making jumps of logic but I'm not I've changed track here is the course of discussion:

You have only looked at part of his education "thinking". Much more goes into this than a few years at law school. One is that he knew the Bible very well having an early RCC education. He rejected the RCC theology and left with others to another country.

In 1533 (after his training as a lawyer) Calvin had a conversion that he writes about in his foreword to his commentary on the Psalms.

His friend Wolmar, taught Calvin Greek. IN Switzerland Calvin gave himself to the study of Hebrew.

1) creation on another thread. Totally irrelevant to this disucussion

The subject yes....the logic is the same.

2) discussion of Calvinism via my taking the role of an athiest from an example of a person at work.

you have said this many times

3) Your request to make a new thread so we can emphasis on Calvinism and a discussion there.

and if you read the thread, Calvinism and athiesm is what you have talked about and all others have talked about Calvinism.

4) I started the same motiff of arguing from a non-christian perspective.

Yes...but why I'm not sure.

5) you and others began to think that I was putting forward my own personal view of God which is not the Case.

this is what you said more than once.

6) You ask what I really personally believe and I respond

ok

7) you ask that I speak from a christian perspective I change course and do

ok

8) Now I'm putting forward actual history to regard Calvin in light of his works.

or at least trying

Now I'm stating Calvins theology is based in classic philosophy of the stoics and come dangerously close to a stoic belief of destiny with regard to his doctrine of election.

I know full well what your saying. This is why I disagree. Do you not think that Calvinist have not checked the Bible to see if the doctrines lineup with Scirpture? Please!!!

Are you getting it now?

Always have.

 

[MB]

I didn't say the Scripture used "elect" in reference to those who are not in Christ.

Eph 1 clearly uses it with reference to "before the foundation of the world" when no one was in Christ. 2 Thess 2 uses it without any reference to being in Christ.

2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
It still tells me the same thing that we are saved when we are chosen. I believe that Sacitification comes after Justification. So we are still in Christ.
MB

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Yes I know this

Just as long as we're clear. As I've mentioned to you before I lean towards Calvinism. So, I find it difficult arguing against. But I also don't think discussion boards are well served with everyone agreeing. I call it back patting. I think there should good opposing discussion to sharpen our skills for those times when we debate those who are vehimently opposed to us. To oppose your position I was building my case that the Calvin's training initially for the priesthood until his family felt that he would be more secure as a lawyer was educated in Classical studies which includes stoic philosophy. Also your training shapes how you approach the bible. Calvin was converted shortly after his experience in Renessance humanism with his mentor Andrias Alciati. Which we know was steeped in the classics. To show his familiarity with the Classics we see that his first works in 1532 was a commentary on Seneca's De Clementia. Then I wanted to show how classic philosophy had commonly "colored" the views of men of that time period when exegete (ing) scripture. For instance Anslem and more commonly known Thomas Aquinas not to mention Erasemus. I chose Anselm since it is earlier development to that of Calvin and he uses scriptures but attacks the passages using philosophers methodology. I submit Calvin does so as well. How? Well I quoted the very begining of The Institutes with regard to God which can be closely defined as the first cause. Thomas Aquinas does this as well though he calls it exactly that.
We see that an attempt to make Calvin's Treatise or Apology of his beliefs more palatable to those looking for more simplicity; Calvin's students outlined what they believed Calvins view as TULIP. Specifically I wanted to view election which is demonstrated in his Uncondictional election aspect. Which resembles Stocism of the Classics. By it Calvin ignores verses like 1 John 2:2

2He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for[a] the sins of the whole world.

1 tim 2:4

4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

and James 5:19-20

19My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, 20remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

which questions directly the perserverance of the Saints.

 

[Pastor Larry]

"Since the foundation of the world" means that it was God's plan long before He created anything.

I agree

It was His plan to elect Christ as the Savior and all those who believe in Him to also be elect.

That's not what the text says is it?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Non sequitur...I never said we were 'gods', nor does this apply to the discussion of salvation.

You said that every thing that applied to Christ applies to us.

Will you deny that we are joint heirs with Christ? Will you deny we shared in His death, burial and resurrection?

No.

You can continue, but there is nothing to rethink.

What you said was no doubt unintentional, and the result of failing to think carefully, but it was heresy. I would simply encourage you to be more careful with statements like that.

You aren't making any sense, and are erecting strawmen as I am not telling you anything of the sort. If these so called "non existent entities" were elect before the foundation of the world as you stated, what are you arguing against? Who said we never had a choice?

You did. You are saying that we were in Christ before the foundation of the world: "you err in your statement that no one was in Christ then. If we are in Him, we were" (that is quote from you). How is something taht doesn't even exist "in Christ"? And by what novel view of Scripture can someone who doesn't believe be in Christ? That is not a straw man.

Believe what?

Believe that we were in Christ before the foundation of the world, before we existed, and before we believed.

I am remembering yet again why I don't get in these conversations often. It doesn't get anywhere because people don't think about what the Bible actually says and the implications of their statements.

 

[Pastor Larry]

2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

It still tells me the same thing that we are saved when we are chosen.

Huh?In the verse, we were chosen to salvation ("chosen you to salvation") and it was "from the beginning" or "before the foundation of the world" so we know that it cannot be on the basis of belief because no one believed before they existed. It is an impossibility.

I believe that Sacitification comes after Justification.

Depending on the type of sanctification we are talkign about. The sanctification of 2 thess 2:13 comes before salvation. It is a setting apart for salvation.

Again, I would urge you to pay particular attention to the text itself.

 

[Amy.G]

"Since the foundation of the world" means that it was God's plan long before He created anything.

I agree

It was His plan to elect Christ as the Savior and all those who believe in Him to also be elect.

That's not what the text says is it?

Yes it is.

Eph. 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world,

 

[Me4Him]

We are the propitiation for our own sins?

If I might use your remark to make a point.

God "predestined" that those saved would "Conform to Jesus's image",

part of that conforming, is crucifying our old man, the body of sin.

Ro 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed,

Of course this is a "spiritual crucifixion" rather than literal, as will be the other points I make.

But the life of the flesh is in the blood, so to crucify the body of sin, the blood must be shed.

Le 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

Before Adam sinned he was kept alive by spirit, after sin blood replaced the spirit, but to get back to Adam's original state, we have to be willing to shed/sacrifice the life/blood of the flesh, for the spirit, as Jesus did.

The "day of Atonement" a "Scapegoat" (Jesus) and a "Goat for the people", (representing our body) were sacrificed for sin,

If both "Goats" are not sacrificed, Atonement is incomplete.

Ro 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice,

We sacrifce our bodies (flesh/blood) as an offering for our own personal sin, (Goat for the people) while the sins of the world are placed on the Scapegoat.

So yes, we make a propitiation sacrifice of the life/blood of our "body of sin" as Jesus made for the whole world.

 

[MB]

Huh?In the verse, we were chosen to salvation ("chosen you to salvation") and it was "from the beginning" or "before the foundation of the world" so we know that it cannot be on the basis of belief because no one believed before they existed. It is an impossibility.

Not anymore than the impossibility of being saved when we are worth the trouble.

Depending on the type of sanctification we are talkign about. The sanctification of 2 thess 2:13 comes before salvation. It is a setting apart for salvation.

Sorry but I've never heard of of two sancitifications. This is really a first for me being sancitified before Salvation. So are we made holy so that we are worth saving? You see being sancitified is being made holy and set aside. How can we be holy while still in our sins?

Again, I would urge you to pay particular attention to the text itself.

Advice that you should follow your self.
MB