Featured Conditional Election

I disagree that faith is a work of any kind. You are correct about Ephesians 2:8, that salvation is the gift, not faith, but consider the implications if faith is a work.

Eph 2:8 says we are saved THROUGH FAITH. If faith is a work, and the 2 are synonymous, then that essentially argues that we are SAVED THROUGH WORKS.

"And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work." Romans 11:6

"Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone" Romans 9:32

You can argue that faith is dead WITHOUT works, that faith cooperates with works (AFTER salvation), and that works is a by-product of faith, but the 2 are definitely not synonymous, and thus we can not say that faith is work in any sense of the words. I understand you made a distinction between work and works, but that merely clarifies the quantitative form of the word (plural or singular) not the qualitative essence of the word (faith is not work and work is not faith).

 

Van, the example in that verse is of people who appear to saved but fall away. Why? Because they were in their own strength. This is no way contradicts the doctrine of total depravity or total inability. In fact it re-enforces it.

 

This wasn't said by Jesus to show that faith is a work, but Jesus was answering their question according to the way they asked it. A similar usage of such is where the rich young ruler asked Jesus "what good thing must I do to inherit eternal life". Jesus didn't tell him that he needed to believe, but gave him a list of commandments. Jesus was not telling him to follow the law, but was answering him according to the way he asked the question. If you think that works of the law save, then this is what you need to do. He answered to prove that the law COULDN'T save him

This passage is the same. Jesus is proving to them that faith is NOT a work. This is typical Jewish rhetoric where a Jew often answers a question with a question or refutes a premise by using the same premise as the opponent. He is saying "if you think that you can work the works of God, this is how you really do God's work, by believing." Remember the question was how they could perform miracles (v 26) that's what they were looking for. So Jesus response is not only correcting their view of faith and works, but showing them that if they want to produce the kind of works that Christ is performing, that belief is required to produce the work of God and that those works themselves are the work of God, not because they can work to produce works.

And the moral of the story as well was that Jesus was looking at the bigger picture while they were merely focused on the miracles.

 

There is nothing in that text that even remotely suggests this is an example of someone who appears to be saved and then falls away. Jews always had an interest and fascination with signs and miracles. 1 Cor 1:22. That is what this text shows and Jesus is correcting their views.

Good night these were new listeners. At least give Jesus a chance to preach to them first before you write them off as "fallen". You can't fall from something you haven't had yet, and when you have it you can't fall from it. That assessment is totally non sequitur to his point.

 

Conditional election is what a man practices every day. He chooses this or that and rejects the other on the basis their merits. And men are required to do so, because it is not in the power of a man to create. He cannot make that which is corrupt, whole again. Noncalvinists tend to think of God as they think of men, so it follows that conditional election is something that they attribute to God.

Jacob and Esau were equal. God chose one and rejected the other. The condition? His will.

 

God chose Jacob and rejected Esau because Esau willingly gave away his birthright to be the primary heir of their father. Furthermore, God chose Jacob after he wrestled with the angel of the LORD. It wasn't just a random lottery pick.

 

Nothin' but net

 

You and Dale C have posted correctly and it is like an oasis in a barren wasteland.
The highlighted portion of your post is the key to 85 % of the error.

 

Ach;

"
Romans 11:6 does not contrast....faith/works....but rather grace works.

 

One shot ...two kills...

None of Van"s pitches have anything to do with a conditional..choice. The text in Romans 9 is clear to those who can see.

 

So God doesn't oppose the proud and give grace to the humble? Humility and pride are not conditions?

 

WD,

Clearly God opposes the proud.That verse has nothing to do with individual election unto salvation. God does not elect based on any forseen conditions in the sinner.We are all guilty before God before He saves us. His choice was not based on anything in us.
Ach completely misses the purpose of Romans 9

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.

The passage cannot be clearer,can it?

2._____ This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, nor from any power or agency in the creature, being wholly passive therein, being dead in sins and trespasses, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit; he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it, and that by no less power than that which raised up Christ from the dead.
( 2 Timothy 1:9; Ephesians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 2:14; Ephesians 2:5; John 5:25; Ephesians 1:19, 20 )

 

The OP was setting the grounds for conditional election to be true. Even that passage you provided shows there is a condition, but the condition did not include Jacob or Esau doing good or bad. Its a huge leap to conclude from that election is unconditional.

 

The context of wd's 'proof text' is to believers, or, even in a tighter context, the 'elect' (which is by the way synonymous terminology) and this is to whom the passage is written.

It has absolutely nothing to do with conditions of salvation, nor does it support 'conditional' election. Funny how anti-cals believe in and use the doctrine of election when it's 'conditional', isn't it? :applause:

Anyhow, to use it (1 Peter 5:5) as such is to misuse Scripture, is not rightly handling the word of truth, and is divorcing it from its intended context. :thumbs:

- Blessings

 

The only base for election is what Aaron posted.Even when God singled out Israel as a nation he basically said this:

6 For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

7 The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:

8 But because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt


His will expressed in the covenant of redemption ...based solely on God's loyal love...His oath... His purpose was the only reason given,

 

Israel: A brand plucked from the fire.

Wonder what that means?

Hmmm. It's not that hard. It's called unconditional election. :thumbsup:

- Blessings