Elect does not mean "saved at birth"

[Dale-c]

Many people misrepresent calvinists thinking that we believe that we were born saved since we are elect.
THis is NOT the case, though some hyper cals will believe this heresy.

When we elect a new president, he has already been elected. He will become president the next January. But He is not there yet.
God's elect are the same in that they are not saved just by birth, they are sinners at birth and must believe and repent to be saved.
It is just that God has elected them to SOMEDAY in their lifetime get saved.

Just as a president who dies before his inauguration will never actually be president, one of the elect who would die before salvation would go to hell.
The difference is that God is long-suffering, not willing that ANY of His elect should perish but that ALL should come to repentance.

It is impossible for ANY of God's elect to perish before their salvation.

Even if you do not agree, I hope that those of you that misunderstood this about Calvinism will understand better now.

 

[menageriekeeper]

'Fraid that still doesn't explain these verses:

2pe 3:9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Joh 3:14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:Joh 3:15That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.Joh 3:16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.Joh 3:17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.Joh 3:18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.





1ti 2:4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

 

[skypair]

God's elect are the same in that they are not saved just by birth, they are sinners at birth and must believe and repent to be saved. It is just that God has elected them to SOMEDAY in their lifetime get saved.

The problem with this is that, if God elected them to SOMEDAY be saved, then they would be saved SOMEDAY and NEVER eternally lost.

I know your heart is in the right place but I believe this whole theology was constructed with the purpose of saving infants who, being born totally depraved, would go to hell otherwise. Early Calvinism included as "elect" 1) infants who were baptized into the church and 2) infants whose parents were "elect." They taught that any infants outside these to classes would die and go to hell. So, in essence, elect infants were saved -- unless they grew up not to live holy lives.

It's more complicated than "systematic" would have you believe. :laugh:

skypair

 

[James_Newman]

Many people misrepresent calvinists thinking that we believe that we were born saved since we are elect.
THis is NOT the case, though some hyper cals will believe this heresy.

When we elect a new president, he has already been elected. He will become president the next January. But He is not there yet.
God's elect are the same in that they are not saved just by birth, they are sinners at birth and must believe and repent to be saved.
It is just that God has elected them to SOMEDAY in their lifetime get saved.

Just as a president who dies before his inauguration will never actually be president, one of the elect who would die before salvation would go to hell.
The difference is that God is long-suffering, not willing that ANY of His elect should perish but that ALL should come to repentance.

It is impossible for ANY of God's elect to perish before their salvation.

Even if you do not agree, I hope that those of you that misunderstood this about Calvinism will understand better now.

So Calvinism teaches that elect babies are immortal until they become saved?

 

[pinoybaptist]

Many people misrepresent calvinists thinking that we believe that we were born saved since we are elect.
THis is NOT the case, though some hyper cals will believe this heresy.

When we elect a new president, he has already been elected. He will become president the next January. But He is not there yet.
God's elect are the same in that they are not saved just by birth, they are sinners at birth and must believe and repent to be saved.
It is just that God has elected them to SOMEDAY in their lifetime get saved.

Just as a president who dies before his inauguration will never actually be president, one of the elect who would die before salvation would go to hell.
The difference is that God is long-suffering, not willing that ANY of His elect should perish but that ALL should come to repentance.

It is impossible for ANY of God's elect to perish before their salvation.

Even if you do not agree, I hope that those of you that misunderstood this about Calvinism will understand better now.

I really don't see any difference between you and Harold Camping in this regard, and yet many Calvinists would not want to be associated with him.

My question now is : if the elect, after the cross, here in time, are not born saved, then whom did Christ redeem at the cross with His blood ?

I think you are putting "saved" and "regenerate" in one plate when you say that all the elect are sinners at birth and must believe and repent to be saved.

Now, before you all start calling me a heretic, answer the question very satisfactorily with Scriptures, please.

 

[Dale-c]

I really don't see any difference between you and Harold Camping in this regard, and yet many Calvinists would not want to be associated with him.

My question now is : if the elect, after the cross, here in time, are not born saved, then whom did Christ redeem at the cross with His blood ?

I think you are putting "saved" and "regenerate" in one plate when you say that all the elect are sinners at birth and must believe and repent to be saved.

Now, before you all start calling me a heretic, answer the question very satisfactorily with Scriptures, please.

I am not quite understanding your question, please restate and if I am using the wrong terms, please let me know.

My point is that election does not negate the need for repentance and belief.
Would you say that regeneration is a more proper term rather than saved that I should have used?

That is an honest question, if you can show me that I will back up my statement.

 

[J.D.]

I really don't see any difference between you and Harold Camping in this regard, and yet many Calvinists would not want to be associated with him.

My question now is : if the elect, after the cross, here in time, are not born saved, then whom did Christ redeem at the cross with His blood ?

I think you are putting "saved" and "regenerate" in one plate when you say that all the elect are sinners at birth and must believe and repent to be saved.

Now, before you all start calling me a heretic, answer the question very satisfactorily with Scriptures, please.

Pinoy, Camping is pretty much orthodox in his teaching on salvation, up to the point where he is now insisting that no one in a church can become saved, at which point he becomes an absolute whacko and no sensible Christian would have any thing to do with him.

If I were to put the issue in PB language, would it be something like this?: "The elect are born sure of salvation, because God has chosen them in eternity, and Christ has already justified them on the cross, and so they are therefore already "saved" at birth; but they will be "saved", as in, "converted", in time, by Gospel preaching." Does that sum it up?

 

[russell55]

My question now is : if the elect, after the cross, here in time, are not born saved, then whom did Christ redeem at the cross with His blood ?

I think you are putting "saved" and "regenerate" in one plate when you say that all the elect are sinners at birth and must believe and repent to be saved.

Redemption was made for the elect on the cross, but it is applied to them at the point in their life when they are regenerated and come to faith and are thus justified.

Scripture? Ephesians 2, which says that everyone (you, us, and all the rest) is naturally (how they were born) objects of God's wrath, and remain objects of God's wrath until God, in his mercy, makes us alive together with Christ. We are united with Christ when we are made alive (regenerated) and it's because of that union with Christ that occurs sometime in our life time that we leave the category of "objects of God's wrath."

 

[russell55]

Would you say that regeneration is a more proper term rather than saved that I should have used?

You seem to be using saved as a synonymn for justified, which is perfectly proper, BTW. But if you'd used justified in place of saved, maybe it would have been clearer.

Not that that would have necessarily changed Pinoy's objection, as I believe heis Primitive Baptist, and some PB's believe in eternal justification.

 

[donnA]

I'm never really sure how twisting what a person says helps you understand what they said.

 

[AresMan]

...I believe this whole theology was constructed with the purpose of saving infants who, being born totally depraved, would go to hell otherwise.

No, this whole "theology" was constructed because the Bible says

1. one must believe to be saved (Acts 16:31)
2. God elects people from the beginning to salvation (2 Th 2:14).

This "theology" simply accepts both facts at face value. One must believe in order to be saved. God elects people from the beginning to salvation. Therefore, God elects people to believe. It is through an act of God that He removes a heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh so that one who willingly rejects Christ becomes one who willingly accepts Christ.

 

[eightball]

Many people misrepresent calvinists thinking that we believe that we were born saved since we are elect.
THis is NOT the case, though some hyper cals will believe this heresy.

When we elect a new president, he has already been elected. He will become president the next January. But He is not there yet.
God's elect are the same in that they are not saved just by birth, they are sinners at birth and must believe and repent to be saved.
It is just that God has elected them to SOMEDAY in their lifetime get saved.

Just as a president who dies before his inauguration will never actually be president, one of the elect who would die before salvation would go to hell.
The difference is that God is long-suffering, not willing that ANY of His elect should perish but that ALL should come to repentance.

It is impossible for ANY of God's elect to perish before their salvation.

Even if you do not agree, I hope that those of you that misunderstood this about Calvinism will understand better now.

I would like to respectfully ask you to support, "elect who would die before salvation would go to hell."?

You seem to support the above statement by saying that God is long-suffering. How is God's long suffering protecting the "not born again" elect from dieing before alleged regeneration? Could you support that scripturally too, please?

Your quote: "It is impossible for ANY of God's elect to perish before their salvation."

I agree, but probably not from the same angle as you. The elect are also the regenerate if one studies the bible deductively, without pick and pull scriptures.
******
It still boils down to how omnipotent one believes God is IMO.

If He/God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, then surely he see's the future to the end of earthly time and also sees all things in eternity-past as well. This is a no-brainer. God has no problem identifying the elect, as He bounds human/earth time and sees each and every human life unfold from beginning to end. This is also a no-brainer. He also works in every human life as in "hedging us in" in order that we may see realize our total ineptness & weakness, and hopefully convince us to repent and ultimately aim towards a God dependent, glorifying, course of life. God sees the outcome, yet is proactive in the present as well with "Whosoever" as in 2 Pet 3:9.

I've never been able to fathom how folks can say, there's one group created by God for perdition, and one for life in heaven with God. They go on to say that God determined to do this before even Adam and Eve were in existence. Then they have the gall to say this is God's display of "grace" to the world. Where was Gods grace displayed, and how was it displayed to group #2 who were created for perdition?

At the same time, Jesus says basically that He and the Father are one. Jesus can't do anything the Father wouldn't do, and vice-versa.

Where in Jesus's ministry did He project or communicate to the Jews or world for that matter that God had pre-selected before their very physical birth, those who would be going to hell, and those that were to go to heaven. I just remember Him saying, "Come to me, all you who are heavy laden, I will give you rest.". Sounds like the whole human race was being called, as there isn't one human being created that doesn't have a burden, or have one and doesn't acknowledge it, just the same. Also, He said, "Come to me". That isn't pre-destination, but a display or indication from Christ that man can come volitionally. Of course the TULIP group will say, He's only calling the predestined. Why would Jesus call those that are going to be saved anyway?

The whole concept goes against the very public and projected nature of Christ's ministry in the N.T..

 

[webdog]

Welcome to the BB, eightball, great post :thumbs:

(I love pool by the way )

 

[Jarthur001]

For those that do not hold to original sin where all men are born sinners.....

When do you become a sinner?

 

[webdog]

For those that do not hold to original sin where all men are born sinners.....

When do you become a sinner?

When you sin.

 

[eightball]

For those that do not hold to original sin where all men are born sinners.....

When do you become a sinner?

Personal accountability before God has a way of sneaking up on all of us. Seems we're born physically, and then one day, we blink and start to wonder about life, good, evil, where we fit in, and also we start to reveal our true Adamic natures. Surprise........No free rides from thence onward. Accountability time............! Time to start thinking about jumping ship and getting a new captain of one's life.raying:

 

[pinoybaptist]

I am not quite understanding your question, please restate and if I am using the wrong terms, please let me know.

Well, the Bible says that God has His elect among the fallen race of Adam, and I know you believe this as much as I do.
Elect to what ?
Elect unto salvation is what we say.
Salvation from what ?
Salvation from God's wrath, is what we say.
Now, the Bible states that the names of these people were written down by God in the Lamb's Book of Life from before the foundation of the world.
Therefore, these are the elect, and they were redeemed unto God by Christ through His blood.
If they were redeemed by Christ unto God through His blood, and the Lamb is described as being slain from the foundation of the world and therefore before the beginning of time, therefore, in eternity past, then technically, even before time, these were all covered by the blood of the Lamb, washed clean by the blood of the Lamb, and all are in Christ, as hid in Christ as the Colossians are, and hopefully, as hid in Christ as you and me are.


Therefore, all the elect are saved in Christ, the eternal Son, in eternity past and future, and all have been redeemed by Christ at the cross, in time, as the God-man, and there is none that is not redeemed, else Christ would never have been able to say "it is finished", and neither would He be able to tell His Father that He has done what He came to do, and have lost none "save the son of perdition", unless you want to say that this phrase refers only to those who were with Christ at the time of said prayer recorded by John.

If so, then redemption has a point in time when it was incomplete because now your requirement is that all, after the cross, must repent, believe, and be saved.

Your remarks, please.

 

[Jarthur001]

When you sin.

Is this what you believe?

Would it be fair to say this about your doctrine on this subject?

"Man is born neither righteous nor unrighteous, holy nor unholy. He has simply the capacity of becoming either.
So...being endowed with reason and free will, he then becomes a sinner when he chooses sin?"

Is this what you are saying?

 

[Jarthur001]

Personal accountability before God has a way of sneaking up on all of us. Seems we're born physically, and then one day, we blink and start to wonder about life, good, evil, where we fit in, and also we start to reveal our true Adamic natures. Surprise........No free rides from thence onward. Accountability time............! Time to start thinking about jumping ship and getting a new captain of one's life.raying:

Lets look in detail at accountablity.

Do you mean when one knows right from wrong?

 

[AresMan]

When you sin.

Is it then theoretically possible that one could "choose" not to sin, and hence not need a Saviour?