Election... Fair/Unfair?

The confusion with "election" in these debates comes from the premise that it regards filial, parent-child relationship. In other words, that "election" refers to those who come to be "born again children of God".

"Election" conerns a more mature relationship with God than a general parent-child one. The kind of relationship that God promises those who are faithful to His covenant.

 

Yes, election is a biblical doctrine. No one can claim to believe the Bible is the word of God and reject the doctrine of election. Some might hold a different view respecting election than others, but again, no one can claim to believe the Bible is the word of God and reject the doctrine of election.

Election is mentioned all throughout the Scriptures in one way or another, but certainly more than six times.

Election is a sovereign decree of God and not in the slightest degree dependent upon the will of man. It is according to the good pleasure of His will. Election is unconditional. It needs to be emphasized that election itself is not salvation. Election is unto salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

I cannot say that everyone on this board is of the elect because they are "seeking the things of God." Many folks are on this board for the sake of argument and to promote their version of Christianity. Truth is absolute, not relative.

4study, I cannot find anything in the Sriptures to validate any of your claims concerning election.

 

Yes, election is a biblical doctrine. No one can claim to believe the Bible is the word of God and reject the doctrine of election. Some might hold a different view respecting election than others, but again, no one can claim to believe the Bible is the word of God and reject the doctrine of election.

Election is mentioned all throughout the Scriptures in one way or another, but certainly more than six times.

Election is a sovereign decree of God and not in the slightest degree dependent upon the will of man. It is according to the good pleasure of His will. Election is unconditional. It needs to be emphasized that election itself is not salvation. Election is unto salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

I cannot say that everyone on this board is of the elect because they are "seeking the things of God." Many folks are on this board for the sake of argument and to promote their version of Christianity. Truth is absolute, not relative.

4study, I cannot find anything in the Sriptures to validate any of your claims concerning election.

 

Primitive Baptist,

Consider Israel vs other nations. Consider those examples in scripture in which some "fell short" of the intended purpose of God (i.e. Israel and the Promise land). I Cor. 10:5.

 

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel. (Romans 9:6)

Paul illustrates this first by using Isaac and Ishmael as examples. Ishmael was rejected and Isaac was the one through which Abraham's seed would be reckoned. Paul also uses the example of Jacob and Esau. Esau was hated before he was born, yea, before he had done any good or evil. Neither Ishmael nor Esau were a part of Israel. Furthermore, there was only a remnant according to the election of grace among Israel (Romans 11:5).

 

Primitive Baptist,

I'm not sure how your last post relates to I Cor. 10:5. I'm forced to make the following assumption. According to previous posts on other threads on Romans 9, I assume you mean that Ishmael and Esau were not children of God (i.e born again). And so I further assume you are implying those in I Cor. 10:5 with whom God was not pleased were also not children of God. With this in mind, let me use Moses as an example.

Moses should have entered into the promise land with Israel (on the "other side of Jordan"). Instead, he fell short of this destiny and was punished for his disobedience (he failed to sanctify the LORD in the sight of Israel). This is not suggesting Moses was an unfaithful servant but rather is a simple illustration of God justly rewarding one of his servant's for a particular act of unbelief.

Those mentioned in I Cor. 10:5 were "all baptized unto Moses" yet they fell short of their intended destiny. Not because they were lost, unregenerate people, but because of their disobedience to God's covenant.

The "elect" of God are those abiding in covenant relationship.

 

4study, can you invest some money for me? Cause if you can stretch the meaning of the word "elect" that far, I can't imagine what you could do with a dollar.

 

sturgman,

I'm simply presenting another view of the concept of "election". I'm sure this view to most is unorthodox, however orthodoxy doesn't necessarily mean "without error". Of course you're not obliagted to accpet any of it. So take it "with a grain of salt".

 

Hi Tyndale;
Is this verse human logic?;
Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Romanbear

 

I'm not Tyndale but I will respond. These words were spoken to a Christian Church that needed to repent!

 

Some people have been playing in the 'clay' of Romans chapter nine too long in trying to prove that God damns multiple billions and saves only multiple millions of His people. While this is true, He does not difinitively say in this chapter that God autocratically decides in these matters. He does not use words like, damns, saves and no numbers are submitted in showing here that He is in the 'pick and choose' mode of Divine selection.

While He does say that He loves Jacob and hates Esau He makes not mention about the multiple billions of souls who have already been born and died. Esau was not affirmed by the Lord God because Almighty God chose Jacob to become the lineage and ancestery through which the virgin would conceived our precious Lord.

In the latter part of Romans nine, Paul indicates that Gentiles and Jews tried to please God, but the Jews stumbled at the Law. Gentile were received because of faith. And then in contridiction to Calvinistic belief, God says, ' . . . and whosoever believeth in Him shall not be ashamed {perish}. Hardly Calvinistic words . . . .

 

Hi Hardseller;
How could you define an apostate church,,,,, Christian. The fact they hadn't repented meant they weren't Christian.There is no salvation with out repentance
Romanbear

 

Amen!! Bro. Glen, Keep preaching those truths which Glorify our God and Saviour.

Now:

First of all Moses is the Law-Giver to the People, the mediator between God and Israel. In this capacity he represents the Law, the Law, though perfect, cannot deliver anyone into the promised land. Christ is the one who fullfilled the law and thus completed the Covenant of Works given to man from Adam to Moses, which produced only death; This covenant then being completed Christ ushers in the Covenant of Grace which justifies every believer from Adam to our present day and time.

Any who die trusting in the Law are lost; Trust is only to be in Christ who fullfilled the Law of God and thereby is able to be our propitiation.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

Apostasy means to fall away. This act is backsliding in our vernacular. I agree we try to make light of it when it visits our own doorstep. Nevertheless in order to fall away from something you must be in a position to have something to fall away from.

That which distinguishes a christian (church or individual) is not the presence or absence of apostasy, but rather the presence of or absence of the chastisement of God the Father.

Myself for instance: I backslide, as a child of God I will feel His chastisement and will know from whom it is and will repent. If I did not possess this salvation which makes me His child, then I certainly would not feel His chastisement and certainly would not repent for my actions as I do not have the ability to recognize them as sinful.

There is the distinction.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

Hy Tyndale;
It seems to me that you are denying the fact that this verse is here.You seem to be questioning the fact that it should be in the Bible at all.With out trying to sell me Calvinism can't you give me a reasonable explaination of it's presents, (if it isn't so). If God's word is not understandable with out the interpatation of a certain man's doctrine I would say that it isn't worth much.If we can't believe God's word as it is written then what's the point?
Romanbear

 

Hi tyndale;
That verse I was talking about was Rev 3:20

What about
Act 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Romanbear

 

Hi Romanbear,

It hasn't come to pass yet.