Election Keeps No One Out Of Heaven

[Winman]

Iconoclast, John 6:45 is not teaching that God has chosen a certain number of persons to be saved. If the number of persons saved is limited, it is due to people being unwilling to hear and learn from the Father.

Lk 8:18 Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have.

This warning from Christ makes no sense in your system. Jesus is telling his disciples here that if they will hear and be taught, that more revelation will be given them. But if they refuse to hear and be taught, even that revelation given them shall be taken away.

Men are responsible to hear and learn from the Father. Those that hear and learn will certainly come to Jesus, those who will not hear and learn from the Father will not.

Those who do come to Jesus cannot take credit, it is not due to them being superior than others, the credit goes to the Father who taught them. Without this revelation they would have been unable to come to Christ.

If God regenerates only certain persons with irresistable grace as you believe, Jesus's warning in Lk 8:18 would be unnecessary and nonsensical. The regenerated would irresistably hear and learn, while it would be impossible for the unregenerate to hear and learn. Thus, Jesus's warning would not make sense.

 

[preacher4truth]

Placing myself in your mindset, I see what you're trying to say; but it doesn't support your statement that God doesn't try to save; or that He saves all He plans to. In order for these verses to support that, one must start with that mindset.

In other words, if I have the mindset that the sheep represent only the elect; then it's easy to see that He only searches out His chosen.

But if you take the other side of the coin, that "whosoever" means "whosoever," then it's easy to come to the conclusion that He came to seek and to to save those that will believe; not those who were chosen to believe.

If I approach scripture with a completely open mind, I don't necessarily come to the same conclusion you have.

Please continue.

Hi Don,

I know what you are trying to say. The only thing is that Scriptures are exclusive regarding the elect, or that there are in fact, right now, those who are His and those who are not His. Matthew 1:21, John 11:52, 2 Timothy 2:8-10 for instance. Also in the book of John we see those who Christ claims are not His sheep and denounces them.

One does not have to have any mindset to see that there are already those who are His and those who are not His when reading the above passages.

Whosoever is then qualified within Scripture, and belongs to the elect only, and this is done in a proper hermeneutic, taking in the whole counsel of God on the matter, and not divorcing election out because of the word "whosoever." Doing that is to employ a poor hermeneutic. The above passages and those from Iconoclast in fact do show emphatically that God came to save those whom He has chosen.

Anyhow, whosoever is simply Gods way of calling His own unto Himself. None of the whosoevers who come to Him are non-elect, He knows who are His, and Paul acknowledged that he preached for the sake of the chosen, to gather them unto Christ. He was plainly specific about this. In his epistles he calls those who are saved "chosen" or "elect" for they must have been and they must be such to have come to salvation, and he speaks this truth often. It is comforting and it is truth and we stand in awe that he would choose us in Him.

There is no pre-mindset needed to see the plain truth of this throughout the Bible. This has been true since before day one.

 

[Winman]

P4T, the difference between you and I is perspective.

Jn 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.

Are these verses saying a person must be one of Jesus's sheep to be able to hear and believe, or are they saying they are Jesus's sheep BECAUSE they hear and believe? That is the question, and the difference between us. I believe the 2nd interpretation, that Jesus knew they are his sheep because they hear and believe.

Further, to understand this involves foreknowledge. God knew who would hear and believe. It is those who the Father knew would hear and believe that he gave to the Son before the foundation of the world. They are the chosen, they are the elect.

When Jesus said to those Jews in vs. 26 that they believed not because they were not his sheep, this is true. They were not his sheep because the Father foreknew they would not believe, therefore they were not chosen and given to Jesus.

Does this mean they cannot repent and believe? Yes and no. Yes, because it is already known they will not believe, but no, in the sense that if they do repent and believe, God in his foreknowledge would know this and they would be chosen, they would be Jesus's sheep and given to him by the Father.

If your view is correct, it would make no sense that Jesus rebuked people for unbelief. How could the unelect believe in your view? Therefore, how could they be accountable for that which is impossible to do? It is unjust to punish anyone for what is impossible for them to do.

In my view, there is no contradiction, and God is not unjust, as any person can believe if they choose to do so. Therefore, they are justly accountable for unbelief.

I will give more scripture later to support my view.

 

[Van]

There is an elect chosen before the foundation of the world like the prophets, the disciple's of Jesus the twelve. To prepare the way for Christ and to prepare the way of the Holy Spirit. I believe the same way as Calvinist do for these people. There will be not one who would seek God without a first fruit to spread the message.


The problem with the idea that some individuals were elected before creation is there is no support for that idea either. Prophets were set aide "from the womb" which is at the start of their physical lives, not before creation.

The only view of election that fits with all scripture is that God elected corporately those Christ would redeem, when God elected Christ to be His Redeemer, and then elects individuals and places them into the body during their lifetime based on accepting their faith in the truth.

 

[humblethinker]

http://www.theblazingcenter.com/2011/09/election-keeps-no-one-out-of-heaven.html

It is an excellent article and an excellent articulation of a common and wide-spread misconception about election.

I don't think the lady's conception about election in the article is common and wide-spread. It seems that that's what you would like to believe though.

 

[psalms109:31]

There is an elect chosen before the foundation of the world like the prophets, the disciple's of Jesus the twelve. To prepare the way for Christ and to prepare the way of the Holy Spirit. I believe the same way as Calvinist do for these people. There will be not one who would seek God without a first fruit to spread the message.


The problem with the idea that some individuals were elected before creation is there is no support for that idea either. Prophets were set aide "from the womb" which is at the start of their physical lives, not before creation.

The only view of election that fits with all scripture is that God elected corporately those Christ would redeem, when God elected Christ to be His Redeemer, and then elects individuals and places them into the body during their lifetime based on accepting their faith in the truth.

What you are saying that while they are born in the womb God decided that hey I am going to pick you to be my messenger? I am sorry if I am misunderstanding you this is just what i am getting from what you are saying. I do not think so. I believe they were chosen before even the foundation of the world to be His messenger.

The people that hear and believe are being included.

 

[Van]

I am referring to several scriptures that say clearly the prophets were chosen from the womb. This means they existed in the womb when chosen. Lets take Jeremiah and the verse that says before I formed you I knew you or some such. We exist in the womb before we are formed, i.e. and unformed substance, and David was chosen from the womb as an unformed substance, i.e. before He was fully formed. See Jeremiah 1:5;

 

[psalms109:31]

I am referring to several scriptures that say clearly the prophets were chosen from the womb. This means they existed in the womb when chosen. Lets take Jeremiah and the verse that says before I formed you I knew you or some such. We exist in the womb before we are formed, i.e. and unformed substance, and David was chosen from the womb as an unformed substance, i.e. before He was fully formed. See Jeremiah 1:5;

I agree with the scripture, so God didn't know that He was going to choose them to be His messenger until the womb not before the foundation of the world?

 

[Van]

You and I do not know what God has not revealed. Anyone can say God knew this or that, but without specific support in scripture, it is merely the speculation of men. Scripture tells us when God chose these men to be prophets, it does not tell us he decided to choose them before creation. Anyone who puts forth doctrine based not of specific scripture, but on speculation is a false teacher. Scripture tells us not to add to scripture, not to lean on our own understanding (speculation) and so forth. I believe in what the bible says, and not in what it does not say. Now sometimes logical necessity requires our making inferences, but they should be minimal, i.e what is the least God could be saying. God in three persons is such an inference.

 

[psalms109:31]

You and I do not know what God has not revealed. Anyone can say God knew this or that, but without specific support in scripture, it is merely the speculation of men. Scripture tells us when God chose these men to be prophets, it does not tell us he decided to choose them before creation. Anyone who puts forth doctrine based not of specific scripture, but on speculation is a false teacher. Scripture tells us not to add to scripture, not to lean on our own understanding (speculation) and so forth. I believe in what the bible says, and not in what it does not say. Now sometimes logical necessity requires our making inferences, but they should be minimal, i.e what is the least God could be saying. God in three persons is such an inference.

God knows all, that He does want all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth and loved the world that He sent His Son. That He knows from the beginning who would be saved and who will be His messenger to bring His desired people an amount saved like the sands of the see shore a people like Abraham who believed God and is credited righteousness. These people do not know what to believe in until they have a messenger. We have nothing to listen and learn from to come to Jesus without His word. You can make any judgement you want of me, but I will not say God doesn't know all from the beginning.

 

[Winman]

You and I do not know what God has not revealed. Anyone can say God knew this or that, but without specific support in scripture, it is merely the speculation of men. Scripture tells us when God chose these men to be prophets, it does not tell us he decided to choose them before creation. Anyone who puts forth doctrine based not of specific scripture, but on speculation is a false teacher. Scripture tells us not to add to scripture, not to lean on our own understanding (speculation) and so forth. I believe in what the bible says, and not in what it does not say. Now sometimes logical necessity requires our making inferences, but they should be minimal, i.e what is the least God could be saying. God in three persons is such an inference.

Van, what do you think of the book of life written from the foundation of the world in Rev 17:8?

This certainly implies to me that God knew who would believe from the beginning. It also speaks of those whose "names" were not written, so this is speaking of individuals.

 

[Don]

Hi Don,

I know what you are trying to say. The only thing is that Scriptures are exclusive regarding the elect, or that there are in fact, right now, those who are His and those who are not His. Matthew 1:21, John 11:52, 2 Timothy 2:8-10 for instance. Also in the book of John we see those who Christ claims are not His sheep and denounces them.

One does not have to have any mindset to see that there are already those who are His and those who are not His when reading the above passages.

John 11:52 - are you sure this is talking about election? Or is it talking about the devout men of God dispersed throughout the world? (see Acts 2:5)
Not sure how you see Matthew 1:21 as supporting predestination...unless you're trying to put emphasis on "his people." Which could easily mean those who hear and believe.
2 Tim 2:10 - a letter to Timothy about being a pastor of believers. I'll need to study this one further, because it's not perfectly clear to me whether this is talking about believers already in the church, or Paul preaching to the unsaved.
(in fact, for us non-cals, this is a good verse to use to cause us to study the matter, along with Eph 1:5 and John 10:16)

Whosoever is then qualified within Scripture, and belongs to the elect only, and this is done in a proper hermeneutic, taking in the whole counsel of God on the matter, and not divorcing election out because of the word "whosoever." Doing that is to employ a poor hermeneutic.

You'll recall that in this thread, I also asked about the times that God Himself said we would "find" the narrow path; thus, I'm not resting my entire argument on only the use of whosoever and its inclusiveness, but on God's repeated use of inclusive and active verbiage.

The above passages and those from Iconoclast in fact do show emphatically that God came to save those whom He has chosen.

Anyhow, whosoever is simply Gods way of calling His own unto Himself. None of the whosoevers who come to Him are non-elect, He knows who are His, and Paul acknowledged that he preached for the sake of the chosen, to gather them unto Christ. He was plainly specific about this. In his epistles he calls those who are saved "chosen" or "elect" for they must have been and they must be such to have come to salvation, and he speaks this truth often. It is comforting and it is truth and we stand in awe that he would choose us in Him.

And yet I put forth the same question to you: Are you not fully comforted that you are saved? It's great that you believe you were chosen; but is that thought greater than the thought that you are saved?

There is no pre-mindset needed to see the plain truth of this throughout the Bible. This has been true since before day one.

I certainly see where you come to this conclusion. Pardon me, but you'll have to give me more time to study the matter before I agree with you...or continue to dispute this "truth."

 

[Don]

I will do more tommorow as it is late...but for now two things to consider

the whosoever of jn 3:16 actually reads.....everyone believing


Even if it did say...whosoever.....the fact is that no one seeks God psalm 14 :1-3-romans 3;10.

Plus this as long as it is in the bible shows it infallibly;

verse45 is a quote from isa 54...the gentiles are coming into the kingdom in droves...those who are taught of God.....that would be the elect!
i will do more tommorow if you like must rest for the Lords day now:thumbs:

Sorry; it was an early evening for me, and I'm getting ready for church now. Will look through this this afternoon.

 

[Skandelon]

I'm not resting my entire argument on only the use of whosoever and its inclusiveness, but on God's repeated use of inclusive and active verbiage.

:thumbs:

Suppose the owner of a message board announced: "Whoever registers will be accepted as a member, so go invite all your friends and family to register today!"

Would anyone even suppose that secretly the owner of that board had actually preselect a select few people to irresistibly cause to join his message board? Obviously not, that would be absurd, yet that is exactly what Calvinists do to the clear text of scripture. They make that which is clearly meant to be inclusive into something that is secretly exclusive.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

:thumbs:

Suppose the owner of a message board announced: "Whoever registers will be accepted as a member, so go invite all your friends and family to register today!"

Would anyone even suppose that secretly the owner of that board had actually preselect a select few people to irresistibly cause to join his message board? Obviously not, that would be absurd, yet that is exactly what Calvinists do to the clear text of scripture. They make that which is clearly meant to be inclusive into something that is secretly exclusive.

Well dont the owners of this board preselect all non Calvinist Moderators? And I was always taught that anyone who ever wanted Salvation always got it.

 

[preacher4truth]

John 11:52 - are you sure this is talking about election? Or is it talking about the devout men of God dispersed throughout the world? (see Acts 2:5)

No. God is talking, not "it" of His people.

Not sure how you see Matthew 1:21 as supporting predestination...unless you're trying to put emphasis on "his people." Which could easily mean those who hear and believe.

I didn't put emphasis on "His" people. The Holy Spirit did. Honor that.

No. You're sure of whom I am speaking. Those who hear and believe? Well, they are His people. I am sorry you are disappointed and that you hoped they were not His people. :thumbsup:

2 Tim 2:10 - a letter to Timothy about being a pastor of believers. I'll need to study this one further, because it's not perfectly clear to me whether this is talking about believers already in the church, or Paul preaching to the unsaved.
(in fact, for us non-cals, this is a good verse to use to cause us to study the matter, along with Eph 1:5 and John 10:16)

It is perfectly clear to me and to you. He is speaking of preaching salvifically to the lost here. The elect, to which he refers to being saved in his preaching, not those who are already saved. Pay attention to that he hopes they are saved. See that? That they also may obtain salvation? You see that part? Yes, now you do in your further study, yes, that the elect also may be saved. Quite clear. Isn't it obvious?

You'll recall that in this thread, I also asked about the times that God Himself said we would "find" the narrow path; thus, I'm not resting my entire argument on only the use of whosoever and its inclusiveness, but on God's repeated use of inclusive and active verbiage.


And yet I put forth the same question to you: Are you not fully comforted that you are saved? It's great that you believe you were chosen; but is that thought greater than the thought that you are saved?

Thoughts? Seriously? The fact that others and myself were actually chosen/elect, which is synonymous with saved, to which Paul, via the Holy Spirit references, is to what I glory in, i.e. the Word of God.

I certainly see where you come to this conclusion. Pardon me, but you'll have to give me more time to study the matter before I agree with you...or continue to dispute this "truth."

Yes. You need more time to study. I'll give you that. Thanks for your honest doubts brought to the forefront. Yes. Clearly and contextually Paul speaks of the lost.

 

[Skandelon]

Well dont the owners of this board preselect all non Calvinist Moderators?

1. I said nothing about this board.

2. Yes, there are Calvinistic Moderators and Admins on this board.

And I was always taught that anyone who ever wanted Salvation always got it.

Yep, but such a statement ignores the problem that Calvinists teach that God is the one who ultimately determines what men want.

 

[preacher4truth]

It's so obvious that "they may ALSO" obtain salvation, is referring to the elect to whom Paul desired to preach, and refers to those he suffered for, and to those who needed gathered in, not those already saved. To claim otherwise is to pretend.

It is clearly and plainly NOT referring to those within the church, nor to those who are already saved, as falsely aluded to by Don. Again, the context is plain and clear; "also". The context and language of this passage proves Don incorrect.

Denial of this plain fact is disingenuous banter. There is no preaching to those who are already saved that "they" also may be saved, since they are already saved, to which you are arguing! You're WAY off track here.

Scripture is plain here! :thumbsup: :wavey:

 

[quantumfaith]

Verse 10. For the elect's sake

For the sake of the Gentiles, elected by God's goodness to enjoy every privilege formerly possessed by the Jews, and, in addition to these, all the blessings of the Gospel; the salvation of Christ here, and eternal glory hereafter.

Adam Clarke Commentary

 

[Winman]

It's so obvious that "they may ALSO" obtain salvation, is referring to the elect to whom Paul desired to preach, and refers to those he suffered for, and to those who needed gathered in, not those already saved. To claim otherwise is to pretend.

It is clearly and plainly NOT referring to those within the church, nor to those who are already saved, as falsely aluded to by Don. Again, the context is plain and clear; "also". The context and language of this passage proves Don incorrect.

Denial of this plain fact is disingenuous banter. There is no preaching to those who are already saved that "they" also may be saved, since they are already saved, to which you are arguing! You're WAY off track here.

Scripture is plain here! :thumbsup: :wavey:

It is true that 2 Tim 2:10 speaks of the elect only being saved. Does that mean that God chose a certain number of persons to be saved? You would say yes, but I would disagree, any person can choose to believe and be the elect. Those who actually believe were foreknown by God and chosen before the foundation of the world.

The difference is that you believe that foreknowledge means what "must" be, where I believe it means what "will" be. There is a subtle, but important difference here.

Your view has God choosing men to destruction, my view does not.

In my view, any man who willingly chooses to believe will be foreknown and therefore chosen. Your view cannot accommodate the free will decisions of men, my view does.