Election Keeps No One Out Of Heaven

[12strings]

For everyone's viewing pleasure, Here is a link that compiles a great number of quotes from historical calvinists who do not see a problem holding to Unconditional Election and offering God's salvation to anyone and everyone:

http://www.oldtruth.com/calvinism/gospeloffercalvinists.html


I will note that most simply hold the two truths in tandem, without trying to reconcile them. One notable exception is Alexander Hodges, who says,

The gospel is for all, election is a special grace in addition to that offer. The non-elect may come if they will. The elect will come. The decree of election puts no barrier before men preventing them from accepting the gospel offer. Any man, elect or non elect, will be saved if he accepts. The non-elect are left to act as they are freely determined by their own hearts.

I have personally not heard that explanation before...

 

[12strings]

One more, from Louis Berkhof:

"We believe that God "unfeignedly," that is, sincerely or in good faith, calls all those who are living under the gospel to believe, and offers them salvation in the way of faith and repentance…The offer of salvation in the way of faith and repentance does not pretend to be a revelation of the secret counsel of God, more specifically, of His design in giving Christ as an atonement for sin. It is simply the promise of salvation of all those who accept Christ by faith. This offer, in so far as it is universal, is always conditioned by faith and conversion. Moreover it is contingent on a faith and repentance such as can only be wrought in the heart of man by the operation of the Holy Spirit. The universal offer of salvation does not consist in the declaration that Christ made atonement for every man that hears the gospel, and that God really intends to save each one… It is not the duty of the preacher to harmonise the secret counsel of God respecting the redemption of sinners with His declarative will as expressed in the universal offer of salvation. He is simply an official ambassador, whose duty it is to carry out the will of the Lord in preaching the gospel to all men indiscriminately… " (Systematic Theology BOT p.397-398)

 

[StefanM]

I will note that most simply hold the two truths in tandem, without trying to reconcile them. One notable exception is Alexander Hodges

It's an illegitimate argument, though.

An offer for which there is no provision is not a bona fide offer.

If limited atonement is true, then the non-elect have absolutely no provision for salvation. Christ did not die for them. The fact that they will not come to Christ is irrelevant.

 

[Skandelon]

Alexander Hodges, who says,

Quote:
The gospel is for all, election is a special grace in addition to that offer. The non-elect may come if they will. The elect will come. The decree of election puts no barrier before men preventing them from accepting the gospel offer. Any man, elect or non elect, will be saved if he accepts. The non-elect are left to act as they are freely determined by their own hearts. The non-elect are left to act as they are freely determined by their own hearts.

You have to ask yourself the question: Why would someone who believes that God has pre-selected a certain number of people to irresistibly save make this point?

The only possible reason is to attempt to reconcile the clear problem their view presents. Think about it, why even make the point, "Any man, elect or non elect, will be saved if he accepts," when you also believe that the non-elect are born unable to ever accept? Does this point clarify anything? Does this point remove any objection being raised against the Calvinistic perspective? If so, I can't see it. Please explain.

 

[jbh28]

It's an illegitimate argument, though.

An offer for which there is no provision is not a bona fide offer.

If limited atonement is true, then the non-elect have absolutely no provision for salvation. Christ did not die for them. The fact that they will not come to Christ is irrelevant.

The death of Christ is sufficient for all, so it is a legitimate argument. Limited atonement doesn't mean that the death is not of infinite value.

From the Canons of Dort.

Summary: "While the death of Christ is abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world, its saving efficacy is limited to the elect."

Article 3: "The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world."

 

[Skandelon]

The death of Christ is sufficient for all

Honest question: How is his death sufficient for the non-elect when it doesn't sufficiently change their nature so as to make them willing?

Doesn't "sufficient" mean "enough" for salvation? How has his death provided "enough for salvation" if indeed it doesn't overcome the "Total inability" of their natural condition by which they cannot be willing to believe and follow Christ?

 

[StefanM]

The death of Christ is sufficient for all, so it is a legitimate argument. Limited atonement doesn't mean that the death is not of infinite value.

From the Canons of Dort.

Summary: "While the death of Christ is abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world, its saving efficacy is limited to the elect."

Article 3: "The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world."

Your quote makes my point, actually.

"Its saving efficacy is limited to the elect." For the non-elect, there is no possibility or provision of saving grace. It is therefore not a bona fide offer.

 

[webdog]

Honest question: How is his death sufficient for the non-elect when it doesn't sufficiently change their nature so as to make them willing?

Doesn't "sufficient" mean "enough" for salvation? How has his death provided "enough for salvation" if indeed it doesn't overcome the "Total inability" of their natural condition by which they cannot be willing to believe and follow Christ?

:thumbs: :applause:

 

[jbh28]

Honest question: How is his death sufficient for the non-elect when it doesn't sufficiently change their nature so as to make them willing?

Doesn't "sufficient" mean "enough" for salvation? How has his death provided "enough for salvation" if indeed it doesn't overcome the "Total inability" of their natural condition by which they cannot be willing to believe and follow Christ?

It simply means that the payment required for salvation is sufficient to save every single person that has ever lived or will ever live. The sufficient payment has been made.

 

[jbh28]

Your quote makes my point, actually.

"Its saving efficacy is limited to the elect." For the non-elect, there is no possibility or provision of saving grace. It is therefore not a bona fide offer.

Is the atonement, in your view, efficient on the nonelect?

 

[Skandelon]

It simply means that the payment required for salvation is sufficient to save every single person that has ever lived or will ever live. The sufficient payment has been made.

With all due respect, that doesn't answer the question I posed. How is it sufficient for someone who is non-elect and thus "totally unable" to willingly believe from birth? Jesus' death clearly isn't "enough" for the non-elect to be saved.

Do you mean His death is enough to save the non-elect if God had elected them? If so, why make that point? Why would that distinction matter?

 

[12strings]

this argument could go both ways.

Is Jesus' death not sufficient to save someone who rejects him of their own free will?

 

[webdog]

this argument could go both ways.

Is Jesus' death not sufficient to save someone who rejects him of their own free will?

No as He has already decreed it to be that way.

 

[Skandelon]

this argument could go both ways.

Is Jesus' death not sufficient to save someone who rejects him of their own free will?

God has provided "enough" (sufficient) for someone to accept or reject his appeal to be reconciled, thus they are without excuse.

 

[JesusFan]

With all due respect, that doesn't answer the question I posed. How is it sufficient for someone who is non-elect and thus "totally unable" to willingly believe from birth? Jesus' death clearly isn't "enough" for the non-elect to be saved.

Jesus death on the Cross is sufficient to atone as payment for ALl sinners, as being God His death had "infinite worth"...

Its just that personal faith is required to appropiate the Grace to oneself personally, and ONLY the elect have been enabled to do such!

Do you mean His death is enough to save the non-elect if God had elected them? If so, why make that point? Why would that distinction matter?[/

QUOTE]

yes, His death was/is of Infinite worth, so any and all could have been saved, but the ONLY ones to have it effectually applied with tose whom God foreknew and predestined to receive life in/by the Son of God!
His elect.....

 

[jbh28]

With all due respect, that doesn't answer the question I posed. How is it sufficient for someone who is non-elect and thus "totally unable" to willingly believe from birth? Jesus' death clearly isn't "enough" for the non-elect to be saved.

Do you mean His death is enough to save the non-elect if God had elected them? If so, why make that point? Why would that distinction matter?

I answered it to clarify my point that I'm making. The atonement was the sacrifice that is sufficient to pay the penalty of everyone's sins.

Anything else is something different. There are many parts to salvation(justification, regeneration...) I was responding to something about the atonement.

 

[Van]

Reply

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.

Yes and my judgment is you are a false teacher, teaching what cannot be supported from scripture, but only from the speculation of men.

Scripture says Jesus knows all, but Jesus did not know the time of His return, so the Question is "knows all" about what? Everything? Nope, Jesus not knowing the time of His return proves that view is false doctrine. Therefore you are a false teacher in my opinion. Scripture indicates God knows everything He has chosen to know, but that He sometimes chooses not to know things, such as remembering no more our forgiven sins. Your view is simply unbiblical, false, and misleading.

 

[jbh28]

snip

1. You have no business someone a false teacher. you are the one that denies the omniscience of God.
2. Please don't try to derail the thread.

 

[preacher4truth]

Yes and my judgment is you are a false teacher, teaching what cannot be supported from scripture, but only from the speculation of men.

Scripture says Jesus knows all, but Jesus did not know the time of His return, so the Question is "knows all" about what? Everything? Nope, Jesus not knowing the time of His return proves that view is false doctrine. Therefore you are a false teacher in my opinion. Scripture indicates God knows everything He has chosen to know, but that He sometimes chooses not to know things, such as remembering no more our forgiven sins. Your view is simply unbiblical, false, and misleading.

Jesus never said He didn't know the time of His return. Read Scripture. He said it was in the Fathers power, not that He didn't know.

You do yet err again.