Hyper-Electionism - the worst kind of heresy

[IfbReformer]

What do we all think of Hyper-Electionism?

First let me define it. Every hyper-electionist I have ever met does not want to be called a hyper-calvinist, and I would agree they are quite different in many ways from a Calvinist, although they are much more similar to a Calvinist than an Arminian.

I have seen many especially in this forum posting that essentially we are saved by election, and not elected to be saved.


Traditional Calvinists(at least most I know) believe God elected us to be saved. That means at some point in the future from the foundations of the world God determined that on a certain date he would regenerate me, thus causing me to believe, and because I have believed on him I am now saved.

The hyper-electionist, on the other hand, believes that we are saved not by placing our faith and trust in Christ, but simply we are saved by election.

If we place our faith and trust in Christ, thats just an added bonus, and then we have our "timely" salvation as they call it.

But our "eternal" salvation has nothing to do with our belief.

Some things they will throw out it, how could Old Testament Saints then be saved, because they did know the name of Christ.

An easy answer to that is that God only has held his own accountable for what he has revealed, not what he has not.

They saw from a distance, and believed what God revealed to them and therefore they were saved.

We have much more information now, and are responsible for more because of that. Those who reject the or do not accept the revealed Son of God will perish.

Now yes, as a soverign grace adovocate, I do believe that God had to regenerate me in order for to have that faith and trust in him, but none the less I had to do it, even it was completely of him and not me, it had to happen.

So now that I have laid all this out, there is one final question.

I believe that we can have many disagreements as to how we come to the point of salvation, and how we may live or act after salvation.

But what really bothers me about hyper-electionism is that is wrong at the point of salvation - the core itself.

Calvinists and Arminians both agree we are saved by grace through faith alone in the Son of God, but we disagree as to how we come to that point.

The hyper-electionist says belief on the Son of God is unnecessary for our "eternal" salvation. Thus for me to enter the gates of heaven and have my sins pardoned, I do not need to accept the one who pardoned me. To me this as bad as heresy can get. This as false a Gospel as anyone could every preach.

We are not saved by election, we are elected to be saved.

Hyper-electionists - please feel free to defend yourselves.

IFBReformer

 

[npetreley]

This is the first I've even heard of hyper-electionism.

 

[Southern]

ifbReformer,
Perhaps it would be helpful to cite some sources of groups that believe this. I am not contending against your statement, but I would like to know more about this. I would even be hesitant to label most Primitive Baptist with these views. It is true that many Primitives Baptist believe in salvation apart from means such as the gospel (some would believe in the direct voice of Christ, etc.), but some of this I am quite unaware of and does not represent any historic reformed confession of faith.

In Christ

 

[IfbReformer]

Originally posted by Southern:
ifbReformer,
Perhaps it would be helpful to cite some sources of groups that believe this. I am not contending against your statement, but I would like to know more about this. I would even be hesitant to label most Primitive Baptist with these views. It is true that many Primitives Baptist believe in salvation apart from means such as the gospel (some would believe in the direct voice of Christ, etc.), but some of this I am quite unaware of and does not represent any historic reformed confession of faith.

In Christ

Ok, I dug through some old threads and found this statement by Brother James Reed:

"Regeneration and conversion are two completely separate events. They are two types of salvation, but regeneration is not dependent on conversion. It is the other way around."

I am not trying to single out brother Reed because I have seen others post similar things as well.

There are not two kinds of salvation, there is only one. I never see Paul or any other N.T. writer contrast a "timely" salvation with an "eternal" salvation.

I would agree that conversion is dependent upon regeneration, but they are two events which happen together, not apart.

While Paul knew little of Christianity when Christ met him on the road to Damascus, it is clear that he accept Christ as his Lord and Savior there.

It is impossible for someone to enter heaven as of the revealing of Christ without trusting on him as Savior. Before that Old Testament Saints were only responsible to believe on what God had revealed to them at the time.

These hyper-electionists believe that is is actually possible for someone to be regenerated without ever knowing or trusting in the name of Christ.

So for instance, some African guy in the middle of a jungle, all of a sudden with never hearing the Gospel, never knowing the name of Christ, gets regenerated and starts being a better guy. He does not know why, he just is and he dies and goes to heaven and finds out about the Gospel after he dies. Absolutely ridiculous!

Again I challenge anyone who believes this way to show one person in the Old or New Testament who was regenerated, but never converted.

IFBReformer

 

[Southern]

IFBReformer,
I just now got what you are trying to say. Thank you for the clarification. I would not label this hyper-electionsim but rather a discussion of Regeneration and how it relates to salvation. The quote that you gave would be relevant and aggreable to many people who consider themselves Reformed. I would be hesitant to put all of them in a bag because many would say that they are simultaneous (I can't spell!) and happen at the same time but carefull to point out that it is helpfull to distinguish the two. I could give many examples but I believe it can go to far in the case of those who say you can be regenerated and then some point in time afterwards be converted. Some of your latter comments might fit some of the Primitive Baptist brethren on the board and I will leave it up to them to defend their own particular views. I would say that I agree with you that Regeneration and Conversion happen at the same instant (A.H. Strong as possible opposed to Berkhof) while some may leave the chance of their being an interval of time in between the two. I just want to stress, that some of these who you may be addressing may just believe in Regeneration coming before Conversion in a Logical priority and not a temporal priority. Look forward to see the replies and discussion.

P.S. as far as your African jungle argument, I have had more than one Primitive who would agree with the situation you gave, but with maybe some qualificaions

They usually point to John the Baptist, Luke 1, if you are looking for an example. Someone Correct me if I'm wrong

May God bless you

 

[IfbReformer]

By the way, I just wanted to clarify something in case a moderator has a problem with the term "hyper-electionist".

This is not name calling, this is actually an accurate description of how these people believe.

I have watched there posts for over a year and believe it to be very accurate.

"hyper" in the sense I am using means to take something to farther conclusion then the scriptures do.

"election" refers to the doctrine of election.

So it is perfectly accurate to refer to those who take election to logical conclusions that the Bible does not as "hyper-electionists".

IFBReformer

 

[IfbReformer]

Originally posted by Southern:
IFBReformer,
I just now got what you are trying to say. Thank you for the clarification. I would not label this hyper-electionsim but rather a discussion of Regeneration and how it relates to salvation. The quote that you gave would be relevant and aggreable to many people who consider themselves Reformed. I would be hesitant to put all of them in a bag because many would say that they are simultaneous (I can't spell!) and happen at the same time but carefull to point out that it is helpfull to distinguish the two. I could give many examples but I believe it can go to far in the case of those who say you can be regenerated and then some point in time afterwards be converted. Some of your latter comments might fit some of the Primitive Baptist brethren on the board and I will leave it up to them to defend their own particular views. I would say that I agree with you that Regeneration and Conversion happen at the same instant (A.H. Strong as possible opposed to Berkhof) while some may leave the chance of their being an interval of time in between the two. I just want to stress, that some of these who you may be addressing may just believe in Regeneration coming before Conversion in a Logical priority and not a temporal priority. Look forward to see the replies and discussion.

P.S. as far as your African jungle argument, I have had more than one Primitive who would agree with the situation you gave, but with maybe some qualificaions

They usually point to John the Baptist, Luke 1, if you are looking for an example. Someone Correct me if I'm wrong

May God bless you

I agree that looking at the quote one way, it could perfectly fit reformed doctrine and I would not have a problem with that.

But the core of the issue is I believe it is completely without Biblical support and not just that, a false Gospel to say that someone could be regenerated and never converted in this life.

That in essense, somone could be saved, and never call on the name of Christ as their Savior, not in the N.T. era, it is utterly impossible.

I do stand by my label of "Hyper-Electionist" as I refers to those who believe we are saved by election rather than elected to be saved.

Thanks

IFBReformer

 

[Southern]

IFBReformer,
I have no problem with your term. I understand you completely. I assume you are somewhat familiar with the term "Ordo Salutis" which refers to the "Order of Salvation". Much material has been written on this subject and I would like to see the interaction between opposing views. Maybe someone who holds this position will take you to task.

May the Lord bless you

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by IfbReformer:

The hyper-electionist, on the other hand, believes that we are saved not by placing our faith and trust in Christ, but simply we are saved by election.

If we place our faith and trust in Christ, thats just an added bonus, and then we have our "timely" salvation as they call it....

Now yes, as a soverign grace adovocate, I do believe that God had to regenerate me in order for to have that faith and trust in him, but none the less I had to do it, even it was completely of him and not me, it had to happen.

You say you are not a Hyper-electionist. Let's test you. Do you believe that Elect children who die in infancy have heard, were regenerated by, and believed the gospel? If yes, you are truly a biblical electionist. If no, you are a Hyper-electionist for children and a "justification by faith alone" electionist for adults.

 

[IfbReformer]

Originally posted by John Gilmore:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by IfbReformer:

The hyper-electionist, on the other hand, believes that we are saved not by placing our faith and trust in Christ, but simply we are saved by election.

If we place our faith and trust in Christ, thats just an added bonus, and then we have our "timely" salvation as they call it....

Now yes, as a soverign grace adovocate, I do believe that God had to regenerate me in order for to have that faith and trust in him, but none the less I had to do it, even it was completely of him and not me, it had to happen.

You say you are not a Hyper-electionist. Let's test you. Do you believe that Elect children who die in infancy have heard, were regenerated by, and believed the gospel? If yes, you are truly a biblical electionist. If no, you are a Hyper-electionist for children and a "justification by faith alone" electionist for adults. </font>[/QUOTE]John,

I leave infants in the hands of a merciful God, I don't know the answer. David said he would see his child that died so he must of known something we don't.

All I know is, we are responsible for we know, and what we have been given. A child at that age is barely self aware, let alone do they understand their position in regards to God.

You don't take the exception and make it the norm, thats bad politics, bad philosphy, and especially bad theology.

IFBReformer

 

[John Gilmore]

IFBReformer,

A child at that age is barely self aware, let alone do they understand their position in regards to God.

So people must be self aware and understand their position in regards to God before the Holy Spirit can work faith? We are not saved by God alone but we must contribute something of our human reason? In other words, you are a synergist.

I am a monergist. Before I was regenerated and given faith by the Holy Spirit, I had as little understanding of my position in regards to God as a rock. I did not contribute anything towards my salvation. I could not of my own reason believe in Christ Jesus my Lord or come to Him but the Holy Spirit called me by the gospel.

 

[pinoybaptist]

John, I used to think that even infants were subject to the elective grace of God, that is, some are elect, some are not.

Well, not anymore.

Think about it.

If God knows everything, then he knows that this child or that child will die in infancy, or be aborted, or die in the womb for one reason or another, or die in childhood age, or be born with a congenital mental deficiency, or develop one, during his childhood.

Now, that being the case, they have not yet done the evil, have not yet known sin, which comes natural because of their fallen nature.

But God does not anywhere in the Bible send the unelect to hell on account of their fallen nature. He sends them to hell on account of their wicked deeds, and are judged according to their works, not their fallen nature.

Therefore, I believe that ALL infants, all babies, who die in the womb, or out of the womb, are elect unto salvation, because God is gracious and merciful and just.

 

[pinoybaptist]

by IFB Reformer

It is impossible for someone to enter heaven as of the revealing of Christ without trusting on him as Savior. Before that Old Testament Saints were only responsible to believe on what God had revealed to them at the time.

These hyper-electionists believe that is is actually possible for someone to be regenerated without ever knowing or trusting in the name of Christ.

So, you are saying that God was only dealing with Old Testament saints, whose names are recorded in the Bible, during Old Testament times.

It follows that God had nobody in Old Testament age China, Japan, Asia Minor, Asia Major, Europe, what was then the United States, Egypt, Arabia, and other countries, right ?

Since his dealings were with the Old Testament saints, then only these Old Testament saints were beneficiaries of His mercy, is that right ?

Everyday of the week during those times, people were dying, and all those souls were hell-bound because God was not revealing anything to them in their area. That's what you're saying ?

 

[The Archangel]

Originally posted by pinoybaptist:
John, I used to think that even infants were subject to the elective grace of God, that is, some are elect, some are not.

Well, not anymore.

Think about it.

If God knows everything, then he knows that this child or that child will die in infancy, or be aborted, or die in the womb for one reason or another, or die in childhood age, or be born with a congenital mental deficiency, or develop one, during his childhood.

Now, that being the case, they have not yet done the evil, have not yet known sin, which comes natural because of their fallen nature.

But God does not anywhere in the Bible send the unelect to hell on account of their fallen nature. He sends them to hell on account of their wicked deeds, and are judged according to their works, not their fallen nature.

Therefore, I believe that ALL infants, all babies, who die in the womb, or out of the womb, are elect unto salvation, because God is gracious and merciful and just.

PinoyBaptist,

Unfortunatly this line of thought is incorrect. There are many parts of Scripture which show us that each individual is actually guilty of Adam's sin. Therefore, fallen nature, deeds, works, etc. (as you have written above) are secondary.

We are all born guilty. We all have a guilty standing before God and are, therefore, in a state of judgement.

We can talk more about this later. It has been some time since I've had opportunity to post here.

PS. What part of Maryland?

Blessings,

Archangel

 

[pinoybaptist]

Archangel:

I never said, and never say, that each individual is NOT guilty of Adam's sin. We all are. We are all born with a fallen nature, which nature is where our evil actions and thoughts stem from, and which nature is what prevents us from coming to God on His terms, recognizing Him as He is and what He says He is, not what we think He is and what we say He is.

However, there is not one scripture that points to the fallen nature of each man as the cause of judgment and rejection by God, because if God wanted to He can regenerate everyone and just let bygones be bygones.

God has pronounced judgment on all men and that judgment must be carried out, and will be carried out since on the last day, when the unregenerate stand before God, God will pull out the records of their works , not their fallen nature, read Revelations 20.

However, the other side of the coin is that God, being God, exercises His prerogatives and sovereignty when and where and to whom He chooses and that sovereignty gives Him the right to be merciful to whom He will.

Romans 9:11, for example, says:

(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

What part of Maryland ?

20 minutes away from DC's NW and SE, depending on where you want to go, in a city called Silver Spring.

 

[The Archangel]

Pinoybaptist,

It is great to hear back from you! Silver Spring! I know it well! I grew-up in the Lanham/New Carrollton area!

You wrote: However, there is not one scripture that points to the fallen nature of each man as the cause of judgment and rejection by God, because if God wanted to He can regenerate everyone and just let bygones be bygones.


I would disagree. True, it is a "finer point" but it is important--and yes, I am being nit-picky!

Romans 5 says:

Romans 5:12-14 (ESV)
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— [13] for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. [14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.


This passage is saying that Adam was the vehicle through whom sin entered the world. As a result of Adam's sin, death (the wages of sin) spread to all men.

We are now left to ask "How can this be" because Paul writes, "sin is not counted where there is no law."

If there is no "Law" (ie. commandments of God to show the "boundaries") how can anyone be guilty of sin?

Paul answers by saying sin was in the world (the sin that came through Adam) but no one was judged for their "individual sins."

The death that they experienced was not a judgement or rejection based on what they had done!

Paul uses death as an example of our guilty standing before God. We are judged and rejected by God based on our guilt of Adam's sin, not on the sins we commit.

Having said that, I would agree that "Works" do contribute to the judgement of God on the non-believer. Certainly those who commit the worse sins will be judged more harshly. Works are not the cause of their judgement, they are the "icing on the cake."

Again, it is great to discuss these matters with you and I wish you all the best.

Blessings,

Archangel

PS. Say hello to Maryland for me!

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by pinoybaptist:

Therefore, I believe that ALL infants, all babies, who die in the womb, or out of the womb, are elect unto salvation, because God is gracious and merciful and just.

From scripture we know that "he that believeth not shall be damned." So elect children believe in Christ. But "how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?"

 

[Ray Berrian]

All children and babies are elected to eternal life. King David's illegitimate son from Bathsheba went to Heaven as proven in II Samuel 12:23. Find a translation and read it for yourself.

If salvation were not open to all lost souls, the Divine justice would be destroyed and this can never happen. The Lord is fair to all of His created human beings. [I Tim. 2:6]

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
If salvation were not open to all lost souls, the Divine justice would be destroyed and this can never happen.

Translation: I have a personal view of what it means for God to be divinely just. Election does not fit my personal view of divine justice, therefore all that stuff in the Bible about election must mean something other than what it plainly says.

 

[pinoybaptist]

John Gilmore said:

But "how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?"

I think this is one of those points where Primitive Baptists differentiate themselves from Calvinists, and why the person who started this thread calls some "hyper-electionists".


Both Calvinists and Arminians look at this scripture as a pre-condition. For the former a pre-condition to proof of eternal salvation (they believe, because they are saved), while the latter looks at this scripture as a precondition to salvation (they must believe in order to be saved).

Primitive Baptists do not hold that the eternal salvation of God's people are preconditioned on their hearing and believing the gospel. We hold that in eternity past, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, One God, covenanted to save a people unto Himself out of a fallen humanity. He was alone when that covenant was made, He was alone when He wrote the names of His people in the Book of Life, He elected a definite number of people to share eternity future with Him, they came from all manner of life, all nations, all tongues, all social classes, and all stages of human growth.

He was alone when He went up on that cross in the Person of His Only Begotten Son, and He was alone in His suffering. Not one of His people was present in eternity past in the drawing up of this Covenant of Grace, they were not required to do anything to receive that mercy. Their belief in Him was not a factor, their faith in Him did not make Christ's blood more efficacious, their trust in Him was not a requirement, for their eternal salvation. It was Jesus Christ who fulfilled, in behalf of His people, all the requisites of the Law, all the faith that God required, all the trust that God required, therefore, all are justified by the faith OF Christ.

The child of God, saved according to His mercy, who does not die in infancy or childhood, or does not go through life with mental, or hearing defects from infancy, must be taught about his Savior and the way of life His savior wants him to live while on this earth as a pilgrim. That is the purpose of the gospel, why preachers are sent.

I believe what Paul is referring to is gospel obedience and gospel belief to gospel teaching that leads one to a life devoted to Jesus Christ, a repentance of one's Jewish (since his subject was national Israel) view of the Messiah and the recognition that Jesus, whom they crucified, was, indeed the very Messiah whom Israel had been waiting for.

Paul says in the second verse of Romans 10, from which John G took his verse, that the Jews have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. God also said in Hosea 4:6-11 that His people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Not that they are no longer Israel, God's chosen people, but that their ways are not according to God's declared ways. No one was teaching them the correct knowledge.

And so, likewise, Paul says in verses 14-17:
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!

But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report ?

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. "


In Christian love.