If election insures Salvation How and why?

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi everyone;
Mostly I would like to know if election insures Salvation why did Peter tell us to make it sure.

2Pe 1:10 Therefore, brothers, be even more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for by doing these things you shall by no means stumble at any time.

Everyone agrees that there is no works for Salvation, but is there works that help to persevere it?
May God Bless You;
Mike

 

[billwald]

How - by fiat.

Why - no one knows.

 

[Southern]

Mike,
Election does ensure that the elect will, in God's time, be called, justified, and eventually glorified (Rom. 8:28ff;John 6:37).

However, we on the human side only know who the elect are because of their response to the gospel and by them "doing these things" (2 Pet. 1:10) as Peter listed in verses 5-7. God has chosen a people, but we only know who they are the same way as Paul in 1 Thess. 1:4 and 2 Thes. 2:13:

4 Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.
5 For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.

----- Paul knew their election of God because of their response. -------


13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

---God's elect are chosen, but God calls them out of the world through "belief of the truth" and "sanctification" of the Spirit.---


In Christ

 

[Monergist]

Originally posted by ILUVLIGHT:
Hi everyone;
Mostly I would like to know if election insures Salvation why did Peter tell us to make it sure.

2Pe 1:10 Therefore, brothers, be even more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for by doing these things you shall by no means stumble at any time.

Everyone agrees that there is no works for Salvation, but is there works that help to persevere it?
May God Bless You;
Mike

If election does not 'insure' salvation, then why would Peter instruct us to make it certain? If it doesn't 'insure' anything then it certainly doesn't matter if its certain or not.

Stop wrangling the scripture and just accept what it says.

 

[Gershom]

Stop wrangling the scripture and just accept what it says. .

Yeah... like when it says "whosoever will."

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Southern;

Election does ensure that the elect will, in God's time, be called, justified, and eventually glorified (Rom. 8:28ff;John 6:37).

Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

I agree that all things do work together for good for those who Love God. So are you saying that the elect Love God from the moment they are born physically. If so I disagree that anyone can Love someone they don't know. There is also nothing in this verse that is about election insuring Salvation.

Joh 6:37 All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.

Here again it seems that you are assuming we are given to Christ before we are saved. As I see this idea, it destroys the need for faith and Salvation. It takes away the call because why call what is already given. The disciples for instance were given to Christ yet Christ lost one. Although I have to ask was any of the disciples really His to begin with, because none of them was completely committed to Christ when they came and arrested Him. All the disciples did come to Him yet one is lost.

but God calls them out of the world through "belief of the truth" and "sanctification" of the Spirit.

I certainly agree that "Belief of the truth" is what is the beginning of our Salvation, but I also believe conviction and confession of Christ is our Salvation without which there is no Salvation.
May God Bless You;
Mike

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Monergist;

If election does not 'insure' salvation, then why would Peter instruct us to make it certain? If it doesn't 'insure' anything then it certainly doesn't matter if its certain or not.

This is exactly my question If election insures Salvation why do we have to make it sure if it's already insured?. How can something be insured and yet need us to make it sure?

Stop wrangling the scripture and just accept what it says.

I do accept accept what scripture says. I just never accept what man says about Salvation with out checking it with scripture.
I never try to change scripture I allow it to change me.
May God Bless You;
Mike

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Gershom;
"Whosoever will" Excelent comment.Thankyou
May God Bless You;
Mike

 

[Pastor Larry]

Making it sure fits in the context of the chapter in which we are to be adding certain things to our lives. The point is about assurance of salvation. How do we know we are saved? By the virtues listed in vv. 3-5. God does not need assurance. But many Christians today, as then, live in paranoia and fear that they might not be saved, that they might not be one of the elect. Peter is telling us how to have assurance that we are saved.

Whosoever will is indeed a great comment. We must never forget that those who "won't" aren't saved. The gospel is only available to those who "will" and as every Calvinist believes, whosoever will may come. There are none willing whom God will not save.

 

[Southern]

Mike,

There is also nothing in this verse that is about election insuring Salvation.

Sorry for not being more specific. I cited Rom. 8:28ff (and following). Verse 29 does deal with individual salvation and election. This verse clearly teaches that election (those He predestined) ensures salvation (them He also glorified)

John 6:37

Here again it seems that you are assuming we are given to Christ before we are saved. As I see this idea, it destroys the need for faith and Salvation. It takes away the call because why call what is already given.

Does the text not say that “All the Father gives to Me” (election of individuals) “shall come to me”? This only “destroys” the need for faith if you misunderstand the Biblical teaching of election. Not only must the elect come, but they “will” come. Rom. 8:29 as cited above says that those He predestined He also “called”. The means is ensured not destroyed.

As for Judas being “chosen”, the choosing of Judas as one of the 12 is obviously a step removed from what Jesus is speaking of in John 6 to the crowd. Judas being the son of perdition fulfilled scripture and Jesus knew from the beginning that he would betray him and was a “devil” and “unclean”. So Judas was not "chosen" in the same way spoken of in vs. 37.

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Pastor Larry;

Making it sure fits in the context of the chapter in which we are to be adding certain things to our lives. The point is about assurance of salvation. How do we know we are saved? By the virtues listed in vv. 3-5. God does not need assurance. But many Christians today, as then, live in paranoia and fear that they might not be saved, that they might not be one of the elect. Peter is telling us how to have assurance that we are saved.

First let me say that I have no fear that I'm not saved or elected. The reason I believe, is because of my comitment to Christ. To let go I believe is death eternally so I hang on with all that I have.
If what you say above is true that this is how we know we are saved and elect then what happens when you neglect these things?

Whosoever will is indeed a great comment. We must never forget that those who "won't" aren't saved. The gospel is only available to those who "will" and as every Calvinist believes, whosoever will may come. There are none willing whom God will not save.

So would you say that if a man is not willing yet it is the will of God that he will be saved regardless of his own personal will?
May God Bless you;
Mike

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by ILUVLIGHT:
If what you say above is true that this is how we know we are saved and elect then what happens when you neglect these things?

We must distinguish between poessesion of salvation and assurance of salvation. One can be absolutely certain that he is saved and be wrong about that assurance. The Bible gives us characteristics of saved people. 2 Peter 1 is some of those characteristics. People without them have no basis for assurance, and they may not even be saved.

If someone neglects these things, has forgotten his "purification from his former sins" which I believe is his profession of faith in Christ. Some take this to mean that he is saved and has simply forgotten it. I think it more likely means that he made a profession that wasn't real and has forgottten what that profession actually meant. The reason I say that is that the entrance to heaven is based on it (v. 11). Therefore, those who do not pursue these characteristics are showing that they are not saved.

So would you say that if a man is not willing yet it is the will of God that he will be saved regardless of his own personal will.

It is God who works in us both to will and to do his good pleasure (Phil 2). No one is born willing. They become willing because of the work of God and they respond. God does not save a man against his will. He changes his will.

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Southern;

Sorry for not being more specific. I cited Rom. 8:28ff (and following). Verse 29 does deal with individual salvation and election. This verse clearly teaches that election (those He predestined) ensures salvation (them He also glorified)

Rom 8:29 Because whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brothers.

I'm sorry, I just don't see anything in this verse that even hints at an individual election.
brothers is plural not singular this is talking about more than one

Does the text not say that “All the Father gives to Me” (election of individuals) “shall come to me”? This only “destroys” the need for faith if you misunderstand the Biblical teaching of election. Not only must the elect come, but they “will” come. Rom. 8:29 as cited above says that those He predestined He also “called”. The means is ensured not destroyed.

The term "Give" and "Elect" do not mean the same thing. You will notice that it is not mentioned who is given this is only assumed that it the elect alone. Since you believe there is also a nonelect this could be those as well.

As for Judas being “chosen”, the choosing of Judas as one of the 12 is obviously a step removed from what Jesus is speaking of in John 6 to the crowd. Judas being the son of perdition fulfilled scripture and Jesus knew from the beginning that he would betray him and was a “devil” and “unclean”. So Judas was not "chosen" in the same way spoken of in vs. 37.

I disagree; That isn't what this scripture says
Joh 17:12 When I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You have given Me I guarded; and not one of them is lost except the son of perdition, so that the Scripture might be fulfilled.
This verse is saying that they were all given the same way there is no separateness in him being given to Christ. and this verse is Christ saying he kept them all except one. You assume that Judas was predestined for this that prophecy might be fulfilled but I believe it was only allowed to happen and was prophesied because of Gods foreknowledge.

May God Bless You;
Mike

 

[Southern]

Mike,

I'm sorry, I just don't see anything in this verse that even hints at an individual election.

The verse says that those He “predestined”, He also “called” and “glorified”. This is individual election unto glorification.

The term "Give" and "Elect" do not mean the same thing. You will notice that it is not mentioned who is given this is only assumed that it the elect alone.

This is false because the ones “given” to the Son “will come” to Him (vs. 37) and be raised up on the last day (vs. 39).This is not an “assumption” but something that is clearly stated in the text itself.


As for Judas, he was not “chosen” in the sense of those mentioned in John 6:37. He was the son of perdition and his role was to “fulfill scripture”. To say otherwise is to say that God give Judas to Jesus to raise up on the last day (John 6:39)when He knew that Judas was the Son of perdition. This would also make Jesus incapable of doing the Fathers will. This is pure eisegesis of John 6:37 and has nothing whatsoever to do with the text under discussion.

In Christ

 

[ILUVLIGHT]

Hi Southern;
Look at it this way Everything you have presented I have considerd. Isn't this why you presented it?. Since I have considerd it, you shouldn't feel frustrated by the fact that I didn't accept it. That Choice according to your own belief is not mine to make even though I disagree with that view.

It is my choice. So if you are frustrated by the fact I do not accept. It is illogical to allow it to bother you.

I feel the same frustration. I would like very much for you to believe me. How ever it is my belief that if you don't it's your choice. It's your responsibility. However if I don't believe you and Calvinism is true then it is God's responsibility.

This is false because the ones “given” to the Son “will come” to Him (vs. 37) and be raised up on the last day (vs. 39).This is not an “assumption” but something that is clearly stated in the text itself.

But yet Judas came and was lost anyway. Being given doesn't happen before the foundation of the world it is only planned. All men are created for the purpose of righteousness not for destruction. If we never attain that righteousness of Christ it is our fault not God's. Calvinism has effectively cutoff every avenue of responsibility with there view of Total Depravity. For instance Judas never had a chance. You believe he was predestined for it to happen. That's really sad. God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked. And choice has been read in the Bible since it was first penned.
Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

Why do the wicked die because they refuse to turn as God pleaded with them to do.
May God Bless You;
Mike

 

[Pastor Larry]

But yet Judas came and was lost anyway.

But that's just hte problem. Judas did not come. In JOhn 6, coming is believing. Judas did not do that. In John 6, those who come are raised up at the last day. Judas will not be. Therefore, Judas did not come.

Calvinism has effectively cutoff every avenue of responsibility with there view of Total Depravity.

No, Calvinism maintains a high view of responsibility. Man is responsible for his sin, not God. This is one of those straw men that people who don't know Calvinism set up.

For instance Judas never had a chance. You believe he was predestined for it to happen.

Yes, Judas never had a chance. From the OT, he was a son of perdition and was going to betray Christ. That doesn't fit into your system.

God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked.

Of course God doesn't take pleasure in the death of the wicked. Calvinism does not teach that. You, again, are setting up straw men.

And choice has been read in the Bible since it was first penned.

Yes, and man's choice will always be to reject Christ until God gives him a new nature. Free choice is not abrogated. God does not force his salvation on anyone.

 

[Southern]

Mike,
Your whole argument if based on the assumption that Judas was ever a believer which is clearly contradicted by the text of scripture itself:

But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. (John 6:64)

In Conclusion- the consistant testimony of scripture is that Judas did not "believe", was "unclean", "son of perdition" and had a purpose to fulfill scripture. This is no argument against the personal and effectual salvation of our truly sovereign God found in John 6:37.

In Christ

 

[Wes Outwest]

Is it just possible that in using the term "election" that Peter may mean "your choice or your calling" which could also mean "your faith", because Peter is giving instruction to believers that they are never to waver (something that humans apparently have control over) so that there is no danger of you stumbling (or backsliding or falling away)?

I don't think Peter is addressing "election" in the sense that you are familiar with, but is rather addressing the result of coming to faith in God the Son and How to live life there-in.

In Verse 2 Peter talks about gaining (personal) grace and peace through your "knowledge of the Lord". What is it that knowledge of the Lord does for you? It increases your FAITH in the Lord.

Look what Peter says is verses 5-8,

2 Pet 1:5 With this in view, do your utmost to support your faith with goodness, goodness with understanding,
2 Pet 1:6 understanding with self-control, self-control with perseverance, perseverance with devotion,
2 Pet 1:7 devotion with kindness to the brothers, and kindness to the brothers with love.
2 Pet 1:8 The possession and growth of these qualities will prevent your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ from being ineffectual or unproductive.

Then Peter continues,

2 Pet 1:9 But without them, a person is blind or short-sighted, forgetting how the sins of the past were washed away.
2 Pet 1:10 Instead of this, brothers, never allow your choice or calling to waver; then there will be no danger of your stumbling,
2 Pet 1:11 for in this way you will be given the generous gift of entry to the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Why would Peter include verse eleven if he was speaking of ELECTION in the Calvinistic sense? Didn't Peter know that with Calvinistic election there is NO POSSIBILITY of NO ENTRY into the Eternal Kingdom? If anyone should know about election it is Peter....right?

 

[billwald]

"We must distinguish between poessesion of salvation and assurance of salvation."

AMEN. The only test for salvation is 100% conformation with 1 John.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I don't think Peter is addressing "election" in the sense that you are familiar with, but is rather addressing the result of coming to faith in God the Son and How to live life there-in.

Creative to be sure, but if that was what Peter meant, he would have said that. He said "election" because he meant "election."