Let's discuss the differing views of Biblical Election

[Skandelon]

At the risk of oversimplifying the various views of scholars throughout the years allow me to summarize the two most basic approaches to this controversial doctrine:

From the time of Augustine, followed by the popularity of Calvin's teachings, Western Christianity has tended to interpret the doctrine of election from the perspective of and with regard to individual human beings. During that same time, however, the doctrine has been far less emphasized and controversial in Eastern Orhodoxy, as a more corporate/national view has been prevalent.

Questions for discussion:
1. Is it possible that Augustine and later Calvin, with the help of many others, has unnecessarily caused a hyper individualization of this doctrine that was hardly warranted by Romans 9-11, Eph. 1, and 1 Peter 2?

2. Is it not true that the major emphasis in both the Old and New Testaments is on an 'elect people' (Israel in the OT; the church {along with the appointed leadership of the disciples} in the NT)?

3. Granted, we each become Christians as individuals, as we enter into the family of Christ through faith, but does God's predetermined plan to justify, sanctify and glorify this family necessarily mean He has only predetermined a select few the ability to enter it, while at the same time appealing for every creature to be reconciled and declaring that 'whosoever will' may come?


PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC AND AVOID PERSONAL ATTACKS.

 

[convicted1]

At the risk of oversimplifying the various views of scholars throughout the years allow me to summarize the two most basic approaches to this controversial doctrine:

From the time of Augustine, followed by the popularity of Calvin's teachings, Western Christianity has tended to interpret the doctrine of election from the perspective of and with regard to individual human beings. During that same time, however, the doctrine has been far less emphasized and controversial in Eastern Orhodoxy.

Questions for discussion:
1. Is it possible that Augustine and later Calvin, with the help of many others, has unnecessarily caused a hyper individualization of this doctrine that was hardly warranted by Romans 9-11, Eph. 1, and 1 Peter 2?

2. Is it not true that the major emphasis in both the Old and New Testaments is on an 'elect people' (Israel in the OT; the church {along with the appointed leadership of the disciples} in the NT)?

3. Granted, we each become Christians as individuals, as we enter into the family of Christ through faith, but does God's predetermined plan to justify, sanctify and glorify this family necessarily mean He has only predetermined a select few the ability to enter it, while at the same time appealing for every creature to be reconciled and declaring that 'whosoever will' may come?


PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC AND AVOID PERSONAL ATTACKS.

Under the OT, God chose(elected) the offspring of Abraham(Isaac) to represent Israel. Jacob became Israel by God naming him with that name. It was this nation that God brought out of Egypt's bondage in its entirety. However, eventhough Israel, as a whole, was God's chosen, many died in unbelief. IOW, they didn't make it to God's promised land, which flowed with milk and honey. So, even many of the "corporately elected", died due to unbelief.

In the NT, its much the same way. God broke the bondage of sin from us by His Son's work at the cross. Now, those who choose to follow after God, after Him drawing them of course, will see the Promised Land, heaven. For many are called, but few are chosen.

 

[Iconoclast]

but does God's predetermined plan to justify, sanctify and glorify this family necessarily mean He has only predetermined a select few the ability to enter it

[QUOTE16And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered. ][/QUOTE]

5And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.

People who do not believe in the DoG seem to speak in a derogotory fashion...and keep saying...a pre-selected few


God speaks of a multitude no man can number. Can you account for this other than to say that maybe you are not pre-disposed to believing this truth.

Calvin and others who study the scripture see the truth of God's electing love,and believe it as it is.

 

[DaChaser1]

At the risk of oversimplifying the various views of scholars throughout the years allow me to summarize the two most basic approaches to this controversial doctrine:

From the time of Augustine, followed by the popularity of Calvin's teachings, Western Christianity has tended to interpret the doctrine of election from the perspective of and with regard to individual human beings. During that same time, however, the doctrine has been far less emphasized and controversial in Eastern Orhodoxy, as a more corporate/national view has been prevalent.

Questions for discussion:
1. Is it possible that Augustine and later Calvin, with the help of many others, has unnecessarily caused a hyper individualization of this doctrine that was hardly warranted by Romans 9-11, Eph. 1, and 1 Peter 2?

2. Is it not true that the major emphasis in both the Old and New Testaments is on an 'elect people' (Israel in the OT; the church {along with the appointed leadership of the disciples} in the NT)?

3. Granted, we each become Christians as individuals, as we enter into the family of Christ through faith, but does God's predetermined plan to justify, sanctify and glorify this family necessarily mean He has only predetermined a select few the ability to enter it, while at the same time appealing for every creature to be reconciled and declaring that 'whosoever will' may come?


PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC AND AVOID PERSONAL ATTACKS.

basically...

God worked through 'corporate election" under the old Covenant, as the nation Isreal and the Jewish peoples were selected out by Him to be in a covenant relationship...

Under the new Covenant relationship, the Lord has established a personal relationship through jesus on an individual basis, as God elects us on a personal basis?

2 Covenants, 2 seperate ways of 'dealing' with election!

 

[Skandelon]

People who do not believe in the DoG seem to speak in a derogotory fashion...and keep saying...a pre-selected few

I don't understand why Calvinists take issue with this. Even scripture says, "narrow is the way and FEW are those who find it." Regardless of what 'camp' you are in you have to admit that a RELATIVE FEW will be saved compared to those who die in their unbelief. So, while the number of those saved is a innumerable, it pails in comparison to those lost. Again, please explain why you all take such issue with this?

And then go back to discussing the actual topic of the thread.

 

[Tom Butler]

basically...

God worked through 'corporate election" under the old Covenant, as the nation Isreal and the Jewish peoples were selected out by Him to be in a covenant relationship...

Under the new Covenant relationship, the Lord has established a personal relationship through jesus on an individual basis, as God elects us on a personal basis?

2 Covenants, 2 seperate ways of 'dealing' with election!

I'm asking out of ignorance here.

Are you saying that there were individual Jews under the Old Covenant that were not saved? That their being Jews brought them protection under that Covenant.

Just trying to understand.

 

[jbh28]

I don't understand why Calvinists take issue with this. Even scripture says, "narrow is the way and FEW are those who find it." Regardless of what 'camp' you are in you have to admit that a RELATIVE FEW will be saved compared to those who die in their unbelief. So, while the number of those saved is a innumerable, it pails in comparison to those lost. Again, please explain why you all take such issue with this?

And then go back to discussing the actual topic of the thread.

Really because it gets brought up. Those that use it make it out like Calvinist only believe that they "select few" will get saved. There's really not much disagreement over the number(which none of us knows) but it makes it out that the Calvinists believe that fewer people will be saved that the other side believes.

 

[Skandelon]

basically...

God worked through 'corporate election" under the old Covenant, as the nation Isreal and the Jewish peoples were selected out by Him to be in a covenant relationship...

Under the new Covenant relationship, the Lord has established a personal relationship through jesus on an individual basis, as God elects us on a personal basis?

2 Covenants, 2 seperate ways of 'dealing' with election!

Can you quote the scriptures (and maybe reference scholars) that support this view?

 

[Skandelon]

Really because it gets brought up. Those that use it make it out like Calvinist only believe that they "select few" will get saved. There's really not much disagreement over the number(which none of us knows) but it makes it out that the Calvinists believe that fewer people will be saved that the other side believes.

The difference is only about WHO does the limiting. We both must willingly admit that a relative FEW will be saved and from a Calvinistic perspective the obvious reason for that is due to God's choice to effectually save a select few, whereas in our view the limiting is done by those who "trade the truth in for a lie" and "refuse to accept the truth and so be saved," despite God's gracious love and provision for them all.

So, it appears you all are merely offended by the facts of the matter.

 

[preacher4truth]

Really because it gets brought up. Those that use it make it out like Calvinist only believe that they "select few" will get saved. There's really not much disagreement over the number(which none of us knows) but it makes it out that the Calvinists believe that fewer people will be saved that the other side believes.

Exactly, you and Iconoclast are both correct.

Non cals love to quote "select few" and the notorious "kicking and screaming" allegations. Neither are true, although some lone Cal somewhere in cyberspace may have alluded to it.

It looks to me there will be an inumerable company of redeemed that God chose and elected to salvation. So, there is really a select inumerable multitude, not a "select few" that is cast upon "us" by others, which is unfounded and is a misrepresentation.

 

[MB]

16And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered. ]

People who do not believe in the DoG seem to speak in a derogotory fashion...and keep saying...a pre-selected few


God speaks of a multitude no man can number. Can you account for this other than to say that maybe you are not pre-disposed to believing this truth.

Calvin and others who study the scripture see the truth of God's electing love,and believe it as it is.

The scripture you offer have nothing to do with election unless you are finaly admitting that all men are chosen by God.
MB

 

[preacher4truth]

I don't understand why Calvinists take issue with this. Even scripture says, "narrow is the way and FEW are those who find it."

Because it's in the way YOU use it, not in the way the Scriptures use it.

Tell me your reason for using it in such an unflattering sense towards cals, and why, since this is Scriptural, you use it to describe cals in the first place.

Thanks.

 

[Aaron]

Let's discuss the differing views of Biblical Election

Boiled down here are the differences. One doctrine teaches that God has elected qualities, and the other teaches that God has elected individuals. One says a persons salvation is conditional, the other says it is not.

There it is boiled down to its component parts.

Any questions?

 

[jbh28]

The difference is only about WHO does the limiting. We both must willingly admit that a relative FEW will be saved and from a Calvinistic perspective the obvious reason for that is due to God's choice to effectually save a select few, whereas in our view the limiting is done by those who "trade the truth in for a lie" and "refuse to accept the truth and so be saved," despite God's gracious love and provision for them all.

So, it appears you all are merely offended by the facts of the matter.

It's because it's used really as an ad hominem. It attempts to make Calvinist believe that God only selects a few. Since it's not an issue over the number, the only reason anyone would bring it up is to use it as a ad hominem argument and not as a basis for true discussion. And unless one denies the sovereignty of God, he has to admit that God has chosen to allow many people to go to hell.

 

[preacher4truth]

It's because it's used really as an ad hominem. It attempts to make Calvinist believe that God only selects a few. Since it's not an issue over the number, the only reason anyone would bring it up is to use it as a ad hominem argument and not as a basis for true discussion. And unless one denies the sovereignty of God, he has to admit that God has chosen to allow many people to go to hell.

This is clearly the objective at hand and is clearly the reason it was brought up. Making pretense he was alluding to Scripture is just that, pretense. I believe it was ad hominem. I await an explanation.

 

[preacher4truth]

Boiled down here are the differences. One doctrine teaches that God has elected qualities, and the other teaches that God has elected individuals. One says a persons salvation is conditional, the other says it is not.

There it is boiled down to its component parts.

Any questions?

Unconditional election.

 

[Skandelon]

It's because it's used really as an ad hominem.

Ad Hominem is a personal attack against the debater, not a factually based claim about ones actual belief.

Look, there is approximately 30% of the current population who claims to be Christian, and that percentage is higher now than throughout most of human history. You and I would both agree that those who claim to be Christian is probably much higher than those who actually are, so I think it would be safe to say that only around 15-20% of the total world population currently believe in Christ (if that). Can we agree on this?

How is that not a relative FEW? Even if millions were saved throughout history, it is still a relative FEW compared to the trillions who have remained in unbelief.

Think of it this way. If out of a group of 100 people you preselected 10 to 15 of them and gave them a gift, would it be inaccurate for me to say that you gave a gift to a preselected few? Of course not. So why do you find this so offensive? Could it be that you just don't like the cold hard facts about your actual system of belief?

 

[preacher4truth]

Ad Hominem is a personal attack against the debater, not a factually based claim about ones actual belief.

There will be multitudes before the throne. Jesus must be a Calvinist, He also said few.

Please share with us how you using "select few" in referring to cals is not derogatory, AND, why you are justifying "few" now. OK?

Show us also how when you use "a select few" towards cals really is a compliment towards their theology.

Thanks.

 

[Skandelon]

Boiled down here are the differences. One doctrine teaches that God has elected qualities,

Again, you reveal you lack of understanding for the dogma you so vehemently disagree. The idea that God elects an individual based upon a particular 'quality' is not an accurate representation of our belief.

One says a persons salvation is conditional, the other says it is not.

Actually, both camps believe salvation is conditional. Your view believes ELECTION is unconditional, and actually some non-Calvinistic scholars would agree in that election is about God's unconditional appeal for whosoever will.

 

[Skandelon]

Here is the why Calvinists get so offended by the "preselected few" comment:

Look at it this way. Suppose there are 1000 people on a boat that you knew was sinking due to their neglect and irresponsibility. Suppose you take a big raft that can hold all 1000 of them and you go to them and tell them all that the boat is sinking and you will take them all to safety but that they must get on now or be left to drown. Most don't believe you and rebel going on their merry way, but a few (about 100 or so) get on your life boat and go with you to safety. Now, it would be inaccurate to say that you preselected a few to save in this scenario, because in reality you sought to save them all and even provided the means for everyone of them to be saved. That is the biblical view of salvation. God makes an appeal to 'every creature' and calls all to repentance and faith. Some rebel and refuse to come to their own peril.

Now, lets look at it from the Calvinistic perspective. Suppose you go to that same sinking boat with a life raft that will only carry 98 people (its "Limited"). You get a list of the passengers and preselect 98 individuals that you are going to get off the ship (its "Unconditional"). You get on the sinking boat and go persuade those 98 people and leave (its "Effectual"). Now, it would be accurate to say that you decided to save a "preselected few." You only are offended by that statement because deep down you know that the first scenario is the more biblical model.