Let's discuss the differing views of Biblical Election

[preacher4truth]

Why not let BB calvinists post their own verses. We do not need you to tell us what we believe, or what verses we use.:thumbsup:
Your anologies are most always flawed, so no one wants to respond to them.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Correct. He doesn't know what we believe obviously as he has mistaken us yet again, but instead makes threads about cals which appear ad hominem and totally misrepresent us.

I've addressed his analogies as such in the past, that their premise is typically and nearly always flawed.

 

[Aaron]

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.

And those that did get on board did so why? Because they possessed a quality that the unbelievers lacked. The difference is in the individual and not in the savior.

And you still insist that you don't teach that God elects a quality?

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.

Here it is tweaked to be more accurate:

Suppose you go to that same sinking boat and the passengers and crew are deaf and blind. Your life raft has infinite capacity, but your Father gave you a list of only 10 individuals that you are going to get off the ship (its "Unconditional"). You get on the sinking boat and go and touch the eyes and ears of 10. You tell them of the peril they're in, and they believe you. (its "Effectual").
​

Now, it would be accurate to say that you decided to save a "preselected few."

True.

You only are offended by that statement . . .

I am?

. . . because deep down you know that the first scenario is the more biblical model.

Pish tosh.

 

[Skandelon]

And those that did get on board did so why?

Because they chose not to.

Because they possessed a quality that the unbelievers lacked.

That would assume the deterministic premise that is up for debate. You know, the premise which believes all human choices are determined by some God given 'quality' denying any since of freedom or autonomy, thus begging the question of the debate once again. Same song second hundredth verse.

And you still insist that you don't teach that God elects a quality?

Nope, that presumes the individualization of this doctrine, which I already explained is something we reject.

Read this link and maybe it will help you understand our view.

Suppose you go to that same sinking boat and the passengers and crew are deaf and blind.

Let me stop you. Those in scripture who BECOME deaf and blind are not born as such. They GROW or BECOME deaf and blind after continued rebellion, otherwise they may see, hear, understand and believe. (ref. Acts 28:21-28; John 12:39-41; Matt 13; Mark 4)

Your life raft has infinite capacity,

A meaningless point with all things considered.

but your Father gave you a list of only 10 individuals that you are going to get off the ship (its "Unconditional").

A "FEW" by any standard which is the point being addressed...thanks

I am?

jbh and icon are... please read the thread

 

[preacher4truth]

Because they chose not to.

Not quite.

No, not because THEY "chose" to, but rather because they were enabled to, by God.

It's the Gospel of Grace, not the gospel of choice. Thus, there is only one true Gospel.

 

[Skandelon]

Why not let BB calvinists post their own verses.We do not need you to tell us what we believe, or what verses we use.:thumbsup:

Do I need to link to all the times Calvinists have used this verse to support your doctrine? Do you deny that it does support your views? Why are you okay with Jesus saying "few" in reference to those elected, but not me?

Your anologies are most always flawed, so no one wants to respond to them.

I noticed that you like to make general accusations without any substantiation and no one likes to respond to that either.

We do not believe that either.

Really? You don't believe God preselected a relative few number of people to save? Interesting. Aaron doesn't seem to have a problem with that, why do you?

Again, even Jesus used the word 'few' in reference to those who are saved, and you don't seem to have a problem with that. Be consistent.

 

[Skandelon]

From the link above:

Critics of Arminianism tend to portray the Arminian view of election in this way: God elects to salvation those whom He knows will believe anyway, therefore election is basically meaningless. God's election is conditional on what human beings will choose to do: He just elects those who elect themselves--in fact, this view makes Him powerless to save anyone without their cooperation. The sacrifice of Jesus is not sufficient to save; it must be mixed with the individual's faith in order to be effective. The believer becomes his own co-savior and robs glory for salvation that is due to God. He gives himself a means of boasting, even though the Bible says to "let him who boasts, boast in the Lord."

The reason why the Arminian view is seen in this way is because of an exclusive focus on the individual. The Reformed view sees God essentially as electing individuals (say, Peter, Paul, and Mary) who together become corporately the people of God. Those who hold this view incorrectly assume that Arminians also focus on the individual, but merely get around God's election by basing it on foreknowledge of the individual's exercise of faith. Arminians, however, do not start with the individual. They start with the plan of salvation, centered on the sacrifice of Christ. The point of the election passages, says the Arminian, is the sovereignly and unconditionally determined criterion of election: faith in Christ for the atonement of one's sins. That criterion becomes the defining characteristic of the people of God. God's people are not the wealthy, or the intellectual, or the noble, or the strong, or even those physically descended from Abraham or those who strive the hardest to follow the Law. They are those who trust in Christ for their salvation. Period. Through the power of the Gospel we are enabled to believe; those who choose to do so become a part of that chosen people (which is what ελεκτοι means). But God's eternal decree is that He has chosen to choose those who believe, as opposed to any other group. That is unconditional and unchangeable.

It is only when considered on the level of the individual that foreknowledge even becomes an issue. Once God has chosen to choose those who believe, then He of course knows who that group will consist of as individuals. "General election" (the choice of a group, as opposed to "particular election," the choice of specific individuals) is sometimes ridiculed on the basis that if God chooses a group, He must necessarily choose each individual member of that group. But that is only true if one considers a group in a static sense--"My church consists of each individual member in it." However, a group based on a criterion is a dynamic group: the church may gain some people and lose others and still nonetheless be the church; it is defined by those who choose to worship together. God knows who will respond to the enabling power of the Gospel by choosing to believe (say, Peter, Paul, and Mary) and so in a sense He has elected those individuals for salvation, but it cannot be said that they "elected themselves," because they didn't choose the criterion for election.

 

[Aaron]

Because they chose not to.

Why? Why does one choose death over life?

You said the reason is not in God, so it has to be in the chooser. The one who shoots himself in the head . . . are you saying there is no difference between him and one without suicidal tendencies, that he was was just well adjusted and mentally healthy?

Nope, that presumes the individualization of this doctrine . . .

It's not a presumption, it's the only rational conclusion. If the reason is not in God, nor in the elect, you're left with random chance.

Is that what you're saying. It's just a roll of the dice?

Let me stop you . . .

Which, being interpreted, meaneth, "My strawman won't stand if I let you correct my omissions."

 

[Aaron]

However, a group based on a criterion...

And that criterion is?

The quality of by one's own will not resisting the "powerful" message of the "Spirit wrought" Gospel.

It doesn't matter how you slice it, in the final analysis the reason for the choice rests in the individual.

What a waste of words and breath it is to attempt to make it anything else.

 

[jbh28]

Explain to me how my accusation of God preselecting a relatively few number of people to be saved is a personal attack upon you? Especially considering the fact that even Calvinists quote passages such as "many are called but FEW are chosen" in defense of their views?

I've already done it twice now. Do I really need to write it a third time? Go back and re-read what I just posted as I gave a very good explanation of it.

I explained the distinction between the number in the analogy regarding the boat. If that doesn't make the difference clear, I don't know what will.

And I responded to that already.

I don't believe God preselected a relative few for salvation. I believe God desires all to come to repentance and makes that appeal genuinely to all mankind, while actually making that response a viable option.

I was speaking of the "few" part of it.

Again, see the boat analogy and you will see the clear difference in what I believe and what you believe. Nothing I have stated is a personal attack. It is simply a fact of your system: According to Calvinism, God has chosen to save a few preselected people from the mass of humanity. That should be common knowledge and nothing objectionable, if indeed you believe it. That number of people who are saved may be in the millions, billions or even trillions, but it is a small fraction of those not selected...and since scripture even uses the word 'few' I really don't see what all the fuss is about.

don't just repeat what you already said. I've responded to this already. I know we have different beliefs, but my point still stands.

Not the point. The point is that 15 is a "few" relative to the 100 so there is no reason to object.

It is the point. you keep missing it. You bring up "select few" like it's a bad thing. Those "select few" receive something they do not deserve.

Then you misunderstand our view of election. God elected to invite all, but only chooses to save those who are clothed in righteousness of Christ through faith, thus, "many are called but few are chosen."

No, I didn't missnderstand. you didn't read carefully. You believe that God elected to not save certain individuals. Otherwise, you would either have to deny God's sovereignty(He couldn't save them) or his omniscience(he didn't know they would reject). Unless one of these isn't true, then God chose to let them stay in their sin and go to hell. He could have saved them, but chose not to.

Everyone unless he is a Universalist, denier of God's sovereignty or denier of God's omniscience believes that God knew that certain people would reject Him and chose to let him stay in that fallen state and go to hell.

 

[Skandelon]

Why? Why does one choose death over life?

Why do some choose Calvinism over Arminianism, or Premillinialism over Post, or KJVO over sanity?

It's called free will and the drive to explain a truly free choice in this manner is really just a game of question begging because it assumes that a deterministic explaination is required. The choice between available options "is what free will is all about . . ., and it is finally mysterious, beyond full explanation, for full explanations presuppose the very determinism the libertarian rejects" (Ciocchi, p. 94).

How many more times must I explain that?

You said the reason is not in God, so it has to be in the chooser.

The reason is in God in so much as God chose to create free autonomous creatures. Does that help?

It's not a presumption, it's the only rational conclusion. If the reason is not in God, nor in the elect, you're left with random chance.

Who said it wasn't in God or the chooser? The reason is in both. It is in God who created free moral agents and in the agent who makes free moral choices. The fact that you can't define or explain what 'determines' their choice doesn't mean its just 'chance,' it only means it is beyond our full understanding. Just like when you are asked why God might choose to save you rather than someone else. Is that chance just because you don't know how it was determined? No, you appeal to the mystery of God's free choice.

Which, being interpreted, meaneth, "My strawman won't stand if I let you correct my omissions."

Correcting your view of man which presumes men are born deaf and blind, when clearly the scripture teaches they BECOME this way, is not building a straw-man. A straw-man would be like if someone kept asking what determines a free choice as if a deterministic response is necessary. You know, like you keep doing.

 

[Amy.G]

Everyone unless he is a Universalist, denier of God's sovereignty or denier of God's omniscience believes that God knew that certain people would reject Him and chose to let him stay in that fallen state and go to hell.

That's the first time I've ever heard a Cal say that. Is that the Calvinist position? I can accept that if so. What I can't accept is the notion that God just leaves a man in a condemned state for absolutely no reason.

 

[jbh28]

What we say

Critics of Arminianism tend to portray the Arminian view of election in this way: God elects to salvation those whom He knows will believe anyway, therefore election is basically meaningless.

What you say?

Once God has chosen to choose those who believe, then He of course knows who that group will consist of as individuals.

 

[jbh28]

That's the first time I've ever heard a Cal say that. Is that the Calvinist position? I can accept that if so.

Election has to do with why God elects for Salvation. Now, there will be some that believe that people are "neutral" and God elects some to heaven and some to hell. I only see in Scripture election in regards to heaven. People are sinners and on their way to hell. God doesn't need to elect them there. If one wants to say God elects him there, it's not outside of the persons sin. All people deserve hell.

Hell is for sinners. Without the cross, all would go to hell because all sinned. God because of his great love send His Son Jesus Christ to save. Now, I believe that man, because of his sinful depraved nature, will still reject God. He is spiritually dead and doesn't want to come to Christ. So God elects some of these sinners that deserve hell to heaven. The rest, he leaves to do just as they want, sin. And he then gives them their just punishment in hell.

What I can't accept is the notion that God just leaves a man in a condemned state for absolutely no reason.

I don't know the real reason of why God doesn't just save everyone. I don't believe it's for no reason at all, I just don't know what it is. I believe Christ's death "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." - Canons of Dordt, head 2, Article 3 Therefore, God could have saved everyone if he had chosen to do so. However, we know that God hasn't chosen to save everyone. The point of election is why does a person dead in his trespasses and sins ever come to Christ. I believe that man, left in his natural state will never choose to come to Christ. So God in his mercy has chosen to save some and leave the rest in their sinful state where they will receive the just punishment we all deserve.

 

[Amy.G]

I don't know the real reason of why God doesn't just save everyone. I don't believe it's for no reason at all, I just don't know what it is.

Ok, now you've confused me, because earlier you said

Everyone unless he is a Universalist, denier of God's sovereignty or denier of God's omniscience believes that God knew that certain people would reject Him and chose to let him stay in that fallen state and go to hell.

You say in God's omniscience, He knows certain people will reject Him. I agree. Jesus said He knew who would believe and who wouldn't. If God knows John Smith will reject Him, then John Smith will not be elected for salvation. Correct?

 

[Skandelon]

I was speaking of the "few" part of it.

Define the word "few" and you will see that is not an unfair assessment. Plus, have you explained why you would be ok with Jesus using the word 'few' in regard to those who are saved but not me? Is it just my disagreement with your doctrine that makes the word 'few' somehow unacceptable to you? And again, I have no idea how you think that is a personal attack against you. Its not about you or any other debater. It is about the subject of this debate and thus cannot be called a personal attack.

It is the point. you keep missing it. You bring up "select few" like it's a bad thing.

Actually you are the only one who is treating it as if it is a bad thing. It is just a statement of fact in my mind. You think God preselected some people to be saved and not the rest. Those chosen to be saved are much much fewer in number than those lost. That is a fact, not an attack on any person or a "bad" thing.

Those "select few" receive something they do not deserve.

That is another point all together... but notice, this doesn't deny that in fact there are a 'select few' in your system who will get someone they do not deserve.

Everyone unless he is a Universalist, denier of God's sovereignty or denier of God's omniscience believes that God knew that certain people would reject Him and chose to let him stay in that fallen state and go to hell.

The link I referenced above addresses this very objection so I'll refer you back to that...

 

[Skandelon]

What we say
What you say?

Keep reading... Did you get to the part about the "dynamic" group versus the "static" group?

Here it is again:

"General election" (the choice of a group, as opposed to "particular election," the choice of specific individuals) is sometimes ridiculed on the basis that if God chooses a group, He must necessarily choose each individual member of that group. But that is only true if one considers a group in a static sense--"My church consists of each individual member in it." However, a group based on a criterion is a dynamic group: the church may gain some people and lose others and still nonetheless be the church; it is defined by those who choose to worship together.


So, if I as a pastor, predetermine the methods for discipleship for the church that I start, does that mean I've predetermined who will and will not join the church? No, not necessarily. In the same manner, Paul may have expressed God's predetermined plan to adopt and conform those in Christ without meaning to say that God has predetermined who will or will not be in Christ by faith.

In fact, Paul says in Eph 1 that God predestined "US." Who is "us?" Believers. So, he is saying that believers have been predestined to be adopted. He never says that God predestined us to become believers. He only expresses what God has always preplanned to do with those who believe "IN CHRIST."

 

[jbh28]

Ok, now you've confused me, because earlier you said

No problem Wasn't trying to confuse. I might have misspoke. I've done that a time or two.

You say in God's omniscience, He knows certain people will reject Him. I agree.

Good

Jesus said He knew who would believe and who wouldn't. If God knows John Smith will reject Him, then John Smith will not be elected for salvation. Correct?

Not quite. I don't believe that God doesn't elect because someone rejects.

Let's say we have John Smith and John Johnson.
Both Smith and Johnson are sinners.
Both Smith and Johnson deserve hell.
Both Smith and Johnson will reject Jesus Christ.
God elects Johnson to be saved and thus Johnson stops rejecting Christ. Smith is left rejecting Christ.

What you said is that Smith wasn't elected because he rejected. God doesn't elect because he foresees that one will come to him. Nor does not not elect because he foresees man rejecting him. God elects some because he knows that if he didn't, all would always reject him.

Some view election this way. Jesus is at the gate of heaven. Many people come to him, but he only selects a few and rejects the rest. This is not election.

Instead election is like this.
Jesus as the gate of heaven calling for all to come to him in repentance and faith. None come to him. So he elects some of the ones that reject to come to him. The rest he leaves them to keep rejecting.


Hope that helps

 

[jbh28]

Keep reading... Did you get to the part about the "dynamic" group versus the "static" group?

Here it is again:

"General election" (the choice of a group, as opposed to "particular election," the choice of specific individuals) is sometimes ridiculed on the basis that if God chooses a group, He must necessarily choose each individual member of that group. But that is only true if one considers a group in a static sense--"My church consists of each individual member in it." However, a group based on a criterion is a dynamic group: the church may gain some people and lose others and still nonetheless be the church; it is defined by those who choose to worship together.


So, if I as a pastor, predetermine the methods for discipleship for the church that I start, does that mean I've predetermined who will and will not join the church? No, not necessarily. In the same manner, Paul may have expressed God's predetermined plan to adopt and conform those in Christ without meaning to say that God has predetermined who will or will not be in Christ by faith.

I understand, but the Bible refers to people as "elect" and those whom. God loves people, individuals.

In fact, Paul says in Eph 1 that God predestined "US." Who is "us?" Believers. So, he is saying that believers have been predestined to be adopted. He never says that God predestined us to become believers. He only expresses what God has always preplanned to do with those who believe "IN CHRIST."

The entire passage of Ephesians 1 is about salvation. He has predestined some to be adopted. He chosen some to be holy(sanctified) and blameless(justified). All parts of salvation.

Individuals are saved. The language of the Bible isn't the same language as your store. IMHO, it's an attempt, not by you but by others before you, to make the Bible say something that it doesn't say. Many don't like election simply because it makes God seem unfair. The issue is that God is perfectly fair and just. Jesus wasn't unjust or unfair by raising Lazarus and not others from physical death.

The only difference between typical conditional election and what is presented is the language of individual election vs election to do something. It may be a little better than the, in my opinion, the foreknowledge election which isn't really an election at all, but I believe it misses still some major points.

 

[jbh28]

Define the word "few" and you will see that is not an unfair assessment. Plus, have you explained why you would be ok with Jesus using the word 'few' in regard to those who are saved but not me? Is it just my disagreement with your doctrine that makes the word 'few' somehow unacceptable to you? And again, I have no idea how you think that is a personal attack against you. Its not about you or any other debater. It is about the subject of this debate and thus cannot be called a personal attack.

Actually you are the only one who is treating it as if it is a bad thing. It is just a statement of fact in my mind. You think God preselected some people to be saved and not the rest. Those chosen to be saved are much much fewer in number than those lost. That is a fact, not an attack on any person or a "bad" thing.

That is another point all together... but notice, this doesn't deny that in fact there are a 'select few' in your system who will get someone they do not deserve.



The link I referenced above addresses this very objection so I'll refer you back to that...

After replying to Amy, I think I remembered something. It's a problem because of many people's faulty view of what a Calvinist believes with election. Some view it as many come to him, but God only selects his few and rejects the rest. That's what the issue is.

I mentioned earlier about the few vs many. There is the couple of places where Jesus used few vs many, but there are also places where it's refereed to as "many." Romans 8:29 is one of them.

 

[Iconoclast]

And anyone wanting the CORRECT view of election IN SCRIPTURE should read here:

http://www.schooleyfiles.com/2006/10/arminian-perspective-on-election-gods.html

Your friend......schooley.....has the classic wrong understanding of biblical foreknowledge....coupled with the old God elects a plan,,,,like God elects a train....but you must put yourself on the train, then you are elect also.

I am glad you posted it alongside of Dagg and Boyce,,,as it will showcase the clear truth and show itself defective....

Also ...which verse do you believe has Jesus saying their are few in reference to election?