Question about the 'Elect'

Only if their view is that they are elect because God looked through the corridors of time and "elected" them because He saw that when faced with the choice of Jesus, or death they chose Jesus. This is the typical non-Calvinist view of election.

 

This is not a typical view of election, or at least that I have not come across very often. God doesn't have to look "through the corridors of time"...He is omnipresent and omnitemporal...He EXISTS in every and all times!

As for the OP, it depends on who is correct as far as who the "elect" are. Are these jewish believers? Gentile believers? All believers? A nebulous group chosen? Individuals? The Church?

 

It is the typical view of election that is not Calvinist, ask someone who is not reformed, you for example, to define the term foreknew in Romans and how that applies to the elect. You will find that it falls in line with the view stated above.

 

Are you telling me you know what I believe as a non calvinist, and I don't?

Foreknew does not fall under the "looking down the corridors of time". God, not being held to "time" was relating to us, humans that are bound by time in the aforementioned verse in Romans. Do you think that God acutally "foreknows"? This, by definition, would mean God does not exist in every and all times, but is bound Himself by time.

 

No I am not trying to tell you what you believe, I apologize if that is how it came across. I was only using you as an example of someone who does not hold tho the Calvinist view of election. If you do not mind would you care to enlighten me to what your definition of forknew as used in Romans is?

 

I sure hope so, or else for I wasn't saved until 18 years after my conversion.

Being part of the elect, and becoming saved does not require deep understanding of systematic theology.

 

I think it is interesting to see how Calvinists assume they have the market on the word "foreknowledge" as being that which expresses an intimate knowledge of someone God has chosen to conform to the image of Christ. Both Calvinists and non-Calvinists (for the most part) confirm this truth and accept this understanding of the word "foreknowledge."

Because God is not bound by time we all agree that we, as believers, are going to spend an eternity with God and his knowledge and love for us is infinite. However, all this is completely inrelevant to the issue as to how ones comes to faith because this passage doesn't address that point at all. It only tells us that we, whom God foreknows, have been predestined to be conformed to the image of His son. It says nothing about God predestining or even foreseeing our response of faith to his gospel invitation. It only tells us what believers are predestined to become, it says nothing about select individuals being predestined to believe.

So, as to foreknowledge, we both affirm God foreknows all believers, but the question is why does he foreknow us? Is it because he unconditionally elected us, regenerated us and irresistably drew us to faith in Him? Or, is it because when we were confronted by his gospel invitation we freely responded in faith? This passage doesn't answer that question. It only tells us that those who love and believe in God are foreknown and predestined to be conformed to Christ's image. Anything else is read into the text.

 

elect?

John Calvin has just completed his fifteenth revolution in the grave due to the pitiful nature of this thread!
The theology is so poor and so very far from calvinism it is shameful!
Why not read The Five Points of Calvinism for starters and learn some of the fine points about it before posting like an authority!

 

For anyone interested, the Spring 2005 edition of Trinity Journal has a good article regarding the meaning of "foreknowledge" in the NT by Tom McCall and Keith D. Stanglin. It's a fair article that will help anyone understand both sides of the debate here including their response to Baugh's article in "still sovereign" . One side not represented is the gobbledygook regarding God and time being the answer for everything (instead of responding to people on that one I would refer to the thread a few weeks ago on God and time where I explain my thoughts on the matter).

BJ

 

Can a person be of the 'Elect' and not believe in the doctrine of 'Election' ?

Of course. Salvation is by God's grace, not man's knowledge.

 

To return to the topic of the OP, I agree with Ransom.

 

So from where does man's knowledge come?

Let's suppose Calvinism is true. Why do many believers in Christ not affirm the Calvinistic soteriology? If God's regeneration can irresistably bring an individual to belief in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, then why does it fall short in bringing them all to a consistent understanding of how God saves?

Why do some believers in Christ affirm Calvinistic doctrine while other do not? Are Calvinists just smarter, wiser, more educated, or something which may give them cause to boast? Or has God elected some of the elect to be Calvinistic while passing by all the rest of us lessor children of God?

 

Your argument can be reversed to you skandelon. Let's suppose Arminism is true, why do many believer's in Christ not affirm the Arminist soteriology? Are they just smarter, wiser, more educated, or something which may give them cause to boast?

The reason some fall short is because they can not let go of their pride. They just can't believe they did not have at least some part in their salvation.

 

Obviously you were able to "let go of your pride," right? Why is that? Are you more humble than some others? More righteous? Why did you "let go" while others don't BD? Please tell us.

 

Notice I did not say all fall short, God convicted me of my guilt and once shown the errors of believing that I could possibly save myself it was easy, I trust God with my life and salvation, I trust God when he says "28And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good,[g] for those who are called according to his purpose. 29For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. "


Letting go of that belief in the light of God's power is and was easy for me.

 

But why? Why was it easy for you while others never come to accept it? Are you smarter, more righteous, or what? Don't avoid this question.

 

Skandelon asked:

So from where does man's knowledge come?

His knowledge of God comes from the Bible.

Let's suppose Calvinism is true. Why do many believers in Christ not affirm the Calvinistic soteriology?

Let's suppose Presbyterianism is true. Why do many believers in Christ not affirm the necessity of believer's baptism?

If God's regeneration can irresistably bring an individual to belief in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, then why does it fall short in bringing them all to a consistent understanding of how God saves?

Straw man. It doesn't "fall short"; it accomplishes precisely what it is intended to accomplish.

 

No not smarter, definitely not more righteous, becasue God's grace is irresistable and as much as my sinful nature wanted to fight Him God decided He wanted me. I can't answer why it is not easy for other people only why it was easy for me.

God changed my heart and that is why it was easy. When you are given a heart that desires Christ everything should be easy, because Christ enables me to overcome my struggles. Maybe the people that have a hard time still hold on to the belief they can do it on their own without Christ's help.

 

In other words maybe some choose not to come to the light? is that what you are saying BD?