Question about the 'Elect'

[webdog]

When you are given a heart that desires Christ everything should be easy, because Christ enables me to overcome my struggles.

This is not accurate in the least. With a sin nature and living in the "world", to the Christian "everything" is NOT"easy". If "everything" is easy, what happend with David and Bathsheeba? We would never sin if what you stated is true.

If you were regenerated prior to faith, coming to Christ wouldn't be "easy" it would be automatic, or what is the phrase you guys like, irresistable.

 

[2BHizown]

the 'easy' life

Sure, even for Paul, right? Shipwrecked, imprisoned, persecuted and all!

The blessed life occurs in knowing this life is short and our real life is in the hereafter with Christ if in fact He has saved your soul, which makes all the misery that occurs here worth it all!

 

[Dave]

Everything is not easy to everyone!

Why do some become more Calvanistic in their viewpoint and others become more Arminian? Probably something to do with our sin natures, which accord to us human pride, and lack of complete understanding of spiritual things.

We see through a glass darkly, as Paul put it. We cannot see clearly, in this life, all that the Lord has revealed. It is ourselves that are lacking not His revelation.

I am not saying the C is right nor am I saying the A is right. I think the truth lies somewhere between the two, though personally I lean more to the C view.

Why does conversion seem to come easy to some people and hard to others? I think a lot of the reasons are the same. Any way you slice it, we are tainted by the curse of Adam's sin and that curse causes more decay generation by generation. Of course, that is probably a different thread to discuss that point, but people do learn things at different speeds, some have a greater helping of pride than others, some have an easier time trusting than others; there are a wide variety of differences in each person's makeup that will impact their views on many of these subjects.

 

[Skandelon]

Skandelon asked:
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?

Great question too. But I noticed you failed to supply any answers. From a non-Calvinistic perspective the answer is quite simple. If Presbyterianism was true many believers would be making a bad choice in their denominational and doctrinal beliefs and thus they would be completely accountable. They could have done otherwise. How would Calvinists answer this question?

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.

That is not a "staw man." Straw man is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. I'm not attempting to argue that you are claiming that regeneration is intended to accomplish complete conformity to Calvinistic doctrine, I'm asking why regeneration doesn't accomplish it. That is not a fallacy. Ignoring my questions and replacing them with questions of your own as you did above is more of a debate fallacy than what I've done. Its called Red Herring.

 

[Skandelon]

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.

Maybe God hasn't elected some of the elect to be Calvinistic. Could that be the problem? Or do you believe every true Christian has the ability to come faith in Calvinistic doctrine or to resist it?

 

[Ransom]

skandelon said:

If Presbyterianism was true many believers would be making a bad choice in their denominational and doctrinal beliefs and thus they would be completely accountable. They could have done otherwise. How would Calvinists answer this question?


If Calvinism was true, many believers would be making a bad choice in their doctrinal beliefs. They could have done otherwise.

That is not a "staw man." Straw man is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made.

And therefore, this:

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?

is a straw man, since it is a caricature of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made.

When Calvinist speak of "irresistible grace," they are talking about soteriology. Why are men saved? Because God's grace draws them irresistibly to repentance and faith. They are not talking about how we come to know doctrine.

 

[Skandelon]

skandelon said:

If Presbyterianism was true many believers would be making a bad choice in their denominational and doctrinal beliefs and thus they would be completely accountable. They could have done otherwise. How would Calvinists answer this question?


If Calvinism was true, many believers would be making a bad choice in their doctrinal beliefs. They could have done otherwise.

That is not a "staw man." Straw man is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made.

And therefore, this:



is a straw man, since it is a caricature of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made.

When Calvinist speak of "irresistible grace," they are talking about soteriology. Why are men saved? Because God's grace draws them irresistibly to repentance and faith. They are not talking about how we come to know doctrine.

Listen carefully. I never claimed that you or any Calvinist has argued that "irresistable grace" means God will cause all men to have correct doctrine. I've asked why Calvinist think God has not caused all believers to come to correct doctrine in light of the fact that God has irresistibly drawn them to faith in Christ. If you believe God has irresistibly drawn men to one truth then it is natural to question why He might not choose to draw them all to another important truth.

I am agreeing that Calvinists don't believe that irresistible grace accomplishes correct soteriology and I'm questioning why that is. That is not a staw man. A straw man would be if I attacked Calvinism as if it did teach that irresistible grace would lead all to the same soteriological conclusions. Understand?

The reason I'm pointing this out is to show the correlation to how one comes to believe a particular doctrine is the same as how one comes to believe in Christ as savior. I'm attempting to get Calvinists to explain the difference between how one come to faith in Christ as savior and how one comes to faith in the Calvinistic doctrine. Does this clear things up?

 

[BD17]

This is not accurate in the least. With a sin nature and living in the "world", to the Christian "everything" is NOT"easy". If "everything" is easy, what happend with David and Bathsheeba? We would never sin if what you stated is true.

If you were regenerated prior to faith, coming to Christ wouldn't be "easy" it would be automatic, or what is the phrase you guys like, irresistable.

I love how people leave out certain WORDS when they quote people, hmmm... wonder if that is how they interpret the Bible?

Webdog I said SHOULD be easy I did not say IS. BIG difference.

 

[BD17]

Listen carefully. I never claimed that you or any Calvinist has argued that "irresistable grace" means God will cause all men to have correct doctrine. I've asked why Calvinist think God has not caused all believers to come to correct doctrine in light of the fact that God has irresistibly drawn them to faith in Christ. If you believe God has irresistibly drawn men to one truth then it is natural to question why He might not choose to draw them all to another important truth.

I am agreeing that Calvinists don't believe that irresistible grace accomplishes correct soteriology and I'm questioning why that is. That is not a staw man. A straw man would be if I attacked Calvinism as if it did teach that irresistible grace would lead all to the same soteriological conclusions. Understand?

The reason I'm pointing this out is to show the correlation to how one comes to believe a particular doctrine is the same as how one comes to believe in Christ as savior. I'm attempting to get Calvinists to explain the difference between how one come to faith in Christ as savior and how one comes to faith in the Calvinistic doctrine. Does this clear things up?

I understand you point and it is a great question, from my own personal experience, I do not have "faith" in the calvinistic doctrine, I have FAITH in Christ, my faith in Christ was their before I knew anything about calvin or His teachings. Once I started to study the leadings in my heart I learned about the doctrines of grace and when I looked back at how they applied to my life it was like following a bread trail. God worked in my life to bring me to faith.

So i guess my believing in Calvinistic doctrine came after I became a believer, and started to study on a regular basis. I hope this answers your question, I cannot answer for any other "calvinists" only for myself.

 

[Brother Bob]

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

That is, not believing the doctrine as it is taught by Calvinist.

If so, then they are the only ones going to Heaven and we all have just been dooped.raise:

 

[webdog]

I love how people leave out certain WORDS when they quote people, hmmm... wonder if that is how they interpret the Bible?

Webdog I said SHOULD be easy I did not say IS. BIG difference.

Makes no difference whatsoever. "Everything is easy" or "everything should be easy" is based on what? Scripture? You? I stand by what I said, the Christian life is NOT easy, and is never said that it should be.

 

[BD17]

Makes no difference whatsoever. "Everything is easy" or "everything should be easy" is based on what? Scripture? You? I stand by what I said, the Christian life is NOT easy, and is never said that it should be.

No it shouldn't be we are to recieve persecution be ridiculed etc, but why make the other things in life that should be laid at Christ's feet such as worry, stress, anger, etc should be easy to let go. It is for me, when I get frustrated I remember that Christ was more frustrated, when I get worried i remember Christ has me in His hands, these things SHOULD be easy for Christians to do, yet for some they are not.

 

[Helen]

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

That's definitely what the Bible says. It nowhere gives any indication that God's grace is irresistable. Rather, it encourages men to NOT harden their hearts (which means their hearts were not hardened toward the truth to begin with). God encourages the unbelieving to come and reason with Him (Isaiah 1), indicating that the unbeliever has the ability to reason with God.

 

[webdog]

No it shouldn't be we are to recieve persecution be ridiculed etc, but why make the other things in life that should be laid at Christ's feet such as worry, stress, anger, etc should be easy to let go. It is for me, when I get frustrated I remember that Christ was more frustrated, when I get worried i remember Christ has me in His hands, these things SHOULD be easy for Christians to do, yet for some they are not.

I am sorry you live a life that is not freeing from your sin. It is easy for me to to things that glorify Christ for i love Him and because of that love I desire to please Him.

Again, easy according to you or Scripture? If Scripture, can you supply it?

 

[Skandelon]

I understand you point and it is a great question, from my own personal experience, I do not have "faith" in the calvinistic doctrine, I have FAITH in Christ, my faith in Christ was their before I knew anything about calvin or His teachings. Once I started to study the leadings in my heart I learned about the doctrines of grace and when I looked back at how they applied to my life it was like following a bread trail. God worked in my life to bring me to faith.

So i guess my believing in Calvinistic doctrine came after I became a believer, and started to study on a regular basis. I hope this answers your question, I cannot answer for any other "calvinists" only for myself.

When I said you have faith in the Calvinistic doctrine that simply means you believe the Calvinistic doctrine to be true. In the same way you also came to believe that the simple truth of the gospel is true. Why do you believe that anyone who comes to believe the truth of Calvinistic teaching has come to believe the truth of the Jesus being our Lord in any different manner? Both are heard, learned and either accepted or rejected by the hearer.

Why do you believe that accepting the truth of the simple gospel is any different than accepting any other biblical truth?

When in comes to accepting "Calvinistic truth" you say that you "started to study," as if that is what should be credited for leading you to this particular "biblical truth." Why wouldn't you allow for any one to say the exact same thing as their reason for coming to accept the biblical truth that Jesus is Lord? Couldn't it be that some come to the biblical truth for salvation by "starting to study," in the same way you came to Calvinism? Why do you put these truths on different levels of acceptability? Do you understand what I'm asking?

 

[Ransom]

Skandelon said:

I've asked why Calvinist think God has not caused all believers to come to correct doctrine in light of the fact that God has irresistibly drawn them to faith in Christ.

OK, so why are you singling out Calvinists to answer a supposed challenge to Calvinism, if in fact it isn't actually a question about Calvinism?

 

[Skandelon]

Skandelon said:

I've asked why Calvinist think God has not caused all believers to come to correct doctrine in light of the fact that God has irresistibly drawn them to faith in Christ.

OK, so why are you singling out Calvinists to answer a supposed challenge to Calvinism, if in fact it isn't actually a question about Calvinism?

Nevermind. It's not worth explaining it again.

 

[BD17]

When I said you have faith in the Calvinistic doctrine that simply means you believe the Calvinistic doctrine to be true. In the same way you also came to believe that the simple truth of the gospel is true. Why do you believe that anyone who comes to believe the truth of Calvinistic teaching has come to believe the truth of the Jesus being our Lord in any different manner? Both are heard, learned and either accepted or rejected by the hearer.

Why do you believe that accepting the truth of the simple gospel is any different than accepting any other biblical truth?

When in comes to accepting "Calvinistic truth" you say that you "started to study," as if that is what should be credited for leading you to this particular "biblical truth." Why wouldn't you allow for any one to say the exact same thing as their reason for coming to accept the biblical truth that Jesus is Lord? Couldn't it be that some come to the biblical truth for salvation by "starting to study," in the same way you came to Calvinism? Why do you put these truths on different levels of acceptability? Do you understand what I'm asking?

I think I understand but forgive me if I do not. I don't feel that people can't come to the biblical truth of salvation in the same way I did, what I am saying is that MOST (notice I did not say all) of the time they end up believing in Christ but also that they had some hand, or power in that. My question would be what led them to start studying in the first place, a conviction, a guilty conscience now there that did not used to be, whatever, MOST people fail to recognize when God started to call them to their faith, and mistake as some decision they made on their own apart from the power of the Holy spirit. This is where the danger lies, for a majority of those people do not believe they are sinners or understand why they need Jesus. My experience with these people is that they want to know Jesus to be a better husband, dad, brother, etc. The truth is they do not need Jesus to be those things, I know plenty of unbelieving parents who are good parents. They need Jesus becasue they are sinners. Does this make sense?

 

[epistemaniac]

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

That is, not believing the doctrine as it is taught by Calvinist.

yep.... the very doctrine of election to salvation itself teaches that one is not saved by their knowledge of systematic theology.... in fact... in most cases it seems, people are saved in spite of it

blessings,
Ken

 

[epistemaniac]

skandelon... you said

If you believe God has irresistibly drawn men to one truth then it is natural to question why He might not choose to draw them all to another important truth.

simple.... salvation, regeneration.... indeed... justification... is not the same thing as sanctification.... God saves as He sovereignly chooses to, monergisticly.... however, snactification is is a synergistic enterprise, people's individual knowledge of how salvation works varies.... how people are saved isn't.

blessings,
Ken