Repentence and the elect

[skypair]

Then I can surmise that you believe that man does have a will to choose to be saved or not?

Yes.

God said it first, so he has that authority!

Authority but not CONTROL. If He had control, we'd live perfect lives (at the very least) after we were saved. God was in authority and control in Jesus life -- not yours and not mine. You might look at it this way --- God "authorizes" EVERYONE to be saved. But since He does not "control" everyone, they are not all saved.

The question I have asked -- is it only the elect who are given opportunity to repent?

Yes and no. Here's my "free will" take --- the "elect" are those God foreknew would believe and repent to Christ.

By that description, obviously, the "elect" are the only ones who will repent, yes. And yet they have to repent before they will be "elected" of God, so no.

The only way WE can know we are "elect" is that we have believed and repented, Acts 2:38. Believing and repentance are "pre-conditions" to election (and to regeneration) as we know it.

skypair

 

[Salamander]

Yes.

Authority but not CONTROL. If He had control, we'd live perfect lives (at the very least) after we were saved. God was in authority and control in Jesus life -- not yours and not mine. You might look at it this way --- God "authorizes" EVERYONE to be saved. But since He does not "control" everyone, they are not all saved.

Yes and no. Here's my "free will" take --- the "elect" are those God foreknew would believe and repent to Christ.

By that description, obviously, the "elect" are the only ones who will repent, yes. And yet they have to repent before they will be "elected" of God, so no.

The only way WE can know we are "elect" is that we have believed and repented, Acts 2:38. Believing and repentance are "pre-conditions" to election (and to regeneration) as we know it.

skypair

Very good answer.

What I was "hoping" to find out is "if" those who so dogmatically hold to the "doctrine of election" in that only the elect are allowed the space of repentence, how do they explain those who were given the chance, yet they rejected the Lord?

 

[JustChristian]

With this I generally agree. Do you also agree that this verse may refer to the lost?
.

Yes. So-Called "CARNAL CHRISTIANS" are no different from the lost. That's my point.

 

[Tom Butler]

Yes. So-Called "CARNAL CHRISTIANS" are no different from the lost. That's my point.

I thought that was the case, but I wanted to make sure I understood you correctly.

 

[Dr. L.T. Ketchum]

Yes. So-Called "CARNAL CHRISTIANS" are no different from the lost. That's my point.

If what you say is true, we have a real problem. The vast majority of the New Testament epistles were then written by a lost Apostle.

“For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin” (Romans 7:14-25).

Explanation and exegesis of above text:
http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/PDF Files/Romans/Romans 60.pdf

 

[Jarthur001]

If what you say is true, we have a real problem. The vast majority of the New Testament epistles were then written by a lost Apostle.

“For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin” (Romans 7:14-25).

Explanation and exegesis of above text:
http://www.disciplemakerministries.org/PDF Files/Romans/Romans 60.pdf

Doc,

The Greek word for "carnal" is "sarkikos," which means "fleshly. Context tells us how to apply the word. "Context is king" is the rule one must follow. In Romans 8:7-8 the passage is clearly talking about the non-believer. In the verses just before 7 and 8, Paul lays a parallel contrast between those that live according to the flesh, and those that live according to the Spirit. Verse 7 and 8 are the climix to this contrast.

5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

In Romans 7 Paul is contrasting the law and sin and not the flesh and the Spirit. The law has never nor can never control our sin. Just to know the law does not mean we will follow the law. Paul then uses his own life to prove this point.

13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. 15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

 

[Tom Butler]

Dr. K, I think all of us who are believers recognize ourselves in the Romans 7 passage you quoted. We are like Paul, in a constant battle with our flesh.

But the passage in Romans 8:7 describes the carnally-minded as in enmity with God. I doubt if Paul would describe himself as in enmity with God, nor unable to please God.

In fact, in 8:9 Paul wrote to the Romans, "but you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit..."

I see a distinction between Paul's describing himself as "carnal" in Chapter 7 and one's being "carnally minded" in Chapter 8.

I see "carnally minded" as having sin as the dominant practice of one's life. Paul was certainly not that.

 

[skypair]

What I was "hoping" to find out is "if" those who so dogmatically hold to the "doctrine of election" in that only the elect are allowed the space of repentence, how do they explain those who were given the chance, yet they rejected the Lord?

They exlain them as 1) predestined to reprobation (hell) and then 2) not regenerated and therefore unable to hear the gospel.

But this is probably a good place to "finish what I started" on another thread. You see, those of the "doctrine of election" -- according as they understand how they gain spiritual sight enough to repent --- would have to take a rather perverse view of the OT tabernacle/temple salvation model.

Here's how that was supposed to go --- The believer brings his sacrifice to the gate of the temple. It is presented to the priest and laid on the burning altar in place of the sinner. This is the part that we in the NT call dying and buried with Jesus.

Then the priest goes to the next "station" just outside the holy place, the laver, and washes his feet. This coincides with us washing our feet of the world in repentance. Do you see these 2 things as necessary before entering into the holy place? Before dwellling with God?

Then he takes the sacrifice into the holy place of regeneration -- dwelling with God and His Spirit. There the light of the menora/Spirit is shed on the bread of life (shewbread/scripture) and the altar of incense is there where our prayers proceed to God "inside the veil."

But what "doctrine of election" people apparently see (their insistence on reading 1Cor 2:14, etal. the way they do) is that they, being "elect," are ushered into the holy place where they receive the indwelling without first making the sacrifice. They confirm this notion by insisting they cannot "do" anything to "merit" God's grace in salvation (True statement, wrong application. There was an answer to "what must we do," Acts 2:38). So "do" is the critical word. They neither need to exchange their own life in with their Sacrifice as a sign of belief and obedience nor to repent in order to enter into an indwelling relationship with God. As they sit in their pews and imagine they understand and agree with the scriptures, they believe they are "elect" -- meaning "chosen of God" -- already.

Afterward, we see many of them going through the "maintenance" sacrifices and repentance that were required year after year for sins. But remember -- in these the sacrifice bears the "blame" whereas in the original, salvation sacrifice, the "scapegoat" bears the "blame" and is sent out to the ends of the earth while the "exchanged" life was taken into the holy place.

Anyway, there are many claims out there that I do not understand them. Bottom line -- I understand but I don't believe. And they do. That's what really riles them.

skypair

 

[Dr. L.T. Ketchum]

Dr. K, I think all of us who are believers recognize ourselves in the Romans 7 passage you quoted. We are like Paul, in a constant battle with our flesh.

But the passage in Romans 8:7 describes the carnally-minded as in enmity with God. I doubt if Paul would describe himself as in enmity with God, nor unable to please God.

In fact, in 8:9 Paul wrote to the Romans, "but you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit..."

I see a distinction between Paul's describing himself as "carnal" in Chapter 7 and one's being "carnally minded" in Chapter 8.

I see "carnally minded" as having sin as the dominant practice of one's life. Paul was certainly not that.

Brother Tom,

I believe that Paul is saying that, on occasion, that was exactly the case. This is the main area of warfare within the Christian's life. Uniguely, the Christian does not win that struggle by fighting with the "flesh." That is the point of Romans chapter six through eight. The struggle for victory over the "flesh" has already been won positionally. It is won practically as the believer learns to yield his will to the Holy Spirit. It will be won ultimately when the believer is glorified and the Sin Nature is finally, and once for always, eradicated.

I think you are missing the point of what I am saying. I am not saying Romans 8:6-8 does not refer to lost people. The statement is GENERAL, extending to everyone with a fallen nature (Sin Nature), INCLUDING BELIEVERS (unless you believe in the eradication of the Sin Nature at salvation). My understanding was that some (I am not sure if you were one of them) were saying the text EXCLUDED BELIEVERS. However, the context is referring to this problem within the believer's life.

The context of Romans five through eight is the believer's sanctification; positional sanctification ("grace wherein we stand;" 5:2), practical sanctification through the enabling of indwelling the Holy Spirit (6:1-13), of which all believers will struggle with the "flesh" throughout this life (Romans chapter 7),and ultimate glorfication (8:29-30; the order of regeneration) to which all believers are predestined.

This is the problem of Calvinism in its monovolitionism. They define grace as God's sovereign will of which all that He wills must come to pass. Therefore, they see grace as something God does TO US. The intent of Romans chapters 5-8 in the context of post-salvific grace is what God does in COOPERATION WITH US (we yield our will to the Holy Spirit, Who super-naturally enables the yielded believer to work in partnership with Him; "fellowship" ).

This is the gift of grace to the believer in Romans 12:1-3 as God responds to what the believer does in Romans 12:1-2 (practical sanctification and consecration). The "grace" given to Paul (Rom. 12:3) was the indwelling Holy Spirit of God. Romans 12:3-8 refer to the divinely energized charismata (grace or Holy Spirit empowered service or ministry gifts) within the believer now in "fellowship" (working partnership; "yoked") with the Holy Spirit of God (I Peter 1:1-11).

 

[Salamander]

They exlain them as 1) predestined to reprobation (hell) and then 2) not regenerated and therefore unable to hear the gospel.

So are you now saying they must be regenerated before they can repent?

But this is probably a good place to "finish what I started" on another thread. You see, those of the "doctrine of election" -- according as they understand how they gain spiritual sight enough to repent --- would have to take a rather perverse view of the OT tabernacle/temple salvation model.

Here's how that was supposed to go --- The believer brings his sacrifice to the gate of the temple. It is presented to the priest and laid on the burning altar in place of the sinner. This is the part that we in the NT call dying and buried with Jesus.

Then the priest goes to the next "station" just outside the holy place, the laver, and washes his feet. This coincides with us washing our feet of the world in repentance. Do you see these 2 things as necessary before entering into the holy place? Before dwellling with God?

Then he takes the sacrifice into the holy place of regeneration -- dwelling with God and His Spirit. There the light of the menora/Spirit is shed on the bread of life (shewbread/scripture) and the altar of incense is there where our prayers proceed to God "inside the veil."

But what "doctrine of election" people apparently see (their insistence on reading 1Cor 2:14, etal. the way they do) is that they, being "elect," are ushered into the holy place where they receive the indwelling without first making the sacrifice. They confirm this notion by insisting they cannot "do" anything to "merit" God's grace in salvation (True statement, wrong application. There was an answer to "what must we do," Acts 2:38). So "do" is the critical word. They neither need to exchange their own life in with their Sacrifice as a sign of belief and obedience nor to repent in order to enter into an indwelling relationship with God. As they sit in their pews and imagine they understand and agree with the scriptures, they believe they are "elect" -- meaning "chosen of God" -- already.

Afterward, we see many of them going through the "maintenance" sacrifices and repentance that were required year after year for sins. But remember -- in these the sacrifice bears the "blame" whereas in the original, salvation sacrifice, the "scapegoat" bears the "blame" and is sent out to the ends of the earth while the "exchanged" life was taken into the holy place.

Anyway, there are many claims out there that I do not understand them. Bottom line -- I understand but I don't believe. And they do. That's what really riles them.

skypair

Thank you for spending so much time explaining that, but what I am after is, can anyone be offered repentence, reject it or receive it, except the elect? Is it only the elect are ever offered repentence?

 

[Dr. L.T. Ketchum]

So are you now saying they must be regenerated before they can repent?

Thank you for spending so much time explaining that, but what I am after is, can anyone be offered repentence, reject it or receive it, except the elect? Is it only the elect are ever offered repentence?

No, according to Calvinism's doctrine of Monergism. Although it is offered to all, only the elect will be regenerated (before salvation) so as to affect them with Irresistible Grace. The rest of humanity is pretemporally reprobate and only receive Common Grace (Prevenient Grace). The gifts of faith and repentance are only given to the elect. (Icabod!)

 

[Rippon]

Just Some Thoughts

No, according to Calvinism's doctrine of Monergism. Although it is offered to all, only the elect will be regenerated (before salvation) so as to affect them with Irresistible Grace. The rest of humanity is pretemporally reprobate and only receive Common Grace (Prevenient Grace). The gifts of faith and repentance are only given to the elect. (Icabod!)

I don't think 'offered' is the best way to describe the presentation of the Gospel .

Yes , only the elect will be regenerated and that grace of the Lord is effectual , it can't be rejected . Furthermore it cannot be relinguished by the regenerated one .

I differ from many ( or most ) Calvinists in that I do not believe in so-caled 'common grace' . The Lord's provision for temporal benefits is not salvific grace .

The gifts of faith and repentance are indeed given only to the elect . That is a very elementary doctrine of Holy Writ . For you to castigate it with the term 'Icabod' is reprehensible . On the contrary , the Lord is with those of His choosing . Don't get down-and-dirty by slandering the comforting certainties of His Word .

 

[Dr. L.T. Ketchum]

I don't think 'offered' is the best way to describe the presentation of the Gospel .

Yes , only the elect will be regenerated and that grace of the Lord is effectual , it can't be rejected . Furthermore it cannot be relinguished by the regenerated one .

I differ from many ( or most ) Calvinists in that I do not believe in so-caled 'common grace' . The Lord's provision for temporal benefits is not salvific grace .

The gifts of faith and repentance are indeed given only to the elect . That is a very elementary doctrine of Holy Writ . For you to castigate it with the term 'Icabod' is reprehensible . On the contrary , the Lord is with those of His choosing . Don't get down-and-dirty by slandering the comforting certainties of His Word .

Icabod simply means no glory. It can be interpreted to ask the question, where is the glory? My use of the term is based upon the belief that the doctrine of Monergism diminishes the attributes of God in His grace and mercy to the lost. Therefore, it diminishes our glorification of Him to that degree.

 

[pinoybaptist]

No, according to Calvinism's doctrine of Monergism. Although it is offered to all, only the elect will be regenerated (before salvation) so as to affect them with Irresistible Grace. The rest of humanity is pretemporally reprobate and only receive Common Grace (Prevenient Grace). The gifts of faith and repentance are only given to the elect. (Icabod!)

And what do you say, Dr. Ketchum ? About the OP's question, I mean ?
Can you delineate where Scripture says repentance must come first before eternal salvation and that every instance where salvation is mentioned in the Bible is in relation to the eternal status of the sinner ?

 

[Jarthur001]

state your source other then yourself for monovolitionism.

I have never heard of it before.

Absolute Predestination on the other hand, is well known.

And Doc, please don't forget this.



Thanks...

In Christ...James

 

[skypair]

So are you now saying they must be regenerated before they can repent?

THEY believe that -- I don't.

Thank you for spending so much time explaining that, but what I am after is, can anyone be offered repentence, reject it or receive it, except the elect? Is it only the elect are ever offered repentence?

And what I answered was that the Calvinists have "poisoned the water" with their defintion of "elect." The elect are actually those saved by their decision to believe and repent to Christ. But to Calvinists, the "elect" are those chosen by God to salvation. Either way, only the elect can respond but if it is WE that decide whether we are "elect," then ANYONE can repent unto salvation.

skypair

 

[Salamander]

THEY believe that -- I don't.

:laugh: I agree!

The problem with THEIR doctrinal stance is that Jacob was never referred to as "elect" but after wrestling with the Lord God does refer to Israel as "elect".

And what I answered was that the Calvinists have "poisoned the water" with their defintion of "elect." The elect are actually those saved by their decision to believe and repent to Christ. But to Calvinists, the "elect" are those chosen by God to salvation. Either way, only the elect can respond but if it is WE that decide whether we are "elect," then ANYONE can repent unto salvation.

skypair

THEIR doctrinal stance makes God out to be merciless and a tyrant.

Oh, if they would ever consider that before they speak!

I suppose I should now ask: was Jezebel ever a "candidate" for salvation?

 

[skypair]

I suppose I should now ask: was Jezebel ever a "candidate" for salvation?

She was "elect" as a Jewess, right? But ...... nah! :laugh:

skypair

 

[The Archangel]

She [Jezebel] was "elect" as a Jewess, right? But ...... nah! :laugh:

skypair

Um....not to be a total pain-in-the-butt....Um, Jezebel was not a Jew.

She was a Sidonian.

The Archangel

 

[Salamander]

Um....not to be a total pain-in-the-butt....Um, Jezebel was not a Jew.

She was a Sidonian.

The Archangel

No, the question is if Jezebel could never have been saved because she was not elect, then why did God bother to give her space for repentence since He knew she would not?

Rev 2:21