The act of receiving

Good point!

Jacob. </font>[/QUOTE]Not it isn't a good point. It is in fact a mere slogan uttered without substantiation.

It would be elitism if being elct said somethig about those electedd or were based on something in those eleted. But it isn't. So Ray has not made a good point but an all tioo common error and one that is evidence of a very simplistic and superficial understanding of both election and scripture.

Arminianism, based as it is on the idea that election is based on something that only certiain people do, is the true elitist idea. There is something about the people who arminians view as elect (based on their miconception of predestination) that has them not resist he Spirit's leading while other do resit. They want to say it is just "free will" but they never answer why some people exercise their "free will" to belivee while others do not. There has to be a reason, and it has to be based in hte indivduals themselves, or else you are abandoning arminaisinsm for calvanistic (biblical) election. But arminians will never say what it is.

 

If God did elect some to Heaven autocratically and sent to Hell the rest of His creation by His own Divine fiat or decree, I think, most people would think the elect would be the priviledged persons or as someone used the term the 'elite.' And if God did damn, at His own pleasure, the rest of the lost I don't know what term we should offer to them. Any ideas?

And as one writer said if election was decided by Divine decee, He would not have needed to give sinners the Gospel, nor have it preached or witness to through Christian witnesses. His decree would then have elected some to Heaven and the majority of destruction.

 

Bible-belted,

My brother in Christ, you may have taken what I typed in a way that I did not mean it. I in no way meant that you were uneducated but rather that you might have always heard the 'learned presupposition' which you espoused. Trust me, I know you are a very intelligent Christian man and that you articulate your view better than the average Calvinistic Christian. No harm intended!

Refer to Page 8 the second to the last paragraph dated February 13--2:46 p.m.

Ray

 

npetreley,

There is no interpreting John 3:18 Calvinisitically or the Arminian way. I agree with you that the unsaved already stand in a lost condition. But, the non-elect at the final judgment will be damned forever. The best we can do is to interpret the verse they way we see the Holy Spirit offering it to us.

 

npetreley,

I learned that the lost 'stand condemned already' when I was eleven years old. How about you? When did you come to this spiritual understanding? Thank God we agree on this point. That's a start.

 

Ray,

I appreciate the credit you give.

I understood your comment exactly as you explain it. Let me simply say that it is:

1) incorrect as to the facts of my growth in christian doctrine. I come out of Catholicism, which is hardly calvanistic. What I had always heard about, as a presuposition was free will.

2)a bit patronising in that it sugests that I come to the position I now hold through something other than actual exegesis. I came to my position through a commitment to biblcial theology (the discipline).

3) annoying in that I have been asking you consistently to unpack and defend the obvious assumption that is inherent to your position. You do not acutally do this; you instead try to say that it is I who have the prsuppositions. Until you actually address the issues that I have raised I don't think you can credibly imply that another has a problem with presuppositions.

And I responded to your post of 2:46. I will restate:

I acan agree with the verses you quote. They dopn't support your position. You assert that saving faith comes from the individual without biblical support. No, the non sequitur inference you make that responsibility to believe means ability to believe (in a savig way) does not count. You need to justify the non sequitur leap.

As such you have provided NO scriptural backing for your asumptions which you then read into other texts. I reject the accusation that my staements have minimal biblcial support. I have constantly alluded to specific texts.

If you wish to be taken seriously you will have to do better in justifying the assumption which you bring to the text. non sequyiturs re-iterated and re-applied simply will not fly.

 

Good point!

Jacob. </font>[/QUOTE]Not it isn't a good point... </font>[/QUOTE]Being picked for salvation, by the Creator of the Universe while he passes over others...well that would make me feel special. No doubt such humans would develop an elitist attitude (and they do). I mean, white people, good looking people, smart people have often developed elitist attitudes yet the fact that they exhibit these characteristics is beyond their control.

Jacob.

 

Jacob,

It is very humbling to know that God elcts on the basis of nothing in the individual. it is a humbling thing to know that one is chosen by a special God, and not because they are in any way a special person. Election says something about God, and not the elect person, other than that they are saved. They have no reason to boast. It is of course perfectly possible (and it does happen) that some will come to think that they are special people. They will come to think that they do have reason to boast. Such need to be reminded that those who boast need to boast only in the Lord. They need to be reminded that election is NOT based on anything in them.

Calvanist doctrine you see, when properly understood, actually militates against elitism. I can't say that Arminianism does the same. Indeed, to the extent that a calvanist christin drifts inot elitism, they also drift, practically speaking, into arminianism.

 

BB,

I realize that according to Calvinist doctrine specific individuals are picked for salvation (even before they are born). The others, well...they're doomed from the womb. This seems to fly in the face of personal responsibility and genuine offers to accept the gift of salvation.

I struggle with this subject. On one hand, my logical mind seems to lean towards a Libertarian Free Will system but on the other hand there's some passages in the Bible I don't know what to do with.

Jacob.

 

So far, everyone here has missed the crux of the argument.

WHO ARE THE ELECT?

How does one human recognize whether or not another is "elect"?

If you cannot answer these questions, it is quite obvious you have no authority on the topic of "the elect", and you should not be emphasizing your policy regarding the elect. Yes, "your policy", because you are deliberately berating those who have different opinion. A very spiritually immature activity.

 

Calvinist election DOES fly in the face of personal responsibility AND genuine offers to accept the gift of salvation, but that doesn't stop Calvinists from claiming that it doesn't.

We're told: "Calvinism doesn't deny humans sometimes do good" on one hand and then, "Human volition can ONLY reject the things of God" on the other.

I've grown weary...I'm outta here.

 

Bible-belted,

I checked your last five posts and you only had one general reference to Romans chapter four. As I said previously you offer to us 'the Calvinistic instruction' but with no basis in Scripture.

It is not only Calvinists that are humbled with the feeling of thankfulness for imparted grace; we too are awe struck with the full operation of God in our lives. We also have no reason to boast in anything we have done-which is nothing. All we can do is open our hands and hearts to Him.

My Canadian brother, you said, 'They need to be reminded that Election is NOT based on anything in them. From my perspective this makes His alleged selection even more nebulous and strange. It is neither based on something allegedly 'good' in sinners by way of human characteristics, nor something 'bad' in the sinner that He wishes to change or refine in them. Again, students of the Word are to apparently swallow this without any Scriptural background.

Some sinners know enough about Calvinism that this would turn them away from the Lord our God rather than enhance a possible relationship with Christ. God selecting the majority to Hell would hardly impress an atheist or an agnostic and it sure does not impress many who are in the fold of Christ.

Your posts, sadly to my viewing, do not impress me as you understanding the New Testament very well. I may be wrong. I am, however, impressed that you have argued some of the points of John Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion."

My wife also came out of a Roman Catholic background so I understand some of your thinking and issues. We rejoice in your having found Christ or as you might prefer it said, that He found you.

My best regards to you . . .

Ray

 

Jacob,

Were it not for election Jacob, then we would ALL be doomed. It is as simple as that. We would all be irrevocably in Adam. We would be condemned witout hope. But we would be so justly. God is still just in holding us accountable for the fact that all sin and fall short of the glory of God, and having done so in Adam.

In other words if no one were elect, condemnation would be on the basis of accountability and responsibility for sin.

Election does not change that.

Now as to the genuineness of the call to salvation, recall that genuineness is determined by the sincertiy of the one issuing the call. God is not insincere in making a general call.

So what then does a rejection of the general call add to a person's condemnation? Prctically speaking, nothing. Even without it they would be condemned. Rejecting the general call does not put the final nail in their coffin, but simply confirms that they are in the coffin.

Yelsew,

Election is not about being able to be assured about anyone else other than yourself. An elct person knows they are elect. They cannot know for certain about anyone else. We can testify to the Spirit indwelling ourselves. We cna have a good idea about others, but it won't approach the certainty that comes from the Hly Spirit testifying to our spirit that we are children of God.

Ray,

I can see I am not going to budge you from your misrepresentation. That's fine with me.

Except Romans 9, and the OT which it draws from.

This confirms in my mind your inability to address the issues. (I note that this psost is yet ANOTHER dodge and does not address the vital points I have raised to you.) It also confirms to me you lack of understnding of both the Bible and Calvanism, the moreso since I have not read Calvin at all, and have derived my theology in this area from the study of the New Tetstament. Biblical Theology got me to this point; that is how I know and can see your prsuppositions and the way you eisegete rather than exgete passages.

I regret that you are unwilling to get beyond the superficial in this. But I will not concern myself with it any longer. I wil simply remind you when appropriate of the challenge offered to you to justify asumptions you oobviously bring to the text and your failure to take it up. I will simply say "you had the opportunity to address this issue". It will be short hand for "you had your opportunity to address the assumptions underlying your reasonig from the Scriptures and you failed to justify them so they, along with the conclusions you base on them, will not be accepted as legitimate."


Just so you know.

 

So then you are saying that ALL who come to belief by 'hearing' the word, are the "elect", "the whosoevers". That is consistant with scripture. What is not consistant is "only the elect will come to believe", because it implies that Salvation is not for everyone, and that contradicts Jesus!

Just as God's grace is present for the just and unjust alike, Salvation through belief is available to all, the just and unjust alike. The difference is that Grace is the environment within which belief in Jesus, resulting in salvation, occurs. Grace itself is not what saves, but is what enables belief unto salvation.

 

Jacob,

Did you notice this quote from Bible-belted?

"Now as to the genuineness of the call to salvation, recall that genuineness is determined by the sincertiy of the one issuing the call. God is not insincere in making a general call."

This is circular reasoning. The question was whether the Calvinist conception of a general call to salvation was sincere. We're told in effect that, of course it is, since God is not insincere in making the general call! However, if the god of Calvinism makes a GENERAL call for EVERYONE to respond, knowing that ALL of his creatures are powerless and helpless to come without his help, and that he refuses to offer such aid to ALL those called, then THAT "call" IS insincere.

(Of course, maybe we're expecting too much when we expect Calvinists to be logical. Perhaps we shouldn't even bother )

 

Yelsew,

Unless you are a universalist, then you also believe that salvation is not for everyone. So this argument is false on its face.

As to none other than the elect coming to a saving faith, that is simple scriptural truth. Jesus himself speaks of those whom He calls, as in effectual call. Those whom are not (effectually) called will not come.

DT,

Not at all. Sincerity is, by nature, in the nature of the person issuing a call. You can tal about an insincere call if you like, but what you are really saying is that the person making it is insicere. If you want to so accuse God, be my guest. Its your blasphemy.

The problem is that you define sincerity by result, and not intent. Only if anyone could answer the call could it be a sincere call is your argument. If that is so then conversely God is insincere in his demand that we be righteous for he knows we cannot do it. That of course means it isn;t a real demand and we are free to ignore it.

Now is that what you want to argue?

Further to that, look at what yor reasoning does. God MUST save someone in order to be judged sincere. That is, he is under obligation to save someone. Now how does that fit with grace?

It does not.

Yet another example of how arminian style thought leads to blasphemy and heresy.

Imagine if you can my shock...

 

I'm not accusing the REAL God of anything, therefore it is NOT "blasphemy". I am pointing out the CALVINIST "god" makes an insincere call.

That line of reasoning doesn't work. The LAW was given by God to sincerely demonstrate that none of us can meet that perfect righteous standard. (That was the result intended). God's genuine CALL, therefore, is for EVERYONE to acknowledge that fact, to repent, and receive the One who WAS able to keep that perfect righteous standard--Christ. In either case, God is sincere in the result intended.

Not at all--He doesn't have to save anyone to be "sincere". God is sincere in that to those whom He desires to be saved--which is EVERYONE--He will both provide a genuine opportunity and offer the means by which they may respond to that call. Sadly, most will squander the opportunity and reject the means by which they may come to Him

 

"(having) Faith in faith" is the same as having confidence in faith. One who has confidence in his own faith believes, among other things, that faith has some part in his justification before God. He may sound pious and say that "faith is a gift of God", but nevertheless he believes that subjective faith of his heart had some part in his professed justification in God's sight. An example of such a man would be Martin Luther. Another would be Charles H Spurgeon.

Harald