The Biblical Doctrine of Election: It is Specific

[Lukasaurus]

Well, God bless Brother.

 

[lbaker]

There is quite a difference between someone seeking Christ, repenting of their sins being sensible to them, turning from their sins, trusting in the finished work of Christ, seeing that Christ alone can save them and they cannot save themselves, and thus calling on the name of the Lord....and those who are decieved into believing they are ok but are not.



Please explain.

Isn't what happens with the first person in your example only because he/she is elect and wasn't necessarily seeking God previously? If I understand correctly couldn't the first person have been the worst pagan that ever lived and if he/she is elected they then acquire all the Christ following traits you listed?

I was referring to one post where you seemed to say that if an elect person didn't respond as God desired they would be lost and another post where you say an elect person cannot be lost.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Isn't what happens with the first person in your example only because he/she is elect and wasn't necessarily seeking God previously? If I understand correctly couldn't the first person have been the worst pagan that ever lived and if he/she is elected they then acquire all the Christ following traits you listed?

I was referring to one post where you seemed to say that if an elect person didn't respond as God desired they would be lost and another post where you say an elect person cannot be lost.

I believe the Bible teaches that the fruits of election (the blueprint) are repentance, faith, receptivity, et. Folks are not elect because they believe. They believe because they are elect.

I think you have misunderstood me regarding the elect. I have never said an elect person can be lost.

RB

 

[lbaker]

I believe the Bible teaches that the fruits of election (the blueprint) are repentance, faith, receptivity, et. Folks are not elect because they believe. They believe because they are elect.

Les here: Exactly. So an unbelieving person could be elect and changed to believe and be saved and someone who believes, however imperfectly, could be lost if they aren't elect. Then there they are pounding on the door to heaven.

I think you have misunderstood me regarding the elect. I have never said an elect person can be lost.

Les here: This is my question and your reply that I was referencing from an earlier post:

Les here: so aren't you saying that if you are elect you will be saved, regardless?

RB here: Not in the way you mean it. lol Does election make certain the salvation of some? Absolutely. Will they be saved regardless of what they do? NO.

Les here: This statement seems to say that "what they do" does make a difference in salvation.


RB

-------------

 

[Amy.G]

I believe the Bible teaches that the fruits of election (the blueprint) are repentance, faith, receptivity, et. Folks are not elect because they believe. They believe because they are elect.

I think you have misunderstood me regarding the elect. I have never said an elect person can be lost.

RB

The fruits of election? Where does the Bible even imply such a term?

In scripture I see the fruits of repentance (Matt 3:8), the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22), the fruits of righteousness (Phil 1:11), but I don't see the fruit of election.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

-------------

I think the debate is over. If you want to keep drawing your own conlcusions, draw them. I have explained myself, but I don't htink your seeking explainations.

God bless.

RB

 

[ReformedBaptist]

The fruits of election? Where does the Bible even imply such a term?

In scripture I see the fruits of repentance (Matt 3:8), the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22), the fruits of righteousness (Phil 1:11), but I don't see the fruit of election.

Since I was explaining what I believe, I used my own phrase to explain my belief. I wasn't exegeting. I did that previsouly.

 

[lbaker]

I think the debate is over. If you want to keep drawing your own conlcusions, draw them. I have explained myself, but I don't htink your seeking explainations.

God bless.

RB

Okay, and thanks.

Les

 

[NLJohn524]

Hey everyone. I'm new to the board. My name is Wayne.
I don't fully understand it but, election has to do with service. Chirst was "elect", Israel was "elect". There is a plan and purpose. Every single child of God is called to service and God has a purpose and plan for his life.

Predestination, on the other hand, has to do with the end result of sanctification. The absolute destiny of every single born again believer, is to be conformed to the image of a Christ. Neither election nor predestination has anything to do with salvation.

 

[MB]

Hey everyone. I'm new to the board. My name is Wayne.
I don't fully understand it but, election has to do with service. Chirst was "elect", Israel was "elect". There is a plan and purpose. Every single child of God is called to service and God has a purpose and plan for his life.

Predestination, on the other hand, has to do with the end result of sanctification. The absolute destiny of every single born again believer, is to be conformed to the image of a Christ. Neither election nor predestination has anything to do with salvation.

Will you explain that view more thoroughly
MB

 

[Reformer]

The "sin" that CANNOT be forgiven is UNBELIEF! If you don't choose to believe God and His Provision, you will be forgiven of every other sin and still be lost.

Ok, can someone explain why this statement doesn't put everyone in hell? If unbelief "CANNOT" be forgiven that would mean we must be born in belief, which would be a new kind of election, and a contradiction to everyone's definition of original sin.

Reformer

 

[Amy.G]

Ok, can someone explain why this statement doesn't put everyone in hell? If unbelief "CANNOT" be forgiven that would mean we must be born in belief, which would be a new kind of election, and a contradiction to everyone's definition of original sin.

Reformer

Maybe a better way to put it would be a refusal to believe. He who believes is not condemned. He who does not believe is condemned already.
As long as you have breath in your body, you have the opportunity to believe. Believing is another way of saying that you are going to literally put your life in Christ's hands.

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the unforgivable sin. It is a sin of unbelief and total rejection of the leading of the Holy Spirit. All sins were paid for on the cross except this one.

 

[skypair]

Hey everyone. I'm new to the board. My name is Wayne.
I don't fully understand it but, election has to do with service. Chirst was "elect", Israel was "elect". There is a plan and purpose. Every single child of God is called to service and God has a purpose and plan for his life.

Predestination, on the other hand, has to do with the end result of sanctification. The absolute destiny of every single born again believer, is to be conformed to the image of a Christ. Neither election nor predestination has anything to do with salvation.

Welcome, Wayne! :wavey:

Yeah, you give the opinion of most Baptists but we're not in the majority here. Here "elect" means "chosen by God [RC Sproul's book title] according to His will."

I was rereading that book the other night and these definitions jumped out at me.

"predestination: the doctrine that God in consequence of his foreknowledge of all events infallibly guides those who are destined for salvation." Like you said -- to eventual salvation -- absolute destiny. To you and I, this speaks of our sanctifying election, not our salvational election. I mean notice: those destined to salvation!" He leaves out reprobation because God doesn't plan anything for their lives as concerning sanctification to damnation.

"predestinate: destined, fated, or determined beforehand; to foreordain to an earthly or eternal lot or destiny by divine decree." However, if you ever say that they preach "fate," better "jump back Jack!" Though they believe that everything is foreordained, they are loathe to admit "all is fate."

Well, the upshot is that, even in this chapter, Sproul seems to be teaching "predestination" as the sanctification of the already saved ("election, as we call it). The critical passage even says "predestined to be conformed to the image of His dear Son" -- NOT "predestined to salvation," Rom 8:29. But I think that is where they believe salvation starts.

I invite you to bring your perspectives into the debate and hope you will enjoy a period of spiritual growth whilest you blog here.

skypair

 

[Amy.G]

Hi Wayne :wavey: ,

You bring up an intersting point about Christ being elect. Under Calvinism "elect" means chosen for salvation. Does that mean then that Christ was chosen for salvation? I think not. He was elect, chosen to save mankind from the wrath of God.

 

[Reformer]

Maybe a better way to put it would be a refusal to believe. He who believes is not condemned. He who does not believe is condemned already.
As long as you have breath in your body, you have the opportunity to believe. Believing is another way of saying that you are going to literally put your life in Christ's hands.

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the unforgivable sin. It is a sin of unbelief and total rejection of the leading of the Holy Spirit. All sins were paid for on the cross except this one.

So it would be agreed what he said was flat wrong

 

[ReformedBaptist]

So it would be agreed what he said was flat wrong

Yes, he was flat wrong.

 

[Amy.G]

Yes, he was flat wrong.

Didn't I say pretty much the same thing only in a different way? Am I wrong too?

 

[Reformer]

Maybe a better way to put it would be a refusal to believe. He who believes is not condemned. He who does not believe is condemned already.
As long as you have breath in your body, you have the opportunity to believe. Believing is another way of saying that you are going to literally put your life in Christ's hands.

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the unforgivable sin. It is a sin of unbelief and total rejection of the leading of the Holy Spirit. All sins were paid for on the cross except this one.

And now that I think about it, what would be the reason some people refuse to believe and others do believe. would it not be because of the working of the Spirit, which would lead to election?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Didn't I say pretty much the same thing only in a different way? Am I wrong too?

To say that because Christ is called elect it means that believers who are called elect can't be an election to salvation because it would mean Christ's election was to salvation? Yes, that would be wrong and a logical error of equivocation.

 

[Amy.G]

To say that because Christ is called elect it means that believers who are called elect can't be an election to salvation because it would mean Christ's election was to salvation? Yes, that would be wrong and a logical error of equivocation.

So would you agree that election can mean something other than "to salvation"?