The Biblical Doctrine of Election: It is Specific

[ReformedBaptist]

Those who believe are chosen.

This is backwards. Those who are chosen, believe.

 

[lbaker]

In your rationalization of God's secret will your confusing election as salvation. Election isn't salvation itself. Election is the blueprint as it were, the plan, but not the building itself. Whomever is elected, are also called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.

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

Your reasoning in the last statement either shows:

1. A futile attempt to defeat the biblical doctrine of election by laying a calumny that it is liscentious.

2. Revealing that your heart is unconverted and you stand in need to repentance and faith in Jesus.

Les here: no, it shows I am trying to dig down to the bottom line of what Calvinism actually means to a real person.

Let a Christian do what it is he wants to do. He will be tempted to do evil by remaining sin, but he cannot continue in sin because the Spirit of God is in him. Let a false professor do what he wants to do, and he will run headlong into sin and not look back.

Les here: That sounds like he has literally no choice but has been turned into a robot.

Shall we continue is sin that grace may abound? You know the answer to this. The very grace of God that saves us teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts. If your personal rationale is that if grace is really grace, then I am going to live a life of decadance, sin, and depraved lust, then the Scripture testifies to you that the true grace of God has never touched your soul.

Les here: No, that is not my intent at all.

RB

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

 

[lbaker]

But this is a false dilemma lbacker. God does elect some and not others. There are some mistakes evident by your statement here of Calvinsim.

1. God does not act in reprobation the same way He acts is election and predestination unto life.

Les here: but if someone is not elected for salvation doesn't that automatically leave hell as the only option?

2. No one who "has a heart for Him" are reprobate. If someone has a heart for God, meaning they love Jesus Christ, believe in Him, repented of their sins, et. then it is evident that this person has been born of Him. And if born again, then elect.

There is no such thing as a reprobate beating on the doors of heaven begging for salvation.

Les here: I may have misunderstood but I thought one of the common beliefs is that churches are full of folks who think they are saved but aren't. Wouldn't this be an example of someone "beating on the doors of heaven begging for salvation"?
RB

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

 

[ReformedBaptist]

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

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: That sounds like he has literally no choice but has been turned into a robot.

Actually, its defining freewill differently than libertarian freewill.

Les here: but if someone is not elected for salvation doesn't that automatically leave hell as the only option?

The non-elect are not saved, yes.

Les here: I may have misunderstood but I thought one of the common beliefs is that churches are full of folks who think they are saved but aren't. Wouldn't this be an example of someone "beating on the doors of heaven begging for salvation"?

No. It means that there are false professos who continue in their hyprocrisy and are justly condemned for it.

 

[Amy.G]

This is backwards. Those who are chosen, believe.

No you are backwards. :laugh:

You cannot be saved without faith in Christ. Faith comes first, then salvation. What you are saying is that God saves, then gives you faith to believe. That is backwards.

Jesus came to save the lost, the sinner, the poor in spirit, the unrighteous. Jesus said believe or be condemned. Without faith it is impossible to please God.

If God saves you before you believe, then what you have is God saving those who are already righteous.


Mar 2:17 When Jesus heard [it], He said to them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call [the] righteous, but sinners, to repentance."

 

[lbaker]

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: Okay, maybe we're finally getting somewhere. So, are you saying that there are some of the elect that won't be saved because they didn't do as God wanted? I have missed that point somehow.


Actually, its defining freewill differently than libertarian freewill.

Les here: what's the difference?


The non-elect are not saved, yes.

Les here: Okay, I get that. Can't really imagine it but I understand.

No. It means that there are false professos who continue in their hyprocrisy and are justly condemned for it.

Les here: So do these folks know they are false confessors? If so why are they going to all the trouble to go through the motions? Seems like if they know they aren't saved they would just say the heck with it and go play golf or something. If they don't know they are false then that means they are sincerely trying to follow God and being rejected.

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

 

[ReformedBaptist]

No you are backwards. :laugh:

You cannot be saved without faith in Christ. Faith comes first, then salvation. What you are saying is that God saves, then gives you faith to believe. That is backwards.

Jesus came to save the lost, the sinner, the poor in spirit, the unrighteous. Jesus said believe or be condemned. Without faith it is impossible to please God.

If God saves you before you believe, then what you have is God saving those who are already righteous.


Mar 2:17 When Jesus heard [it], He said to them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call [the] righteous, but sinners, to repentance."

Since the Bible teaches God chose us in Christ before the world began, explain how our faith predates God's choice.

Second, please re-read my post. Your still equating election with salvation.

RB

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Les here: Okay, maybe we're finally getting somewhere. So, are you saying that there are some of the elect that won't be saved because they didn't do as God wanted? I have missed that point somehow.

No. All God's elect will be saved.

Les here: what's the difference?

You honestly don't know?

Les here: So do these folks know they are false confessors? If so why are they going to all the trouble to go through the motions? Seems like if they know they aren't saved they would just say the heck with it and go play golf or something. If they don't know they are false then that means they are sincerely trying to follow God and being rejected.

I am not sure. I am sure some are decieved, decievers, and being decieved. They are lost.

 

[lbaker]

No. All God's elect will be saved.

I am not sure. I am sure some are decieved, decievers, and being decieved. They are lost.

Well that certainly sounds like there WILL be some lost folks pounding on the door to heaven trying to get in.

RB here: Will they be saved regardless of what they do? NO.

This appears to me to conflict with what you said about "All God's elect will be saved."

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Well that certainly sounds like there WILL be some lost folks pounding on the door to heaven trying to get in.

RB here: Will they be saved regardless of what they do? NO.

This appears to me to conflict with what you said about "All God's elect will be saved."

First part, wrong.

Second part, wrong.

Keep studying.

 

[lbaker]

First part, wrong.

Second part, wrong.

Keep studying.

Please explain how I am misunderstanding what you wrote.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Please explain how I am misunderstanding what you wrote.

I will later. I am done debating for now.

 

[lbaker]

I will later. I am done debating for now.

Okay, I appreciate it. I'm about to cut out anyway. See ya later.

 

[Lukasaurus]

lbaker, RB is lost in a web of his own theology. A very good book on the subject is "The Other side of Calvinism" by Lawrence Vance. Yes, he is KJBO (I will point that out before someone else feels the need to valiently do so) but this side of his doctrine does not come through in the book, except in a small section on Lordship Salvation.

I have also heard that another book "The Dark Side of Calvinism" is also very good.

The logical conclusion of RB's theology is this

Since a man is regenerated BEFORE he hears the gospel and believes it, it stands to reason that man is regenerated without any means, simply by God, regardless of the gospel and the hearing by faith. Thus, it stands that if the elect never hear the gospel, then they can be still be saved. Eddie Garrett, a Hardshell Calvinist, believes exactly this. That many people will be in heaven who have never heard the gospel, or even believe it, because God is sovereign. The gospel is just an afterthought.

Eddie Garrett and other Hardshell Calvinists are the only consistent calvinists.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

lbaker, RB is lost in a web of his own theology. A very good book on the subject is "The Other side of Calvinism" by Lawrence Vance. Yes, he is KJBO (I will point that out before someone else feels the need to valiently do so) but this side of his doctrine does not come through in the book, except in a small section on Lordship Salvation.

I have also heard that another book "The Dark Side of Calvinism" is also very good.

The logical conclusion of RB's theology is this

Since a man is regenerated BEFORE he hears the gospel and believes it, it stands to reason that man is regenerated without any means, simply by God, regardless of the gospel and the hearing by faith. Thus, it stands that if the elect never hear the gospel, then they can be still be saved. Eddie Garrett, a Hardshell Calvinist, believes exactly this. That many people will be in heaven who have never heard the gospel, or even believe it, because God is sovereign. The gospel is just an afterthought.

Eddie Garrett and other Hardshell Calvinists are the only consistent calvinists.

Is this how you refute a position? By saying a man is lost in the web of his own theology? lol When folks start flinging mud, they end up losing ground and getting dirty.

The conclusion your drawing/inventing is not logical, but more importantly, is not biblical. Perhaps you viewed my blog and saw my article against the fallicous position of KJV-onlyism. Is that why your angry?

RB

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Well that certainly sounds like there WILL be some lost folks pounding on the door to heaven trying to get in.

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.

This appears to me to conflict with what you said about "All God's elect will be saved."

Please explain.

 

[Lukasaurus]

I haven't seen your blog.

Sorry if I come across as angry. I have a smile on my face

see

 

[ReformedBaptist]

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Vance4.html

If this article is an indication of the whole of the 800 pages the man wrote, I couldn't stomach the book. The except alone is filled with strawmen and false arguments.

Oh well...but what more should I expect from the anti-calvinist camp.

 

[Lukasaurus]

It's filled with quotes from calvinists, so yeah, I guess it is filled with garbage.

That is an introduction to the book. I think that is in the first chapter. He doesn't actually get to the doctrines of calvinism until chapter 5.

Chapter 1 is an intro. Chapter 2 is on Calvin. Chapter 3 is on Arminius. Chapter 4 is on the Synod of Dort I think.. I don't have the book here now.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

It's filled with quotes from calvinists, so yeah, I guess it is filled with garbage.

That is an introduction to the book. I think that is in the first chapter. He doesn't actually get to the doctrines of calvinism until chapter 5.

Chapter 1 is an intro. Chapter 2 is on Calvin. Chapter 3 is on Arminius. Chapter 4 is on the Synod of Dort I think.. I don't have the book here now.

It is indeed a fine display of the mastery of a man defeating his own arguments. There is enough of the book online to see its ridiculous claims.

The philosophical speculations of Calvinism have been debated for hundreds of years, although called by other names until Calvin showed up. Today, among Baptists who have enough sense not to be associated with John Calvin, these suppositions are called "Doctrines of Grace," implying that if you don't believe them you are denying salvation by grace. It is this constant stream of speculation and implication that can be found in the writings of all who hold to the Calvinistic system.

huh? ohhh...I get it..we are reallllly...calvinists...we harbor presbyterian leanings...but please oh please oh please, don't call us Calvinists! Get a grip.

Call me a Calvinist if you like. Makes no difference to me at all. John Calvin was a fine theologian. Please associate me with the man.

The implication Vance raising is a specture of his own imagination. Also, his statement is fallicous. Has the man read "all who hold the Calvinistic system" ? Of course not. The speculation is his, and his alone. Or any dupe that is believing his argument.

Here's another,

If biblical Christianity is Calvinism, then any other system is naturally false. And this is categorically just what the Calvinist would have you believe. Calvinism is not just a scriptural system: it is the only scriptural system. Boettner remarks, "We believe the Calvinistic system to be the only one set forth in the Scriptures and vindicated by reason.''

And what would the good Dr. Vance expect Boettner to say? "We believe the Calvinistic system might be the only one set forth in the Scriptures....is one of the systems that one might conclude maybe is set for in the Scriptures...? ??

Of course Calvinists are going to say they believe their doctrine to be the doctrine of the Scirptures. duh. Wouldn't Dr. Vance say the same thing of his own doctrine?

My 2 cents? The book isn't worth the cost of printing it.

RB