The doctrine of Election

[evangelist6589]

On my phone and can't think of any other verses besides John 6:44. I tell you that this doctrine is VITAL to understand for those doing Biblical evangelism and necessary for all Christians. I know there are those here who agree with election (Internet Theologian/Preacher4Truth, Jon C, Convicted, Sovereign Grace, GreekTim, Iconclast, and others) and a multitude here who disagree (IntheLight,Don,John of Japan, Rev Mitchell, Quantum Faith, and others). So what do you disagree about Gods sovereign choice? What makes John 6:44 so hard to understand?

 

[Revmitchell]

I agree with election for it is scriptural. What I do not agree with is your unscriptural definition of election.

 

[evangelist6589]

I agree with election for it is scriptural. What I do not agree with is your unscriptural definition of election.

Define my unscriptural definition of election.

 

[Revmitchell]

Define my unscriptural definition of election.

I don't think so. I was just responding to your ignorant accusation of me.

 

[evangelist6589]

I don't think so. I was just responding to your ignorant accusation of me.

You lean Arminian yet do not even know what I believe about election????

 

[Revmitchell]

You lean Arminian yet do not even know what I believe about election????

You do not know what I "lean" to. You got me wrong in the op and you continue to show your ignorance. It is best that you do not include me in your little posts.

 

[Don]

On my phone and can't think of any other verses besides John 6:44. I tell you that this doctrine is VITAL to understand for those doing Biblical evangelism and necessary for all Christians. I know there are those here who agree with election (Internet Theologian/Preacher4Truth, Jon C, Convicted, Sovereign Grace, GreekTim, Iconclast, and others) and a multitude here who disagree (IntheLight,Don,John of Japan, Rev Mitchell, Quantum Faith, and others). So what do you disagree about Gods sovereign choice? What makes John 6:44 so hard to understand?

If you would answer my private message to you, you wouldn't need to ask this question.

 

[TCassidy]

Define my unscriptural definition of election.

Define Revmitchell's unbelief in Election.

Everybody believes in election.

Some believe God elects sinners.

Others believe sinners elect themselves.

And some believe something else.

It is always an indication to me that you have already lost the argument when you start out by distorting what others believe.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Just because my definition of Election differs from yours (and that's why this thread got moved to this forum), that doesn't mean I don't believe in it.

 

[evangelist6589]

Define Revmitchell's unbelief in Election.

Everybody believes in election.

Some believe God elects sinners.

Others believe sinners elect themselves.

And some believe something else.

It is always an indication to me that you have already lost the argument when you start out by distorting what others believe.

My mistake I should have been more clear in my OP. Anyways the non-Cal version of election is election based on Gods foreknowledge based on mans free will. But the Cal version has nothing to do with mans free will because God elects his saints to salvation regardless of anything they have done.

I misspoke and said Rev did not believe in election but this is false because he has a non-Cal version of it while me the Calvinist view.

 

[evangelist6589]

If you would answer my private message to you, you wouldn't need to ask this question.

I did answer your private message! Check your inbox.

 

[evangelist6589]

You do not know what I "lean" to. You got me wrong in the op and you continue to show your ignorance. It is best that you do not include me in your little posts.

Oh for the love of the rabbit this is the first time I mentioned you in a post! Sorry I got my facts mixed up and misspoke.

 

[TCassidy]

Let's see some definitions of our understanding of election, which is necessary in order to have a rational discussion on this topic. The first step of any discussion is to define our terms. So, here goes. Feel free to add your position if it does not fit in with any of those I post. But please! No Russian novels! Keep it down to a sentence or two at the most. We don't want a protracted theological dissertation. Just a definition.

1. The classic Reformed/Calvinist/Particular Redemptionist definition: God Sovereignly elects those He wills to elect, according to the good pleasure of His Divine Will and according to His own Divine Purposes.

2. The classic Arminian definition: God elects those whom He observed, in the future, coming to faith in Him according to His own Foreknowledge.

3. The Universalist definition: All persons are elect and all will eventually be saved.

Anybody else?

 

[kyredneck]

I know there are those here who agree with election (Internet Theologian/Preacher4Truth, Jon C, Convicted, Sovereign Grace, GreekTim, Iconclast, and others) and a multitude here who disagree (IntheLight,Don,John of Japan, Rev Mitchell, Quantum Faith, and others).

You're catching a lot of frivolous flak for making a sound distinction among a few members here, imo. Getting "non-Cals" to admit to their true deep down beliefs is often like trying to nail Jello to the wall. To me it's very plain:

27 but God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put to shame them that are wise; and God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put to shame the things that are strong;
28 and the base things of the world, and the things that are despised, did God choose, yea and the things that are not, that he might bring to nought the things that are:
29 that no flesh should glory before God.
30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who was made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption: 1 Cor 1

"Of him are ye in Christ Jesus". The bottom line with all free willers is reversed. It is "of me that am I in Christ Jesus".

But like I said, it's like nailing Jello to the wall to get them to admit it. And the rabbit hole goes deeper than that. They also deep down believe "it is of me that others are in Christ Jesus".

 

[tyndale1946]

You're catching a lot of frivolous flak for making a sound distinction among a few members here, imo. Getting "non-Cals" to admit to their true deep down beliefs is often like trying to nail Jello to the wall. To me it's very plain:

27 but God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put to shame them that are wise; and God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put to shame the things that are strong;
28 and the base things of the world, and the things that are despised, did God choose, yea and the things that are not, that he might bring to nought the things that are:
29 that no flesh should glory before God.
30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who was made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption: 1 Cor 1

"Of him are ye in Christ Jesus". The bottom line with all free willers is reversed. It is "of me that am I in Christ Jesus".

But like I said, it's like nailing Jello to the wall to get them to admit it. And the rabbit hole goes deeper than that. They also deep down believe "it is of me that others are in Christ Jesus".

TC you forgot one... Another point of election is this

Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

kyredneck like nailing Jello to the wall?... You rednecks crack me up!... I'm adding that to my portfolio... Brother Glen

 

[utilyan]

44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.

Amen to that verse. And who does the Father want to draw to Jesus?

God commands don't sin. Because God doesn't want people to sin. He wants to draw everyone to Christ.

John 12
32“And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”



If your sinning you are not doing what God wants you to do.......

Ezekiel 18
23“Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked,” declares the Lord GOD, “rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?


Every soul in heaven is elect.

 

[evangelist6589]

Let's see some definitions of our understanding of election, which is necessary in order to have a rational discussion on this topic. The first step of any discussion is to define our terms. So, here goes. Feel free to add your position if it does not fit in with any of those I post. But please! No Russian novels! Keep it down to a sentence or two at the most. We don't want a protracted theological dissertation. Just a definition.

1. The classic Reformed/Calvinist/Particular Redemptionist definition: God Sovereignly elects those He wills to elect, according to the good pleasure of His Divine Will and according to His own Divine Purposes.

2. The classic Arminian definition: God elects those whom He observed, in the future, coming to faith in Him according to His own Foreknowledge.

3. The Universalist definition: All persons are elect and all will eventually be saved.

Anybody else?

I agree with position number 1 as I believe this is best what scripture teaches. However I am not getting into a fist fight with someone that holds to position 2. The unbiblical view is most definitely position 3.

 

[evangelist6589]

TC you forgot one... Another point of election is this

Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

kyredneck like nailing Jello to the wall?... You rednecks crack me up!... I'm adding that to my portfolio... Brother Glen

He mentioned this position as position 1.

 

[Darrell C]

On my phone and can't think of any other verses besides John 6:44. I tell you that this doctrine is VITAL to understand for those doing Biblical evangelism and necessary for all Christians. I know there are those here who agree with election (Internet Theologian/Preacher4Truth, Jon C, Convicted, Sovereign Grace, GreekTim, Iconclast, and others) and a multitude here who disagree (IntheLight,Don,John of Japan, Rev Mitchell, Quantum Faith, and others). So what do you disagree about Gods sovereign choice? What makes John 6:44 so hard to understand?

The primary separation and controversy surrounds how Election correlates from both the temporal as well as eternal perspective. I think everyone agrees that the Elect are chosen of God in eternity past, its just a matter of temporal existence prior to Eternal Redemption that has to be clarified. If we can do that, I think we will find every single member on this forum coming into agreement which is commanded of God.

And that is not going to be done until discussion has antagonists that can set aside their personal feelings and emotions, have love for their brothers and sisters that disagree with them, and deal with this issue on a Doctrinal Level.

The simple fact is that of course only the Elect will be saved. Another simple fact is that the Elect are not saved in the temporal until they are reconciled to God and brought into Eternal Union which is the Promise of God throughout the entire Old Testament, and only realized when the New Covenant was established.

When that simple truth is understood...the Body will have the unity commanded of her.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.

Amen to that verse. And who does the Father want to draw to Jesus?

God commands don't sin. Because God doesn't want people to sin. He wants to draw everyone to Christ.

John 12
32“And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”



If your sinning you are not doing what God wants you to do.......

Ezekiel 18
23“Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked,” declares the Lord GOD, “rather than that he should turn from his ways and live?


Every soul in heaven is elect.

Of course every soul in Heaven is elect, that goes without saying.

Ezekiel 18 has to be understood as being temporal in context. The "soul" in view is not an immaterial aspect of man, it is the person.

Eternal Redemption is not bestowed by keeping the Law, and that is the conclusion you have drawn based on this text.

Get those two basic elements of your doctrine straight, and you will understand this passage as it was given to men when first penned.


God bless.