Unconditional Election

[thatbrian]

I'll try this again since the last attempt got derailed.

I believe that God sovereignly elects some, without condition.

Arminians believe that God elects only those whom He knows would place faith in Christ.

Q: Which position not only leaves room for boasting but encourages it?

***There are other positions on this subject, and I am aware of that; however, this thread is here to cover the two above positions, only. And, the only matter I wish to discuss is the potential for boasting in regard to both positions. Thank you in advance for staying on topic.

 

[JonC]

Both could.

I have a Baptist friend who taught math at a Presbyterian school. The students often boasted about their election in contrast to those who they believed may not have been chosen. This was the reason my friend withdrew her children and left the school (she taught there because as a benefit her children could attend without cost).

And, of course, conditional election could foster boasting because of the condition that merited election.

 

[thatbrian]

Both could.

I have a Baptist friend who taught math at a Presbyterian school. The students often boasted about their election in contrast to those who they believed may not have been chosen. This was the reason my friend withdrew her children and left the school (she taught there because as a benefit her children could attend without cost).

And, of course, conditional election could foster boasting because of the condition that merited election.

That example is irrelevant to this discussion. Here's why:

The question was regarding the doctrinal position of unconditional election. The students would not have been in line with the position of Unconditional Election. They were not acting consistently with the doctrine. In other words, they could have been corrected by the doctrine.

If one finds himself among the elect (not saved) because of nothing he has done, can he boast about what he has done?

If one's election is based on what he has done can he boast about what he has done? Does this doctrine allow room for boasting in regards to one's election?

 

[JonC]

That example is irrelevant to this discussion. Here's why:

The question was regarding the doctrinal position of unconditional election. The students would not have been in line with the position of Unconditional Election. They were not acting consistently with the doctrine. In other words, they could have been corrected by the doctrine.

If one finds himself among the elect (not saved) because of nothing he has done, can he boast about what he has done?

If one's election is based on what he has done can he boast about what he has done? Does this doctrine allow room for boasting in regards to one's election?

The difference is as one boasting in earning a reward or winning a prize and one boasting in an unearned gift.

The problem, however, is one of relevancy. You seem to divorce their view of conditional election from their doctrine and place it into yours to "prove" them wrong. When discussing Arminianism (which is where you have limited the discussion) you have ignored thge fact that even in the choices of men they believe none come except by the work of the Spirit. In other words, Arminianism holds to the depravity of men, who can be saved only by the work of the Spirit.

I believe Arminianism to be inconsistent, but they cannot (by their own doctrine) boast but in the Lord.

 

[Revmitchell]

Both could.

I have a Baptist friend who taught math at a Presbyterian school. The students often boasted about their election in contrast to those who they believed may not have been chosen. This was the reason my friend withdrew her children and left the school (she taught there because as a benefit her children could attend without cost).

And, of course, conditional election could foster boasting because of the condition that merited election.

Yep I agree. Ephesians 2:9 "works" is a reference to the works of the law, which is the context of that verse. Not just any old action someone make take. For example, responding to God;s invitation is not a "work" just because an action has taken place. Since when is the receiving of a gift also considered part of the giving of the gift. Fact is it is never considered that. In the same way the receiving of the gift of salvation cannot be considered a work. It is an absurd claim.

 

[Rob_BW]

Has there never been a prince who has boasted about being heir to the kingdom? Even though he did nothing to earn it, it was just a circumstance of birth...

 

[thatbrian]

you have ignored thge fact that even in the choices of men they believe none come except by the work of the Spirit.

We are discussing Election here. not salvation.

The Arminian position is that God elected the Arminian because the Arminian acted first, and that action was his own. That very action is what makes him saved while the next man is not.

 

[thatbrian]

Has there never been a prince who has boasted about being heir to the kingdom? Even though he did nothing to earn it, it was just a circumstance of birth...

The prince boasted in his family tree. That's something he could boast about. It's "his". He is better, in his thinking, than others because of his family name. (although I would disagree with his boasting)

 

[Rob_BW]

The prince boasted in his family tree. That's something he can boast about (although I would disagree with his boasting)

Heir by birth or adoption, what is the difference?

 

[thatbrian]

Heir by birth or adoption, what is the difference?

The Calvinist position is that he was elected unconditionally. He, like the Apostle Paul, understands that there was no good in himself. He also understands that e was, in fact, an enemy of God. For which of these will he boast? His doctrine does not allow for a boast regarding anything he has done.

 

[JonC]

We are discussing Election here.

Yes. But what you are calling "Calvinism" and "Arminianism" are based on the articles of the Remonstrance and the Calvinistic response in terms of the Synod of Dort (the five articles and the five points). The articles and the points are not comprised of stand alone doctrines - they work together to form each position.

You cannot pull apart one point from the whole. The Arminian view of conditional election includes:

"That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to this extent, that the regenerat man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and co-operative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ."

So Arminianism cannot boast in their own choice in election because their doctrine teaches otherwise. You may think their reasoning inconsistent, but you can't ascribe to them beliefs that they do not hold based on your own theology.

 

[Rob_BW]

The Calvinist position is that he was elected unconditionally. He, like the Apostle Paul, understands that there was no good in himself. He also understands that e was, in fact, an enemy of God. For which of these will he boast? His doctrine does not allow for a boast regarding anything he has done.

Are we talking about what people do, or what they should do?

People boast about all sorts of things that they shouldn't boast about.

 

[thatbrian]

Yes. But what you are calling "Calvinism" and "Arminianism" are based on the articles of the Remonstrance and the Calvinistic response in terms of the Synod of Dort (the five articles and the five points). The articles and the points are not comprised of stand alone doctrines - they work together to form each position.

You cannot pull apart one point from the whole. The Arminian view of conditional election includes:

"That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to this extent, that the regenerat man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and co-operative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ."

So Arminianism cannot boast in their own choice in election because their doctrine teaches otherwise. You may think their reasoning inconsistent, but you can't ascribe to them beliefs that they do not hold based on your own theology.

Prevenient grace happens after election. Election happens because the Arminian was, good, smart, humble. . . enough to choose God.

 

[JonC]

Prevenient grace happens after election. Election happens because the Arminian was, good, smart, humble. . . enough to choose God.

What you are arguing against is not Arminianism but conditional election within the context of an otherwise Calvinistic view.

The evidence of this error is found in the Articles which express Arminian belief.

 

[thatbrian]

Are we talking about what people do, or what they should do?

People boast about all sorts of things that they shouldn't boast about.

The OP lays it out, but if it wasn't clear. . . I wish to discuss each position in regards to Election, only. And, according to each position, is there room within it for boasting, specifically, boast in one's actions in being numbered among the elect.

 

[Don]

We are discussing Election here. not salvation.

The Arminian position is that God elected the Arminian because the Arminian acted first, and that action was his own. That very action is what makes him saved while the next man is not.

This "action" that you attribute to the arminian -- what action would that be?

 

[Rob_BW]

The Calvinist position is that he was elected unconditionally. He, like the Apostle Paul, understands that there was no good in himself. He also understands that e was, in fact, an enemy of God. For which of these will he boast? His doctrine does not allow for a boast regarding anything he has done.

The apostle Paul also mentioned something about the elect boasting, right?

Between JonC's example and Paul's warning (and I fear warning isn't quite the right word) about boasting in Romans 11:17-18, I don’t see where the elect are immune to boasting. No matter how illogical we feel that it is, people often boast about things that they've had no hand in.

 

[JonC]

The issue with this thread is that it assumes Arminianism gives the credit of salvation to man. While the logic is debatable, the articles prove this conclusion false because they specifically address this objection. Those who argue otherwise extract one issue in Arminianism and argue it within their own context.

Likewise, the conclusion that Calvinism denies human free agency is false because the points of Calvinism specifically address this objection (men freely choose disobedience). Those who argue otherwise extract one issue in Calvinism and argue it within their own context.

Is it fun? It can be. Is it honest? Not really.

 

[thatbrian]

The issue with this thread is that it assumes Arminianism gives the credit of salvation to man. While the logic is debatable, the articles prove this conclusion false because they specifically address this objection. Those who argue otherwise extract one issue in Arminianism and argue it within their own context.

Likewise, the conclusion that Calvinism denies human free agency is false because the points of Calvinism specifically address this objection (men freely choose disobedience). Those who argue otherwise extract one issue in Calvinism and argue it within their own context.

Is it fun? It can be. Is it honest? Not really.

Argue the points, please. Don't take jabs at me, as if I'm being dishonest, seeking to win the argument through mockery.

Answer the OP, or please refrain from posting in this particular thread, as your comments are off-topic and disrespectfully distracting to actual honest debate. Yes. it's honest. I've not altered the Arminian position on election.

 

[TCassidy]

JonC, I have been saying over and over again that Arminianism, as it originally was presented, was not the revisionist "Arminianism" we see today.

James Arminius was a Dutch REFORMED minister and theologian, His only disagreement was with Unconditional Election. He believed election was conditioned on God's foreknowledge that the person would one day believe, and that God elected him on the basis of His knowledge of that eventual belief.

But even Arminius believed that person only believed because of the Grace of God enabling that belief.