Unconditional Election

[The Biblicist]

Look Biblicist, I will try to explain this in a way that is so simple that even YOU can understand. This passage in Romans 11 utterly refutes Unconditional Election.

You Calvinists crack me up. You guys all think you are so smart. You have all your Reformed books and scholars. You guys think you are WAY smarter than non-Cals.

I hate to hurt you feelings, but this is not true. You guys are not smart, and you are not logical. If you were truly smart and truly logical you would easily spot the inconsistencies in your doctrine. Calvinism is plain STUPID. It really is, and once you see that you will agree with me.

So, we have to reduce this discussion to insults? Did any of my posts ever claim that I was smarter than you or that calvinsts were smarter than non-calvinists. Why reduce this discussion to that level?

But take note, you have not responded to my argument in Romans 11 that cutting off cannot possibly refer to loss of personal salvation since what was cutt off never possessed personal salvation in the first place. Thus "the gentiles" standing "by faith" does not refer to individual salvation any more than Israel having been cut off implies they lost PERSONAL salvation. What they were cut off from was from being the primary sphere of the gift "of faith" or God's saving grace and when the Gentiles reject Christ as did Israel they too will be cut off in the very same manner - nothing to do with individual salvation whatsoever.

So here we go:

Why go to philosophical arguments? Why not stick to the scriptures since that is where one must ultimately prove or disprove unconditional election.

If Unconditional Election is true, whether speaking of individuals or nations, then no warning is necessary or meaningful for ANY person or nation.

No warning about what? Personal accountability is not invalidated by unconditional election. Election is NOT to damnation. Nowhere in scripture is election ever mentioned or implied to be a selection of men to hell. That choice comes by nature while election prevents all mankind from the just consequence of their own choice to resist and reject God. If not for election all mankind would FREELY CHOOSE and go to hell. Election is unconditional because it is God's mercy to save some in spite of themselves who are equally deserving eternal wrath as all others whom he freely allows to remain stedfast determination to resist and reject all the goodness of God and thus freely go to hell out of pure hatred for God. There go I but for the grace of God and YOU also!

Unconditional Election teaches that persons or nations are chosen by God for his own mysterious reasons. It is not due to faith or good works or any virtue in the man or nation.

God's grace of election is "mysterious" due to the fact that there is NOTHING that can be found in that nation or in that person or YOU that would justify God saving them any more than those who He simply allows to follow their own choice to hell.

Now, I am not a Calvinist, but I was pretty accurate there wasn't I?

Well, I think you can read what I said and see that I don't hold to the type of Calvinism you have in your mind.

So why would Paul warn a person or nation to CONTINUE in God's goodness? In your system you have no say whatsoever in the matter. If God has unconditionally chosen you, you will irresistibly believe. If God passes you by, you cannot possibly believe.

Isn't that correct?

No sir, that is not my understanding of the Scriptures. I don't hold a view taken out of some Calvinistic literature but my view comes from my own studies of the scripture.

So why warn persons to continue in God's goodness? If God has decided to cut off the Gentiles, there is nothing they can do about it. If God has decided to graff the Jews back in, there is nothing you can do about it.

Your concept of Calvinis demands that damnation is God's choice as much as election of some is God's choice. That is not my concept or the concept I see in Scriptures. My view, which I believe is the Biblical view is that election has NOTHING to do with damnation but is only "to salvation" (2 Thes. 2:13). Election presupposes the fall logically.

Justified Damnation of all mankind presupposes Biblical election. Fallen man is foreseen by God to universally resist and reject God and all that God would do to save them IF that is left strictly to their own free choice (Psa. 14:2-3). Hence, left to their own free will they will "always resist" the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51) even as their fathers due to their fallen nature. Hence, God's response to universal free choice to reject, resist and stedfastly go on thier way to hell is "unconditional" election so that some mankind will be saved IN SPITE OF THEMSELVES not by forcing them to be saved against their will but by replacing within them (heart, spirit) what produces determined choice - a new heart and new spirit (Ezek. 36:26). Nothing in them deserves this mercy as they are equally as guilty and definant in their sin as all other mankind that God merely allows to remain in their willful definance.

Perhaps some day the Lord will allow you to see the amazing grace of God to save something like you who is not one whit different than those who defiantly die in their sins.

 

[Winman]

No warning about what? Personal accountability is not invalidated by unconditional election. Election is NOT to damnation. Nowhere in scripture is election ever mentioned or implied to be a selection of men to hell. That choice comes by nature while election prevents all mankind from the just consequence of their own choice to resist and reject God. If not for election all mankind would FREELY CHOOSE and go to hell. Election is unconditional because it is God's mercy to save some in spite of themselves who are equally deserving eternal wrath as all others whom he freely allows to remain stedfast determination to resist and reject all the goodness of God and thus freely go to hell out of pure hatred for God. There go I but for the grace of God and YOU also!

This is the only part of you post that needs answering.

Personal accountability is of course invalidated by Unconditional Election, that is the very point of "unconditional", Calvinism teaches that God chooses a man for some mysterious unknown reason. But what Calvinism does seem to know it that election is not conditioned on foreseen faith, good works, or any virtue in a man.

In your system God does not elect a person because they are good or bad. You could be a very moral person, and God could pass you by. You could be a serial killer and God could elect you. It has nothing whatsoever to do with your personal faith or conduct.

Whether Paul is speaking of individuals or nations in Romans 11 is beside the point, if God's election is unconditional, nothing we do can alter who God chooses to elect or pass by.

I love the way you try to make Unconditional Election conditional. :laugh:

 

[The Biblicist]

This is the only part of you post that needs answering.

Personal accountability is of course invalidated by Unconditional Election

Only if condemnation to hell is God's fault not man's and only if election is to hell rather than to heaven. I reject both! Therefore, you have created a straw man argument that has no bearing upon my belief system or what I believe the Bible clearly teaches.

Because man is responsible for sin and because all men due to a fallen depraved nature are at enemity, a state of war with God, FREELY WILL NOT repent and turn to God regardless of God's goodness IF LEFT TO THEIR OWN FREE CHOICE but will freely choose an eternity in hell rather than an eternity with God in heaven. That is the depth of the hatred of the fallen nature toward God that ALL mankind (including the elect) share EQUALLY as well as EQUAL just condemnation.

Election is God's mercy to save some IN SPITE OF themselves while allowing the rest to JUSTLY and FREELY choose to continue in their hatred of God.

Election is "unconditional" becuase there is NOTHING found in the elect that is not also found in the non-elect that would justify God saving them any more than any of those He allows to FREELY continue in their hatred and rejection of him.

In your system God does not elect a person because they are good or bad. You could be a very moral person, and God could pass you by.

You totally misunderstand the Biblical system. There are none good, no, not one. There are no morally good men. The only moral goodness that can be found in man is that which other men determine by comparison but God looketh upon the heart and there are none good in heart before God and manifestations of degree is soley due to the fact of God restraining grace (Psa. 76:10) not due to their own hearts lust if left unbridled.

Here is where you seriously misunderstand unconditional election. You invent some "good" people when there are NONE, no, NOT ONE! When you see man as God sees him - every single one rotten to the core and all God haters to the degree they would rather die the second death than submit to God and their death would be perfectly just and that YOU are one of them. Then, and only then, can you appreciate "unconditional election" as God saves some out of no reason found in them in order to show mercy upon some while deserving justice upon the rest.

 

[The Biblicist]

repeat - sorry

 

[Winman]

Biblicist

I have been debating Calvinists here for over 3 years. Do you think I do not understand your view of Total Depravity? I do not agree with your view, but I completely understand it.

I will try this again, go back to Romans 11 and read carefully.

Rom 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

Verse 20 tells us that God broke off, or cut off the Jews for unbelief. They WERE elect, but now they are not. God has decided to send the gospel to the Gentiles.

Do you agree with this? Is this unconditional?

Paul tells the Gentiles he is addressing that they stand by faith? Agreed? Is this unconditional?

Paul tells these same Gentiles not to be highminded but fear, for if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not them.

Now why someone who is an irresistible believer should fear I know not. Maybe you can explain this?

But let''s say Paul is speaking of nations. OK, so Paul tells these Gentiles they must continue in God's goodness (whatever that might mean) or they would also be cut off. Is that unconditional?

You just can't seem to grasp that if God's election is unconditional, then God does not choose or prefer any man or nation because they believe, or because they do not believe. In fact, in your system no man can possibly believe unless God regenerates him, so unbelief does not disqualify any man from being elected by God. Agreed?

So why warn men as Paul does here? The Gentiles have no control whatsoever of whether they continue in God's goodness. They can only continue in God's goodness if God regenerates them. Correct?

This is so simple a small child could understand this. If you cannot spot the gigantic inconsistency in Calvinism, you are pretty much without hope.

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist

I have been debating Calvinists here for over 3 years. Do you think I do not understand your view of Total Depravity? I do not agree with your view, but I completely understand it.

I will try this again, go back to Romans 11 and read carefully.

Rom 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

Verse 20 tells us that God broke off, or cut off the Jews for unbelief. They WERE elect, but now they are not.

No, their election has not changed a bit. You ignore verse 23 along with verses 23-28 which demands that God is not finished with them in regard to elect as verse 28 specifically states - "

23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.

Let me try this again! Israel was cut off for unbelief - right? However, Israel prior to this cutting off NEVER BELEIVED in the first place. This present cutting off is TEMPORAL and not permenant and this is Paul's argument from verse 23-25! They were NOT cut off from election but as the sphere of God's redemptive activity.

In verse 28 they are PRESENTLY defined as "enemies of the gospel" but nevertheless they are still beloved of the Father BECAUSE OF ELECTION because the time of their salvation as a Nation was not ANY TIME prior to being cut off nor presently but yet in the future - Rom. 11:25-28.

Their election has not changed because election is "to salvation" (2 Thes. 2:13) and they have never yet been brought to salvation but they will be BECAUSE OF election - v. 28.

Paul tells the Gentiles he is addressing that they stand by faith? Agreed? Is this unconditional?

Neither election or Personal salvation are in view. Israel NEVER believed and yet they were cut off. You cannot lose what you do not possess and Israel never possessed salvation.

Israel was cut off from God's PRIMARY sphere of redemptive activity where FAITH is primarily being found AMONG THEM than anywhere else on planet earth.

They were not cut off from election (v. 28) but they were cut off from being God's present sphere of redemptive activity. The gentiles stand "by faith" not because ALL GENTILE NATIONS ARE SAVED but because they are PRESENTLY the sphere of God's redemptive activity where FAITH is being found among them above Israel.


Hence, when Paul compares the cutting off of Israel to the cutting off of Gentiles it is not about personal or individual salvation or election. They are being cut off from God's PRIMARY sphere of redemptive activity where FAITH is primarily being found on planet earth. When the Gentiles predominantly reject faith, which occurs when the "fullness of the gentile" elect "come in" then they will no longer stand "by faith" but will take on the character of defiance and rejection that Israel did and thus will be cut off.


Previous to Israel being cut off they also stood by faith - not because they beleived as a nation, but because Israel was the primary source where faith was found on planet earth because it was God's primary source of redemptive activity. Soon the gentiles who now stand "by faith" meaning - the primary source where faith is found in contrast to the only other possible source (Israel) until their "fullness be come in" and then the Gentiles will oppose God as feircely as did Israel and then God will cut off Israel from being his primary source of calling out an elect and turn back to Israel and then the day of Israel's election to salvation will occur - Rom. 11:25-28.

Paul tells these same Gentiles not to be highminded but fear, for if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not them.

Of course! They had loved ones, family, friends and desire to see salvation continue within the Gentile nations.

Now why someone who is an irresistible believer should fear I know not. Maybe you can explain this?

The elect do not know they are elect until AFTER salvation. They experience the transformation and change of desire and give testimony to that change from love of darknesss to hated of darkness from hatred of light to love of light.

But let''s say Paul is speaking of nations. OK, so Paul tells these Gentiles they must continue in God's goodness (whatever that might mean) or they would also be cut off. Is that unconditional?

Election is not the subject for condition here. The subject of condition here is continuance as the primary source where God calls out a people. Think about it. Israel already lost this privildge but it did not lose its election to salvation as Romans 11:28 explicitly states. Romans 11:28 using the present tense describes them presently as ENEMIES OF THE GOSPEL and yet "touching election, beloved of the Father."

So why warn men as Paul does here? The Gentiles have no control whatsoever of whether they continue in God's goodness. They cas in only continue in God's goodness if God regenerates them. Correct?

Again, personal individual salvation is not in veiw. Neither is election in view. What in view is the privilge of being the primary source of God's present redemptive work where "faith" is found predominately on planet earth.

Paul does not know who the elect except by preaching the gospel as the means to call them to salvation is chosen as much as the persons are chosen. Your election is known by your response to the gospel (1 Thes. 1:4-5).

This is so simple a small child could understand this. If you cannot spot the gigantic inconsistency in Calvinism, you are pretty much without hope.

Of course, because you have fabricated a logical straw man that wrongly presents our views. As long as you keep errecting that false model you can easily keep on destroying it. The only problem is, it does not work with what we really believe and what we keep telling you we believe.

 

[Winman]

Again, personal individual salvation is not in veiw. Neither is election in view. What in view is the privilge of being the primary source of God's present redemptive work where "faith" is found predominately on planet earth.

You still don't get it. In your view, no person can believe unless God regenerates them. The Gentile nations cannot "continue" to believe and be God's primary source of redemptive work (as you say) unless God regenerates them.

If God is finished with the Gentiles, he will stop regenerating them and there is nothing they can do about it.

If God decides to graff the Jews back in and make them the primary source of God's redemptive work, there is no person who can prevent it.

You refuse to see how foolish and illogical your doctrine is. Men have no control in your system. Paul's warning to these Gentiles to continue in God's goodness would be utterly nonsensical and meaningless if your doctrine is true, but you cannot see that.

 

[Winman]

Of course! They had loved ones, family, friends and desire to see salvation continue within the Gentile nations.

And you say I do not understand your doctrine! If election is unconditional, it doesn't matter if you want your loved ones to be saved. God is not going to save your love ones because you desire it, or as a favor to you because you are elect, that would be conditional election.

 

[OldRegular]

I know all about Israel rejecting Jesus, I know in the tribulation many Jews will turn to Jesus. Tell me something I DON'T know.

How do you know that many Jews will be saved in the tribulation? Can you support that with Scripture?

 

[The Biblicist]

You still don't get it. In your view, no person can believe unless God regenerates them. The Gentile nations cannot "continue" to believe and be God's primary source of redemptive work (as you say) unless God regenerates them.

If God is finished with the Gentiles, he will stop regenerating them and there is nothing they can do about it.

If God decides to graff the Jews back in and make them the primary source of God's redemptive work, there is no person who can prevent it.

God's absolute sovereignty and human responsibility are both equally taught in the Scriptures. Arminism denies one while hardshellism denies the other. However, both are equally taught:

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

I might point out that the Grandville Sharpe Rule applies here to the phrase "determinate counself and foreknowledge"

 

[The Biblicist]

And you say I do not understand your doctrine! If election is unconditional, it doesn't matter if you want your loved ones to be saved. God is not going to save your love ones because you desire it, or as a favor to you because you are elect, that would be conditional election.

God's Sovereignty cannot be used by man to deny his responsibility and man's responsibility cannot be used to deny God's sovereignty.

Second, no man knows God's termination limits and so your argument is moot.

 

[steaver]

You still don't get it. In your view, no person can believe unless God regenerates them. The Gentile nations cannot "continue" to believe and be God's primary source of redemptive work (as you say) unless God regenerates them.

If God is finished with the Gentiles, he will stop regenerating them and there is nothing they can do about it.

If God decides to graff the Jews back in and make them the primary source of God's redemptive work, there is no person who can prevent it.

You refuse to see how foolish and illogical your doctrine is. Men have no control in your system. Paul's warning to these Gentiles to continue in God's goodness would be utterly nonsensical and meaningless if your doctrine is true, but you cannot see that.

Winman has a legitamate point here. Regardless of whom this speaks of, whether it be an individual who believes or an individual or does not, or whether it speaks of a nation which believes or a nation which does not, either way and anyway you look at it what would be the point in a warning to whomever, if as UE teaches, it matters not what man or nation does?

The passage is speaking specifically of belief. UE declares no one has any part in their own personal belief outside of regeneration causing any kind of acceptance or being "cut off".

 

[steaver]

Did Calvin comment on this particular verse? If so it would be appropriate to supply a quotation and reference rather than speculate!

"From Calvin's pov"

You do understand this thread is about Calvin's pov on Unconditional Election?

Still waiting for an aswer on this passage from the Calvinist here............

 

[steaver]

I have a question for our Calvinist brothers in Christ;

Does the following passage describe regeneration?

"For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. [Whereof] the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This [is] the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." (Hebrews 10:14-17)

Second question;

Did this New Covenant begin with the death, burial, ressurrection and glorification of Jesus Christ?

Third question;

Did the spoken of faith of the OT saint's come from a result of their regeneration?

TULIP lives or dies on this subject of regeneration. There is one Gospel for both pre-cross and post cross, and that is ONE's Faith in the I AM as revealed throughtout time. Regeneration is a blessing given through the New Covenant and it was not available prior to the glorification of Jesus Christ. The writer of Hebrews spends quite a bit of time explaining the differences between the Old and the New because the New began with the death, burial, ressurrection and glorification of Jesus Christ.

 

[OldRegular]

"From Calvin's pov"

You do understand this thread is about Calvin's pov on Unconditional Election?

Still waiting for an aswer on this passage from the Calvinist here............

I understand that if you are going to question Calvin's understanding of a certain passage of Scripture you should be able to reference his comment on that Scripture.

Furthermore, that passage has nothing to do with unconditional election!

 

[Crabtownboy]

Furthermore, that passage has nothing to do with unconditional election!

OldR. the title of the thread is Unconditional Election ... so you are off topic again.

 

[steaver]

I understand that if you are going to question Calvin's understanding of a certain passage of Scripture you should be able to reference his comment on that Scripture.

Furthermore, that passage has nothing to do with unconditional election!

I have not asked for Calvin's understanding of the passage, he is dead. I am asking for the Calvinist who post here to give me their understanding of the passage, how they explain it away from UE. Care to give your's?

 

[The Biblicist]

Winman has a legitamate point here. Regardless of whom this speaks of, whether it be an individual who believes or an individual or does not, or whether it speaks of a nation which believes or a nation which does not, either way and anyway you look at it what would be the point in a warning to whomever, if as UE teaches, it matters not what man or nation does?

The passage is speaking specifically of belief. UE declares no one has any part in their own personal belief outside of regeneration causing any kind of acceptance or being "cut off".

You would have a point if the passage was talking about election but it is is not.

Furthemore, what was cut off never was a believer and the elect "remnant" are never cut off. Indeed what was cut off was never in belief and are presently cut off and are described as "enemies of the gospel" and yet still "touching election are beloved of the Father" (v. 28). You cannot get any strong evidence for unconditional election because they have nothing in their past history that election could be conditioned upon and their present state is one of being "enemies of the gospel."

 

[OldRegular]

OldR. the title of the thread is Unconditional Election ... so you are off topic again.

:sleeping_2::sleeping_2::sleeping_2::sleeping_2:

 

[OldRegular]

I have not asked for Calvin's understanding of the passage, he is dead. I am asking for the Calvinist who post here to give me their understanding of the passage, how they explain it away from UE. Care to give your's?

I believe in the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace but I am not a Calvinist. He is dead. The Sovereign Grace is eternal!