Doctrine of Election

[Lockheed]

For starters I'm not obligated to answer any question, secondly I CHOSE to belief that God loved enough to die for my sins. there were no external factors involved.

You said: "I've dealt with this issue with you." Thus I was under the impression that you had already answered my question but I missed it.

The fact that, as you say, you "chose" to believe in God is not in question. I believe that you sincerely do believe in God as you claim. The question is, what is it about you that caused you to believe where others do not?

Secondly I have already commented on the uncertainity of the Law being able to save as it is not clearly shown in the Scriptures.

Ok. This is of importance because it has effect on what one believes about grace, salvation and the rest, down the line. If the Jews were saved by the works of the Law (which I believe the Bible declares to be impossible) than there is (or was) more than one way to be saved and God's sending Christ was either an afterthought or "plan B" as some like to say. I was just wondering where you stand on that, but you've made yourself clear. Thanks.

 

[Lockheed]

I've answered dealing with election but I'll gladly debate the sovereignity of God with. Your format sounds great. How starting next Mon. afternoon (it will give both of us time to prepare), I'll even let you go first. Just one last thing, you are to NO WAY, FORM, or FASHION to misquote or misconstrue my ideas.

The unfortunate part about your last statement is that it is open to subjective opinion. You (or I) could claim the other party misconstrued something that was said... I therefore recommend that a third party, or two others, be selected to moderate post for post. I recommend BT, if he's willing and BBAS likewise.

If the topic then is Sovereignty, what exactly are we debating? Since we both claim God is sovereign, is the debate about the limits of God's sovereignty or the nature thereof? I think that if one talks about sovereignty, election will become a topic none-the-less.

I'll debate Sovereignty, on the condition that how it effects "election" is expressed. I'd still really like to get into the nature of election.

 

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

The unfortunate part about your last statement is that it is open to subjective opinion. You (or I) could claim the other party misconstrued something that was said... I therefore recommend that a third party, or two others, be selected to moderate post for post. I recommend BT, if he's willing and BBAS likewise.

If the topic then is Sovereignty, what exactly are we debating? Since we both claim God is sovereign, is the debate about the limits of God's sovereignty or the nature thereof? I think that if one talks about sovereignty, election will become a topic none-the-less.

I'll debate Sovereignty, on the condition that how it effects "election" is expressed. I'd still really like to get into the nature of election.

I'll completely agree with both choices as moderators, and as for the rest, that's fine as well.

 

[Lockheed]

Let's see if they're open to it. Otherwise I'll gladly have just one, either will do.

 

[BT]

Good Day, BT

I know how silly of me , to show historical reality of the views of Baptist that see the Arminian view of the soverity of God to be inconsistant with the Scripture, because thier view denies the meaning of the word.

hardly.

Sovereignty
The right of God to do as He wishes (Psalm 50:1; Isaiah 40:15; 1 Tim. 6:15) with His creation. This implies that there is no external influence upon Him and that He also has the ability to exercise His power and control according to His will.

You know the definition is ok until you add "this implies". And by the way as I've said at least 100 times now, no one is disputing that God is sovereign; that he has the ability to exercise His power and control according to His will was never in question. But again, you dodge, you duck, you avoid.. Now we are back to your semantics again.

My friend, look at the top of your screen. We're talking about election. If this is such a "clear teaching of scripture" as I often hear it called. Then show me. Don't show me inference, don't show me "what does this mean to you" show me "elect sinners walking around". And if you get the chance I would love to hear your ideas on the scriptures that I posted that show my beliefs, though you always without fail, never address them, in all the discussions that we've ever had about this...

I have shown you Scripture over and over again, and will contuine to do so. Call me silly...


Peace to u,

Bill

No, you have not ever shown me any scripture to prove election. You've shown me weak exegesis (and I struggle to call it that) and semantics, and that is all. So I will call you silly.


Silly.

 

[Lockheed]

No, you have not ever shown me any scripture to prove election. You've shown me weak exegesis (and I struggle to call it that) and semantics, and that is all.

Looks like the moderator needs moderating.

 

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

hardly.

[/size][/font]

No, you have not ever shown me any scripture to prove election.

election , chose, chosen do a word study to prove it wrong then

then goto Matt 13:11-15

 

[BBAS 64]

Good day, Lockheed and Unimportant

There is a debate fourm here at CF, that will allow you both to debate this issue. I thank you that you both have shown me the kindness of moderating this debate, it would have been the first written debate I have moderated.

In that debate fourm there are rules posted and mods assigned. There is also a sub fourm for non-particpants to comment and ask questions of the people who are following the debate.

I will follow the debate closely and comment in the sub fourm.

http://www.christianforums.com/f183-non-participant-commentary-debate-invitations.html

Debate Fourm:

http://www.christianforums.com/f182-denominational-formal-debates.html

Rules:

http://www.christianforums.com/t48432-formal-debating-rules.html

Peace to the both of you,

Bill

 

[Lockheed]

Good day, Lockheed and Unimportant

There is a debate fourm here at CF, that will allow you both to debate this issue. I thank you that you both have shown me the kindness of moderating this debate, it would have been the first written debate I have moderated.

In that debate fourm there are rules posted and mods assigned. There is also a sub fourm for non-particpants to comment and ask questions of the people who are following the debate.

I will follow the debate closely and comment in the sub fourm.

http://www.christianforums.com/f183-non-participant-commentary-debate-invitations.html

Debate Fourm:

http://www.christianforums.com/f182-denominational-formal-debates.html

Rules:

http://www.christianforums.com/t48432-formal-debating-rules.html

Peace to the both of you,

Bill

Excellent...

Here is the debate as follows:

Four questions that must be answered:

1. What happened in the Fall? - 1500 words max

5 part Q/A - 250 words max per Q.

Conclusion - 1000 words
​

2. Define God's Sovereignty in light of Man's Responsiblity - 1500 words max

5 part Q/A - 250 words max per Q.

Conclusion - 1000 words
​

3. What is election? - 1500 words max

5 part Q/A - 250 words max per Q.

Conclusion - 1000 words
​

4. How is a person saved? - 1500 words max

5 part Q/A - 250 words max per Q.

Conclusion - 1000 words
​

-- Q/A From readers.

Sound ok to you unimportantbuthisnameis? We can post every one every Monday and the next part on Weds?

 

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

Excellent...

Here is the debate as follows:

Four questions that must be answered:



1. What happened in the Fall? - 1500 words max

5 part Q/A - 250 words max per Q.

Conclusion - 1000 words


​

2. Define God's Sovereignty in light of Man's Responsiblity - 1500 words max

5 part Q/A - 250 words max per Q.

Conclusion - 1000 words


​

3. What is election? - 1500 words max

5 part Q/A - 250 words max per Q.

Conclusion - 1000 words


​

4. How is a person saved? - 1500 words max

5 part Q/A - 250 words max per Q.

Conclusion - 1000 words


​

-- Q/A From readers.


Sound ok to you unimportantbuthisnameis? We can post every one every Monday and the next part on Weds?

Sounds great to me.

 

[Lockheed]

w00t! Ok, first post is due NEXT Tuesday (gotta give some time to recover from Ressurection Day). And then the q/a due Thurs, and rebuttal/next post following monday. Then a Monday/Wed/Fri schedule after that...? I'll start the thread this coming weekend or maybe Monday in the Official debate forum.

 

[ksen]

Hey bro. Sorry for the delay. I'm wrapping up a course right now, "Manners and Customs II" and it is a beast! So all my time is devoted to it lately. Nevertheless, amid the flurry of posts I'll talk to this portion..

I understand! My History and Doctrine of the Preservation of the Text class was a beast as well.

Revelation 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

The argument was the the names were "not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world".

By saying there are names not written in the book of life implies that there are names that ARE written in the book.

First of all you have to be very careful when trying to squeeze doctrine out of a book that is not teaching doctrine.. like Acts and especially Revelation which is a prophetic/apocalyptic writing.

Acts and Revelation don't teach doctrine? Where do we get our doctrine of Missiology if not from Acts? What about our Eschatological doctrine?

Second this still says nothing about "being chosen from the foundations of the world for salvation or perdition". If anything, it could be used to present a case for foreknowledge, but election? No I don't think so.

Well, if the names of the saved were written before the foundation of the world then Someone had to write them there.....didn't He? We didn't write our own names there.

Then if you wanted to get real deep with it, the concept of man's will and the necessity of belief on man's part is scattered throughout Revelation. So we come back to the argument that I used in my paper on Hebrews: why in the world would the writer contradict himself in his own book. But worse than that since this book is a direct revelation from God you'd have God contradicting Himself in His Revelation. Doesn't that seem odd to you, or is it just me? Here are a couple of examples of what I mean:

Revelation 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

Here God gives to him that is athirst, not he that was chosen by God before the foundations of the world.


Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Again this entire verse contradicts the notion of divine election from before the foundations of the world. Notice: Who does God say "come" to, the elect (chosen, picked)? No, to "him that heareth" now cross-reference that to Romans 10:14 "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?"

Calvinism and Limited Atonement do not deny that "whosoever will may come." The question is: Who is it that will will to come? The Calvinist answers that only the Elect will ever "will" to come to God.

Now to whom else does God say "come" "him that is athirst" now cross-reference that to Matthew 5:6 "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled." And finally who else can drink of the water of life freely? Whosoever will again NOT those who were picked..

I think my answer is going afield of what the OP was asking so I will wrap this up. Only the Elect will ever want to come to God through faith in Christ. There is a caricature of Calvinism out there that says we teach that there are multitudes of people begging God to save them that God will ignore because they are not Elect. That could not be further from the truth. Calvinism affirms the Biblical teaching that only those who are given to Christ by the Father will ever come to God in faith.

God does not turn anyone away who responds to the Gospel.

But again let me restate the fact that you must be very careful when looking for supporting verses from certain types of books. I nearly cringe sometimes when people (for other doctrines) take stuff from say the Psalms. You must be very careful...

Ok, I'll be careful.

(sorry it took so long to respond)

 

[ksen]

Does God elect, from eternity past, certain sinners to salvation, or does man have the ability to choose/believe. What saith the scripture?

Deuteronomy 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:


The Old Testament Jews, who were part of the elect nation had a personal/individual obligation to "choose" to follow the dictates of the law.

The fact that man can and does "choose" whether or not to obey/accept God is absolutely clear from scripture, which no gymnastics required.

Proverbs 1:29 For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:

Proverbs 1:31 Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices.

The option is there, the choice is for man. When he does not choose the fear of the Lord he is guilty. When he stands before the Lord at judgement he will be guilty.

Have you ever considered "guilt"? God is sovereign, an earthly king is called a sovereign. God gave the Law, an earthly king makes laws. God set's the punishment for man's failure to follow the Law (believe in Christ), an earthly king sets the punishment for failure to follow his law. In both cases the sovereign one is just. They say, "Here are the rules boys, follow them and live in peace. Break them and pay the price." Allowing for this option makes neither of them "not sovereign" (albeit God on a grander scale of course), to lay out peace and punishment is righteous. When you take away choice and inflict punishment upon those who have no alternative then you become (in human terms) a Saddam Husein.

Isaiah 56:4 For thus saith the LORD unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant;

Mark 9:23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth. (pre-crucifixion even)

Luke 8:12 Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

and on and on...

The issue is choice

You are doing what you have accused others of doing.

You have been shown verses supporting the Calvinist view of Election. You just reject that interpretation. That's fine, but please don't say you haven't been shown.

 

[ksen]

For starters I'm not obligated to answer any question, secondly I CHOSE to belief that God loved enough to die for my sins. there were no external factors involved.


Secondly I have already commented on the uncertainity of the Law being able to save as it is not clearly shown in the Scriptures.

Can I try to help?

• [Is] the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. - Ga 3:21 (KJV)

The Law in view here is the Mosaic Covenant as seen in the verses prior to this. Paul plainly states, under inspiration, that there has not been a law given that could give life because if there had been, then we would have received righteousness through the Law.

But he later writes that the purpose of the Law was not to save, but to educate us about our sin and point us to the Savior.

 

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

w00t! Ok, first post is due NEXT Tuesday (gotta give some time to recover from Ressurection Day). And then the q/a due Thurs, and rebuttal/next post following monday. Then a Monday/Wed/Fri schedule after that...? I'll start the thread this coming weekend or maybe Monday in the Official debate forum.

that sounds great. I look foward to it.

 

[BBAS 64]

Good day, All

Spurgeon:

"But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ."—2 Thessalonians 2:13-14.​

F there were no other text in the sacred Word except this one, I think we should all be bound to receive and acknowledge the truthfulness of the great and glorious doctrine of God's ancient choice of his family. But there seems to be an inveterate prejudice in the human mind against this doctrine; and although most other doctrines will be received by professing Christians, some with caution, others with pleasure, yet this one seems to be most frequently disregarded and discarded. In many of our pulpits it would be reckoned a high sin and treason to preach a sermon upon election, because they could not make it what they call a "practical" discourse. I believe they have erred from the truth therein.

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0041.htm

Just an other Baptist who got it right IMHO.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

word study .....chose...chosen

Matt 20:16....Matt 22:14 many called few chosen

John 15:16 ye have not chosen me....

romans 9:20-22 explains why God choses

Romans 16:13 chose in the Lord

1 cor 1:27,28 God has chosen foolish things

eph 1:4 according as He hath chosen us.

2 thes 2:13 God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation

1 peter 2:4 chosen of God and precious
1peter 2:9 chosen generation


word study ....... calling

romans 8:29-30 He predestinated,called, justified,then glorified

Romans 9:11 according to election stand, not of works but of Him that calleth

1cor 1:26 for ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called.

Gal 1:6 called you in the grace of Christ

Gal 1:15 called me by His grace.

2 tim 1:9 called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His purposeand grace , which was given us CJ before the world began.

Hebrew 3:1 heavenly calling

2 peter 1:10 brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure.

 

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

word study ...election

romans 8:33 to charge God's elect

col 3:12 put on the election of God

1 tim 5:21 charge thee before elect angels

2 tim 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvationwhich is CJ with eternal glory

titus 1:1 according to faith of God's elect, and acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness

1 peter 1:2 election according to foreknowledge

1peter 2:6 cornerstone, elect, precious

1 peter 5:13 elected together with you

2 john 1:13 children of thy elect



word study .....book of life

Rev 17:8.....whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world....

rev 20:12 and another book was opened, which is the book of life

rev 20:15 who ever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire

 

[Lockheed]

Due to unforseen circumstances, I'll be unable to participate in the debate I asked for. I apologize to unimportantbuthisnameis and BBAS 64 for getting them excited and then bowing out. I will perhaps ask to start this debate again some time in the future. -

Lockheed

 

[ZiSunka]

The trouble with calvinism is that it is an "ism," a summation of a system of belief of some human being, in this case, Calvin. However John Calvin understood God, whatever relationship he had with God, it's not my understanding or my relationship with God, nor is is a particularly attractive relationship with God. Humans beings were endowed by their Creator to search for Him. We search for Him and He finds us. He made a way to be saved and we either meet Him on that path or we go our own way. It is His way, but it is our choice. God does not force salvation on anyone, and He would rather that everyone be saved, but not everyone wants to, and some people just think they can get there on their own. Calvin introduced a different but equally ego-centric belief, and that is that some people are chosen by God to be a separate superior race of those who are saved and all others He allows to be born so He can condemn them. That is NOT a God I would worship, that is a God that I would feel alienated and suspicious of.