Doctrine of Election

[ninzae]

Hello guys,

I need some help. I am currently studying the doctrine of election. Do you know any books/websites/resources that I can read? I have all the google findings about it so please dont resort to that. I am hoping that you will share to me what you have used personally in studying this doctrine. Thanks a lot.

Blessings,
N

 

[jdbrown]

"Chosen by God" by R. C. Sproul

 

[ninzae]

"Chosen by God" by R. C. Sproul

Thanks JD.

 

[Iosias]

Divine Election by Berkouwer.

 

[St_Worm2]

Yep, "Chosen by God" by R C Sproul (it's a little book that is a great primer to the doctrine of Election)

You could look at Dr. Sproul's broadcast website for other things as well. www.ligonier.org

--David

 

[twin1954]

Arthur Pink on election is outstanding. His book "The Sovereignty of God" is one of the best you can read on the subject.
THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD-Contents

You can read it online here or go to Pink's Archive The Doctrine of Reconciliation-Arthur W. Pink Book Archive
and download it to an e-reader.

But if you want I am sure that someone here, myself included, would be willing to take the time to explain it to you.

 

[ninzae]

Hello everyone,

Thank you very much for all your replies. I appreciate it a lot. I have taken note of all the recommendations. I will run through it and read more. I will ask questions here if I need some insights on certain points.

Please pray for me as I intentionally study this said doctrine which is very essential to our christian faith. I do not simply want just to read by my eyes but also with my heart.

Blessings,
n

 

[St_Worm2]

Praying for you.

 

[JM]

The Sovereignty of God by Pink (any edition BUT Banner of Truth due to their removal of key chapters)

 

[Iosias]

Owing to his hyper-calvinism in that chapter.

 

[ninzae]

Owing to his hyper-calvinism in that chapter.

Is it wrong to be hyper Calvinist? : )

 

[ninzae]

The Sovereignty of God by Pink (any edition BUT Banner of Truth due to their removal of key chapters)

Thanks for pointing this out. Ill read through. : )

 

[twin1954]

Is it wrong to be hyper Calvinist? : )

Some like to put false labels on others in order to discredit them. Yes it is wrong to be a hyper-Calvinist but calling one a hyper-Calvinist doesn't mean that they are one. Some here call me a hyper-Calvinist but it just ain't so. Pay no attention to those who label without showing why the label fits.

 

[Iosias]

Is it wrong to be hyper Calvinist? : )

Yes, it's also hard for Calvinists to see what they have slipped into being a hyper-calvinist since a hyper-calvinist is always someone more extreme than they are. But there are five general clues: A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism

 

[twin1954]

Yes, it's also hard for Calvinists to see what they have slipped into being a hyper-calvinist since a hyper-calvinist is always someone more extreme than they are. But there are five general clues: A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism

Yeah I have read that drivel from Phil before but he is biased. Phil is no more Reformed than his mentor MacArthur is. Denying the "free offer" or "common grace" doesn't make you a hyper it simply makes you a high Calvinist. Hyper-Calvinism is to see no need to preach the Gospel at all since God will save His elect with or without it.

You seem to want to cause harm and division here. Your input has only confused rather than helped. It is not appreciated.
These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
(Pro 6:16-19)

 

[Iosias]

Denying the "free offer" or "common grace" doesn't make you a hyper

Thus speaks a hyper-Calvinist! All mainstream Calvinists would accept that denying those doctrines are marks of hyper-calvinists, so Tim Challies:

Phil Johnson, who has done extensive research on this subject very helpfully defines hyper-Calvinists using a five-fold definition. A hyper-Calvinist is one who:

Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
Denies that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace,” OR
Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs...vinists-are-not-the-same-as-hyper-calvinists/
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2011/07/14/the-what-and-why-of-hyper-calvinism/
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/rayortlund/2010/08/31/spurgeon-v-hyper-calvinism/

More resources can be found here.

 

[twin1954]

Thus speaks a hyper-Calvinist! All mainstream Calvinists would accept that denying those doctrines are marks of hyper-calvinists, so Tim Challies:



Hyper-Calvinists Are Not the Same as Hyper Calvinists – Justin Taylor
The What and Why of Hyper-Calvinism – Kevin DeYoung
Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism – Ray Ortlund

More resources can be found here.

I could care less what you think of me but this lady asked a simple question and you have done nothing but confuse and sought to stir up strife. A troll is a troll is a troll.

 

[Iosias]

I could care less what you think of me but this lady asked a simple question and you have done nothing but confuse and sought to stir up strife.

No, I simply explained why Banner of Truth edited Pink's The Sovereignty of God and provided an explanation of what hyper Calvinism is when she requested it.

 

[ninzae]

Hello guys. I appreciate all your inputs. I have take note of it. Thank you very much for being generous in your suggestion while I dig deeper into the doctrine of election.

Don't worry about discussing on this thread. It's good to hear both sides of the coin. As what I wrote, ill ask questions to you guys when I need some additional insights. Discussion is always healthy as long as it is done with respect. : )

 

[jdbrown]

Hello guys. I appreciate all your inputs. I have take note of it. Thank you very much for being generous in your suggestion while I dig deeper into the doctrine of election.

Don't worry about discussing on this thread. It's good to hear both sides of the coin. As what I wrote, ill ask questions to you guys when I need some additional insights. Discussion is always healthy as long as it is done with respect. : )

Lesson #1 on the Doctrine of Election, most human beings and at least a third of the angels don't like it.

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law." Matthew 10:34-35