Free Will vs Election

[Geralt]

matt slick's latest debate, worth the watch if you have time. (running time 3 hours)
https://www.facebook.com/Street-and-Open-Air-Preachers-of-America-289766318025856

 

[stenerson]

I will check it out. Thanks.

 

[twin1954]

I will check it out. Thanks.

I actually found it boring. The free will guy was as Pelagian as can be but wanted to deny it.

 

[TaylorSexton]

The cross placed in front of the American flag is repulsive enough for me to abstain from watching the video. Besides, I won't learn anything new. It will just be the typical debate:

The Arminian raises straw men to rile the audience up, and the Reformed spends most if not all of his time tearing them all down, never getting to any substantial material.

I tire of this debate. Let the mouth of God speak for himself to these gainsayers.

 

[stenerson]

I couldn't get the link to play. ...
edit: nevermind, got it.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

.

 

[Geralt]

i'm not much on the debate, too predictable arguments esp if you have been at it for awhile. i was more interested in the questions from the audience starting after 2hours. this is really the opportunity to share the gospel.

 

[stenerson]

I listened to about half of it so far. This Morrell denies original sin and mocks the Calvinist for believing we sin every day in word, thought and deed. And because Paul persuaded peoples to continue in grace of Christ he claims it proves we can choose to become unsaved/lose that salvation. He also denies imputation of righteousness..

 

[jten]

The bible teaches both free will and election but not Calvinistic election where individuals were supposedly chosen unconditionally apart from God's word, apart from man's volition.

God foreordained and foreknew that a group, called Christian, would be saved yet God does not choose who will or will not be in the group. That is a choice left up to man. Therefore if a person is eternally lost it is that person's fault and not the fault, culpability of God for failing to 'elect' that individual.


I also participate on CARM and never seen Mr Slick prove Calvinistic election there either.

 

[twin1954]

The bible teaches both free will and election but not Calvinistic election where individuals were supposedly chosen unconditionally apart from God's word, apart from man's volition.

God foreordained and foreknew that a group, called Christian, would be saved yet God does not choose who will or will not be in the group. That is a choice left up to man. Therefore if a person is eternally lost it is that person's fault and not the fault, culpability of God for failing to 'elect' that individual.


I also participate on CARM and never seen Mr Slick prove Calvinistic election there either.

You have seven posts and already want to start an argument. What does thay say about your agenda in coming here?

 

[TheSeabass]

You have seven posts and already want to start an argument. What does thay say about your agenda in coming here?

It's a debate forum.

 

[RC1970]

It's a debate forum.

Actually, it's a thread about a debate, it's not a debate forum. If you want to cast aspersions, you need to do that in the sub forum entitled "Debate with a Calvinist".

 

[TheSeabass]

Actually, it's a thread about a debate, it's not a debate forum. If you want to cast aspersions, you need to do that in the sub forum entitled "Debate with a Calvinist".

I am casting aspersions in the "Debate with a Calvinists" forum. Care to join in?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

BTW, the title of this thread creates a false dichotomy. Calvinists believe in free will.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I am casting aspersions in the "Debate with a Calvinists" forum. Care to join in?

Knock yourself out.

 

[TaylorSexton]

The bible teaches both free will and election but not Calvinistic election where individuals were supposedly chosen unconditionally apart from God's word, apart from man's volition.

I think you are confusing terms, friend. Of course, you are right: Reformed theology teaches that we are elected apart from the Word of God and apart from our own volition. After all, how does one go about "choosing to be elected"? That's like me saying to you, "By my own volition I choose that you elect me." That would be absurd, wouldn't it?

Where the confusion comes in is as follows. You reason that, because Reformed theology teaches that we are elected apart from God's Word and our own volition (a correct assertion), Reformed theology therefore teaches that we are saved apart from God's Word and our own volition. This is directly and constantly denied by Reformed theology. Election is not salvation; election is unto salvation (a huge difference). Confusing these two terms makes one arrive at the conclusion to which you have arrived. That is why the ordo salutis is so important in soteriological debates.

I am staunchly Calvinistic, yet I affirm strongly that we are saved (not elected) by grace alone, but this salvation is worked through (not by) the Word of God and my own volition. No one is ever saved who does not will it, and no one is ever damned who wills to be saved.

BTW, the title of this thread creates a false dichotomy. Calvinists believe in free will.

Absolutely. From The Second Helvetic Confession, ch. 9, ¶ 3:

MAN DOES EVIL BY HIS OWN FREE WILL. Therefore, in regard to evil or sin, man is not forced by God or by the devil but does evil by his own free will, and in this respect he has a most free will.

 

[twin1954]

When we speak of election unto salvation we should always place it in the context it flows from. We need to make it a habit to speak of God,s electing love not just election. Election unto salvation is the expression of God's love.

The work of Jesus Christ the Lord is diminished if electing love is left out. Apart from the electing love of God which chose a people to set His love upon and giving them to His Son to be their Redeemer the love of God is nothing more than a useless emotion.

 

[jten]

I think you are confusing terms, friend. Of course, you are right: Reformed theology teaches that we are elected apart from the Word of God and apart from our own volition. After all, how does one go about "choosing to be elected"? That's like me saying to you, "By my own volition I choose that you elect me." That would be absurd, wouldn't it?

Yet the bible does not teach election apart from the bible or man's volition.

The bible does teach one can become part of the elect by choosing to obey the word of God. There is not a single example to be found in the NT of anyone who was become part of the elect apart from the word and obedience to that word.

Where the confusion comes in is as follows. You reason that, because Reformed theology teaches that we are elected apart from God's Word and our own volition (a correct assertion), Reformed theology therefore teaches that we are saved apart from God's Word and our own volition. This is directly and constantly denied by Reformed theology. Election is not salvation; election is unto salvation (a huge difference). Confusing these two terms makes one arrive at the conclusion to which you have arrived. That is why the ordo salutis is so important in soteriological debates.

Being of the elect is salvation.
You have people being elect (saved) apart from the word and volition as you admitted above.

There is no such thing as being elect but not saved or saved but not elect. Salvation and elect are synonymous terms.

I am staunchly Calvinistic, yet I affirm strongly that we are saved (not elected) by grace alone, but this salvation is worked through (not by) the Word of God and my own volition. No one is ever saved who does not will it, and no one is ever damned who wills to be saved.



Absolutely. From The Second Helvetic Confession, ch. 9, ¶ 3:

MAN DOES EVIL BY HIS OWN FREE WILL. Therefore, in regard to evil or sin, man is not forced by God or by the devil but does evil by his own free will, and in this respect he has a most free will.

Show me from the bible where election is not salvation. Show me from the NT a person who was elect but not saved or saved but not elect.

I looked up the words "elect" and "election" in the KJV and nowhere do I find these words referring to anyone who was not saved. In the NT being elect is being of the group Christian. Can one be elect but not a Christian? No. Elect but not saved? No.


(There are Calvinists over on CARM that say free will is not biblical, man does not have free will. A quote from one of that forums resident Calvinist "In the light of this, what Biblical evidence can you show that demonstrates free will in the first place instead of just assuming its existence?"

 

[TaylorSexton]

Being of the elect is salvation...There is no such thing as being elect but not saved or saved but not elect. Salvation and elect are synonymous terms.

This is where your confusion lies. Until you understand this crucial soteriological distinction, this conversation is useless. It simply will not matter how often and deeply we try to explain it; it will not matter if you refuse to seek understanding.

 

[DeaconDean]

This is where your confusion lies. Until you understand this crucial soteriological distinction, this conversation is useless. It simply will not matter how often and deeply we try to explain it; it will not matter if you refuse to seek understanding.

That is just like the Reformed doctrine of predestination.

They want to say whatever, without even understanding what it says.

God Bless

Till all are one.