• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

Featured Problem with Election

Discussion in 'General Theology' started by ladodgers6, Jun 21, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +32,874
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Response:

    Continued below from the lexicon of Greek the words involved in predestination and elect.

    4309. proorizó

    Strong's Concordance
    proorizó: to predetermine, foreordain
    Original Word: προορίζω
    Part of Speech: Verb
    Transliteration: proorizó
    Phonetic Spelling: (pro-or-id'-zo)
    Short Definition: I foreordain, predetermine
    Definition: I foreordain, predetermine, mark out beforehand.
    HELPS Word-studies
    4309 proorízō (from 4253 /pró, "before" and 3724 /horízō, "establish boundaries, limits") – properly, pre-horizon, pre-determine limits (boundaries) predestine.

    [4309 (proorízō) occurs six times in the NT (eight in the writings of Paul). Since the root (3724 /horízō) already means "establish boundaries," the added prefix (pro, "before") makes 4309 (proorízō) "to pre-establish boundaries," i.e. beforecreation.]

    Strong's Greek: 4309. προορίζω (proorizó) -- to predetermine, foreordain

    1586. eklegó
    Strong's Concordance
    eklegó: to select
    Original Word: ἐκλέγομαι
    Part of Speech: Verb
    Transliteration: eklegó
    Phonetic Spelling: (ek-leg'-om-ahee)
    Short Definition: I choose, elect
    Definition: I pick out for myself, choose, elect, select.
    HELPS Word-studies
    1586 eklégomai (from 1537 /ek, "out of" and 3004 /légō, "speaking to a conclusion") – properly, to select (choose) out of, by a highly deliberate choice (i.e. real heart-preference) with a definite outcome (as with the destination of divine selection for salvation).
    Strong's Greek: 1586. ἐκλέγομαι (eklegó) -- to select
     
  2. GodsGrace101

    GodsGrace101 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,776
    Italy
    Christian
    Married
    How do I exalt people above God?
    I agree that we're all a bunch of sinners.
    I agree that we either serve God or satan.
    I believe that God saved us while we were still sinners...saved people don't need to be saved.
    I agree that we deserve nothing but hell.

    I just don't agree that God decides for us who will go to damnation. I believe He is a God of love and will give to each of us the chance to be saved IF we follow His condition.
    The condition is to believe in Jesus, and follow His commands, which are God's commands - no difference.
     
  3. Apologetic_Warrior

    Apologetic_Warrior Pilgrim

    +3,189
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    And of course more accusation with no sources, nothing but bare assertions. Try reading the information that has been posted already with an open mind. Calvin tried to convert him to Christianity through a series of letters and giving him a copy of his Institutes, but Servetus more or less threw it back in his face out of hatred for the doctrine of the Trinity and Christians through heretical writings with intent to lead souls astray from the eternal Son of God. Calvin warned him to stay away, pleaded with him to stay away, but Servetus like an obsessed lunatic with a death wish refused. Try reading the real historical documents and sources close to the history before passing judgement.
     
  4. ladodgers6

    ladodgers6 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +669
    Calvinist
    Married
    Come one, you said you are a teaching. If the Atonement is not efficacy in nature. Then who makes it efficacy in nature?
     
  5. GodsGrace101

    GodsGrace101 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,776
    Italy
    Christian
    Married
    I don't understand.
    I said I was a teacher? I taught kids our faith.
    Explain about the atonement...
    I have to shut down and will be gone a couple of days.
    But please explain...
     
  6. ladodgers6

    ladodgers6 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +669
    Calvinist
    Married
    So you are a Deist? Deism is essentially the view that God exists, but that He is not directly involved in the world.

    We believe God is involved in the world.
     
  7. ladodgers6

    ladodgers6 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +669
    Calvinist
    Married
    I though I read that you ask questions to get your point across, because you are a teacher?
     
  8. GodsGrace101

    GodsGrace101 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,776
    Italy
    Christian
    Married
    God is a part of our lives.
    He is NOT a part of time.
    He created the earth, He is not a PART of the earth.
    I thought every one knew this...

    If I make the proverbial watch, I can't also be a part of the mechanism of that watch!
    ....night.
     
  9. GodsGrace101

    GodsGrace101 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,776
    Italy
    Christian
    Married
    Oh. I said that is a method of teaching.
    I used to ask my kids a lot of questions to get them to think about our faith, instead of just spoon feeding them answers. It makes them remember better.
     
  10. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +32,874
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Then please show me what they actually meant by using those terms of election and predestination if they really did not mean it.
     
  11. Athanasius377

    Athanasius377 Is a little right of Atilla the Hun Supporter

    +1,185
    United States
    Lutheran
    Married
    US-Constitution
    I don't want to put words in @redleghunter 's mouth but I believe the proper response is at what point is God required to to do anything? Is He answerable to you (or me)? Does the clay tell the Potter, "I shall be a vase?, fashion me likewise"? Where you conceived by your parents with any input from you? As a Lutheran I would agree with the first part of predestination. God has every right to extinguish his creation at any point in time and would be justified in doing so. The fact that He does not do so is an example of his lovingkindness and mercy. Likewise the fact the God predestines any at all to salvation is yet another example of his Love and Mercy though the Person and Work of Christ. As to the who and why of the "reprobate" we are not told nor should we speculate. This is where I depart from historic Reformed Theology as much as the logic side of me wants to agree. Reformation Theology as a whole agrees with the first point as to keep faith from becoming a work since no one can have faith unless it is given to him/her through Grace (Ephesians 2).

    There are two presuppositions going on in these threads. One is monergism the other is synergism. I am a committed monergist as I believe the entirety of scripture lays out that God is the one who does everything. We were dead after all. The fact that God raises us and brings us to faith is a miracle indeed. Perhaps at the core of it is that some people want assurance by their control and others have assurance by virtue of what God has already done. I don't know about you but if I need to have faith and that faith is my work I am in big trouble. I don't know if that is a fair comparison but that's how I am reading these threads.

    God Bless
     
  12. Marvin Knox

    Marvin Knox Senior Veteran

    +1,429
    Protestant
    Married
    I understand your point. But that being said, IMO both believe in justice - only Calvinists emphasize grace more than non Calvinists.
    All fallen men are inflicted with the inability to say yes to the gospel according to the Book of Romans.

    All will say no to the Son without a special helping of grace from the Father according the Jesus Christ's statement on the subject.

    Although God would be just in passing all of His enemies by with His grace - only some are passed by and left in their fallen and justly cursed state.
    TULIP was formulated sometime after Calvin lived. He would have rejected limited atonement and received the other points albeit with a great deal of nuance.

    I'm in the same boat. I prefer not to be called a Calvinist since most think that entails acceptance of limited atonement and all of the other points as usually stated. I cannot in good faith name even the other 4 points without a bit of nuance and critique as to how they are often presented by Calvinists.

    I suppose I'll accept the title "Reformed" without a great deal of explanation. But I'm a bit reluctant to go by any handle since I am really simply a believer of the scriptures when all is said and done.
    God predestines who He will visit with special grace and who He will pass by with that grace. That is the doctrine of election.

    Predestination itself does not equate to "forcing", "robotics" or "puppetry" as the old anti Calvinist red herrings are often stated.

    Nor does it refer to "scripting" or any such thing which would make God the author of any sin involved in any predestined wrong choices.

    These false pictures of predestination are figments of the minds of anti-Calvinists or at the least uninformed non-Calvinists.

    No Calvinist believes in such things. They believe instead that God uses the choices made by men to bring to past what He has predetermined He will "allow" (to use an often overblown but technically correct Arminian term).

    Now - the doctrine of election is not the same doctrine as predestination. They are often conflated wrongly by non-Calvinists.

    God's actions upon the elect which result in their understanding and accepting the gospel are also predestined as are all things which take place in history. But election is not the same word as predestination and no Calvinist uses them interchangeably.
    The problem you have is in saying that anyone has a "complete inability" to have a choice. No one on the Reformed side of things believes or teaches that.

    I have a bit more time here so let's take rudimentary examples from the scriptures to illustrate. God knows and always has known possibilities as clearly as He knows actualities. Time would fail us if many examples were used. But He knows for example without shadow of doubt what the people of Sodom would have done if they were allowed to continue to exist and if His ministry visited them instead of the cities of Israel.

    Obviously that would entail a completely different paradigm than the one we have in the Bible where the messiah came to Israel etc. But still He knows everything that could happen in every conceivable paradigm possible in His creation if that paradigm were brought to past.

    He chose the paradigm He would "allow" to come to past or "sovereignly make" come to past - as you wish.

    Now on to another situation. God knew exactly what would happen if He created man and put him in a garden with a talking serpent and a tree that would kill him if he fell to the temptation of the serpent. There was no possibility at all that what God "knew" would take place would not indeed take place if He acted in a certain way.

    Since God knew before there even was a creation let alone the elements involved in Eden what was going to happen if He created a certain paradigm - it was "pre" destined to happen if and when God acted in certain ways.

    God's omniscient attribute demands a belief in predestination of some kind.

    He chose to act in that way (and actually acts in what amounts to innumerable ways in every second of every day). In so acting He put in motion what He sovereignly decided or decreed would happen if and when He so acted.

    Within the structure of the creation He put man's ability to choose and man chose out of that free will. Everyone (Calvinist and Arminian alike) believes that.

    The free choice of Adam brought to past exactly what God knew would be brought to past if God did certain things or "allowed certain things" (as you might prefer to phrase it).

    Since God chose the paradigm where certain things were bound to happen - He predestined them to happen by acting in certain ways Himself.

    But He did not "force" Adam to make the choice He did. No one believes that anti Calvinist red herring.

    Now how man can be independent of God when man has his very being "in God" is the $64,000 question. The answer is that man can never be completely "independent of God".

    Some people on the anti Calvinist side of things need to learn to live with that.

    But God tells us that He created man in His own image and that we have ability and import in spite of our complete dependence on Him for our very existence. He tells us that we have free will and that we will be judged by what we do with it.

    That's about all I have time for here.

    But these things (including the relationship of man's free will and the inescapable concept of the predestination of all that happens in creation) have to be dealt with by Calvinist and Arminian alike - not just Calvinist as seems to be the case.

    The thing we see, of course, is that non-Calvinist seem to think that berating Calvinists for dealing with them gets themselves off the hook for not dealing with them.

    It doesn't of course and God will deal with their lack of thinking on these things and also their treatment of those who have decided to think about these things rather than pass these concepts by as they have - when they meet Him at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

    But the fact is that Predestination is in complete harmony with free will and some people claiming that it isn't doesn't make it so.

    I've said in the past that people who deny what people like me have arrived at must almost have to believe in a different God and or at least a different relationship of God and man than the one the Holy Spirit told us about.

    Now - almost without doubt - someone will start tearing these concepts apart. But the simple fact will remain that I have thought through these things backward and forward and they have almost undoubtedly not.

    Indeed - they usually choose to either ignore them or just spout some mindless mantra about "free will" and hope the issues go away and they don't have to deal with them.

    Gotta go.

    If I get up from this computer now and go to bed - you can bet that that is exactly as it was predestined to happen before the foundation of the world if God either allowed or brought to past the paradigm I live and move and have my being in.

    If I chose to do something else - that will be what was predestined to happen. I make choices and they establish what God has decreed and predestined to happen when He acted in the particular innumerable ways He has acted over thousands of years - particularly in my lifetime.

    What will it be?

    The secret things belong to God. But the things revealed in history belong to us and to our children after us.

    Kapeesh?
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  13. ladodgers6

    ladodgers6 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +669
    Calvinist
    Married
    Oh okay, thanks for clarifying it. I have an article I want you to read. It's lengthy, but not too lengthy. It will address what we been trying to share. I hope you will read it to understand our position, and not caricature it.

    Who Saves Whom? by Michael S. Horton (Part 1)

    ‘God casts His vote; Satan casts his, but you must cast the deciding ballot’?

    The touchstone question in the running debate between Jesus and the Pharisees, Paul and the Judaizers, Augustine and Pelagius, the Dominicans and the Franciscans, the Reformers and the medieval Roman Catholic church, and the Calvinists and Arminians is this: Who saves whom?

    In this article I want to offer some brief scriptural responses to the common objections concerning the doctrine of election. If one does not believe in the doctrine of unconditional election, it is impossible to have a high doctrine of grace. As Luther told Erasmus, ignorance of this great truth is in a real sense ignorance of the Christian gospel. ‘For when the works and power of God are unknown in this way, I cannot worship, praise, thank, and serve God, since I do not know how much I ought to attribute to myself and how much to God.’ This distinction is essential, he added, ‘if we want to live a godly life.’ Further, ‘If we do not know these things, we shall know nothing at all of things Christian and shall be worse than any heathen.’1 As Luther pointed out in his debate with Erasmus, this issue of free will and election is essential in maintaining the doctrine of justification by eliminating any element of human decision or effort as a foothold for merit. Therefore, let’s take a brief survey of the biblical support for this important doctrine by considering one of the principal passages: Romans chapter nine.

    The Covenant

    Running throughout the Old Testament and into the Gospels is the concept of covenant. Although God is the sovereign ruler of all creation and, therefore, quite capable of ruling merely as a dictator, he nevertheless condescends to enter into a covenant with fallen creatures, binding us to him, and himself to us.

    This is the background of Paul’s letter to the Romans in general, and chapter nine in particular. Paul has raised the issue of faithfulness. Because we are, individually and corporately, foreknown, predestined, called, justified, and anticipate glorification, nothing ‘shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord’ (Ro.8:39). But that raises an important question, especially for the Jewish believers reading this letter: If God has failed in his promise to save Israel, as many thought Paul was implying in his ministry to the Gentiles, why should we have confidence in his determination to save us?

    The apostle then launches into his discussion of the ‘true Israel.’ Even in the Old Testament, not every fleshly descendent was a child of God (Is.6:9-13, etc.). At one time, even Esau was a part of God’s covenant people, as he grew up beside his brother Jacob. In fact, Esau, according to fleshly descent, was first in line to carry on the Abrahamic inheritance, but God chose to bless Jacob and curse Esau, ‘before the twins before, having done nothing either good or bad, in order that God’s purpose according to election might stand, not because of the one who works, but because of the one who calls’ (v.11). This is the most obvious demonstration that God’s gift of grace depends on his own generosity in election rather than on natural descent, racial privilege, or moral righteousness (see Dt. 9:4-6; 29:2-4). ‘As it is written, ‘Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated” (v.13).

    Objections Answered

    Paul realizes that he isn’t going to get away with this so easily. It is a declaration from the mouth of God himself, but it is going to take some explaining: ‘What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! For He says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion” (vv.14-15). Salvation in general and election in particular are due to something in God, not in us. There is a pernicious idea floating around the evangelical world these days, owing more to pop-psychology than to religion, that if we want a basis for self-esteem we ought to remember that Jesus Christ thought we were worth his death. According to Scripture, however, Jesus Christ died for us because ‘God so loved…’ (Jn.3:16). In other words, there was something in God–an inherent compassion, mercy, and love, which moved him to save us while there was absolutely nothing in us that attracted him. Even conservative evangelicals sometimes sound as though God is compelled to show mercy, as though love were his only attribute, but this passage reminds us that God is free to show mercy or withhold it according to his own good pleasure, since mercy, by definition, is not deserved.

    After explaining how God is not dependent on his creatures in any sense, Paul concludes, ‘So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy’ (v.16). There are few clearer declarations of monergism (i.e., the idea that God alone saves) than this. In one sentence the apostle excludes any human activity, either volitional or physical. There is absolutely nothing our decisions or actions contribute to our own salvation. So much for the popular Arminian maxim, ‘God casts his vote for your soul, Satan casts his, but you must cast the deciding ballot.’ Gone is the decisional regeneration that makes the new birth dependent on an exercise of the human will: ‘You did not choose Me; I chose you and appointed you to bear fruit that would last,’ Jesus told his disciples (Jn.15:16). We ‘were born not of the will of the flesh or the will of man, but of God’ (Jn.1:13), ‘…having been predestined according to the plan of him who works all things after the counsel of his own will’ (Eph.1:11).

    Notice, too, that this exclusion of ‘willing and running’ takes into its scope not only real, but foreseen decisions and actions on our part. Many will concede that God chose people, but based on his foreknowledge of their own choice. However, this is excluded in the sweep of Paul’s statement in verse 13, as in verse 11: ‘for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand….’ If God’s election depended on our foreseen decision, this not only raises a question concerning God’s grace (i.e., foreseen merit is merit nonetheless), but also concerning human sinfulness. After all, if God looked down the corridor of time what would he have seen in us besides sin and resistance? How could he foresee an exercise of the will that he himself did not grant, since ‘no one can come to the Father unless the one who sent me draws him’ (Jn.6:44)?

    Of course, this raises three principal objections. The first and most obvious one is the issue of fairness.

    It is a measure of our sinfulness and pride that we would use God’s gracious initiative in election as an occasion for placing his righteousness and justice in question. If we are, as a race, in as serious shape as Paul has been telling us, especially in the first three chapters, there should not be one reader who would seek God’s justice in his or her own case. God’s justice–giving us what we deserve–demands our execution. God’s mercy, therefore, is owed to none. Paul refers God’s mercy to his freedom. Since all deserve judgment, the mere fact that many will be spared is cause for astonishment rather than for wondering why God did not elect everyone.

    To illustrate this freedom, Paul recalls Pharaoh to the witness stand: ‘For this very purpose,’ God declares, ‘I raised you [Pharaoh] up, that I might show my power in you and that my name might be declared in all the earth’ (v.17). No Jewish reader needed to be reminded how negatively Pharaoh figured in Israelite history. While it might be excessive to compare him to Hitler, there is no doubt that the Egyptian ruler who had held Israel captive for slave labor was the last person first-century Jewish Christians would have wanted Paul to use as an example of God’s freedom. Nevertheless, the apostle reminds them of the words of Exodus 9:16, that God had raised him up. Later, he will also recall to their attention the fact that ‘There is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God’ (13:1).
     
  14. ladodgers6

    ladodgers6 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +669
    Calvinist
    Married
    Who Saves Whom? by Michael S. Horton (Part 2)

    ‘God casts His vote; Satan casts his, but you must cast the deciding ballot’?

    Amos called upon a forgetful and apathetic generation to realize God’s sovereignty over history: ‘If there is a calamity in a city, will not the Lord have done it?…A lion has roared! Who will not fear?’ (Am.3:6). In Daniel four we have Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, interpreted by Daniel. The proud king was humiliated by God until, in the ruler’s own words, ‘I lifted my eyes to heaven, and my understanding returned to me.’ He realizes for the first time that ‘All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; he does according to his will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain his hand or say to him, ‘What have you done?” His conclusion? ‘His ways are just and those who walk in pride he is able to humble’ (Dan.4:34-37). Isaiah 45:1-7 points up God’s use of yet another pagan ruler, Cyrus, ‘that they may know from the rising to the setting of the sun that there is none besides me. I am the Lord, and there is no other; I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord, do all these things.’ In short, the telos or design of history is the glory of God. Each of us exists because it happens to serve God’s design for glorifying himself. He saves us because the exercise of his love and mercy brings him honor, not because there is anything in us that moves him to respond.


    Another reason Paul brings up the example of Pharaoh is the circumstances surrounding God’s instructions to Moses in the first place. In Exodus 4:18-23, we read that God commanded Moses to return to Egypt. ‘And the Lord said to Moses, ‘When you go back to Egypt, see that you do all those wonders before Pharaoh which I have put in your hand. But I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.” In other words, God is going to hold Pharaoh accountable for his hardness of heart even in the face of Moses’s signs and wonders, and yet God intended to harden Pharaoh’s heart all along. It’s a tough passage, but there it is.


    The second objection picks up where the first leaves off: How can God blame us for what he determined? After all, ‘Who can resist his will?’ (v.19). How could God blame Esau, Pharaoh, or my unbelieving neighbor if they were only fulfilling his plan? This is the essence of the objection Paul anticipates. The belief that God’s will ‘cannot be thwarted’ (Dan.4) is not a peculiarity of Reformation thought, nor indeed of Christian thought. It is a basic declaration of theism! If one believes that God is dependent on human beings in any sense (either their willing or running), they are not merely Christians of a different color; they are following an essentially non-Christian and non-theistic interpretation of God’s nature. Contemporary evangelical scholars such as Clark Pinnock and Richard Rice realize this and call for a rejection of classical theism for just that reason.


    But this idea that God’s ultimate intentions and designs cannot be frustrated or overturned creates tension. Paul does not resolve it, as God does not care to reveal it even to an apostle. Calvin warned, ‘The curiosity of man is such that the more dangerous the subject, the more willing he is to rush boldly into it…Let this, therefore, be our sacred rule, not to seek to know anything about predestination except what the Scripture teaches us. Where the Lord closes his holy mouth, let us also stop our minds from going on further.’2 Paul does not reply with a sophisticated line of metaphysical reasoning. He simply says, ‘Who are you, a mere human, to answer back to God?’ In other words, to demand that God defend himself in our presence on this matter is the height of arrogance. Is there any reverence for God anymore? Is the Sovereign God allowed no secrets, no privacy in his heavenly chambers? Must every corner of his rooms be ravaged by our naive and fallen speculations? No, here, to switch metaphors, we come to the end of the precipice and to take a single step farther is to fall hopelessly into despair and confusion.


    Next, Paul appeals to another Old Testament allusion: the potter and the clay. In Isaiah 29:15-16, the prophet declares, ‘Surely you have things turned around! Shall the potter be esteemed as the clay; for shall the thing made say of him who made it, ‘He did not make me’?’ But Paul changes the last question to read, ‘Why did you make me thus?’ Out of the same lump (i.e., the same mass of fallen humanity), God chooses to make vessels of wrath and vessels of mercy, one to bring him glory by demonstrating his justice, the other to glorify him for his compassion and mercy. There is no distinction, as all are taken from the same group. Therefore, the elect cannot be proud.


    Notice that this will of God is not capricious or arbitrary, a view that many Arminians suppose and hyper-Calvinists encourage. This, it must be said, is a view of God that has more in common with Greek philosophy than with Christianity. It is fatalistic and hopelessly at odds with the biblical picture. Rather, God’s will is connected to his nature and attributes. In this sense, as Jonathan Edwards pointed out, no being (including God) has a free will. The will serves the nature and God is moved to elect, redeem, justify, and save not because of an arbitrary decision or whimsical display of power, but in order to show mercy and compassion. Remember, these are ‘vessels of mercy.’ He ‘will have mercy on whomever he will have mercy.’ In other words, God is presented in this passage as electing men, women, and children out of an already condemned and ruined race. Their condemnation is just, so God is not responsible for the resistance, disobedience, and hatred of those who are rejected, but only for the salvation of those who do embrace the forgiving grace of God.


    Finally, it is essential that we point out what Paul labors to make clear elsewhere, especially in Ephesians chapter one: All of this is ‘in Christ.’ We are chosen, predestined, redeemed, justified, called, sealed, and so on, ‘in him.’ One of the great New Testament emphases, recovered so clearly by the Reformers, was that election should only be taught and understood in the context of one’s relation to Christ. In other words, we cannot search for our election in an abstract philosophical manner. To be chosen is to be ‘in Christ’ and to be in Christ is to be united to him through faith. We find our election not in our performance, race, success, or outward signs–for this was Israel’s folly, but in Christ’s cross and resurrection.


    If these answers are not good enough for the reader, Paul concludes, the alternative to election is immediate judgment for all human beings (vv. 22-23).


    The final question that is likely to be asked is this: Aren’t we really talking about the nation Israel? Many of us were raised with the explanation that Romans nine was dealing with Israel’s election, and not ours. This meant that Romans nine could be ruled inadmissible for use in the debate. But as Paul made clear here as elsewhere, the true Israel is created by grace, not by human descent, decision, or duties. Thus, there is no true Israel apart from faith in Christ. Only those who cling to him in faith are chosen; the rest are judged along with the Gentiles (Ro.11:5-10). ‘Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham,’ Paul instructed the Galatians (Gal.3:7). There are no Jews who ever have been saved, are now saved, or who ever will be saved who were not chosen members of the church in both testaments–the ancient (Old Testament) church looking forward to Christ and the modern church looking back to Christ and forward to his return.


    Nevertheless, to emphasize that he is not speaking merely of the nation of Israel, Paul adds, ‘even us whom he called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles,’ (v.24) drawing on Old Testament prophecies pointing to the ingathering of the elect Gentiles together with the Jewish remnant in the formation of one body.
     
  15. 1213

    1213 Disciple of Jesus

    +819
    Christian
    Single
    I have no problem with that, because I think the election is also based on that what person choses. It is not so that person can’t have any influence to future.
     
  16. Sam91

    Sam91 Child of the Living God Supporter

    +7,914
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Private
    So, what does the Bible say about this?

    I can not definitively agree with Calvinism. I can't back it up with the Bible.

    I would be grateful for a list of bible verses that prove election. I only really know of the opening of the Epistle to the Ephesians and that is nowhere near conclusive.
     
  17. ladodgers6

    ladodgers6 Well-Known Member Supporter

    +669
    Calvinist
    Married
    Thanks for your comments. Thanks for your honest remarks. Thanks for asking for help in researching it for yourself. I encourage people to do their homework. Thanks again. Here is a link. I suggest you start from the beginning with Total Depravity, and move on the next, and so on. To get a better understanding. Just a tip.

    Saved By Grace: Unconditional Election
     
  18. Sam91

    Sam91 Child of the Living God Supporter

    +7,914
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Private
    I have read John Piper's book 5 points in order to understand. But the election part does not seem to sit easy.

    I just thought that the people who were here debating the issue might have a list of Bible verses memorised which relate to election. Just like I have a few verses memorised which speak to me.

    Thank you for your suggestion.

    EDIT: A more heartfelt thank you for your link. There are quite a few Bible verses in there to read through in more context. I have bookmarked it. It looks very useful.
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2018
  19. JLB777

    JLB777 Newbie Supporter

    +1,044
    Non-Denom
    Married

    Yes, God predestines according to purpose, not predestines for salvation, otherwise it is not of faith.


    In Romans 9, we see that purpose is the lineage of Christ.

    The line from which the Messiah would come.


    For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen
    who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen. Romans 9:3-5


    • and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came



    JLB
     
  20. redleghunter

    redleghunter Thank You Jesus! Supporter

    +32,874
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    That's a contradiction.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...