Problem with Election

Radagast said:

You didn't know that Armenia was a country and Jacobus Arminius a person?

I'm not a fan of Rousas J. Rushdoony, but he was probably the most famous Armenian Calvinist.

Click to expand...

I knew about Jacobus, but not the country. I've never really become acquainted with Rushdoony's works, I've heard of the man, but know little about his particular contributions.

ladodgers6 said:

Okay, I agree that faith comes by hearing the word. So you agree that all men are illuminated by this knowledge?

Click to expand...

No, only those who have heard and learned of the father and who have had their hearts illuminated with the knowledge of the truth by an act of GOD's will.

One of the things this debate makes me think of, is the way we seem to think our minds and hearts are so capable, as though it should impress God and as though he owes us something by virtue of our dignity as humans. (I wonder how dignified we will feel on judgement day).

We want to think of sin as something we do against each other, and it is, but by no means are we offended in comparison to what sin does to God. And like it, for some reason we seem to think Sovereign God depends on our decision and our integrity of will and our intelligence to understand his Gospel in order to generate our own faith, before he can open our eyes, and regenerate us.

Two things I have noticed gall me, though I keep sliding into them. One is that God's will, though Sovereign, is somehow compared to the will of man. The other, related to that, is that for example a person who happily admits to being pushed this way and that, or even to call himself an animal, and that his will is affected by his passions, cannot not allow that God influences him one way or the other to an absolute outcome. Another such example of the same mindset is seen in the notion that God cannot say one thing and mean something we cannot understand at this point.

Reading the Bible, even for an unbeliever, brings a person into apparent contradictions that show God completely unlike the God we want to have in our back pockets.

He is not under our control, and he owes us nothing.

ladodgers6 said:

That is the same thing, Christ told the Jews, that they have seen the works Christ has done. But still they did not believe.

John 10:25Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all ; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30I and the Father are one.”

Click to expand...

No, they are not the same thing at all. Romans 1:19 refers to mankind's intuitive understanding that GOD is the author of creation (because he has shown it to them). All men have this. But not all men have the knowledge of Christ. The pharisees in your verses demonstrated that. They had not hearkened to and learned of the father so they couldn't see Christ.

Rubiks said:

God elected Israel, yet not all of Israel believed.

Click to expand...

God chose them as a nation.

It is hard to have a good debate without a common understanding of terminology used. Most people never really think about what "free will" must mean. Typically, the Reformed believers admit to a form of "free will", or at least actual and responsible choice, but are adamant that it is subordinate to God's will. (What is curious to me is how many Christians teach/ believe that a person's will is instrumental in their conversion/ salvation, yet when they pray, I hear Reformed assumptions in their thoughts, that it is up to God, and that God would change a person.)

The Wesleyans are generally, or originally, at least, not so Arminian in their thinking as they have been painted to be. For that matter, Arminians have not been either. I keep seeing generalizations attached to Arminian and Reformed, that make one detestable to the other. The Arminian supposes that the Reformed adopt liscence to sin. The Reformed supposes that the Arminian won't admit to the Gospel being wholly the work of God.

I consider myself Reformed because, sans the generalizations concerning the opposition, they wish ALL credit to go to God for any good thing, and because they are confident in God's ability and not on their own.

There is much more, and I think a good study of their thinking might start with the term Monergism, and the acrostic TULIP. Reformed doctrine is not a systematic theology as such, but a reaction to bad theology.

JIMINZ said:

Neither one, God Chose some to be in Christ before the foundations of the earth, they are the Elect, but that does not describe you or me.

Christians of today are not The Elect.

Click to expand...

I must confess, and it does not occur often while discussing matters of soteriology, but honestly you're the first I have come across with that particular view of election. Is there a history of the view to be tied to it? I'm only curious at this point.

ladodgers6 said:

It was the historical church fathers who got Calvin challenging the teachings of Rome.

Click to expand...

Mark Quayle said:

Reformed doctrine is not a systematic theology as such, but a reaction to bad theology.

Click to expand...

Quite true, and as I understand it St. Augustine would have been the original Calvinist (after Paul, the Apostle), and his deterministic teachings were mainly a reaction against Pelagianism.

ladodgers6 said:

I beg to differ. I use too be an Arminian. Go figure!!!

Click to expand...

I used to be a Weslyian of the Pentecostal variety, for a long long time. And I am like a mule, especially with core beliefs that shape and define me. Arminians of the historical variety seem to be in rare supply these days. Seems many are as theological Frankinstein's, mixtures of this belief and that belief meshed together in disharmony. Don't laugh, but especially in the golden years of my Weslyian days, I just thought of myself as a Biblicist, honest to goodness I did. There was a time when I was flat out opposed to all of this theological talk, but it was mostly out of fear of being unwittingly deceived by slick talking theologians. Well, I learned different, growing pains, many many growing pains, and still growing til my time is up.

JIMINZ said:

.
What is it that makes you believe, Spiritual Guilt exists?

Is it because you believe man has a Free Will to begin with?

If this Spiritual Guilt does in fact exist, when, how does it present itself?

Click to expand...

James 2:10
10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.
NASU

dreadnought said:

Are you referring to the idea that the Lord predestines who goes to heaven and who goes to hell? If so, it is a nonsensical idea.

Click to expand...

Ephesians 1

Apologetic_Warrior said:

I must confess, and it does not occur often while discussing matters of soteriology, but honestly you're the first I have come across with that particular view of election. Is there a history of the view to be tied to it? I'm only curious at this point.

Click to expand...

.
My comments are intended for this one issue of the Election only.

As far as I am aware, there isn't any history, if what you mean by history, others which have said the same thing which I have either drawn from or could point to as validation for my comments.....No History.

My beliefs are solely my own as you yourself can attest to, but let me say, just because I stand alone as far as I know, this does not devalue, or nullify my comments as valid.

I base my understanding and belief on Scripture as written, take into account what these verses say, to whom they are said, and what is actually spoken.

1Cor. 10:11
Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

1) Why are these examples to them in particular, for their admonition?
2) Who's admonition?
3) Those upon whom the ends of the world are come.
4) Why does Paul say such a thing to them of that time?
5) How can what Paul said be construed to include Christians of any other time, than them of that time.

Paul speaking in the present, says "Written for OUR admonition" " upon whom the ends of the world are come."

Paul is talking to those people specifically, identifying them with the term (OUR) and signifying WHY.

Rom 11:1-10
1) I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2) God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
3) Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4) But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
5) Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6) And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
7) What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
8) (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear, unto this day.
9) And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
10) Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.

In these verses Paul speaks of the Remnant spoken of by Elijah, and then updates it to the people of his time, the Jews of the Nation of Israel who rejected their Messiah, the Generation spoken of by Jesus.

Mat. 23:36
Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

Mat. 24:34
Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Luke 11:50,51
50) That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
51) From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

Luke 21:32
Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

So then, my conclusion is the ELECTION spoken of in the New Testament are not all Christians from Jesus until not but the ver select of God of that Generation of that time.

Once it is understood then everything we have been taught changes and becomes clearer, verses that didn't make sense now do.

My personal belief is, Calvin misunderstood and so did they of the "Ecumenical Synod of Dort."

Because of one misunderstanding, the Doctrines of Predestination, and the understanding of who the Elect actually are were lost, and a misunderstanding has been taught from that point on to today.

I am not saying I am smarter than they were.
I am saying I have seen something that they either did not see, understand, or even consider at the time.
When you begin to look at everything you now know and judge what I am saying, see how everything now makes more sense than just the Doctrine of Predestination does.

GodsGrace101 said:

This is because you follow a man's teachings instead of God's.
You never hear anyone say he's a Wesleyan.
Lutheran exists because it's a following of Luther.
We should be following Jesus, not anyone else.

Click to expand...

The above theologians spoke volumes on the actual Word of God. Some of the best minds of Christendom. All of the above would tell us and have told us to examine the Scriptures for ourselves like good Bereans. Which is Sola Scriptura.

What you are employing is what Catholics accuse Protestants of and what I call "Solo Meo."

There's close to two thousand years of Christian souls who have studied and provided commentary on Holy Scriptures. We do well to examine their works to learn of their triumphs and more importantly their failures as well.

I've seen few quotes from Calvin on these threads. I've seen a few confessions of Faith as well. What's interesting is they all point us to Holy Writ with the advice to search these things for yourself.

We have theologians or teachers in our churches for a reason. The apostles said being a teacher is a gift. Not every one can be one, nor an elder or deacon.

I've seen you say Calvin made up election and predestination. Yet several have shown you this is actual apostolic teachings in the NT and even Jesus taught it. The actual words are used by Paul. Calvin did not make it up. What he and every other theologian have done is use a system to explain the Scriptures. It's called systematic theology.

Greg Merrill said:

God made it so simple, some make it so difficult!
Unbelievers of course make it difficult, but then so do Calvinistic Christians. I usually reserve Romans 1:22 for the unsaved, but Calvinists seem to come under an application (rather than an interpretation) of this verse as well.

Click to expand...

Wow.

Mark Quayle said:

I don't know what is going on with my browser, but it hardly will let me post anything, and when I do, it seems to be within the body of what I mean to respond to. This should be right, but I don't know what it will appear to be in response to. (yes, I know, never end a sentence with a preposition).

Anyhow, there seems within this group to be a huge misinformation, that God is like us, but stronger or something. God is NOT like us --we are like God, only not very much. God is not good because it is a good thing to be good --good is what it is, because God is good. God is not nice, not safe, not manipulated. He says, and what he says, is.

I don't know how to make it plain without going way too long, but it seems to me important to refer to the Gospel, which is God's reason for creating. It is to God's glory, not ours, that we do not gain salvation by anything we can do. We are not deserving, we are not capable of responding to what we cannot understand, we have no power of ourselves to overcome our aversion to God's authority, nor do we wish to.

Reformed doctrine, aka Calvinism, goes from there. If you want to reject the Bible as the authority over doctrine, I can see why you don't accept God's predestining all things.

Click to expand...

First Mark I see you are kind of new here. Welcome to CF!

Want to thank you for clearly showing why we call God our Sovereign King and how all of Creation is for His Glory according to His purpose. Because of this he deserves our worship.

I actually saw a thread last week where a poster questioned why God needs us worshipping Him! The theme was ego based!

Greg Merrill said:

Look closely at the context and you can see that it is not predetermined to be saved, but that the saved are predetermined that once saved they will definitely get to heaven.

Click to expand...

Ephesians 1 says since before the foundations of the Earth.

Rubiks said:

Romans 9 isn't about election to salvation. It's about the setting aside of certain peoples (e.g. Israel) to accomplish God's purposes.

Click to expand...

.
I'm really interested in what you say, but doesn't it go deeper than what you have said?

You have only opened the door a crack, and made a statement about what you believe you have seen, without any explanation.