The Elect

[Reformationist]

Ever since I first started posting on this MB I have experienced a huge amount of resistance to the concept of God foreordaining an elect group of people to salvation.  The thing I find most ironic about this is that most of the people who take issue with this concept are Christians.  I have often wondered why it is that Christians seem to be the major opponent to this position.  I had always viewed it as a comforting thought that God saved me when I was at my spiritual worst, when there was nothing about me worth redeeming.  Upon that realization it became very apparent to me that if God had decided to make me part of His family when I was at my worst, then there wasn't anything I could do after redemption to make Him want to change His mind, hence my view that salvation cannot be lost.  Sure, I knew I'd continue to sin but I also understood that if God wanted me to be righteous then, because He is sovereign, He would ensure that very thing, or at least the process to bring that about, would be manifested in my life.

So, I guess what I want to discuss is, for those of you who don't believe in the concept of election, why do you oppose the view?

All I ask is that those responding refrain from saying things like, "there is no scriptural support for that."  There is so much scriptural support for it that the "for/against" argument about this topic has been going on for longer than any of us have been alive, and, it has been waged by more learned people than any of us.  So, if you have scriptural support against the concept of foreordained election please post it.  I believe in foreordained election.  I hope that any who post do so in a manner that shows their motive is a loving concern for a brother they perceive to be misguided, not an attempt to cram their theological viewpoint down my throat.

Thank you all.  I pray that the Lord makes this thead an experience that helps us all to grow in wisdom and love for our Savior.

God bless,

Don

 

[eldermike]

I believe that it could be supported that at one time all of the church taught the doctrine of forordained election.

Why is there resistance to this doctrine? The fallen nature of man has been rejected. The fallen nature of man is the key to understanding why Jesus had to die on a cross. So IMHO, you have to back up a few steps and look at the rejection of related doctrine to understand why there will be endless argument on election until the Lord comes back.

Blessings

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by eldermike
I believe that it could be supported that at one time all of the church taught the doctrine of forordained election.

Why is there resistance to this doctrine? The fallen nature of man has been rejected. The fallen nature of man is the key to understanding why Jesus had to die on a cross. So IMHO, you have to back up a few steps and look at the rejection of related doctrine to understand why there will be endless argument on election until the Lord comes back.

Blessings

Good point Mike.  I guess I'm just curious if it's people's lack of understanding of the doctrine or if there are some scriptures that seem irrefutable to them.  Also, which "related" doctrine are you referring to?

God bless

 

[eldermike]

I was talking about original sin. Forordained election requires and in fact refuses the actions of man totally. It requires that because of the fallen nature of man that God would elect a people, that we could not even communicate with God in the first place. IMHO, the Bible fully supports this doctrine but it also has many instructions that led folk to beleive that actions were part of salvation. With this confusion at the helm the first thing that had to go was our fallen nature. We began to teach a form of the law as part of salvation, totally rejecting the idea that it was Adams sin that seperated us from God, we began to teach that it was our sin.
So, by forgetting the first argument the second one is endless and hopeless.

Blessings

 

[paulewog]

I've had a few discussions with this. Most of the opposition comes from this phrase, it seems.

"I can't believe God would send people to hell and not give them a chance!"

Or something along those lines

Apparently, it is hard for people to accept that we cannot comprehend how God's absolute sovreignty and our free will can coexist....

 

[eldermike]

Paulewog,

I agree with you, it's our attempts at making God's nature logical to our understanding that is difficult if not impossible.



People do die unsaved and some very unlikely ones (like me) are saved. I do understand why the church stop talking about it.

It is possible that free will is actually nothing more than a necessary result of not knowing the future. We might give it an undeserved status, as if it were a gift.

 

[Reformationist]

Very insightful posts Mike and paulewog.  Thanks for sharing your wisdom, both of you.  To my knowledge, paulewog believes in predestination to some extent and Mike sounds like he supports the doctrine of election.  I appreciate both of their posts but I was also hoping to get some opinions from those who don't support the doctrine.  I could come up with plenty of reasons why the doctrine is difficult to swallow but, to be honest, they all boil down to issues of pride, ignorance, or misunderstanding.

God bless,

Don

 

[paulewog]

No, I believe fully in predestination, Reformationist...

I believe God chose the, er, Chosen [elect] before the foundation of the world, as the Bible says.

Somehow, though, we still have a free will. I don't know how those two things work together, but they do in God's mind But it's hard to ignore the passages in Scripture that say things like, He chose us before the foundation of the world (Ephesians, I think?)

Just to clarify my position on that. I fully believe in predestination, and would call Christians the "elect" ... but we are also commanded to be witnesses.... As I said, I think it's above our puny little logic. As amazingly smart as we are... <sarcasm>

 

[Ben johnson]

I have often wondered why it is that Christians seem to be the major opponent to this position.

Because it is not Scriptural.

Scripture presents salvation as universally available. This means that every man who ever lives has access to salvation.

Scripture presents salvation as being a gift of grace----but received through our own faith---and that faith comes from US, not installed-by-God/

Scripture presents salvation as fellowship with/in/through Jesus---and very sternly admonishes us to persevere, endure, be diligent, finish the race and not fall short, to remain IN HIM (thus remain in salvation). A daily choice, a lifetime walk. Salvation is not "relationship apart from fellowship", salvation IS THAT FELLOWSHIP...

Scripture presents real examples of apostasy, those who were TRULY SAVED but became UNSAVED.

What amazes me, and I mean this with extreme love and respect, is the extent "PE" believers will go to, to re-interpret the "ALL" verses to not really MEAN "all", to dismiss warning after warning as "hypothetical, bugbear, hyperbole, empty warnings against that which CANNOT occur" (if it CAN NOT occur then why give the warning? This is why I use terms like "negative rhetorical hypothetical", and "gum-flapping-hyperbole", things that CANNOT happen but-I'm-gonna-warn-you-ANYWAY-just-to-hear-the-sound-of-my-own-gums-flapping).

Even if we never come to agreement on this issue, I hope and pray to the depths of my heart and spirit, that we agree on what salvation IS---that it is receiving Christ, abiding in Him, walking in Him. That we agree on the fellowship nature of our walk with Him, that we surrender all to our Lord and Master. These concepts are what motivate me to participate in the discussions, that I may encourage and strengthen my brothers and sisters---and they may mature and strengthen me.

That we all, together, and each, grow to the "measure and stature of the fulness of Christ..."

That we be "Christ-LIKE". That the world will see US, and they will see Him IN us.

....and they will say, "We want what YOU have!"

 

[paulewog]

Does it?

God already knows who will and won't be saved, doesn't He? That's one step towards predestionation

Err, actually, you can't be 'unsaved' but that's another thread. Or five threads of 500 posts each, it depends.

 

[Stormy]

I do understand why the church stop talking about it.

What more is there to say? Does it make you feel special to think that you are among the elect? You do not understand that God's arms are open and waiting to LOVE all his children. There is no limit to his LOVE.

The way I understand election and predestination is that God being God knows the hearts and minds of all men. He knows who will listen. He knows who will come when he calls. So it is not that he does not want all his children to come... but rather he does not call those that he knows will refuse.

But if anyone desires God they need have no fear. They are the chosen.

 

[thepalmtree]

ben- if we fall away how do we get saved again? How can we know if we are abiding in Him and walking in Him enough to be saved? . Could you give an example of those who were truly saved and became unsaved? Don't we all fall short of what God expects of us even in salvation? I'm not really on either side of the fence. The bible supports all of these points and a few more i'm sure. I just want to get the truth for me.

 

[eldermike]

So, do some believe that God is drawn to some quality in us?

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by paulewog
No, I believe fully in predestination, Reformationist...

I thought you did.&nbsp; I couldn't remember though.

Somehow, though, we still have a free will. I don't know how those two things work together, but they do in God's mind But it's hard to ignore the passages in Scripture that say things like, He chose us before the foundation of the world (Ephesians, I think?)

Just to clarify my position on that. I fully believe in predestination, and would call Christians the "elect" ... but we are also commanded to be witnesses.... As I said, I think it's above our puny little logic. As amazingly smart as we are... <SARCASM>

I agree fully paulewog.&nbsp; Thanks for sharing.

God bless

 

[Ben johnson]

Good point, Stormy. Please add to my previous post, "Scripture declares that God desires ALL men (and women? ) to be saved, and that God calls ALL to Himself."

ben- if we fall away how do we get saved again?

What is salvation? What differentiates the SAVED, from the UNSAVED? Is it not, receiving Christ? Is it not, abiding in Him?

How can we know if we are abiding in Him and walking in Him enough to be saved?

Have you ever known a woman, who has been a LITTLE bit pregnant? Only, KINDA? Salvation is like pregnancy---either you ARE, or you are NOT. It is not a question of "ENOUGH", it is a question of either, "IN HIM", or "OUTSIDE". Our salvation is certain---because it depends not on us, but on Him---"He who HAS the Son, has the LIFE. I write this that you may KNOW you have eternal life." 1Jn5:12-13 Yet, it depends on Him IN us---which is absolutely by our choice.

Salvation is by receiving Christ and walking in Him (Jn1:12,Col2:6). Salvation is by abiding in Him (Jn15:5,1Jn4:15-16).

Could you give an example of those who were truly saved and became unsaved?

Please read 2Pet1:1-4---they are "of the same faith as Peter", they are "apopheugo-escaped world's corruption through the epignosis-true-knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ". Now, in chapter 2, we have false prophets & teachers, who NEVER cease from sin (14), slaves of corruption (19); but the FALSE seek to entice the TRUE (14, 18---"Ontos Apopheugo TRULY ESCAPED!").

The TRULY escaped (18), apopheugo-escaped from the defilements of the world through the epignosis-true-knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, are "again entangled in the defilements of the world and overcome" (20). They are worse than before they were saved. (20) Far better to have never KNOWN (epiginosko---they REALLY KNEW IT) the way of righteousness, than HAVING KNOWN, to have epistrepho-ek-turned away from the holy commandment".

Same exact Greek words in chapter 2 as in 1----yet there are those who say, "They mean DIFFERENT in chapter 2!" Or, "the FALSE are the ones who have escaped the defilements!" (No they're not, they NEVER cease from sin, they are SLAVES of corruption!)

The false entice the true, the true fall.

James in 5:19-20 speaks of true believers falling away.

Paul speaks of true apostasy in 1Tim4:1.

Paul (?) speaks of it in Heb 3:12-14. James in 1:15. John in 15:6, 2:1:7-9 (read the 2Jn passage together with 1Jn5:12).

There are many others, but these are a good start.

Salvation is universally available. Those who RECEIVE grace and RECEIVE the gift of rigteousness are saved (Rom5:17-18). Jude admonishes, "KEEP YOURSELVES in the love of God..." 21

Jesus admonishes, "he who endures to the end shall be saved" (Mt24), and "by your endurance you will save your souls" (Lk21:19). Paul admonished us to "not be moved away from Jesus", to "not throw away your confidence {JESUS!}" in Col1:23 & Heb10:35.

"For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise". Heb10:36

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by Ben johnson
Because it is not Scriptural.

Thanks for adhering to the one thing&nbsp;I asked. &nbsp;

Scripture presents salvation as universally available. This means that every man who ever lives has access to salvation.

Okay.&nbsp; Where?&nbsp; Try to start with one scripture at a time so we don't get off topic like we normally do.&nbsp;

Scripture presents salvation as fellowship with/in/through Jesus---and very sternly admonishes us to persevere, endure, be diligent, finish the race and not fall short, to remain IN HIM (thus remain in salvation). A daily choice, a lifetime walk. Salvation is not "relationship apart from fellowship", salvation IS THAT FELLOWSHIP...

Scripture presents real examples of apostasy, those who were TRULY SAVED but became UNSAVED.

Okay Ben.&nbsp; I'm&nbsp;did not ask about losing one's salvation.&nbsp; It's a different issue.&nbsp;

What amazes me, and I mean this with extreme love and respect, is the extent "PE" believers will go to, to re-interpret the "ALL" verses to not really MEAN "all", to dismiss warning after warning as "hypothetical, bugbear, hyperbole, empty warnings against that which CANNOT occur" (if it CAN NOT occur then why give the warning? This is why I use terms like "negative rhetorical hypothetical", and "gum-flapping-hyperbole", things that CANNOT happen but-I'm-gonna-warn-you-ANYWAY-just-to-hear-the-sound-of-my-own-gums-flapping).

You didn't by any chance copy this from another post of yours, did you?&nbsp; Just so you know, when you start&nbsp;out a paragraph with, "I mean this with extreme love and respect" and end that paragraph with, "This is why I use terms like "negative rhetorical hypothetical", and "gum-flapping-hyperbole", things that CANNOT happen but-I'm-gonna-warn-you-ANYWAY-just-to-hear-the-sound-of-my-own-gums-flapping" it tends to seem like you aren't really offering it in a spirit of "love and respect."

I'm looking forward to addressing some verses with you.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by Stormy
Does it make you feel special to think that you are among the elect?

I'd like to make an effort to dispel this misunderstanding of the doctrine of election.&nbsp; Those who support this viewpoint don't elevate themselves as worthy for redemption.&nbsp; I think that viewpoint gets alot of press because of the word "elect" and the meaning we apply to it.&nbsp; On the contrary, the doctrine of election states that those who have been elected unto salvation were blessed, not worthy, and they were elected solely by the counsel of God.&nbsp; The thing that I find most ironic is that those who support the doctrine of predestined election acknowledge that there was nothing special about them deserving of redemption and they get accused of pride, while the opponants to this position state that they are saved because they chose to be saved, in effect that there was something special about them, they made the right choice.

You do not understand that God's arms are open and waiting to LOVE all his children.

I would say that God isn't "waiting to love all His children."&nbsp; I would say He is actively loving all His children.&nbsp; I just don't think there's anywhere in the Bible where it states that all the people created by God are His children.&nbsp; His creation, yes.&nbsp; His children, no.&nbsp; In fact, I think there are numerous places where the Bible emphatically states that some are not His child at all but rather sons of perdition, or sons to their father satan, etc.

There is no limit to his LOVE.

I agree, as do proponants of the predestined election view.&nbsp;

The way I understand election and predestination is that God being God knows the hearts and minds of all men. He knows who will listen. He knows who will come when he calls. So it is not that he does not want all his children to come... but rather he does not call those that he knows will refuse.

If it was based on&nbsp;a decision made by the creation after&nbsp;it's creation do you think it would be&nbsp;called predestined election?&nbsp; Don't you think it would then be called something like post-choice election?&nbsp;

But if anyone desires God they need have no fear. They are the chosen.

I agree completely.&nbsp; And this is also what the doctrine of predestined election states.

God bless

 

[Ben johnson]

Thanks for adhering to the one thing I asked.

He he he he!
Have you figured out yet, that I have a very large streak of ornery???

Okay. Where? Try to start with one scripture at a time so we don't get off topic like we normally do.

Rom5:17-18. Verse 18: "For as, even so."

things that CANNOT happen but-I'm-gonna-warn-you-ANYWAY-just-to-hear-the-sound-of-my-own-gums-flapping" it tends to seem like you aren't really offering it in a spirit of "love and respect."

I was speaking of course, of Paul, and John, and James, and Peter, and even Jesus engaging in "gum-flapping". Why would warnings be written if there was no chance of them occurring? Perhaps we can overlook the "gum-flapping" and simply say, "hyperbole---n. [L. < Gr.] exaggeration for effect, not to be taken literally."

 

[Reformationist]

thepalmtree and Ben, please refrain from changing the topic of this thread.&nbsp; If you wish to address the OSAS vs. OSNAS topic please start another thread.

Thank you,

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by Ben johnson
He he he he!
Have you figured out yet, that I have a very large streak of ornery???

Believe it or not, it's one of the things I like about you.

Rom5:17-18. Verse 18: "For as, even so."

I will address this in my next post.&nbsp; And thank you.

I was speaking of course, of Paul, and John, and James, and Peter, and even Jesus engaging in "gum-flapping". Why would warnings be written if there was no chance of them occurring? Perhaps we can overlook the "gum-flapping" and simply say, "hyperbole---n. [L. &lt; Gr.] exaggeration for effect, not to be taken literally."

That's what you get when you use great big words with us simple people!

God bless