The elect

[friend of]

good intentions are just that, they pave the roadway to hell

Does this old phrase have any scriptural backing? Or is it just an old truism that people still accept?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Does this old phrase have any scriptural backing? Or is it just an old truism that people still accept?

That parable where the guy built his house on sand.

 

[Rescued One]

Because I'm only a learner, I'm still studying to make up for all the years I lost before Jesus brought me out of Mormonism. Apparently some people here are curious about John Calvin. So here's his commentary on John 3:16.

16. For God so loved the world. Christ opens up the first cause, and, as it were, the source of our salvation, and he does so, that no doubt may remain; for our minds cannot find calm repose, until we arrive at the unmerited love of God. As the whole matter of our salvation must not be sought any where else than in Christ, so we must see whence Christ came to us, and why he was offered to be our Savior. Both points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish. And this order ought to be carefully observed; for such is the wicked ambition which belongs to our nature, that when the question relates to the origin of our salvation, we quickly form diabolical imaginations about our own merits. Accordingly, we imagine that God is reconciled to us, because he has reckoned us worthy that he should look upon us. But Scripture everywhere extols his pure and unmingled mercy, which sets aside all merits.

And the words of Christ mean nothing else, when he declares the cause to be in the love of God.
John Calvin on God’s Love | Monergism

 

[Rescued One]

Good intentions usually result in good actions. Good actions are usually intentional.

Proverbs 23:7
For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee.

Now suppose I intend to donate blood, but am in a traffic accident on the way to the hospital. Am I going to hell?

If I have good actions after my intentions, will those actions save me from hell?

 

[Rescued One]

That parable where the guy built his house on sand.

Did that guy have bad intentions or good ones? Had he heard the gospel or not?

 

[SinoBen]

Romans 8:28-30
And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

Romans 9:27-29
27 And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, 28 for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay.” 29 And as Isaiah predicted,
“If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring,
we would have been like Sodom
and become like Gomorrah.”

 

[friend of]

That parable where the guy built his house on sand.

Wouldn't that also correlate with 1 Corinthians 3:10-15

 

[friend of]

Anyway, I think the old, arguably secular phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" means that if a person has only good intentions but never acts on them (like, saying they'll donate to charity but never ever doing so) then they are not practicing what they preach internally. Similar to "faith without works" mentioned in James. The habitual deferring action is the real problem. But a person who actually performs actions out of a love for the Lord and a desire to serve Him will probably still be commended. God looks at the heart, not always the outcome of what is accomplished by a person. We are limited in our understanding but this can always be remedied by coming to God and His word and gaining more understanding and wisdom so as to discern what is His more pleasing and perfect will. Some Christian's know Gods will better than others and it can be said that they use greater materials as per 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. In any case, good actions do originate from good intentions of the heart, for how can a man act without first conceiving of what it is he ought to do?

Also, there is Proverbs 16:2 and Proverbs 21:2, but these verses also extend to the unconverted as well.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Did that guy have bad intentions or good ones? Had he heard the gospel or not?

He built a house, this was well intentioned. Jesus says in the explanation that he had heard his sayings but didn't put it into practice.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Wouldn't that also correlate with 1 Corinthians 3:10-15

Yeah, like that, especially with the straw and wood.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Anyway, I think the old, arguably secular phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" means that if a person has only good intentions but never acts on them (like, saying they'll donate to charity but never ever doing so) then they are not practicing what they preach internally. Similar to "faith without works" mentioned in James. The habitual deferring action is the real problem. But a person who actually performs actions out of a love for the Lord and a desire to serve Him will probably still be commended. God looks at the heart, not always the outcome of what is accomplished by a person. We are limited in our understanding but this can always be remedied by coming to God and His word and gaining more understanding and wisdom so as to discern what is His more pleasing and perfect will. Some Christian's know Gods will better than others and it can be said that they use greater materials as per 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. In any case, good actions do originate from good intentions of the heart, for how can a man act without first conceiving of what it is he ought to do?

Also, there is Proverbs 16:2 and Proverbs 21:2, but these verses also extend to the unconverted as well.

There's also church situations where I just need to *leave* it's obvious the way the spiritual atmosphere was built .. that it is not defensible when it comes time to fight.

 

[friend of]

Yeah, like that, especially with the straw and wood

Right but in 1 Corinthians 3 that persons materials were built up BUT he still escaped "as through fire"

So on that note, his good intentions didnt get him to hell, he just doesnt have any lasting eternal reward.

if we want to continue in this vein, of course

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Right but in 1 Corinthians 3 that persons materials were built up BUT he still escaped "as through fire"

So on that note, his good intentions didnt get him to hell, he just doesnt have any lasting eternal reward.

if we want to continue in this vein, of course

8 ¶ And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;
9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.
11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

Faith that does not waver even when facing death. This is what is cultivated in "the elect"

 

[friend of]

Faith that does not waver even when facing death. This is what is cultivated in "the elect"

Agreed.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The good news on that last verse is God grows that character within us.

17 ¶ Herein is our love made mature that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

How this relates to the Original Post is the foundation of fear common today leads to an order where full maturity is not possible.

18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made mature in love.

And because the salt and light of the earth does not mature fully, this leads to a hellish world that they are not equipped to deal with. There are some things that the church can only do, and if it collectively does not do it, creation rots.

 

[Don Maurer]

Everyone believes they are the elect, no one will say "I guess I was predestined to go to hell".

God have mercy on me!

I read about something like this.... The guy was not elect and complained that it was not fair.
Romans 9:14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be.
Romans 9:19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"

Oh, by the way, look at the context of these complaints...
Romans 9:11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of him who calls.
God calls, and the the hypothetical opponent of Paul seems to complain that election is not fair. I mean in election "who resists his will?"

I can completely understand those who hate the biblical doctrine of election. From our perspective, it is not fair.

Also read Romans 9:21. Paul defends his unfair doctrine of election by saying that the potter has the right to make any kind of pot that God chooses. How is that fair, what say does the pot have in that discussion?

Your statement that no one says "I guess I was predestined to go to hell" does have at least someone who seemed to be complaining about being predestined to go to hell in Romans 9. I am curious, do you think Pauls arguments were fair?

 

[bling]

This is true, and so we read that many Jews who were the "invited" rejected the feast of the king, and he sought men who were not among the invited to come to the feast. I'm sorry, are we talking about a parable with a context?

Being "chosen" to go does not mean you will go as you point out and more will be invited to make the same choice (they will not be kidnapped into coming).
So, where those chosen to go the "elect" or were only those both chosen and who accepted the elect?

 

[bling]

I believe the party crasher did not have the correct garment. Where did the others get their garment?

God provides, but you still have to make the choice to go and pick up the garment before going in.

 

[bling]

I read about something like this.... The guy was not elect and complained that it was not fair.
Romans 9:14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be.
Romans 9:19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?"

Oh, by the way, look at the context of these complaints...
Romans 9:11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of him who calls.
God calls, and the the hypothetical opponent of Paul seems to complain that election is not fair. I mean in election "who resists his will?"

I can completely understand those who hate the biblical doctrine of election. From our perspective, it is not fair.

Also read Romans 9:21. Paul defends his unfair doctrine of election by saying that the potter has the right to make any kind of pot that God chooses. How is that fair, what say does the pot have in that discussion?

Your statement that no one says "I guess I was predestined to go to hell" does have at least someone who seemed to be complaining about being predestined to go to hell in Romans 9. I am curious, do you think Pauls arguments were fair?

Romans 9

Paul uses two teaching methods throughout Romans even secular philosophy classes will use Romans as the best example of these methods. Paul does an excellent job of building one premise on the previous premises to develop his final conclusions. Paul uses an ancient form of rhetoric known as diatribe (imaginary debate) asking questions and most of the time giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. Paul’s method goes beyond just a general diatribe and follows closely to the diatribes used in the individual laments in the Psalms and throughout the Old Testament, which the Jewish Christians would have known extensively. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.

The main topic repeated extensively in Romans is the division in the Christian house churches in Rome between the Jews and Gentile Christians. You can just look up how many times Jews and gentiles are referred to see this as a huge issue.

The main question (a diatribe question) in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!

This will take some explaining, since just prior in Romans 9, Paul went over some history of God’s dealings with the Israelites that sounds very “unjust” like “loving Jacob and hating Esau” before they were born, but remember in all of Paul’s diatribes he begins before, just after or before and just after with strong support for the wrong answer (this makes it more of a debate and giving the opposition the first shot as done in all diatribes).

Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau? Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?

If God treaded you as privileged and special would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common and others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?

This is the issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.

Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”

Who is the “one of you” is this Jewish Christian (elect) or Gentile Christian (elect) or is this “non-elect” individual (this “letter” is written to Christians and not non-Christians)?

Can Jews say they cannot be blamed for failing in their honored position or would it be the Gentiles that would say they cannot be blamed since they were not in the honored position?

Is it really significant when it comes to what really counts, if you are born a gentile or Jew in first century Rome?

Are there issues and problems with being a first century Jew and was this a problem for Paul?

The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison (the Gentiles).

How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.

Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God the Gentiles had an advantage over the born Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.

Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!

The common vessels (gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Jews) are equal individually in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.

If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Rms. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

Rm 9: 22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

This verse is not saying all the “vessels” created for a “common purpose” were created for destruction (they were not made from the start by the Potter “clay pigeons”). Everything that leaves the potter’s shop is of great quality. Those vessels for destruction can come from either the common group or the honor group, but God is being patient with them that will eventually be destroyed. The vessels God does develop great wrath against, will be readied for destruction, but how did they become worthy of destruction since they left the potter’s shop with his mark on them? Any vessel (honorable or common) that becomes damaged is not worthy of the potters signature and He would want it destroyed.

To understand this as Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same Greek words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20. There Paul even points out the common can become the honored vessel.

That is a short explanation, since you really need to study all of Romans especially chapters 9, 10 and 11. Also please look at individual laments in the Psalms and diatribes in general, I really cut those short.