There's no such thing as a elected unbeliever: John was not a calvinist

[nobdysfool]

interesting. so the elect will not perish. but then you say there there is an appointed time for their salvation which I assume is the time at which they start to believe. And prior to that believe, these elected people would be unbelievers. Yes no? And as unbelievers, Jesus in John 3:36 said that they would not see life.

All men start out in the Unbeliever column. God chooses some to receive salvation, thereby enabling them to move to the Believer Column. God's choice is Election, which is unto Salvation. Election happened before the foundation of the World, when the Creation was only in the Mind of God. Because we are creatures who inhabit time, just as there was a time when we did not exist, there was a time when we did not believe. Our fate, if it were imposed at that time, would have been damnation and we would not see Life. Since God chose the Elect before the foundation of the World, He purposed not only their Election but also their Salvation, so that they will not die prior to becoming Believers, and that when they subsequently die, they will have Life Eternal, which is promised to all Believers.

At any given moment in time,there are both Believers and Unbelievers. Their Fate is already foretold, IF they continue in their present condition. That was the point that Jesus was driving home to Nicodemus, as well as us. We are born Unbelievers. We don't (and didn't) need to "do" anything in order to be so. It is human nature. Belief is active, Unbelief is passive, in that condition. An Unbeliever can be active in unbelief, but it only reinforces that which he already is. Either way, an Unbeliever has a fate already set for him, that of damnation and lack of Eternal Life.

Since the Elect are a subset of all men, they too are born as Unbelievers, and live at least part of their lives as Unbelievers, and therefore move toward the fate of Unbelievers: Damnation and not seeing Life. God, in Electing them, provides the means whereby they can and do Believe, and therefore their fate is changed from damnation and not seeing Life to seeing Life, and obtaining Eternal Life. It is God's doing, not man's. It is God's intervention that changes a man's Fate. Man is powerless to do it apart from God.

The Elect have been, are being and will be saved. No man knows if he is one of the Elect until after he Believes. No man knows if another is one of the Elect before that man Believes. The Elect are known in the Mind of God from the beginning. They are manifest in time from among those whom God has chosen to leave in their Unbelief. All those who are saved, and will be saved are of the Elect. No man who is not Elect will be saved. There is no such thing as a non-Elect saved man. There is, however, such a thing as an unsaved (as of any given moment before their salvation) Elect, which are known only to God. Their salvation doesn't cause their Election, it is the result of their Election. Their salvation will be accomplished in time, at God's time of choosing, before their death. There is no such thing as an unsaved, dead, Elect.

The Elect are those whom God has chosen unto Salvation, from before the foundation of the world, and who are actually brought to Salvation, in Time, by the power and Grace of God. Not one of the Elect will be lost. Not one has been. The Elect are not declared to be so on the Last Day, they were declared to be so before the First Day.

So you say that the elect unbelievers will see eternal life (because they will believe) but Jesus says that unbelievers won't see life. I'm sensing a conflict here.

so you would distinguish unbelievers from those who reject God. For this to work, unbelievers who are elect would have to accept christ the first time they are presented the gospel. I don't see how this conforms to experience as you can find multitudes of christians, calvinists even who rejected christ the first time they heard the gospel.

You continue to wrangle with a false dilemna. I have stated it here as completely, and plainly, as I know how. It is logical, and it is scriptural. I'm done arguing with you about it. Let the readers decide who has presented the stronger case. You claim that your Open Theism isn't relevant to the discussion, but it most certainly is, as it permeates and infuses everything you have said here, just as my Calvinism permeates and infuses what I have said. The scriptures don't lie, but liars will fiddle with the scriptures. It doesn't take a degree in theology to understand this subject. I have presented a clear and lucid exposition for my position. I have yet to see you do so.

 

[geebob]

fru

I've explained it. It's here for all to read. Let them decide.

and lets hope that "they" exercise discernment. But if not, truth is not decided democratically. And of course we make up a big portion of "them" considering that you were replying to me and my part of them says no. You haven't explained how it can be true that one will not see life and that that same person will see everlasting life.



nbdysfool

All men start out in the Unbeliever column. God chooses some to receive salvation

so the elect won't perish? So they'll see life, even though they may be at a point in their life when they don't believe?

I'll go with John on this one "he who rejects the son will not see life."

IF they continue in their present condition.

on the contrary, as Jesus said "they have been judged already"

I'm done arguing with you about it.

Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.

You continue to wrangle with a false dilemna.

either one will see life or he won't. that's logically necessary. It's not a false dilema at all. well of course there is the option that he may and may not see life, but a but a theological determinist can have any of that going on.

The scriptures don't lie, but liars will fiddle with the scriptures.

and with vitriolic remarks like that, you have garnered my special innattention. Please don't post in response to me in the future. I will ignore it or post why it is not worth the time.

BTW, taking the tense in scripture is far from fiddling and is in fact crucial to taking the whole of scripture seriously. It isn't whoever will believe. It is whoever believes.

I have yet to see you do so.

My position is that individualistic election as implied even by frumanchu's definition entails that the elect will not perish. But that doctrine also implies that there are elect unbelievers. John however paints a picture of only two groups, believers and unbelievers and they have opposite fates and the fate of the unbeliever is that he "will not see life" contrary to the doctrine of individualistic election.

 

[frumanchu]

and lets hope that "they" exercise discernment. But if not, truth is not decided democratically. And of course we make up a big portion of "them" considering that you were replying to me and my part of them says no. You haven't explained how it can be true that one will not see life and that that same person will see everlasting life.

I most certainly have, and I continue to maintain that your unwillingness to accept the answer stems from an openness theology which removes the ability of God to know who ACTUALLY IS saved at Judgement.

So, I will ask this question as it is directly relevant to this conversation: Do you believe that God possesses absolute foreknowledge of the future, that He knows from before time everything that will happen from start to finish?

 

[geebob]

Whatever my view on foreknowledge, I don't see how it makes it any less true that those who hold to the individual election hold that it is true that the elect will not perish but see everlasting life though, nor do I see how it makes it any less true that John said that those who don't believe will not see life.

 

[frumanchu]

You are evading.

If God knows absolutely whether or not an individual IS ACTUALLY saved at Judgement, then it cannot be true that he will not be. If he knew absolutely that you ARE ACTUALLY going to be saved at Judgement, then He knew so even while you were an unbeliever. That you "[would] not see life" was conditioned upon persistence in your unbelief, but such persistence was never realized. Therefore, while you were not going to see life based on present condition, you were going to be saved based on the foreknown change in condition.

I'll give you yet another analogy to prove my point.

Half-time at a football game. Team A is losing to Team B by a score of 21-14. The team with the lowest score loses, and right now Team A has the lowest score. Team A will lose.

God already knew before the game even started that Team A would rally and beat Team B 31-24. Team A will win.

Thus, while Team A is losing and will lose (conditioned upon their continuing to have a lower score than their opponent), they WILL win.

You have two places I see you can attempt to refute this analogy. One is the fact that teams who have a lower score will lose. Good luck.

The other is God's ability to foreknow with certainty the outcome of the game prior to its being played.

I've provided yet another example. I await your response.

 

[geebob]

Thus, while Team A is losing and will lose (conditioned upon their continuing to have a lower score than their opponent), they WILL win.

for the time being, I do not know why this isn't reasonable with regard to understanding the 3rd chapter of John.

even if this is so, I still take John to be indicating that there are two groups of people, believers, and unbelievers, and each has it's distinct fate and individualistic election doesn't reflect this picture.

 

[frumanchu]

for the time being, I do not know why this isn't reasonable with regard to understanding the 3rd chapter of John.

For the sake of illustration, let's define election as equivalent to the divine foreknowledge of an event (not addressing causality). In other words, let's say that the actual winners of the game are the elect. In the example then, Team A is the elect.

So, to restate the statement you tentatively agreed with:

Thus, while Team A is losing and will lose (conditioned upon their continuing to have a lower score than their opponent), they are STILL elect (because they DO ACTUALLY win).

Sticking strictly to the definition I put forth, is this a fair statement, and if not why?

even if this is so, I still take John to be indicating that there are two groups of people, believers, and unbelievers, and each has it's distinct fate and individualistic election doesn't reflect this picture.

The fate is conditioned upon persistence. It is not absolute, bob.

 

[rnmomof7]

for the time being, I do not know why this isn't reasonable with regard to understanding the 3rd chapter of John.

even if this is so, I still take John to be indicating that there are two groups of people, believers, and unbelievers, and each has it's distinct fate and individualistic election doesn't reflect this picture.

Are groups made up of individuals?

Were all saved in elect israel?

 

[Romanbear]

Hi Nobodysfool;
A quote from you.

Yes I do agree (for the third time) with the words of Jesus. What I don't agree with is your red herring being drug into it, i.e. your contradictory view of election. You have demonstrated that you do not understand what Election is, and why it is important. It causes problems for your particular view of salvation, so you are trying to eliminate it. Keep trying...it's actually quite entertaining....

Actually I don't think you understand election. You read the Bible with your preconceived ideas of it. Looking to see how you can make your own ideas or should I say Augustine's ideas. match up with scripture. When Reading scripture with only discovery in mind reveals the truth. I think your reading things into scripture that aren't there. Denying the true meaning of the words at hand.
In Christ;
Romanbear

 

[frumanchu]

Ray, can you confine such comments to a PM? They really don't have any bearing on the current conversation.

Thanks,
Fru

 

[geebob]

Are groups made up of individuals?

see what I said to nbdysfool in post 51. As for israel, yes, everyone who was a true israelite thus elected unto salvation was saved. There is a choosing that is not specifically salvific, such as election to a task.

 

[eldermike]

Ok people, you are debating the debating tactics and not the subject. I can tell you from past experience that not one person has changed views of this subject since I have been a member of this forum. A superior argument will not win the day here.
But we are all still Brothers/Sisters.
So, don't let this get to you.
Breath in - Breath out
Relationships are more important than your points.

Settle down in here, please.

Eldermike

 

[geebob]

I can tell you from past experience that not one person has changed views of this subject

on the contrary, I've admitted a stalemate.

 

[Received]

Yes, Yes, indeed. Or, to paraphrase:

You all need to...simma downa!

 

[frumanchu]

I disagree. I personally have not been "debating the debating tactics," only laboring to show that the premises under which geebob is drawing his conclusion are not correct.

I have been involved in web forums such as this for three years now, and I have seen several people change their views as a direct result of such conversations. No doubt some of these discussions become rather passionate, but so long as they remain civil I think they should continue.

My discussion here is solely focused on geebob and on the original topic, and I don't see it as pointless at this point to continue for the time being. I may disagree with him adamantly, but he has been civil to this point. Stubborn, but civil. If he is willing, I will continue.

 

[eldermike]

Civil is good. When I post a general statement please don't take it otherwise. I read the whole thread (yep, not easy) before making any comments.

People are changed by God, through relationships. We have a part in that process but not all of it.

 

[rnmomof7]

Ok people, you are debating the debating tactics and not the subject. I can tell you from past experience that not one person has changed views of this subject since I have been a member of this forum. A superior argument will not win the day here.
But we are all still Brothers/Sisters.
So, don't let this get to you.
Breath in - Breath out
Relationships are more important than your points.

Settle down in here, please.

Eldermike

Actually my doctrinal stand changed due to an ongoing discussion like this.

I know of 4 other that have also had that experience.

If people are thoughtful and read their bibles.

hey ya never know:>)

 

[eldermike]

I take it back!!!!!

Most of it anyway. The part about relationships I will leave.

God Bless
Eldermike

 

[frumanchu]

on the contrary, I've admitted a stalemate.

Does that mean you're not going to answer post 67? I just want to know so I know whether or not you're willing to continue this particular discussion.

 

[geebob]

actually, I didn't even see that post.

The fate is conditioned upon persistence. It is not absolute, bob.

I don't see that this decides it one way or the other.

at most, I consider that your example may show how your position is still coherent in light of the claims made in John 3. But I don't think it is in line with the heart of the matter, and I don't think that I can articulate why that is beyond what the quote of yours above in this post was responding to.