The Elect Perish, Really?

[gmm4j]

If election were the basis upon which people are saved, then the elect who have not “yet” believed would never stand condemned. The foreloved who were elect and predestined from before the foundation of the world could never “in time” stand condemned or actually be in threat of perishing, but yet Scripture says before belief they are. Why is God patient with the elect so they will not perish, if they cannot perish? Is there a time or circumstance when the elect could perish?

Romans 2:4-6
Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance? 5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.

2 Peter 3:9

The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

According to these texts, there is a time “in time” when the foreloved elect who cannot perish, could actually in fact perish. So, when can the elect perish? After God decreed to permit the Fall and before God elected some? No…


John 3:16-18

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

Everyone stands condemned and will perish before belief.

So again, if “not perishing” were based on election and God elected from the foundation of the world, then perishing would never be an issue for the elect, but instead, according to the texts above, it is. It is so much so, that God patiently waits for them to believe. God’s patience, and the fact that prior to belief no one will be saved is pretty clear evidence that God bases His election upon our belief rather than belief being based on election. If those who have not yet believed, are condemned (John 3:18), are storing up wrath for themselves (Romans 2:5), and would perish without that belief (2 Peter 3:9), then they are not yet His elect. His elect are not under His wrath are they?

2 Peter 1:5-11
For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7 and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. 8 For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins. 10 Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, 11 and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Your election is not sure unless your faith is genuine.

Also, if God elected from before the foundation of the world, then you would have God electing to save some and electing to leave others to wrath before they had actually “in time” done anything good or bad. He would be electing the innocent (before Adam or anyone had done anything good or bad) to punishment.

 

[gmm4j]

OP anyone?

 

[stenerson]

f election were the basis upon which people are saved, then the elect who have not “yet” believed would never stand condemned. The foreloved who were elect and predestined from before the foundation of the world could never “in time” stand condemned or actually be in threat of perishing, but yet Scripture says before belief they are. Why is God patient with the elect so they will not perish, if they cannot perish? Is there a time or circumstance when the elect could perish?

That verse answers your question. They will not perish because God is patient with them and will not allow their perishing. He predestined them to be conformed to the image of His Son.

 

[gmm4j]

If the elect could perish prior to faith, then faith is the condition for election.

 

[sdowney717]

Yes the elect have faith.
God gives them grace to believe.
Everything we have we have received.

6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.

7 For who makes you differ from another?

And what do you have that you did not receive? Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?

How can we then boast as what we have received is the gift of faith?

Philippians 1

27 Only let your conduct be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of your affairs, that you stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel, 28 and not in any way terrified by your adversaries, which is to them a proof of perdition, but to you of salvation,[d] and that from God.

29 For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake,

30 having the same conflict which you saw in me and now hear is in me.

 

[Skala]

If the elect could perish prior to faith, then faith is the condition for election.

Election and justification are two different things.

You don't escape hellfire at the moment of election. You escape it at the moment of justification.

Election in and of itself doesn't save anyone. It is merely the first step in God's salvation process. He not only elects a person, but he works in time to bring that man to a saving knowledge of Jesus, and justifies him.

Justification proper is when the person is legally declared to be made right with God.

 

[Iosias]

Moreoever there are different types of election; election is a status conferred by baptism, all who are baptised are elect objectively, though not absolutely.

 

[Skala]

Moreoever there are different types of election; election is a status conferred by baptism, all who are baptised are elect objectively, though not absolutely.

Would like to see any exegesis to back this assertion up.

 

[Iosias]

Would like to see any exegesis to back this assertion up.

Under the Abrahamic covenant one marked oneself as belonging to the elect nation by being circumcised (Gen. 17), now with the coming of Christ baptism is the marker of the covenant and so being baptised indicates that you are in Christ and part of the elect people, the family of God:

in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ...And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Moreoever there are different types of election; election is a status conferred by baptism, all who are baptised are elect objectively, though not absolutely.

Glad to see someone else acknowledge there are different types, or as I like to call it, categories of election.

#1 Jesus Christ Isa 42:1
#2 ethnic Jews in the OT Amos 3:2
#3 angels 1 Tim 5:21
#4 NT believers Eph 1:4
#5 12 disciples, one of which was Judas, a "devil" Jn 6:70
#6 Paul, chosen to minister the gospel to Gentiles Acts 9:15

 

[hedrick]

Personally I think the 2 Peter passage was not written for use in debates about Calvinism. Thus the author wasn't careful about how some of his wording might be interpreted in that context. I'm not sure we can tell from this passage whether he believed in election in Calvin's sense. But I don't see the passage as particularly problematical for Calvinists.

2:9 seems to be addressed to Christians who are unfruitful. In Calvinist terms, they're elect. No one claims that true Christians are without fault. Indeed a lot of Jesus' messages were addressed to lazy servants. In many cases I think they actually were servants, just not very good ones.

I say it's addressed to Christians because it says the people have been cleansed. But the author is concerned they they aren't being "productive." Note that he talks about confirming the calling and election. I'd understand that, not in some kind of Arminian sense of having to accept the call before they are saved, but rather making visible with action an election that is already present.

Jesus certainly suggests differences in reward. So promising that fruitful people will get a rich welcome seems completely consistent with his teaching.

 

[Ask Seek Knock]

Personally I think the 2 Peter passage was not written for use in debates about Calvinism. Thus the author wasn't careful about how some of his wording might be interpreted in that context. I'm not sure we can tell from this passage whether he believed in election in Calvin's sense. But I don't see the passage as particularly problematical for Calvinists.

2:9 seems to be addressed to Christians who are unfruitful. In Calvinist terms, they're elect. No one claims that true Christians are without fault. Indeed a lot of Jesus' messages were addressed to lazy servants. In many cases I think they actually were servants, just not very good ones.

I say it's addressed to Christians because it says the people have been cleansed. But the author is concerned they they aren't being "productive." Note that he talks about confirming the calling and election. I'd understand that, not in some kind of Arminian sense of having to accept the call before they are saved, but rather making visible with action an election that is already present.

Jesus certainly suggests differences in reward. So promising that fruitful people will get a rich welcome seems completely consistent with his teaching.

I would probably agree with you. Even Calvin thought 2 Peter wasn't written by Peter. In fact, many do not think Peter wrote the second epistle, or if he did, it was tampered with later.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Personally I think the 2 Peter passage was not written for use in debates about Calvinism.

Well, I can see why 2 Pet 2:1 would not want to be debated by Calvinist, because it tells us that even the unbelieving false teachers were bought (agorazo) by Christ. The same word Paul used in 1 Cor 6:20 and 7:23 regarding believers.

Thus the author wasn't careful about how some of his wording might be interpreted in that context.

Basically, you are really charging the Holy Spirit with being careless. Remember that all Scripture is God breathed and IS profitable.

 

[gmm4Jesus]

Skala you said,

"You don't escape hellfire at the moment of election. You escape it at the moment of justification."

Really? Has any of the elect from before creation ever not been justified, or ever experienced hellfire? So, the elect are really never in any danger of perishing and they aren't really being saved from anything, right?

Isn't it kind of just a game of hoops in the Calvinist construct?

 

[gmm4Jesus]

 

[gmm4Jesus]

 

[Skala]

Skala you said,

"You don't escape hellfire at the moment of election. You escape it at the moment of justification."

Really? Has any of the elect from before creation ever not been justified, or ever experienced hellfire? So, the elect are really never in any danger of perishing and they aren't really being saved from anything, right?

Isn't it kind of just a game of hoops in the Calvinist construct?

Aren't you an Arminian who believes in (conditional) election?

Why do you pretend only Calvinists have a doctrine of election?

The exact same questions you pose above work equally as well against your own Arminian position.

Classic! I love when people forget their own theology and accidentally argue against themselves. It makes me all warm and fuzzy inside and further solidifies that my theology is right, as I never accidentally argue against my own position.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Aren't you an Arminian who believes in (conditional) election?

Why do you pretend only Calvinists have a doctrine of election?

The exact same questions you pose above work equally as well against your own Arminian position.

Classic! I love when people forget their own theology and accidentally argue against themselves. It makes me all warm and fuzzy inside and further solidifies that my theology is right, as I never accidentally argue against my own position.

Can you provide any verse that links being elected (eklegomai) to salvation?

 

[Skala]

Can you provide any verse that links being elected (eklegomai) to salvation?

Sure

Romans 8:29-30 says being chosen results in justification and glorification.

Eph 1:4-11 says that being chosen results in being found holy and blameless before Him.

Acts 13:48 says that being ordained for eternal life results in believing the gospel (and since belief in the gospel results to salvation..do the math)

Well, that was easy.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Sure

Romans 8:29-30 says being chosen results in justification and glorification.

Nope. This is what it actually SAYS:
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; 30and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

It speaks of those He knew would believe (foreknown) were predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son. iow, all believers are predestined to be "Christ-like". In fact, that's what we're called to be.

Nothing about being chosen results in justification/glorification. I do understand that you think that's what it means, though.

Eph 1:4-11 says that being chosen results in being found holy and blameless before Him.

Nope. This is what it actually says:
just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. 7In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace 8which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight 9He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him 10with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him 11also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will

v.4 SAYS that God chose us (believers) to be holy and blameless, pretty much what Rom 8:29-30 says. Nothing about being chosen FOR salvation. The obvious point in 1:4 is that God chooses believers (us) to be holy and blameless. And being chosen to be holy and blameless doesn't mean to get saved, as it seems you think. It's about becoming Christ-like.

Acts 13:48 says that being ordained for eternal life results in believing the gospel (and since belief in the gospel results to salvation..do the math)

Nope. This is what it actually says:
When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

And, the word for "chosen", eklegomai, doesn't even occur here. In fact, the meaning of 'tasso' is to line up, arrange in order. And because of the tense for 'tasso', the forms for both middle and passive are the SAME, so we have to look to the context to determine which one the writer meant. And because of v.44, it is clear he meant middle voice, because "nearly the whole city" came to hear Paul shows that the Gentiles were "lining up" or "arranging" themselves to hear him.

So, this verse does NOT indicate that God ordains any for eternal life.

Well, that was easy.

And the refutation of all 3 citations was even easier.

Now, can you answer my questions why you always argue against election, when you, yourself, supposedly believe in election, too?

Because the reformed view of election is wrong. As I've just shown, since none of the verses you cited says anyone is elected to salvation.

Biblical election is about God choosing various people and groups for special privilege and service, NOT about salvation.

This is easily seen when one looks at the list of those identified in Scripture as being "chosen" or "elected" (eklegomai).

Categories of Divine Election
1. Election of Christ: an individual election
1 Pet 2:6 Isa 28:16 Isa 42:1 Luke 9:35 Luke 23:35
2. Election of Angels: a group or corporate election
1 Tim 5:21
3. Election of Israel: a group or corporate election
Amos 3:2 Deut 7:6 Acts 13:17
4. Election of believers: a group or corporate election
Eph 1:4a [note: this verse doesn’t say that God chose who would be believers, but that He chose believers…to be holy and blameless]
1 Peter 2:9
5. The Election of the 12 Disciples: a group or corporate election John 15:16
6. The Election of Paul: an individual election Acts 9:15

None of these elections were for salvation. Obviously.

Well, that was easy.