Election's Historicity (Doctrinal Counter Perspective)

[Clare73]

Allow me to shrink scope to simplify this one question. Clare, do you have a promise from God of salvation?

All the promises of God are "Yea" (confirmed, made sure) and "Amen" (end and rest) in Christ (2 Co 1:20).
I have Christ and the new covenant (promised indwelling Holy Spirit).

(Promise of God which always means "Covenant" between God and who God is making a Covenant with)

 

[Grip Docility]

All the promises of God are "Yea" (confirmed, made sure) and "Amen" (end and rest) in Christ (2 Co 1:20).
I have Christ and the new covenant (promised indwelling Holy Spirit).

Channeling a bit of Paul's style, could we then say that this contract is between an individual and God?

Proverbs 17:18
One without sense enters an agreement[c] and puts up security for his friend.
agreement: Hebrew word: arubbah a thing exchange - a thing exchanged, pledge, token

 

[Clare73]

Channeling a bit of Paul's style, could we then say that this contract is between an individual and God?

How about a "contract" between God and Christ (in whom I am)?

 

[Grip Docility]

How about a "contract" between God and Christ (in whom I am)?

Can a person be part of a lawful contract, against their will, by all known established legality, between one party and another?

Proverbs 17:18
One without sense enters an agreement[c] and puts up security for his friend.
agreement: Hebrew word: arubbah a thing exchange - a thing exchanged, pledge, token

 

[Clare73]

Can a person be part of a lawful contract, against their will, by all known established legality, between one party and another?

Proverbs 17:18
One without sense enters an agreement[c] and puts up security for his friend.
agreement: Hebrew word: arubbah a thing exchange - a thing exchanged, pledge, token

What contract are we talking about?

 

[Grip Docility]

What contract are we talking about?

Our discussion starting at Post #182 linked

 

[Clare73]

Can a person be part of a lawful contract, against their will, by all known established legality, between one party and another?

Proverbs 17:18
One without sense enters an agreement[c] and puts up security for his friend.
agreement: Hebrew word: arubbah a thing exchange - a thing exchanged, pledge, token

God does covenants (promises, undertakings), not contracts--some conditional, some not.

 

[Grip Docility]

God does covenants (promises, undertakings), not contracts--some conditional, some not.

So, to the Determinist, they do not Repent to God, who Loved them first, as God Loved all?

They are special and better than the Reprobate, better than other people, because they have been selected, while others are rejected? They believe themselves to be the Elect of Israel and thus saved, without having to turn to Jesus and away from their personal will? God Loves them, and Hates the Reprobate?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Jesus did make an atonement for all people (1 Timothy 2:6, 1 John 2:2, Hebrews 2:9), but not all receive it.

This "double payment" issue does not present a problem for those who hold to the provisional nature of the atonement as the payment is only received (or cashed) through faith.

From John 3:14-15: Just as the serpent lifted on the pole in the desert was provided for all, it only benefitted the ones who look to it for healing. No one would argue the serpent did not sufficiently provide the means for healing to all simply because some may have refused to look to the provision for healing. In similar manner, Christ's atonement is sufficient to provide the means for salvation to all, but is only received by those who believe.

John 3:14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.​

​

From 1 Timothy 4:10: God is the savior of all people - which means everyone has a savior. God is not the savior of those He does not want to save. 1 Timothy 2:4 plainly states that God desires all people to be saved.

1 Timothy 4:10 That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.​

​

1 Timothy 2:4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,​

Sounds like double-talk, to me, and a moving of the goalposts --"Provisional nature", etc.

Are their sins doubly paid for, or not?? Did Jesus actually pay for the sin that they later pay for themselves, or not??

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:
The OP seemed (to me, at least) to posit the notion that the doctrine of Election was only Calvin's invention, as though it hadn't been known before that. But here you seem (to me, at least) to say that you were only talking of Calvin's version of it. If my version (or @Clare73 's version) resembles Calvin's very closely, did it therefore come from Calvin?

Theological “election” deals with God’s choices. For instance, the Bible refers to an election of:

1. Christ (Isaiah 42:1; Luke 9:35; 1 Peter 2:6)
2. National Israel (Deuteronomy 7:6; Isaiah 45:4)
3. Jerusalem (1 Kings 11:13)
4. Disciples (John 13:18; John 15:16)
5. Christians (Ephesians 1:1-3; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14)

In Calvinism, election is labeled as Unconditional Election, in terms of God having decreed a total plan of all things from eternity, which includes a bifurcation of humanity into elect and non-elect camps, that is, fixed classes of sheep and goats. Individuals comprising the elect camp are unconditionally chosen by God for salvation prior to the Genesis creation, the basis of which being known only to Him, while the non-elect camp comprises those whom God never intended to spend eternity with Him in Heaven and thus passed by for salvific graces.

In non-Calvinism, election is labeled as Conditional Election, in which there are primarily two different views:

(1) The Wesleyan-Arminian “foresight of faith” model of Election and,​

(2) the Corporate model of Election.​

​

In the Wesleyan model, by God’s eternal foreknowledge, all whom He found that will ever positively respond to the gospel and persevere in the faith, He foreordained as members of “the elect.”

As for the Corporate model, which I hold to, the foundation is that Jesus Christ is the Elect One, resulting that all who come to be “in Him,” that is, identified with Him in His body and as His bride, jointly share in His election, and hence believers in Him may rightly also be called “the elect” or favored. In other words, Corporate Election is a class election of Christ’s family, and for His part, He would like to see everyone in it, which He made possible at Calvary.

Comparing and contrasting, Election in Calvinism means God choosing unbelievers, that is, of the elect kind, unto the gift of faith. Election in non-Calvinism means God choosing Christians, that is, unto salvation, service and blessings. Does God choose us or do we choose God? The answer is that many scriptures support that God chooses to show His favor on Christians and we choose whether or not to become a Christian.

Nice. But how does that answer the question of whether @Clare73 's (or my) version of "election", if it resembles Calvin's, is therefore of Calvin's invention and not from Scripture or from some source other than Calvin?

 

[Grip Docility]

Mark Quayle said:
The OP seemed (to me, at least) to posit the notion that the doctrine of Election was only Calvin's invention, as though it hadn't been known before that. But here you seem (to me, at least) to say that you were only talking of Calvin's version of it. If my version (or @Clare73 's version) resembles Calvin's very closely, did it therefore come from Calvin?

Nice. But how does that answer the question of whether @Clare73 's (or my) version of "election", if it resembles Calvin's, is therefore of Calvin's invention and not from Scripture or from some source other than Calvin?

The Reformed system is built on volumes of Commentaries. I study church history diligently to try to understand each fracture.

Do you claim that this is dishonest?

 

[John Mullally]

Mark Quayle said:
The OP seemed (to me, at least) to posit the notion that the doctrine of Election was only Calvin's invention, as though it hadn't been known before that. But here you seem (to me, at least) to say that you were only talking of Calvin's version of it. If my version (or @Clare73 's version) resembles Calvin's very closely, did it therefore come from Calvin?

Augustine may have shared the understanding of what is termed Calvinist Unconditional Election. One can argue that Augustine, who came out Gnosticism, introduced its Determinism (what you term Monergism) into Christianity. Arguably Calvin revered Augustine and built on his teachings. Although the RCC also reveres Augustine, it does not hold to Determinism or Unconditional Election. I have no strong opinion here and don't read the tea leaves.

Nice. But how does that answer the question of whether @Clare73 's (or my) version of "election", if it resembles Calvin's, is therefore of Calvin's invention and not from Scripture or from some source other than Calvin?

Bible Election is about service as Israel, God's people, were Elect but many were not saved. Calvinists like to associate Election with salvation - as in doing so, using the term Elect subtly gives credence to their doctrine that God selects exactly who will be saved.

God loves all men in that he provides for them and blesses them physically, but he does not love all men savingly.

God is love (1 John 4:8) and thus cares about any one of his creation's lost condition. Above @Clare73 says that God is at best indifferent to the lost, which is not as nasty as what Calvin states. The Bible says that Christ atoned for all people through His suffering (1 Timothy 2:6, 1 John 2:2, Hebrews 2:9) - which seems odd if he does not love all men savingly.

“…salvation is freely offered to some while others are barred from access to it.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 21, Paragraph 5)​

Both @Clare73 and Calvin are in disagreement with Paul on that issue as per all major English translations of 1 Timothy 2:4, God desires all people to be saved. Also in all major English translations of 1 Timothy 4:10, God is the Savior of all people. God is not the Savior of people He does not desire to save. Jesus is not like the Pharisee in the Parable of the Good Samaritan who has no heart for the perishing. From scripture, we know that our God who is Love (1 John 4:8) sincerely desires everyone to come to know Him (1 Timothy 2:4), but just because I don’t believe that God forces His love on to everyone, doesn’t mean that I question His sincerity. Many are not saved because God leaves some decision making with people. If God did not, He would be unjust to judge us for doing what we could not avoid.

Tellingly, Calvin in his three volume roughly 1500 page Institutes of the Christian Religion never references passages that tell us God is love (i.e. 1 John 4:8 and 1 John 4:16). Litmus Test: Calvin's followers won't reference those passages either.

 

[John Mullally]

Jesus did make an atonement for all people (1 Timothy 2:6, 1 John 2:2, Hebrews 2:9), but not all receive it.

This "double payment" issue does not present a problem for those who hold to the provisional nature of the atonement as the payment is only received (or cashed) through faith.

From John 3:14-15: Just as the serpent lifted on the pole in the desert was provided for all, it only benefitted the ones who look to it for healing. No one would argue the serpent did not sufficiently provide the means for healing to all simply because some may have refused to look to the provision for healing. In similar manner, Christ's atonement is sufficient to provide the means for salvation to all, but is only received by those who believe.

John 3:14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.​

​

From 1 Timothy 4:10: God is the savior of all people - which means everyone has a savior. God is not the savior of those He does not want to save. 1 Timothy 2:4 plainly states that God desires all people to be saved.

1 Timothy 4:10 That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.​

​

1 Timothy 2:4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,​

Sounds like double-talk, to me, and a moving of the goalposts --"Provisional nature", etc.

Are their sins doubly paid for, or not?? Did Jesus actually pay for the sin that they later pay for themselves, or not??

It is not double-talk. Your understanding of the atonement is off. Forgiveness of sins, salvation, and the gift of the Holy Spirit are freely provided for all people, but its receipt is not automatic. You can lead a horse to water (provision), but you cannot make him drink. 1 Timothy 4:10 says that God is the Savior of all people even though from other scriptures many are not saved. This attests to God providing salvation for all people - but there is a caveat - reference John 3:14-15, John 3:16, Mark 16:15-16, Romans 10:9-10, and Acts 2:38-39 for terms and conditions of receipt.

Jesus “takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29), thus making the atonement available to all, but it will not be applied to you, me or our neighbor if we don’t look to Christ, just like Jesus illustrated at John 3:14/Numbers 21:6-9. His atonement is designed to only apply to those who believe in Him, and if you, me or our neighbor refuse God, then we will perish despite what would have saved us, just like Jesus illustrated at John 3:14/Numbers 21:6-9. No one in Hell can be told: “You had to be there. You had no Savior’s love or atonement for forgiveness, but were born helpless and hopeless due to a cruel, malicious God.” Instead, they’ll be told: “Thou fool! For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, so that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.”

 

[Grip Docility]

It is not double-talk. Your understanding of the atonement is off. Forgiveness of sins, salvation, and the gift of the Holy Spirit are freely provided for all people, but its receipt is not automatic. You can lead a horse to water (provision), but you cannot make him drink. 1 Timothy 4:10 says that God is the Savior of all people even though from other scriptures many are not saved. This attests to God providing salvation for all people - but there is a caveat - reference John 3:14-15, John 3:16, Mark 16:15-16, Romans 10:9-10, and Acts 2:38-39 for terms and conditions of receipt.

Jesus “takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29), thus making the atonement available to all, but it will not be applied to you, me or our neighbor if we don’t look to Christ, just like Jesus illustrated at John 3:14/Numbers 21:6-9. His atonement is designed to only apply to those who believe in Him, and if you, me or our neighbor refuse God, then we will perish despite what would have saved us, just like Jesus illustrated at John 3:14/Numbers 21:6-9. No one in Hell can be told: “You had to be there. You had no Savior’s love or atonement for forgiveness, but were born helpless and hopeless due to a cruel, malicious God.” Instead, they’ll be told: “Thou fool! For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, so that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.”

So, by Reform doctrine, Genetic Israel was the Elect… representing God’s chosen.

Now, a magical shell game that displays Genetic Israel becoming the BOC. OK​

If Israel represents Irresistible Grace and unconditional election… why did its highest officials and much of Israel in scripture resist God’s Grace?!?!?!?

The logic just doesn’t add up, in my personal opinion! God chooses a genetic people, uses them so heavily that Satan rips them apart time after time, even today… then throws them away to rot.

Buyer Beware.

 

[Hammster]

All Scripture is God breathed. Do you agree?

Yes. But that’s no reason jump around when you can’t rebut my point.

 

[Hammster]

At the Moment that the curtain was torn, what is the theological implication towards humanity? Is the bible a carnal book without Spiritual teaching? Did not Jesus say that He spoke in Parables, so that the Hard Hearted wouldn't comprehend?

Mark 4:12 'they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven.

By this same token, we have Jesus discussing hard hearted reprobates... and He states that they "could" turn to Him and be forgiven. Do you deny Jesus' implication's here?

Sure.

 

[Hammster]

Did Jesus Christ shed his Blood for all Humanity?

No. There were people whom He didn’t want converted.

 

[Hammster]

One should be able to support their position from multiple Bible passages - and quotes from multiple people is even better.

1 Corinthians 13:1 This will be my third visit to you. “Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.​

​

What you don't want is to hook, line, and sinker something based upon a peculiar interpretation of a single scripture passage or philosophical argument. Which I have seen done on many threads.

I just want him to stick to a particular until we flesh it out. Synergists tend to want to skip around for verse to verse and ignore context, in my experience.

 

[Grip Docility]

Yes. But that’s no reason jump around when you can’t rebut my point.

I don't care if you win every debate point. You won! I care about my Lord Jesus and His precepts of Love, Mercy, 1 Corinthians 13, His limitless inability to be a Hypocrite, His very Divine Precepts that He revealed to us, then died by our own hands to fully reveal.

Either scripture is useful for what scripture says it is useful for, or it is all a lie. To me, the entire Bible fits together perfectly... and I have no "mysteries". I see God begging humanity to turn to Him, that they may be saved and not lost.

Jesus used 7,000 ways to teach one point. He's my Hero!

It was the very Holy Ghost of Messiah that ripped that Curtain! Scripture doesn't write that. How do I know that so deeply that I am willing to die over it's truth?

He gave Access to ALL mankind! It's an obvious Spiritual Metaphor. Please tell me that Jesus didn't use the daylights out of metaphors. He did! Parables and Metaphors. Questions and Truth. That is Jesus' way.

 

[Grip Docility]

I just want him to stick to a particular until we flesh it out. Synergists tend to want to skip around for verse to verse and ignore context, in my experience.

Determinists like to ignore entire words. By determinist logic, the Holy Ghost was too inept to write the word "Some" instead of "All".