Is unconditional election biblical?
- Thread starter UnitedWithChrist
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Oh come on! I was confronted with my sin by the righteousness of Christ and God told me I deserved eternal condemnation as a result. I could continue and be condemned or I could turn to Christ and be saved. I needed to accept that Jesus died for me and paid the penalty of my sin. I was no different that any other man for God said all men are sinners and under eternal condemnation.
Gods universal call for all men to be saved became a personal call to me. I had to submit my sinful will to His righteous will for my life. I wanted to live without change but I was shown from Gods word by the Holy Spirit that I was deserving eternal condemnation if I did not turn away from sin and turn to Christ. Daily I must by Gods strength continue to turn from evil to Christ. I am sealed unto the day of redemption but I strive to live for my Savior.
Do you really believe that you believe because you were chosen from the beginning of the world to be saved? Do you believe that your neighbor was chosen from the beginning of the world to eternal condemnation? How often has God shown His mercy to you? How often has God in His mercy aided your neighbor? God strives with us until we get saved or He turns us over to the reprobate heart and our condemnation is sealed.
Predestination is the result of salvation not the cause. If predestination is the cause then every step we take is predetermined by God. If you fall and break you arm it was Gods will and you could not avoid the fall.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Gods universal call for all men to be saved became a personal call to me. I had to submit my sinful will to His righteous will for my life. I wanted to live without change but I was shown from Gods word by the Holy Spirit that I was deserving eternal condemnation if I did not turn away from sin and turn to Christ. Daily I must by Gods strength continue to turn from evil to Christ. I am sealed unto the day of redemption but I strive to live for my Savior.
Do you really believe that you believe because you were chosen from the beginning of the world to be saved? Do you believe that your neighbor was chosen from the beginning of the world to eternal condemnation? How often has God shown His mercy to you? How often has God in His mercy aided your neighbor? God strives with us until we get saved or He turns us over to the reprobate heart and our condemnation is sealed.
Predestination is the result of salvation not the cause. If predestination is the cause then every step we take is predetermined by God. If you fall and break you arm it was Gods will and you could not avoid the fall.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
7
some people seem to believe that, but IMO that's a stretch to connect grapes to blood and state Adam and Eve had no blood and had blood afterward
this seems like some kind of extra biblical teaching
IMO, waaay too much conjecture and not enough facts
whatever
the things you said about it, are online so I guess you just copied from that
google images? oh somebody took a picture of it?
whatever
this seems like some kind of extra biblical teaching
IMO, waaay too much conjecture and not enough facts
whatever
the things you said about it, are online so I guess you just copied from that
google images? oh somebody took a picture of it?
whatever
-
1
- Show all
7
AMEN!
Remember too, Jesus said He was not sent not to the righteous but to the sinners. Not to the well, but to the sick, to call them to repentance.
The Book of Luke chapter 5:27 through 32 After this, Jesus went out and saw a tax collector by the name of Levi sitting at his tax booth. "Follow me," Jesus said to him, 28and Levi got up, left everything and followed him. 29Then Levi held a great banquet for Jesus at his house, and a large crowd of tax collectors and others were eating with them. 30But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, "Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?" 31Jesus answered them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 32I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
The Book of Mark chapter 2 verse 17 On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
Could it be that when Jesus was speaking of and to His Father and referring to those He(God the Father) had given Him, Jesus, that Jesus was referring to the sick, the sinners? Rather than as some think, the predetermined elect whom He was only to die for?
The throngs came to the mountain and listened to Jesus' sermon there. Were they all the elect?
And what of those Disciples that walked with Jesus for a time, and then departed? When Jesus had fed the 5,000, the Book of John chapter 6
Thomas Coke Commentary on the Holy Bible
John 6:65. Therefore said I unto you— "Because I knew that there were false-hearted pretenders among you, therefore, for your conviction and caution, and for distinguishing real from nominal believers, I told you before (John 6:44.) that no man can savingly believe in me, unless my Father draw him by his Spirit, and thereby give him grace and strength to come to me. But God commences and continues this divine drawing in every heart of man, till his influences be so resisted as to oblige him to withdraw himself from the soul; for he will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." See 1 Timothy 2:4 and the note on John 6:37.
Remember too, Jesus said He was not sent not to the righteous but to the sinners. Not to the well, but to the sick, to call them to repentance.
The Book of Luke chapter 5:27 through 32 After this, Jesus went out and saw a tax collector by the name of Levi sitting at his tax booth. "Follow me," Jesus said to him, 28and Levi got up, left everything and followed him. 29Then Levi held a great banquet for Jesus at his house, and a large crowd of tax collectors and others were eating with them. 30But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, "Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?" 31Jesus answered them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 32I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
The Book of Mark chapter 2 verse 17 On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
Could it be that when Jesus was speaking of and to His Father and referring to those He(God the Father) had given Him, Jesus, that Jesus was referring to the sick, the sinners? Rather than as some think, the predetermined elect whom He was only to die for?
The throngs came to the mountain and listened to Jesus' sermon there. Were they all the elect?
And what of those Disciples that walked with Jesus for a time, and then departed? When Jesus had fed the 5,000, the Book of John chapter 6
Thomas Coke Commentary on the Holy Bible
John 6:65. Therefore said I unto you— "Because I knew that there were false-hearted pretenders among you, therefore, for your conviction and caution, and for distinguishing real from nominal believers, I told you before (John 6:44.) that no man can savingly believe in me, unless my Father draw him by his Spirit, and thereby give him grace and strength to come to me. But God commences and continues this divine drawing in every heart of man, till his influences be so resisted as to oblige him to withdraw himself from the soul; for he will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." See 1 Timothy 2:4 and the note on John 6:37.
no one is a 'not sinner' and Jesus died for all
no matter how hard someone may try to fit the entire Bible into the TULIP thingy, it just does not get off the ground
it is one of the most ridiculous teachings we have floating around IMO
and now we have people with no blood and people making up stuff bout that
smhI don't know.
Scripture also said that Judas went to "his place" and called him the "son of perdition".
Additionally, it is inconceivable that God's will in regards to the Cross would not have been achieved.
I don't know how many times I've heard people say that things could have went differently for Judas..not true..the events were not mere predictions, but God caused them to happen exactly as they did.
Was Judas accountable for his sin, then? Of course he was. In his limited creaturely free will, he performed the actions even though God had predestined them to occur all along.
By the way, John 6 says Judas was a "devil" and did not believe in a saving sense. This was before the occurrence of the crucifixion. Jesus knew exactly his spiritual state.
Additionally, it is inconceivable that God's will in regards to the Cross would not have been achieved.
I don't know how many times I've heard people say that things could have went differently for Judas..not true..the events were not mere predictions, but God caused them to happen exactly as they did.
Was Judas accountable for his sin, then? Of course he was. In his limited creaturely free will, he performed the actions even though God had predestined them to occur all along.
By the way, John 6 says Judas was a "devil" and did not believe in a saving sense. This was before the occurrence of the crucifixion. Jesus knew exactly his spiritual state.
-
1
- Show all
some people seem to believe that, but IMO that's a stretch to connect grapes to blood and state Adam and Eve had no blood and had blood afterward
this seems like some kind of extra biblical teaching
IMO, waaay too much conjecture and not enough facts
whatever
the things you said about it, are online so I guess you just copied from that
google images? oh somebody took a picture of it?
whatever
this seems like some kind of extra biblical teaching
IMO, waaay too much conjecture and not enough facts
whatever
the things you said about it, are online so I guess you just copied from that
google images? oh somebody took a picture of it?
whatever
-
1
- Show all
Why you yellin at me? "Oh come on!"
I really want to know why you believe. You are stuck on WHAT you believe. I get that. I believe the same. I'm asking WHY you believe.
You came an inch forward by saying GOD told you.... First, how did you know it was God, and second, WHY did you believe what He told you? KEEP digging Roger!
I really want to know why you believe. You are stuck on WHAT you believe. I get that. I believe the same. I'm asking WHY you believe.
You came an inch forward by saying GOD told you.... First, how did you know it was God, and second, WHY did you believe what He told you? KEEP digging Roger!
Free-willers believe in conditionalism...they believe that God's grace is conditional upon their acceptance ultimately.
Reformed believers are convicted that God causes the person's nature to be changed. A change in nature is the same as a change of the will. That is why they respond in faith and repentance.
Concerning unconditional election, we can't redefine terms. Conditional election means that God supposedly looks down the corridor of time and foresees that the person will place their faith in Christ. He elects them based on this foreseen faith. Unconditional election means that God elects individuals based on his grace, and not on their response. This is because Reformed theology, supported by Scripture, teaches that regeneration, or being born again, is the cause of salvation, and not the result.
The man cannot squeeze faith and repentance out of his stony heart. He must be regenerated in order to express faith and repentance. This occurs along with a preaching of the gospel message, leading to faith, repentance, and confession.
Free-willer theology basically claims that a man with a stony heart causes his own regeneration through a purely human act of faith and repentance. God isn't allowed to change their nature to enable this, either. This is off-limits in their defective theology.
Of course, their defective theology leads to boasting, as the man has something to brag about before God. "You couldn't have done it without MY 1%". Scripture doesn't teach that man has any basis for boasting.
By the way, I have heard free-willers say this explicitly. One guy said, yes, it is true that the only difference between me and the guy who loses his salvation is that I was smart enough to accept Christ. Others think it, they just don't say it.
Reformed believers are convicted that God causes the person's nature to be changed. A change in nature is the same as a change of the will. That is why they respond in faith and repentance.
Concerning unconditional election, we can't redefine terms. Conditional election means that God supposedly looks down the corridor of time and foresees that the person will place their faith in Christ. He elects them based on this foreseen faith. Unconditional election means that God elects individuals based on his grace, and not on their response. This is because Reformed theology, supported by Scripture, teaches that regeneration, or being born again, is the cause of salvation, and not the result.
The man cannot squeeze faith and repentance out of his stony heart. He must be regenerated in order to express faith and repentance. This occurs along with a preaching of the gospel message, leading to faith, repentance, and confession.
Free-willer theology basically claims that a man with a stony heart causes his own regeneration through a purely human act of faith and repentance. God isn't allowed to change their nature to enable this, either. This is off-limits in their defective theology.
Of course, their defective theology leads to boasting, as the man has something to brag about before God. "You couldn't have done it without MY 1%". Scripture doesn't teach that man has any basis for boasting.
By the way, I have heard free-willers say this explicitly. One guy said, yes, it is true that the only difference between me and the guy who loses his salvation is that I was smart enough to accept Christ. Others think it, they just don't say it.
-
1
- Show all
some people seem to believe that, but IMO that's a stretch to connect grapes to blood and state Adam and Eve had no blood and had blood afterward
this seems like some kind of extra biblical teaching
IMO, waaay too much conjecture and not enough facts
whatever
the things you said about it, are online so I guess you just copied from that
google images? oh somebody took a picture of it?
whatever
this seems like some kind of extra biblical teaching
IMO, waaay too much conjecture and not enough facts
whatever
the things you said about it, are online so I guess you just copied from that
google images? oh somebody took a picture of it?
whatever
Luke 6:
13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;
14 Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew,
15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes,
16 And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.
I would caution others against accepting re-definition of phrases and words.
For instance, I clearly stated what unconditional election was when I initiated the thread. These are the historical definitions and are not open to re-definition. I defined the historical differences between free-willer theology and Reformed theology clearly.
We can't have intelligent conversations when we are using phrases or words, and defining them in a different manner than they have historically been defined. You might come up with a third view, though, and label it in a different way. It really wouldn't be involved in the same discussion, though, because the ultimate question is whether God elects individuals (the Reformed view), or whether they elect themselves (the free-willer view), which in reality means God doesn't elect whatsoever.
One of the strongest sets of verses that proves otherwise is 1 Cor 1:26ff which says that God chooses, and that the characteristics of those he chooses is that not many are wise, rich, noble, strong, etcetera. In other words, he chooses people with negative characteristics, worldy speaking, in order to confound this world and to display his power more clearly in weak vessels.
I know this is true..therefore all free-willer theologies are cast into the garbage bin in my mind.
For instance, I clearly stated what unconditional election was when I initiated the thread. These are the historical definitions and are not open to re-definition. I defined the historical differences between free-willer theology and Reformed theology clearly.
We can't have intelligent conversations when we are using phrases or words, and defining them in a different manner than they have historically been defined. You might come up with a third view, though, and label it in a different way. It really wouldn't be involved in the same discussion, though, because the ultimate question is whether God elects individuals (the Reformed view), or whether they elect themselves (the free-willer view), which in reality means God doesn't elect whatsoever.
One of the strongest sets of verses that proves otherwise is 1 Cor 1:26ff which says that God chooses, and that the characteristics of those he chooses is that not many are wise, rich, noble, strong, etcetera. In other words, he chooses people with negative characteristics, worldy speaking, in order to confound this world and to display his power more clearly in weak vessels.
I know this is true..therefore all free-willer theologies are cast into the garbage bin in my mind.
-
1
- Show all
OK..prove your claim.
If you can show me in Scripture where it says that God's calling AND choosing are never for salvation, but for service, you are required to prove it.
And, be aware that you can't prove this by showing me examples where callings are for service, because this wouldn't prove that individuals are not called or chosen for salvation.
If you claim it, then you have an obligation to PROVE IT from Scripture.
Certainly I am convicted that believers are called to service and holiness, as part of their salvation and the responsibilities that issue from it, but this has no impact on whether they are called or chosen for salvation, too.
If you can show me in Scripture where it says that God's calling AND choosing are never for salvation, but for service, you are required to prove it.
And, be aware that you can't prove this by showing me examples where callings are for service, because this wouldn't prove that individuals are not called or chosen for salvation.
If you claim it, then you have an obligation to PROVE IT from Scripture.
Certainly I am convicted that believers are called to service and holiness, as part of their salvation and the responsibilities that issue from it, but this has no impact on whether they are called or chosen for salvation, too.
-
1
- Show all
No, that would not prove your statement.
You said that calling and election is ALWAYS for service and NEVER for salvation.
You haven't proved this logically.
Judas could be used as an example of someone who was called and elected for ignoble service of events leading to the crucifixion of Jesus, but you haven't proven this is ALWAYS the case.
You said that calling and election is ALWAYS for service and NEVER for salvation.
You haven't proved this logically.
Judas could be used as an example of someone who was called and elected for ignoble service of events leading to the crucifixion of Jesus, but you haven't proven this is ALWAYS the case.
-
1
- Show all