Is unconditional election biblical?

[notuptome]

If someone believes they were saved (elected) due to an action they performed (they were "conditionally elected") they don't understand grace or the gospel as it negates both.

There is nothing more self serving than hyper Calvinism. We are elected when we become saved we are not elected to be saved.

God offers to all forgiveness through His Son. The Living waters that flow from Christ are infinite and not dispensed in a miserly fashion. Man must confess his sinfulness to Christ and receive grace to be saved. There is no boasting except in Christ. Hyper Calvinists boast in election not Christ.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

if u choose first and then are chosen. who is really doing the choosing electing?

You. That means you acted and then God reacted. That’s backwards. Good question that needs answered.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

There is nothing more self serving than hyper Calvinism. We are elected when we become saved we are not elected to be saved.

God offers to all forgiveness through His Son. The Living waters that flow from Christ are infinite and not dispensed in a miserly fashion. Man must confess his sinfulness to Christ and receive grace to be saved. There is no boasting except in Christ. Hyper Calvinists boast in election not Christ.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Wrong my friend. We were chosen from BEFORE the creation of the word, not after we did something.

 

[notuptome]

But the very next verse John wrote He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.[John 1:10] So, if the world did not know Him, obviously they did not recognize Him as the true Light. So I don’t think we can draw every man being every single person whoever lived. None know the Christ but by the word of God. They can know God as Creator as Romans 1:18ff teaches, but they can not know God as Savior but by the word of God.

That does not negate the proclamation of the Light lighting every man. John 3:18-21 is where Christ Himself gives the reason for men not knowing but refusing to know what is obvious to them. Paul recites the same in Romans 1:19-23 where men choose to change the image of God into something they prefer. Changing election into a pretext for salvation is biblically wrong.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[notuptome]

Wrong my friend. We were chosen from BEFORE the creation of the word, not after we did something.

Gods foreknowledge is not predetermination. God inhabits all of eternity all the time. God knows the end from the beginning and nothing is a surprise to Him. That does not infer that God chooses but God does know the choice you have yet to make.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[preacher4truth]

if u choose first and then are chosen. who is really doing the choosing electing?

the first 3 words of John 1:13 explain why he was received in verse 12..."who were born."

 

[fredoheaven]

the first 3 words of John 1:13 explain why he was received in verse 12..."who were born."

Verse 13 of John 1 is the result of believing on his name, for those who did received him they were given "gave" power to become God's children.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

Verse 13 of John 1 is the result of believing on his name, for those who did received him they were given "gave" power to become God's children.

Wrong my friend.

12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.[John 1]

Who were those who received Him, who believed in His name?

Was it...

Who were born of blood? No.
Who were of the will of the flesh? No.
Was it of the will of man? No. Romans 9:16 affirms this as well.
Who were born of God? Yahtzee!

Verse 13 qualifies the ones who received Him. This couldn’t be any clearer if John had tried, but yet many miss it’s clear teaching that those who were born of God were those who received Him.

 

[fredoheaven]

Wrong my friend.

12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.[John 1]

Who were those who received Him, who believed in His name?

Was it...

Who were born of blood? No.
Who were of the will of the flesh? No.
Was it of the will of man? No. Romans 9:16 affirms this as well.
Who were born of God? Yahtzee!

Verse 13 qualifies the ones who received Him. This couldn’t be any clearer if John had tried, but yet many miss it’s clear teaching that those who were born of God were those who received Him.

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Comparing spiritual things with spiritual in the its context:
To be born of God = to become the sons of God

by what? As per scripture in the passage is to received him i.e. to believe in Christ. "But" introduces us that 'except that" one believes" he will never become God's children.

Romans 9:16 must be treated also in its context to get fuller meaning.

 

[posthuman]

if God's omniscience doesn't render Him incapable of having His own free will i don't see why people think that His sovereign purpose of foreordination makes it impossible for my will to exist.

He's pretty good at creating & giving life.

 

[UnitedWithChrist]

Here is a video by James White concerning the topic of election.

He touches upon the claim of corporate election a bit.

I suspect the ad hominem attacks by the free-willers will start to flow....they really don't like James White.

I would demand that detractors give specific examples where they feel that he is wrong if they begin their attacks on his credibility. Compared to free-willer "scholars", he is much more credible to me.

By the way, the origin of the corporate election view was Karl Barth, and it is well-acknowledged that he had a romantic relationship with his female aide. In fact, she lived with him and his wife for years, and romantic letters to her by Barth prove there was an intimate relationship. Barth also claimed that Scripture has contradictions and errors, so I am not a fan of his.

 

[notuptome]

Here is a video by James White concerning the topic of election.

He touches upon the claim of corporate election a bit.

I suspect the ad hominem attacks by the free-willers will start to flow....they really don't like James White.

I would demand that detractors give specific examples where they feel that he is wrong if they begin their attacks on his credibility. Compared to free-willer "scholars", he is much more credible to me.

By the way, the origin of the corporate election view was Karl Barth, and it is well-acknowledged that he had a romantic relationship with his female aide. In fact, she lived with him and his wife for years, and romantic letters to her by Barth prove there was an intimate relationship. Barth also claimed that Scripture has contradictions and errors, so I am not a fan of his.

Strawman arguments. Placing your incorrect assumption into the thoughts and intents of your opponents just so you can control the argument is not ever going to accomplish anything of merit.

Election does not cause salvation. Election is the result of salvation. God made man with a will that is able to choose to believe or disbelieve. Man is not able to save himself but he is able to ask God for mercy. Adam chose to sin. Eve was beguiled but Adam chose to sin. God provided Cain with an acceptable sin offering but Cain refused it. Cain chose to disobey God.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

Strawman arguments. Placing your incorrect assumption into the thoughts and intents of your opponents just so you can control the argument is not ever going to accomplish anything of merit.

Election does not cause salvation. Election is the result of salvation. God made man with a will that is able to choose to believe or disbelieve. Man is not able to save himself but he is able to ask God for mercy. Adam chose to sin. Eve was beguiled but Adam chose to sin. God provided Cain with an acceptable sin offering but Cain refused it. Cain chose to disobey God.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

You can’t compare Adam and Eve pre-fall with us. They were created sinless and then fell, plunging us all into sin and death. We are born with a fallen nature and a will bound in sin to that fallen nature.

And election does cause salvation because it was God who did the electing.

 

[notuptome]

You can’t compare Adam and Eve pre-fall with us. They were created sinless and then fell, plunging us all into sin and death. We are born with a fallen nature and a will bound in sin to that fallen nature.

And election does cause salvation because it was God who did the electing.

Two wrongs do not make a right. We like Adam and Eve were and are created in the image and likeness of God. We have a will and now as a consequence of the fall we have a responsibility to choose to remain in sin of confess ourselves sinners and ask God for mercy. You cannot make an argument from scripture that God forces men to be saved. Pharaoh had ten calls to recognize God and refused everyone.

How many times did you say no to God?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

Two wrongs do not make a right. We like Adam and Eve were and are created in the image and likeness of God. We have a will and now as a consequence of the fall we have a responsibility to choose to remain in sin of confess ourselves sinners and ask God for mercy. You cannot make an argument from scripture that God forces men to be saved. Pharaoh had ten calls to recognize God and refused everyone.

How many times did you say no to God?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

And that image is marred by sin. And our will is bound by our nature. A fallen nature has a fallen will. Why can’t you grasp that? The fall of Adam caused us to be born dead in transgressions and sins, with a corrupted nature and a will enslaved to sin. Unless the Christ first frees the will, it’s not free, but bound in sin. The Christ said such in John 8:31ff, Paul also said such in Romans 6.

As for Pharoah, God never told Moses to tell Pharoah to worship Him, but to let His ppl go that they may worship Him. God never sought to save Pharoah but to blot him out.

I rejected God for years. I’ve never said differently. Ppl freely choose to reject the gospel. Yes, God does not force salvation on anyone my friend. I don’t know why you keep interjecting that into your posts. No Calvinist believes God forces salvation on anyone. However, He does give them life and they react accordingly.

 

[PennEd]

I came to know Christ because there were a good number of born again Christians praying to God that I would become saved. Many a tear was shed for me to be saved.

Calvinism is an easy way to explain why God does what He does. It fails miserably to comprehend Gods love for even a single soul that is lost.

The why is not Gods will. The why is Gods love. If it were Gods will all would be saved. All are loved by God and God takes no pleasure in their destruction.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Still not an answer Roger.

You heard/read the Word and you believed.

I'm just going to answer for you since you refuse to do so.
YOU believe because God gifted you the FAITH to believe. That's the ONLY reason. You are not smarter than others who hear the Word and reject it.

If you were not gifted the saving Faith, FROM GOD, to believe, you WOULDN'T believe. It's as simple as that. This is done SPECIFICALLY so you CAN'T boast.

That's an uncomfortable fact for many people. They don't like the idea of a Sovereign God.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

Still not an answer Roger.

You heard/read the Word and you believed.

I'm just going to answer for you since you refuse to do so.
YOU believe because God gifted you the FAITH to believe. That's the ONLY reason. You are not smarter than others who hear the Word and reject it.

If you were not gifted the saving Faith, FROM GOD, to believe, you WOULDN'T believe. It's as simple as that. This is done SPECIFICALLY so you CAN'T boast.

That's an uncomfortable fact for many people. They don't like the idea of a Sovereign God.

So my friend, not to hijack the thread, where do you struggle that causes you to keep from fully becoming a Calvinist? Your posts approach it in many places, it seems your so close to becoming one. If you wish, you can PM me and we can discuss where you believe Calvinism drops the ball. I promise I won’t bite...hard.

ETA: I can’t PM anyone.

 

[John146]

Still not an answer Roger.

You heard/read the Word and you believed.

I'm just going to answer for you since you refuse to do so.
YOU believe because God gifted you the FAITH to believe. That's the ONLY reason. You are not smarter than others who hear the Word and reject it.

If you were not gifted the saving Faith, FROM GOD, to believe, you WOULDN'T believe. It's as simple as that. This is done SPECIFICALLY so you CAN'T boast.

That's an uncomfortable fact for many people. They don't like the idea of a Sovereign God.

Define sovereign since it’s not found in God’s word? God rules over His creation? Does God have other attributes other than “sovereignty?”

 

[PennEd]

So my friend, not to hijack the thread, where do you struggle that causes you to keep from fully becoming a Calvinist? Your posts approach it in many places, it seems your so close to becoming one. If you wish, you can PM me and we can discuss where you believe Calvinism drops the ball. I promise I won’t bite...hard.

ETA: I can’t PM anyone.

No. I'm good answering anything here. I don't like labels. I'm a Christian. I'm good with that label!

I also do not believe in limited atonement. Or at least it isn't Biblical. You have to stretch a couple of passages to get there, and you also have to reject some pretty clear passages against limited atonement.

I also consider myself a premillennial dispensationlist that believes all the OT promises to Israel will come to fruition.

Plus, I believe Calvin, maybe not as bad as Luther, was a rabid anti semite.

Having said all that, I am in general agreement with the other tulip letters.

 

[Sackcloth-N-Ashes]

Define sovereign since it’s not found in God’s word? God rules over His creation? Does God have other attributes other than “sovereignty?”

Daniel 4:34ff sums it up rather nicely. So does Romans 9:21ff.