Doctrine of Unconditional Election

[Everlasting-Grace]

And...Judas Iscariot was also chosen/elected. John 6:70,71. And he was never saved.

Judas was not chosen to be conformed to the image of God

So your wrong

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

And I responded with this:
"Didn't you read any of the many verses I have already shared that very plainly SHOW that election is to service?"

Just because you post verses does not mean it proves your point.

remember, He tried the same thing with me. So it happens on both sides..

 

[Live4Him2]

I think it goes something like this. in romans 9, where Paul spoke of two kids who would come from Rebekah and how he loved on and hated another etc etc.

Okay.

I'm quite familiar with the account having personally read Paul's epistle to the Romans 100 times or more.

1 side is saying God chose one to heaven and the other to send to hell before they were born.

Well, that's a load of rubbish.

When is trash day around here?

The other side is saying God chose two nations, and he had a plan for one and not the other. so he loved that nation more.

That portion of scripture is DEFINITELY talking about two nations, and NOT two individuals.

Romans 9:10-13

[10] And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
[11] (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)
[12] It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
[13] As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

For starters, the original context of this "quote" was in relation to "two nations":

Genesis chapter 25

[20] And Isaac was forty years old when he took Rebekah to wife, the daughter of Bethuel the Syrian of Padan-aram, the sister to Laban the Syrian.
[21] And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.
[22] And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to inquire of the LORD.
[23] And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.
[24] And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb.
[25] And the first came out red, all over like an hairy garment; and they called his name Esau.
[26] And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau's heel; and his name was called Jacob: and Isaac was threescore years old when she bare them.

"The elder" NATION, in context, was Edom which came from Esau who came out first, and "the younger" NATION, in context, was Israel which came from Jacob who came out after Esau did.

Additionally, whereas THE NATION of Edom regularly served THE NATION of Israel, THE PERSON, Esau, never served THE PERSON, Jacob.

In fact, when it comes to the TWO PERSONS, it was the other way around:

Genesis chapter 32

[3] And Jacob sent messengers before him to Esau his brother unto the land of Seir, the country of Edom.
[4] And he commanded them, saying, Thus shall ye speak unto MY LORD ESAU; THY SERVANT JACOB saith thus, I have sojourned with Laban, and stayed there until now:
[5] And I have oxen, and asses, flocks, and menservants, and womenservants: and I have sent to tell MY LORD, that I may find grace in thy sight.

[17] And he commanded the foremost, saying, When Esau my brother meeteth thee, and asketh thee, saying, Whose art thou? and whither goest thou? and whose are these before thee?
[18] Then thou shalt say, They be THY SERVANT JACOB'S; it is a present sent unto MY LORD ESAU: and, behold, also he is behind us.
[19] And so commanded he the second, and the third, and all that followed the droves, saying, On this manner shall ye speak unto Esau, when ye find him.
[20] And say ye moreover, Behold, THY SERVANT JACOB is behind us. For he said, I will appease him with the present that goeth before me, and afterward I will see his face; peradventure he will accept of me.

Genesis chapter 33

[4] And Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him: and they wept.
[5] And he lifted up his eyes, and saw the women and the children; and said, Who are those with thee? And he said, The children which God hath graciously given THY SERVANT.
[6] Then the handmaidens came near, they and their children, and they bowed themselves.
[7] And Leah also with her children came near, and bowed themselves: and after came Joseph near and Rachel, and they bowed themselves.
[8] And he said, What meanest thou by all this drove which I met? And he said, These are to find grace in the sight of MY LORD.
[9] And Esau said, I have enough, my brother; keep that thou hast unto thyself.
[10] And Jacob said, Nay, I pray thee, if now I have found grace in thy sight, then receive my present at my hand: for therefore I have seen thy face, as though I had seen the face of God, and thou wast pleased with me.
[11] Take, I pray thee, my blessing that is brought to thee; because God hath dealt graciously with me, and because I have enough. And he urged him, and he took it.
[12] And he said, Let us take our journey, and let us go, and I will go before thee.
[13] And he said unto him, MY LORD knoweth that the children are tender, and the flocks and herds with young are with me: and if men should overdrive them one day, all the flock will die.
[14] Let MY LORD, I pray thee, pass over before HIS SERVANT: and I will lead on softly, according as the cattle that goeth before me and the children be able to endure, until I come unto MY LORD unto Seir.
[15] And Esau said, Let me now leave with thee some of the folk that are with me. And he said, What needeth it? let me find grace in the sight of MY LORD.

1. Side says God choses people to save, and given them an advantage by making them born again where they prety much will recieve christ no matter what. While the rest of the people. he refuses to give them a chance.

More rubbish.

Several years ago, a "man" (more like a monster) in Cleveland, OH abducted three women, raped them, and held them captive for close to a decade:

https://www.cnn.com/2013/07/26/us/cleveland-kidnappings-fast-facts/index.html

This "man" (again, more like a monster) perfectly represents Calvin's "god" (who was Satan).

Yes, Calvin's "god" ABDUCTS PEOPLE AGAINST THEIR WILL (they have no choice in the matter), RAPES THEM (he places his "seed" in them without their consent), AND THEN HOLDS THEM CAPTIVE (they can never walk away from God of their free will choice).

Calvin's "god" will burn for eternity in the lake of fire...and I suspect that Calvin will burn right alongside him in that he was an arch-heretic whose teachings have long been a plague to true Biblical Christianity.

while the other says God so loved all the world.He gave his son, That he will not force anyone to recieve his gift. He wants us to take it willingly.. And will only save those who in faith say yes..

THIS is the one true God, and the one who I willfully serve.

 

[rogerg]

It can be eternal, because that is what the promise/covenant says. But you want to deny that and skip ahead, fine.

I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: 3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”[a]? 4 And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.”[b] 5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6 And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.


Did God reject who?! His people. Which people? "I am an Israelite myself" not the church !! There is a remnant.

7 What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened, 8 as it is written:

“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that could not see
and ears that could not hear,
to this very day.”[c]

Hardened for a time. Jews have been blinded, for a time.

11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!

Have they fallen beyond recovery? Not at all!!


17 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18 do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20 Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

By faith, not by physical linage otherwise all Jews HAVE TO BE saved, past present and future. if your theory is correct that the promise was to the physical linage of Abraham, then it must pertain to all Jews, not just to some of them - you can't have it both ways: it has to be consistent throughout - what is true for one must then be true for all. If it is not true for all, then it can't be by physical linage and must be by something else that makes it consistent. That something else is that some Jews, some gentiles are saved by their election to it: those whom God had chosen through election by Christ to salvation

[Rom 11:5-7, 14, 23 KJV]
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded ...
14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation [them which are] my flesh, and might save some of them. ...
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

Jesus Christ came as confirmation of the promise God had made to Abraham. He was not given to Israel because of their physical linage. The circumcision spoken of is circumcision of the heart, not of the flesh. Israel rejected the gospel of Christ. The true Jews are they wo are the true believers in Christ.

[Rom 2:27-29 KJV]
27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.

[Rom 15:8-9 KJV]
8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises [made] unto the fathers: 9 And that the Gentiles might glorify God for [his] mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name.

[Act 13:45-46 KJV]
45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.
46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

 

[Live4Him2]

Thanks, again, to those of you who answered my first question here.

I have a second question:

In my brief skimming of this thread, there seems to be another issue concerning "unconditional election" surrounding the nation of Israel.

Would someone please be kind enough to briefly let me know what the opposing points of view are in relation to that?

Thank you.

 

[rogerg]

Would someone please be kind enough to briefly let me know what the opposing points of view are in relation to that?

I can't speak to any other points of view except my own. It is that Christ being the Saviour, must do the saving, in every
regards, not just in some. I don't believe there can be such a thing as God's mercy and grace unto salvation without election.
Otherwise, a recipient of salvation must do something of themselves for it, no matter how slight and insignificant it may appear to obtain it. And if even that slight thing is required of them, then everything is required of them: it is all or nothing. To
believe otherwise is to negate Christ's offering.

 

[awelight]

All of this is true but does not even address the purpose of God's election in v.4, which is TO BE holy and blameless.


Correct. But you are reading all of Eph 1 through faulty lens by thinking that God chose people to BE IN HIM but the verse does NOT say or mean that.


Without question! However, you have already indicated a faulty view of God's sovereignty. Sovereignty does NOT mean that God is the determinate factor in all things. God permits evil to exist, but He NEVER causes sin.

Your views have God the direct cause of sin. I reject that with all my strength.


Nonsense. God, IN His total sovereignty, permits both angel and man to make their own choices. If you disagree, then you have to believe that God is the direct cause of sin.


No it wouldn't, but Calvinists cannot grasp the reality and truth about God and His sovereignty. So there's no use in even trying to explain it to you.

With your view, you HAVE TO believe that God is the direct cause of sin. Totally blasphemous.


Let's make this easy. If election IS unto salvation, then why aren't there ANY verses that simply make that point?

I've looked up EVERY use of "elect", "chosen", etc and have at least MOST of the verses that specifically address purpose in election.

And in EVERY case, the purpose is stated in terms of service. And NONE of them are stated in terms of salvation.


This is just so far off the rails. You don't really understand God's sovereignty. It is just sad that you have to believe that His sovereignty means that He makes all decisions among angels and humans. That's just puppetry or robotics.

That doesn't give God ANY glory at all. He is REDUCED to just "pulling the strings".

Here's more clarity on election to service:

1 Cor 1-
27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.
28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are,

Color coded for extreme clarity:

The red words are who God chooses.
The blue words are the purpose for which God chooses. Which is service. Certainly not salvation.

Well, that's a good start. Many Calvinists think the verse means that God chose who would believe, which it doesn't. It very clearly says that God chose us (believers)...to be holy and blameless (lifestyle of service to Him).


Quite true.


Quite untrue. Just because God is fully sovereign, doesn't mean He is the sole determinate factor in all things. That would mean that sin is caused by God. If you believe that horrible heresy and blasphemy, we're done here. I have nothing more to say.

There is NO contradiction with sovereignty allowing or permitting free choice among subjects.


You may thing Paul didn't have a choice, but he did.

Continued...

I will deal with this first:

Your problem seems to be that you are wrestling with the age old question - where does God's will end and man's will begin? Or put another way, how much of what takes place is God's will and how much is man's will? A truly difficult problem.

When you talked about God's Sovereignty, in your reply, you show how confused you are. You made this statement on two separate occasions:

1) "Without question! However, you have already indicated a faulty view of God's sovereignty. Sovereignty does NOT mean that God is the determinate factor in all things. God permits evil to exist, but He NEVER causes sin."

2) "Nonsense. God, IN His total sovereignty, permits both angel and man to make their own choices. If you disagree, then you have to believe that God is the direct cause of sin."

The Permissive will of God, is just another way, in which God determines in His Sovereignty. God either acts directly upon the subject (His active will), or He permits something to take place. In either case, He does this at His good pleasure. Why? Because He is God and man is a mere creation. God's Plan will stand firm, not man's.

As far as SIN is concerned: Sin would have never, ever entered Creation if God did not ALLOW it. Therefore, God's Permissive will determined it. He knew sin would enter into Creation and He allowed it. Keep in mind, God's Active will, upheld two-thirds of the Angels that did not fall. His Permissive will, allowed a third to fall.

Is God the determinate factor in anyone's sin? This must be clarified. 1) Did God cause anyone to sin? Absolutely not! 2) Did God allow an Angel or person to sin? Yes. Therefore, God is the determinate factor in sin because He could have stopped an Angel or person from sinning but chose not too. God did put a stop to Abram's sin in Gen. 12:17-19, when Abram did not trust God and lied to Pharaoh about his wife.

So by your own omission (In the quotes above), you agree that God is Totally Sovereign. For something to take place, God must "permit" it. This should remind you of a very important verse upon the subject of Salvation:

John_6:65 And he said, For this cause have I said unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it be given unto him of the Father.

Now as to the second part:

Eph. 1:4, declares that all believers were chosen IN Christ before the foundation of the world. The Greek is: "εν αυτω" meaning "in Him". The Greek word "EN" means "in", by understanding, it means "to place or come into something or someone", or "to be in the sphere of someone." In either case, it means to be placed into the immediate presence of someone or influence of someone. A good parallel passage for this verse would be: Rev_13:8 And all that dwell on the earth shall worship him, every one whose name hath not been written in the book of life of the Lamb that hath been slain from the foundation of the world.

This passage confirms, that everyone who has been elected or chosen was written in the Lamb's Book of Life. Refusal to see this simple truth is ludicrous. Additionally, this teaching harmonizes with these passages:

John_10:29 My Father, which hath given them unto me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
John_17:4 I glorified thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which thou hast given me to do.
John_17:11 And I am no more in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are.

Verses 29 and 11, prove that the Father gave those elected to Christ and that Christ, verse 4, did all that the Father had purposed for Him to do. So if Jesus Christ, could only do what God purposed Him to do, how is it you would have man doing so much more than His beloved Son.

Additionally, I give these views on Eph. 1:4 -

John Gill:
"...nor is this choice of persons to an office, for all that are here intended were not apostles, or pastors, or deacons: nor can it design the effectual calling, or the call of persons in time by efficacious grace; because this was before the foundation of the world, as follows: but it intends an eternal election of particular persons to everlasting life and salvation; and which is the first blessing of grace, and the foundation one, upon which all the rest proceed..."

Albert Barnes:
"In him - In Christ. The choice was not without reference to any means of saving them; it was not a mere purpose to bring a certain number to heaven; it was with reference to the mediation of the Redeemer, and his work. It was a purpose that they should be saved “by” him, and share the benefits of the atonement. The whole choice and purpose of salvation had reference to him, and “out” of him no one was chosen to life, and no one out of him will be saved."

 

[rogerg]

It is interesting how calvinists howl when someone challenges their doctrines, but they STILL can't defend their doctrines from Scripture.

I rarely howl.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

Thanks, again, to those of you who answered my first question here.

I have a second question:

In my brief skimming of this thread, there seems to be another issue concerning "unconditional election" surrounding the nation of Israel.

Would someone please be kind enough to briefly let me know what the opposing points of view are in relation to that?

Thank you.

Good day,

The conversation came up in discussing romans 9 - 11.

The discussion is this.

In Gen 12, God promised he would make abraham a great nation,
In gen 15, He promised them a plot of land
In Gen 17 He promised this gift/covenant would be forever.

In Lev 26, through the law God told Israel what would happen if they disobey. and what would happen if they repent

1 group says this is literal and still valid

others say this is spiritual, and the church is fulfilling it, or that it is the jew jerusalem. Not the one here on earth. others yet say it has ended and is no longer valid.

 

[awelight]

election is required?

I am not understanding.

God chose (elected) to save those who would be saved based on his will. It is not something that was required was it? It was just an event..

Yes - Election was required. As I pointed out in my post, no Election to Grace, no Salvation of humanity.

Humanity, after the fall of Adam was thrown into sin and unrighteousness. Scripture says: We are all "dead" in trespasses and sin. When God warned Adam, not to eat the fruit from the center of the Garden, He proclaimed "death" would be the penalty. Adam's sin brought "death" upon all humanity but not right there and then. What it did do is cause our spiritual death. In other words, man's spirit could no longer commune with God. God fixed this, in Adam and Eve, by giving them a temporary form of righteousness. (see Gen. 3:21)

Being that humanity was now "dead", there was no hope for it. For how can one who is dead accomplish anything? Your dead. One who is dead cannot move towards Christ, indeed, they cannot move at all. If humanity is in the "pit of sin", how can a dead person climb out? Besides the Ref. in Romans 3:9-19, which describes our state apart from God, there is this in 1 Corinthians:

1Co 2:12 But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God; that we might know the things that were freely given to us of God.
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual words.
1Co 2:14 Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.

Therefore, Election was necessary, so that God could place some into the Eternal Covenant, (Heb.13:20), and have His Son redeem them. Each one of the Elect, at the proper time, will be born of the Spirit. By being born again, this person who was "dead" is made alive to God. This persons spirit is able to discern spiritual things and the things discerned, compels him to move toward Jesus Christ.

 

[awelight]

If God does not keep a promise to a nation he created by his own power, and loved inspite of her sins against him.

He has no obligation to keep his promise to us.

We would then have no hope. Lets go eat drink and be merry, because it is all we can control..

I think one should mention or at least note, that how you see this subject is based largely upon your Eschatological views.

1) The Amillennial view spiritualizes the OT promises to the point of obliteration.
2) The Premillennial view takes the OT promises literally and seriously.
3) The Postmillennial view also takes these promises seriously.

 

[Live4Him2]

I can't speak to any other points of view except my own. It is that Christ being the Saviour, must do the saving, in every
regards, not just in some. I don't believe there can be such a thing as God's mercy and grace unto salvation without election.
Otherwise, a recipient of salvation must do something of themselves for it, no matter how slight and insignificant it may appear to obtain it. And if even that slight thing is required of them, then everything is required of them: it is all or nothing. To
believe otherwise is to negate Christ's offering.

It seems like your comment here is more in relation to my original question than my second question, but that's fine.

I mentioned in a previous response how Calvin's "god" (definitely not the God of the Bible) basically ABDUCTS HIS BRIDE (she has no say in the matter), RAPES HIS BRIDE (by placing his "seed" inside her without her consent), AND IMPRISONS HIS BRIDE (she can never leave of her own free will choice). Like it or not, this is Calvin's "god", and Calvin's "god" was Satan.

In stark contrast to this, the God of the Bible consistently likens his covenants with his people to true marriage covenants in which there is basically given a proposal of marriage which can either be willfully accepted or willfully rejected by the parties to whom he is proposing.

An example of this would be the following:

Matthew chapter 22

[1] And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,
[2] The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
[3] And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
[4] Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.
[5] But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
[6] And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.
[7] But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
[8] Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
[9] Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
[10] So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
[11] And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
[12] And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
[13] Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
[14] For many are called, but few are chosen.

Here, we clearly see "a certain king" (vs. 2), or God the Father, "making a marriage for his son" (vs. 2), or for Jesus Christ.

God clearly "calls" (vs. 3) or "bids" (vs. 3) people "to the wedding" (vs. 3), and many of them "would not come" (vs. 3). In other words, those whom God "calls" and "bids" have the option of refusing his invitation to marry his son, Jesus Christ, or to enter into a covenant with him.

Again, "God sent forth other servants" (vs. 4), his prophets, in context, to "tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage" (Vs. 4). Once more, God is clearly "bidding" people to "come unto the marriage" of his son, Jesus Christ.

Their response?

"But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise" (vs. 5).

Again, like the previous group of individuals who "would not come" (vs. 3), this group of individuals refuses God's invitation as well.

God gets angry at these unbelieving Jews, in context, and he "burns up their city" (vs. 7), even as he did to Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

God then sends "his servants" (vs. 8) "into the highways" (vs. 9), and tells them "as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage" (vs. 9).

In other words, more "bidding", or inviting, or proposing, and NO ABDUCTION AGAINST ANYONE'S FREE WILL.

Jesus then concludes by saying "many are called, but few are chosen" (vs. 14).

Again, many are "called" or "bidden" by God, but it is only those who WILLFULLY ACCEPT his invitation who are ultimately "chosen".

Surely, you can see this, can't you?

For crying out loud, this is the very basis for weddings in our own society.

Are you a father?

I am.

I have two daughters and one son (although I'm divorced).

I don't own a shotgun (nor will I ever), but if a guy ABDUCTED either one of my daughters, then FORCIBLY RAPED HER while placing his "seed" in her, and then HELD HER CAPTIVE...well, I'd be tempted to blow his friggin' head off...and this "guy" perfectly represents Calvin's "god".

Unlike Satan whom Calvin served, the God of the Bible "bids" and "calls" people to "the marriage of his son".

Some will refuse such a gracious invitation of their own free will choice, and others will accept such a gracious invitation of their own free will choice.

Those who willfully refuse God's invitation will be lost, even though they were initially "bidden" or "called".

Those who willfully accept God's invitation will be "chosen" because they responded positively to God's "bidding" or "calling".

It's that simple.

Calvin was an arch-heretic, and his "god" is NOT the God of the Bible.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

Yes - Election was required. As I pointed out in my post, no Election to Grace, no Salvation of humanity.

Humanity, after the fall of Adam was thrown into sin and unrighteousness. Scripture says: We are all "dead" in trespasses and sin. When God warned Adam, not to eat the fruit from the center of the Garden, He proclaimed "death" would be the penalty. Adam's sin brought "death" upon all humanity but not right there and then. What it did do is cause our spiritual death. In other words, man's spirit could no longer commune with God. God fixed this, in Adam and Eve, by giving them a temporary form of righteousness. (see Gen. 3:21)

Being that humanity was now "dead", there was no hope for it. For how can one who is dead accomplish anything? Your dead. One who is dead cannot move towards Christ, indeed, they cannot move at all. If humanity is in the "pit of sin", how can a dead person climb out? Besides the Ref. in Romans 3:9-19, which describes our state apart from God, there is this in 1 Corinthians:

1Co 2:12 But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God; that we might know the things that were freely given to us of God.
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual words.
1Co 2:14 Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.

Therefore, Election was necessary, so that God could place some into the Eternal Covenant, (Heb.13:20), and have His Son redeem them. Each one of the Elect, at the proper time, will be born of the Spirit. By being born again, this person who was "dead" is made alive to God. This persons spirit is able to discern spiritual things and the things discerned, compels him to move toward Jesus Christ.

I disagree.

Grace is required.

We could not respond to God if he did not come and die for us. He offers us his gift freely. But he will not force it on us

Election is not required. Election is the result

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

I think one should mention or at least note, that how you see this subject is based largely upon your Eschatological views.

1) The Amillennial view spiritualizes the OT promises to the point of obliteration.
2) The Premillennial view takes the OT promises literally and seriously.
3) The Postmillennial view also takes these promises seriously.

while true

It is based on Gods promises which is based on Gen 12, 15 and 17.

It does not matter what view you hold. what God promised to abraham is in fact a literal promise..

 

[Live4Him2]

@rogerg.

You "disagree" with the very words of Jesus Christ?

Doesn't that concern you?

It should.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
And...Judas Iscariot was also chosen/elected. John 6:70,71. And he was never saved.

Judas was not chosen to be conformed to the image of God

never said he was. Where do you get your wrong conclusions from?

So your wrong

Why didn't you bother to at least read John 6:70,71. That's the problem with calvinists. You give them a clear verse that shows election to service, and they don't read it.

70 Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!”
71 (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
And I responded with this:
"Didn't you read any of the many verses I have already shared that very plainly SHOW that election is to service?"

Just because you post verses does not mean it proves your point.

Well, this does prove that you don't bother reading any of the verses I share.

I do agree that merely posting verses doesn't prove anyone's point.

It's the ACTUAL VERSES that prove points. But since you don't read the verses that I provide, shows that you are not objective.

remember, He tried the same thing with me. So it happens on both sides..

You capitalized "He". Are you referring to God or Jesus?? I don't know who you are referring to.

What you still haven't done yet is provide a verse that clearly shows election to salvation.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I will deal with this first:

Your problem seems to be that you are wrestling with the age old question - where does God's will end and man's will begin?

Wrong. I've never "wrestled" with the question. Because it is a bogus question and I ignore bogus questions.

God in His total sovereignty PERMITS sin. It's that simple. God created mankind with freedom to choose, just as we see in the garden. Adan and Eve could eat from any tree except one. But they were free to do so. That is free will.

Or put another way, how much of what takes place is God's will and how much is man's will? A truly difficult problem.

No it's not. It's a worthless question. Just accept the reality of what free will is; freedom to choose. There is no power in freedom to choose.

When you talked about God's Sovereignty, in your reply, you show how confused you are. You made this statement on two separate occasions:

1) "Without question! However, you have already indicated a faulty view of God's sovereignty. Sovereignty does NOT mean that God is the determinate factor in all things. God permits evil to exist, but He NEVER causes sin."

2) "Nonsense. God, IN His total sovereignty, permits both angel and man to make their own choices. If you disagree, then you have to believe that God is the direct cause of sin."

The Permissive will of God, is just another way, in which God determines in His Sovereignty.

Do you even understand what you are saying??

Now, please explain how these 2 statements show my "confusion".

God either acts directly upon the subject (His active will), or He permits something to take place. In either case, He does this at His good pleasure. Why? Because He is God and man is a mere creation. God's Plan will stand firm, not man's.

Sure sounds like free will to me. So what's your beef?

As far as SIN is concerned: Sin would have never, ever entered Creation if God did not ALLOW it.

Of course not. And that is my point. Man is free to choose his actions.

Therefore, God's Permissive will determined it.

Wow. Really messed up here. I know what calvinists think of "determine" something. To them, it means God "caused" it.

I guess you really don't give a hoot about the meaning of words. The word "permissive will" means God allows man to make his own choices.

He knew sin would enter into Creation and He allowed it. Keep in mind, God's Active will, upheld two-thirds of the Angels that did not fall.

What do you mean "upheld"? Are you saying God caused 2/3's of the angels to NOT rebel?

His Permissive will, allowed a third to fall.

EVERY angel had the choice. Quit kidding yourself. And you can't prove your theory about God upholding 2/3's of the angels.

Is God the determinate factor in anyone's sin? This must be clarified.

No, there is NOTHING to clarify. The answer is NO.

1) Did God cause anyone to sin? Absolutely not! 2) Did God allow an Angel or person to sin? Yes. Therefore, God is the determinate factor in sin because He could have stopped an Angel or person from sinning but chose not too.

You are twisting words WAY out of their meaning. When God PERMITS/ALLOWS an angel or human to do something, that angel or human is making their own choice. Quit kidding yourself.

God did put a stop to Abram's sin in Gen. 12:17-19, when Abram did not trust God and lied to Pharaoh about his wife.

Nope. Abraham had free will.

So by your own omission (In the quotes above), you agree that God is Totally Sovereign.

First, I didn't "omit" anything. Where are you getting your confusion from???

And I INCLUDED (that is the opposite of 'omission') that God is totally sovereign. You even colored my words RED.

For something to take place, God must "permit" it.

And that is NOT "cause".

This should remind you of a very important verse upon the subject of Salvation:

John_6:65 And he said, For this cause have I said unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it be given unto him of the Father.

Let's back up to John 6:44 and 45. Calvinists love v.44 but totally ignore v.45, which explains who WILL come to Jesus.

44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.
45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.

Red words show that God has taught everyone.
Blue words refer to those who listened and learned from the Father.
Green words is the result of listening and learning from the Father.

Now as to the second part:

Eph. 1:4, declares that all believers were chosen IN Christ before the foundation of the world.

No it doesn't. Read it again and again.

For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.

Red words is what God has done: He chose/elected us. The word "us" is defined in v19 as "us who believe". 'us' = 'believers'
Blue words form a parenthesis which defines the "us", which is believers.
Green words refer to the purpose of God's election of believers; service.

This passage confirms, that everyone who has been elected or chosen was written in the Lamb's Book of Life.

Sure. No problem for omniscient God. He has always known everything.

Additionally, this teaching harmonizes with these passages:

John_10:29 My Father, which hath given them unto me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
John_17:4 I glorified thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which thou hast given me to do.
John_17:11 And I am no more in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are.

Verses 29 and 11, prove that the Father gave those elected to Christ

Since there is NO MENTION of election in either verse, you are just fantasizing.

Additionally, I give these views on Eph. 1:4 -

John Gill:
"...nor is this choice of persons to an office, for all that are here intended were not apostles, or pastors, or deacons: nor can it design the effectual calling, or the call of persons in time by efficacious grace; because this was before the foundation of the world, as follows: but it intends an eternal election of particular persons to everlasting life and salvation; and which is the first blessing of grace, and the foundation one, upon which all the rest proceed..."

Albert Barnes:
"In him - In Christ. The choice was not without reference to any means of saving them; it was not a mere purpose to bring a certain number to heaven; it was with reference to the mediation of the Redeemer, and his work. It was a purpose that they should be saved “by” him, and share the benefits of the atonement. The whole choice and purpose of salvation had reference to him, and “out” of him no one was chosen to life, and no one out of him will be saved."

Sure, quote calvinists. Who don't understand election any more than you do.

Unless you provide a verse that shows election being to salvation, you have no point.

I've shown many many verses that show election is to service, including Eph 1:4.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
It is interesting how calvinists howl when someone challenges their doctrines, but they STILL can't defend their doctrines from Scripture.

I rarely howl.

When a person develops a habit, they are rarely aware of what they are doing. You've been howling.

 

[rogerg]

[

You "disagree" with the very words of Jesus Christ?

Doesn't that concern you?

It should.

If I did, it would. But believing Christ the Saviour is not against the words of Christ but are the words of Christ and of the Bible
You don't believe that He is the Saviour?