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.
Noah was a preacher of righteousness, yes....but does that mean he traveled around and evangelized? I doubt it. His main preaching was probably that he built the Ark in the first place. I think he probably warned them that disaster was coming, though.
I believe there is a general call and an effective call. God does witness to all of mankind, and they reject it. This is the general call. However, for the elect, who are chosen before the foundation of the world, they receive a calling which is effectual. It does produce results, because those are the ones God has chosen to redeem from all the earth. They would not, of their own resources, come to God because all fallen men desire to live a life of sin, but due to God giving them a heart of flesh (regeneration), they respond in faith and repentance. The rest do not, because they don't want to, and they don't have the spiritual equipment. They have hearts of stone.
By the way, fallen man does reject God willingly. They reject him willingly because they have a heart of stone. God gives the elect a heart of flesh, and they respond willingly due to the heart of flesh. They have a new nature that wants to please and obey God. This is also called being "born again".
The fundamental difference between Reformed theology and free-willer theology is that the Reformed person acknowledges that God is the cause of salvation. He changes the nature so that the person responds in faith and repentance. Free-willers claim that fallen man must respond in faith and repentance in order to receive a new nature. This is the fundamental issue between the two groups. One gives glory to their decision, while the other gives glory to God, who changes their nature so they can respond in faith and repentance. Free-willers claim that the fallen man already has the spiritual equipment to respond to God in faith and repentance, and Reformed theology teaches that he doesn't have the spiritual equipment to respond to God in faith and repentance.
So, what was the difference between Noah and the rest? Noah had been given grace by God, because he was one of God's elect.
Additionally, I would point out that eight is the number of new beginnings in Scripture..for example, an Israelite newborn was circumcised on the eighth day, and added to the covenant people as a "new creation". He was no longer "in Adam" but was part of the covenant people. And, eight people, in essence, became a "new creation" after sinful mankind was wiped out. The number could not have been different, and was typological of a new creation. Therefore, it did not catch God by surprise that only eight people were saved in the Flood.
How is that relevant? God predestined that only eight would be saved, because Noah was, in essence, a "new Adam" that was told to go forth and multiply and fill the earth like the original Adam. And, we know that the Ark could only hold so many animals and so many humans, because of limited space. We know no provision was made to save a large number of humans, as well. So, while Noah witnessed to them, the intention was not specifically salvific. God saves who he plans to saves, and not one more person.
I believe there is a general call and an effective call. God does witness to all of mankind, and they reject it. This is the general call. However, for the elect, who are chosen before the foundation of the world, they receive a calling which is effectual. It does produce results, because those are the ones God has chosen to redeem from all the earth. They would not, of their own resources, come to God because all fallen men desire to live a life of sin, but due to God giving them a heart of flesh (regeneration), they respond in faith and repentance. The rest do not, because they don't want to, and they don't have the spiritual equipment. They have hearts of stone.
By the way, fallen man does reject God willingly. They reject him willingly because they have a heart of stone. God gives the elect a heart of flesh, and they respond willingly due to the heart of flesh. They have a new nature that wants to please and obey God. This is also called being "born again".
The fundamental difference between Reformed theology and free-willer theology is that the Reformed person acknowledges that God is the cause of salvation. He changes the nature so that the person responds in faith and repentance. Free-willers claim that fallen man must respond in faith and repentance in order to receive a new nature. This is the fundamental issue between the two groups. One gives glory to their decision, while the other gives glory to God, who changes their nature so they can respond in faith and repentance. Free-willers claim that the fallen man already has the spiritual equipment to respond to God in faith and repentance, and Reformed theology teaches that he doesn't have the spiritual equipment to respond to God in faith and repentance.
So, what was the difference between Noah and the rest? Noah had been given grace by God, because he was one of God's elect.
Additionally, I would point out that eight is the number of new beginnings in Scripture..for example, an Israelite newborn was circumcised on the eighth day, and added to the covenant people as a "new creation". He was no longer "in Adam" but was part of the covenant people. And, eight people, in essence, became a "new creation" after sinful mankind was wiped out. The number could not have been different, and was typological of a new creation. Therefore, it did not catch God by surprise that only eight people were saved in the Flood.
How is that relevant? God predestined that only eight would be saved, because Noah was, in essence, a "new Adam" that was told to go forth and multiply and fill the earth like the original Adam. And, we know that the Ark could only hold so many animals and so many humans, because of limited space. We know no provision was made to save a large number of humans, as well. So, while Noah witnessed to them, the intention was not specifically salvific. God saves who he plans to saves, and not one more person.
-
1
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Attached is a good article on misrepresentations of Reformed (Calvinist) theology that are commonly employed by free-willers.
It seems like Christians would be more conscientious about representing others' beliefs even if they disagree with them. But, unfortunately, I've found that some Christians are not conscientious in this regard and deliberately misrepresent the theology of their opponents in some cases. In other cases, it's a matter of ignorance and repeating the claims of other ignorant men. Dave Hunt would be an example of one such individual.
It seems like Christians would be more conscientious about representing others' beliefs even if they disagree with them. But, unfortunately, I've found that some Christians are not conscientious in this regard and deliberately misrepresent the theology of their opponents in some cases. In other cases, it's a matter of ignorance and repeating the claims of other ignorant men. Dave Hunt would be an example of one such individual.
