Doctrine of Unconditional Election

Thank you for volunteering as an example of my last post.

FreeGrace2 said:
My point is that your theology is conflicted and contradicted, and you just ignore it.

You believe that Christ died ONLY for the elect. Yet, you quote Luke 19:10 which says Christ came for the "lost". Since you believe He died ONLY for the elect, that would mean the "lost" are ONLY the elect.

Therefore, the "non-elect" didn't need Christ to die for them, and they weren't lost to begin with.

How can you not follow and understand the ramifications of your own theology?
I did, and pointed out the verses you provided contradict your own theology. Wait...didn't you read my post?

I know what Rev 20 means; all of it. But since you claim that Christ died ONLY FOR THE ELECT, and LUKE 19:10 says that Christ "came for the "lost", that would mean He died ONLY for the "lost", which you think means "the elect".

Therefore, He didn't need to die for those who are NOT LOST, like "the elect" which are lost.

But it seems you just can't grasp the conclusions of your own theology.

FreeGrace2 said:
Amazing! Since you believe that Jesus will save "only the elect", then it should be obvious to you that NONE of the so-called "non-elect" are lost.

So, if you really believe Lk 19:10, you should believe that everyone will go to heaven, since only "the elect" need to be saved, and that is who Jesus came to save.

iow, the non-elect aren't lost. They don't need saving.
I suppose you have a point here, but what is it?

I have shown very clearly how rogerg's theology is conflicted with Luke 19:10. Do you also not understand how?

Does he EVER have a point? He seems to think he does but can't see that he is just rambling. As I have watched him over the years, he seems to think someone has appointed him professor and judge. He goes around the posts and gives them a grade and puts notes in the margins correcting their thoughts. If you follow him around, you will notice that he never spends long enough, at any one post, to have actually read and considered it. Nor takes the time for any coherent and meaningful reply. Don't fall into his trap and reply with posts that are just as meaningless. There are others watching and may benefit from something you post. If it is well thought out and written with care.

He is just a self appointed teacher, who seems to think he is grading his students homework.

Luke 19:9 And Jesus said unto him, To-day is salvation come to this house, forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham.
Luke 19:10 For the Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost.

If one has the proper understanding of this verse - verse 10 - one knows that the "lost" are people. God lost the Elect in Adam, when he fell before God - the Elect were in him and became fallen creatures, just like the rest of humanity. Verse 10 - Christ now seeks out his lost sheep. In this particular verse, the lost sheep of the house of Israel is herein mentioned because Zacchaeus is of the house of Israel.

Note: In verse 10 - the verb tenses. The Son of man is presently seeking and saving upon the Earth, for that "which was lost". Lost in the past. The emphasis is not on that which is still lost in the present.

Nice and snarky.

Do you have any idea how forums work? It seems that you do not. People discuss and debate verses and doctrines. Most people do understand that.

Quite an imagination. Or just plain lying.

I can't help your obvious lack of comprehension. Maybe you shouldn't be following me around. Or maybe just stalking?

Such a post isn't possible with calvinists. Their doctrines aren't biblical.

Really quite an imagination you have there.

And you've demonstated it to the whole forum. Congrats.

proves
awelight opinion

Since rogerg seems not to understand his contradictions, maybe you could help out here. We'll see.

rogerg claims that Jesus Christ died ONLY for "the elect". With me so far?

Luke 19:10 says that Jesus Christ "came to save that which was LOST". Still with me?

So, if He came to save "that which was LOST" and rogerg claims He died ONLY for the elect, that should mean, in calvinist thinking, that the LOST refers to "the elect". I hope this hasn't gotten too complicated to follow.

So, maybe you could explain, if you are still following all this, how the so-called "non-elect" are NOT lost, since Christ died for the LOST, and rogerg claims He died ONLY for "the elect".

And if the "non-elect" are NOT lost, then they wouldn't need a Savior, would they.

Why did you add to Scripture. v.10 says NOTHING about "His" lost sheep. "that which was lost" isn't defined exclusively as His. But calvinism does have to add to Scripture to make their doctrines work.

Where in the context?

Still adding to Scripture, I see. And yet, you have no basis for your adding.

The verse is quite straightforward. "which was lost" means "the lost". And since rogerg claims Christ died ONLY for the elect, any calvinist should be able to equate "the lost" with "the elect".

All your fiddling with various verses and adding to Scripture hasn't helped you out.

And you do need help.

That's all he has.

Since you've come to support his opinions, it would appear you are a calvinist, like him. He has been unable to provide clearly stated verses that support the subject of this thread, which is "unconditonal election", which refers to the doctrine that God unconditionally elects certain people to salvation.

Do you know of any verse that teaches this in clear and unambiguous words? Thanks.

Just for background, in every verse in the NT where the purpose or goal of election is stated, it is always about service.

Maybe there is one or two that I have missed. It would be helpful if you knew of any verses.

I'm amazed you were unable to figure this out by yourself.

The answer is that the non-elect are lost too(and the flaw of your logic was in assuming otherwise). The explanation is that God does not concern Himself with the salvation of the non-elect. You neglected to include verse 19:9 which explains who the object of verse 10
is.

[Luk 19:9-10 KJV]
9 And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.
10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

[Rom 9:7-8 KJV]
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, [are they] all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

FreeGrace2 said:
So, maybe you could explain, if you are still following all this, how the so-called "non-elect" are NOT lost, since Christ died for the LOST, and rogerg claims He died ONLY for "the elect".
Interesting denial. You're the one with the problem, since YOUR claim that Christ ONLY died for "the elect" seems to equate "the elect" with Luke 19:10 which says Jesus came to save "the lost".

How can they be different in your theological grid? You haven't answered that. In fact, you haven't even addressed it.

More denial, I see. Luke 19:10 DOES NOT SAY that Jesus came to save SOME of the lost. Which is what you seem to be wanting to believe.

The verse says "the lost". Not part or some of "the lost". Amazing how calvinists seem to always misread verses.

Why would He have to??

According to your views, coupled with Luke 19:10, "the lost" and "the elect" are one and the same. Therefore, that would clearly mean that the so-called "non-elect" WEREN'T lost. iow, they didn't need saving.

No problem. v.9 refers to Zacchaeus being a Jew. However, v.10 is a general statement about WHO Jesus came to save. Which is "the lost". And you have repeatedly claimed that Jesus died ONLY for "the elect".

But yet, you still don't see the clear connection between your claim and Luke 19:10??

Your claim equates "the elect" with Luke 19:10's "the lost".

OK, now please provide a clear explanation of how you think these verses gets your theology straightened out.

What you STiLL have is the equating of "the lost" with "the elect". Therefore, the so-called "non-elect" don't need salvation.

And you can't explain that. Because you are in denial.

Look at verse 19:9. Christ applied His comments to " a son of Abraham"; that is, the lost of verse 10 was a son of Abraham. That does not include all of mankind but all of mankind is lost. I included Romans 9:7-8 to show you who, in terms of salvation, the Bible tells us the sons of Abraham are - they are the elect.

And with that.... I'm done

FreeGrace2 said:
More denial, I see. Luke 19:10 DOES NOT SAY that Jesus came to save SOME of the lost. Which is what you seem to be wanting to believe.

The verse says "the lost". Not part or some of "the lost". Amazing how calvinists seem to always misread verses.
I did. And pointed out your reading error.

No, this this just your opinion and presumption. There is NOTHING about "lost house of Abraham" in the context.

This isn't clear. Of course ALL of mankind is lost. And v.10 is OBVIOUSLY about just that. Jesus came to save "the lost", which is ALL of mankind.

In Romans, "sons of Abraham" are believers. Paul began that back in Romans 4.

I shouldn't do this but I'll try. Everyone -- all of mankind -- is born as a part of, and into, the lost - elect and non-elect alike. For the elect sake, however, God has chosen them to salvation, which takes them out of the lost and places them into the found. Those not of the elect, remain lost throughout their entire lifetime.
The verses I included from Romans were to show you that those who Christ seeks to save do not include everyone but symbolically,
are only of the "seed" of Abraham - the elect. This should explain to you Luke 19:9, which should explain to you Luke 19:10

Well, finally, some reason here!

Luke 19:10 clearly states that Jesus came to save "the lost". There was NO further clarification. All of mankind is born lost.

Your calvinist talking points are getting in the way again. Luke 19:10 is plainly clear. Jesus came to save "the lost", and you have acknowledged that ALL of mankind is lost. So there you have it.

Now, you're just trying to twist your way out of your jam.

And yet, Jesus came to save "the lost". ALL of them, not just "the elect lost", as if there were such a thing. But of course, calvinism must create such a category to make their unbiblical doctrine work.

Your twisting of Scripture and mist-mashing of different verses/passages is an obvious plan of desperation.

Any grade school kid can understand what Luke 19:10 says. Whoever the lost is, Jesus came to save. That is everyone.

Beyond the "lost", I have given you a long list of who Christ came to save, and you have never responded to any of it.

Here it is again:

For whom did Jesus come to save? The sick, the lost, the poor, the unrighteous, the ungodly, and sinners.

Matt 9:12 On hearing this, Jesus said, it is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. Are just the elect “sick”?

Luke 19:10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost. Are just the elect “lost”?

Luke 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor. Are just the elect poor?

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ died for sins once FOR ALL, the righteous (Christ) for the unrighteous (humanity, all of them), to bring you to God. Are just the elect unrighteous?

Rom 5:6 You see, just at the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Are just the elect ungodly?

Mark 2:17 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. Are just the elect sinners?

Isa 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

The entire human race is described as sick, lost, poor, unrighteous, ungodly, and sinners. Every single one of us.

If Christ died for just the elect, then reformed theology leads to universalism, because of these verses. That means the non elect are neither sick, lost, poor, unrighteous, ungodly, or sinners. So they don’t need salvation. And Christ wouldn’t need to die for any of them.

How about just addressing Matt 9:12 and Rom 5:6 and explain how Jesus didn't die for ALL of the "sick" and "ungodly".

Everyone who Christ died for is saved or His death failed. God is not a failure . Jesus is not lost He does not need be found .

Since the Bible teaches that Christ died for everyone, you must be a universalist.

However, the Bible also teaches that the majority of the human race will be cast into the lake of fire.

Right. God's plan is clear and simple.

Titus 2:11 - For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people.

God, in His grace, OFFERS salvation to everyone.

If Christ hadn't died for the sins of everyone, then this verse is bogus. But it isn't bogus, because Jesus Christ DID DIE for everyone.

John 1:29, 4:42, 3:16, 2 Cor 5:14,15,19, Heb 2:9, 1 Tim 2:3-6, 4:10, 1 John 2:2, 1 John 4:14

Unfortunately, calvinists will argue that "all" doesn't always mean everyone.

Well, I've cited 14 verses that say plainly or indicate clearly that Christ died for everyone. Unless the word "all" further described as to limit the scope, the word ALWAYS means everyone.

You do not know me we have never met. where do you come off in telling me what i must be.

Telling me what you think i must be is like me telling you , you must believe God failed. I dont believe you think He did. I believe we understand the scriptures a bit differently. Posting ....Joh 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world
Where in this verse does it say He offered salvation to all men? It says He taketh away the sins of the world. not exactly what you claim it to say, There are not really 14 verses

All verses that inform of Jesus as Saviour of the world or of God's love of the world, pertain to the world to come.
You do know don't you the Bible informs of two worlds not just one: this current world and the world to come. Both worlds have to be considered and understood individually and independently. The current world, its heavens, earth and all that is in it, will God destroy.
Only the world to come wherein is righteousness, and the only one of God's love, will exist forever, for God hates unrighteousness --
it is impossible that He love it and thereby it not the "so loved" of John 3:16.
God admonishes in scripture not to love this world neither the things in/of it,
and by also informing that it is be destroyed, He informs that that His love is not/cannot be upon it.
Therefore, whenever we read in scripture of Christ as Saviour of the world, we can rest assured that it is of the world to come
as the object of His salvation.
Christ obtained the title of the Saviour of the world because in saving those who are to inhabit the world to come, He also saved the world to come. Had He been unsuccessful (for the sake of argument that is, and which of course is impossible), then His elect would not have been saved, and neither then could there be a world to come: the purpose of the world to come is FOR His saved (His elect) to inhabit throughout eternity with Him: It is their eternal domain with Christ: one cannot exist without the other: the saved, the world to come.
It cannot be that Christ is the Saviour of this world because God Himself declares that He is to destroy it.
So, should this world is the object of God's love and Christ its Saviour, and nevertheless, be destroyed,
then either God is unable to save that which He loves, or unable to destroy that which He hates- both can't be true.

[1Jo 2:15-17 KJV]
15 Love not the world, neither the things [that are] in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16 For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

[Luk 18:30 KJV]
30 Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.

[2Pe 3:13 KJV]
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

[2Pe 3:10, 12 KJV]
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. ...
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?