Biblical Election and Predestination

[Orion]

Good enough, but I hope you address my concerns and not let them become buried beneath other people's posts because my last post is VERY VERY important to me!!!!!!!

FYI, all I have heard, thus far, I have heard before in church.

 

[JayR]

I can have ultra faith in God, do all the things I'm supposed to do, do them earnestly, but if God didn't call me, then it's all in vain, right?

No. You can't have any faith in the true God unless He gives it to you. You can believe in idols to your hearts content, and false gods, and figments of your imagination, but you can't believe in the true God unless He puts His Spirit within you. If anyone isn't part of God's elect, and if anyone does anything at all by their own power in order to get right with God, for that matter, they are lost.

How can you know?

You can and will know that you are saved if you are part of God's elect. Christianity isn't a philosophy. It is reality. God transforms you by His power and He manifests Himself to you. The Holy Spirit bears witness with your spirit that you are a child of God.

Yes, there are atheists. There really are people who see religion as a type of "insanity".

No. They are liars, who hate God with such a passion and are so against Him and everything that He is that they spend their lives trying to convince people to believe that He doesn't exist. They know God exists. God's word declares it.

We have a church on every corner, REGARDLESS of whether or not you believe them heretical.

No. We don't have a church on every corner. We have nice brick buildings on every corner, but churches are rare. The church isn't a building. The church is a body of believers who are God's elect and who worship God in spirit and in truth. Most of the people in this nation who go to church buildings on Sunday are lost.

Christian bookstores with access to the Bible, few places to even find literature from other religions nearly as easily.

The fact that we have access to God's word doesn't make this country a Christian nation. Christian nations which have a democratic government don't agree with the government who legalizes sacrificing children to the god of self. That is the most outrageous statement you could possibly make. America is among the farthest nations in the world to have the privelidge of being called the nation of God.

Explain how that is love . . . that the vaste majority are born to suffer extreme pain and torture, for the pleasure of God??? :-?

Hell is not torture. Hell is perfect justice. You have sinned against Diety. You have offended His person by commiting more abominations than there are hairs on your head. You live for self, you hate Him, live in wickedness, and you know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things are worthy of death, but you not only continue to do them, you approve of those who practice them. God can do what He pleases with His own creation, and the fact that God has ordained some as vessels of destruction in no wise means that they haven't earned their own damnation. You have broken God's laws. You knew you were doing wrong, and you will suffer the consequences if God doesn't save you according to the counsel of His will. It's called justice, and God will execute it perfectly. You can't plead insanity like they do in this country and pervert the course of justice. No. Not when the Judge is incorruptable and perfectly holy and just. He will absolutely execute justice in perfect righteousness. You should cry out for mercy. You need mercy. Cry out to God until He saves you or you die and go to tell, because you cannot do anything to save yourself. Throw yourself at His mercy. I'll pray for you. God bless you.

 

[GraceBwithU]

"Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins."

"When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life."

God is in no way stating in any of these scriptures that man does not have to repent. He is saying that he will accept the man's repentance by his grace. It is still something that we have to do. Here again you have twisted the words to fit into your belief. You simply play with the words and ignore so many other scriptures that clearly indicate a decision or choice being made. The word repentance itself even means a choice to change.

NT:3341
metanoia (met-an'-oy-ah); from NT:3340; (subjectively) compunction (for guilt, including reformation); by implication reversal (of [another's] decision):

It is true that God's plan for the ages is all God's plan and not man's. But this in no way states that God does not expect something from us. All things were created by Him and His plan is perfect, including asking us to believe in his son so we will be saved. Nothing you have said defends your position of 100% predestined salvation of every individual.

As I stated earlier, I do believe that God did predestine certain individuals to salvation, but not all. He predestined all that were necessary to complete His plan. The scripture you have quoted even mentions a chosen group. What you are missing is that He also created us with freewill to choose. This does not mean that he can not override this freewill if he chooses to do so. But it simply means that this is how he wants it to be. Calvinist seem to think that God is totally out of control of His attributes and senses and can not uses what He wants to when He wants to.

If I have a pet dog I can ignore it, I can pick it up and feel it, I can call it…but I do not have to do any of these things. But if I call it when it has done something that it shouldn’t and it comes…wagging its tail with joy, (by its own choice, repenting), I am much happier than if I simply willed the dog to come to me. I love this dog, therefore I want him to come when I call, but what loving master would want him to come if he did not know that master and believe him first by his own choice?

God does not want slaves, He wants the willing. That is why He gave us the will to choose Him over the lies of Satan.

He gave His Son to die for our sins so we can be saved by believing in Jesus, (This brings up another flaw in the TULIP by the way)
He is the creator...so all senses and abilities we have he gave to us...including life itself.
Did He give us the ability to repent…yep!
Does He force use to…Nope!

 

[Orion]

JayR, "crying out to god for his mercy", is meaningless then, because it doesn't mean his mercy will in fact come onto me, does it?! As far as I know, in my heart/soul, I haven't received any calling, so then I must be unwanted by God. . . . . . PERIOD! The fact that he COULD call me and save my soul is irrelevant to the fact that he only sees me as a detestable ugly sinner, . . . . . . . . when does God EVER, then, look at me through what Jesus did on the cross?

Does God ever call and save someone against their will? No, probably not. What about those of us who would like it to be so, but see too many problems and inconsistancies to believe even what you personally do? I would follow a diety who cared for me. I would find this very desireable. I don't feel the call of ANY diety. And if YOU are correct, I'm damned already, . . . . and really only because God chose not to call me.

Here's a few comments/questions from the link you suggested:

So, God has burning angry against, and HATES, in the extreme, PEOPLE who aren't perfect. Hate is an emotion brought on by an emotional response to outside events. Hate is a choice that, apparently, God has no way to overcome. So, I suppose the "vaste majority of people who suffer extreme pain and torture, for the pleasure of God" is true then, right? So, it pleases God to torture those people he hates and chooses not to call.. . . . . on purpose. :-?

"My God My God why have you forsaken/abandoned me?" . . doesn't equal fierce extreme anger and wrath that God has against sinners. I think the preacher is reading into it WAY too much. And if Jesus was, at that time, "all sin", where did it all go when he says, "Today you will be with me in paradice."? And if God became all sin, . . . . who did the crushing because the Godhead is one. Can only one part of the Godhead become sin and the other be separate from it, . . . yet still somehow the same ONE God? :-?

Yes, Hitler was an anomaly. Yes, Hitler wasn't as evil as he could be. No, I would not be SO evil, without God's grace, that it would make Hitler look like a choir boy. I choose to do good, to the best of my ability, because I WANT to do good, and it is the best way for civilized people to behave.

You can't "come to Christ", apparently, if you are not one of the called. You will attempt to do so in vain.

1. Repent. If you're not called, repenting is in vain.
2. Believe and trust in the Lord. If you're not called, it is in vain.

 

[Drew]

You can't "come to Christ", apparently, if you are not one of the called. You will attempt to do so in vain.

Hello Orion:

I share your intuitions about how it seems impossible to reconcile the idea of a just and loving God with the notion that He has fully pre-determined that some will spend an eternity in torment. It is, frankly, an absurd notion, in my view.

But, as you will know, I am arguing that the whole concept that JayR is promoting is not, in fact Biblical anyway. And, you will notice, that I have not once appealed to the kind of argument you appeal to - the incoherence of a loving God pre-determining that people will go to hell forever.

Very often, those who support the notion of "election to damnation" and "election to salvation" appeal to Romans 9 as the proof-text. I submit for your consideration arguments that I (using other people's ideas as well as my own, I admit) have provided in respect to Romans 9. Have you considered those arguments? Do you think they work? I think they overwhelmingly succeed.

At the risk of seeming to presume something negative about your motivations here, please let me ask this: Is it possible that you are, in a sense, secretly looking for a reason to decide Christianity is irrational and incoherent, so that you can reject it on that basis? And to the extent that arguments against predesination of individuals to damnation actually succeed, that arrow is taken out of your quiver?

 

[GraceBwithU]

Jesus went to "Sheol" which means the grave. I don't know whether He actually went to hell or not though.

He didn't

 

[Orion]

You can't "come to Christ", apparently, if you are not one of the called. You will attempt to do so in vain.

Hello Orion:

I share your intuitions about how it seems impossible to reconcile the idea of a just and loving God with the notion that He has fully pre-determined that some will spend an eternity in torment. It is, frankly, an absurd notion, in my view.

But, as you will know, I am arguing that the whole concept that JayR is promoting is not, in fact Biblical anyway. And, you will notice, that I have not once appealed to the kind of argument you appeal to - the incoherence of a loving God pre-determining that people will go to hell forever.

Very often, those who support the notion of "election to damnation" and "election to salvation" appeal to Romans 9 as the proof-text. I submit for your consideration arguments that I (using other people's ideas as well as my own, I admit) have provided in respect to Romans 9. Have you considered those arguments? Do you think they work? I think they overwhelmingly succeed.

At the risk of seeming to presume something negative about your motivations here, please let me ask this: Is it possible that you are, in a sense, secretly looking for a reason to decide Christianity is irrational and incoherent, so that you can reject it on that basis? And to the extent that arguments against predesination of individuals to damnation actually succeed, that arrow is taken out of your quiver?

There are parts of Christianity that I do consider irrational and incoherent, yes. Do I believe that God is real, sure. And I believe that I am where I'm supposed to be, in some strange way, that I am not even aware of AT THIS TIME. I am not trying to condemn Christianity, but my main goal is to debate JayR's (and anyone elses) notion of pre-election and pre-damnation based upon what God chooses.

Anyway, as to your question to me, concerning Romans 9, I like the way The Message put it.
"Careful! I've put a huge stone on the road to Mount Zion,
a stone you can't get around.
But the stone is me! If you're looking for me,
you'll find me on the way, not in the way."

Nicely worded. . . . and what I'm hoping for.

 

[Drew]

Further to argument that Romans 9 does not address the election of individuals to salvation or to loss. Consider the following from Romans 11:

What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8as it is written:
"God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes so that they could not see
and ears so that they could not hear,
to this very day." 9And David says:
"May their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
10May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
and their backs be bent forever."
11Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all!

I have been maintaining that in the potter's account of Romans 9, Paul is referring to God, as the potter, hardening Israel to be a vessel "fitted for destruction". And by contrast, the hardening of specific individuals to damnation is not in view. And, I have alluded to what I think Israel is being hardened for - to allow the ingrafting of the gentiles (extending grace to the whole world, not just the Jews).

I suggest that the above text supports such a reading. Israel is being referred to as being "hardened", just as a pot is hardened under the control of the potter. And we see that Israel is not being hardened unto damnation, since Paul resoundingly declares that she has not fallen beyond recovery.

Obviously, one could assert that there are two levels of meaning to the potter account:

1. The hardening of Israel (vessel fitted for destruction) for a specific redemptive action in this world (i.e. not in relation to what happens after death) so that another group, referred to as "the elect" (the vessel prepared for glory) will benefit;

2. The pre-destination of individuals to salvation or to loss.

The problem is the the context overwhelmingly supports the first meaning and is basically silent on the second. Exception: indeed we might ask, what are the elect "prepared for" if not "heaven". Well, that is indeed probably true, but there is, I assert, no basis for understanding the elect to be anything more than a "category" of persons, without "names being named".

If I were arguing the JayR position on this, I would try to make the point that indeed we have to see the elect as more than just a category.

 

[mondar]

Mondar,

Excellent response. I think However that it is very judgmental to state that non-Calvinist

Most Calvinists are more evangelistic in their pinky then non-Calvinists are in their entire hand.

Not true and you most likely know it. I was just curious to how you would approach the situation…by understanding that ALL salvation is predestined and not a result of any works of man that is regenerated by God. Good response…but you still did not answer the question.

The difference between Calvinists and non-Calvinists concerning evangelism is that while non-Calvinists talk about evangelism, Calvinists do evangelism.

Shallow!

First, let me say that if I do not respond to a post, well, my time is limited. I did want to address this issue but got busy. Time to go back and pick this up.

OK, maybe I was judgemental about non-Calvinist Christians not doing evangelism. It was an over statement. It was even an absurd overstatement. I saw a statement I felt was made in ignorance and over responded. I have commonly heard the accusation that Calvinists are not evangelistic because of their doctrine. Yet I have found Calvinists to be very agressive evangelists. Now their evangelistic methods might be different and more focused upon individual evangelism and less upon mass evangelism, but I would still put my money upon each and every Calvinist as being more evangelisticly zealous.

The question of predestination is a mere absurd straw man. To say that Calvinists can go out and sit under a tree and let the elect come to the faith is not at all what Calvinists believe. God predestined the elect to come to faith by the preaching of the word. Even arminians will agree that in Romans 10 the God ordained of faith is by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Yes, the saved are predestined to be saved.

A typical defense of the Calvinistic concept of evangelism might be found in Acts 13:48. In this text, we have an evangelistic sermon by Paul. The response to evangelism is that those who were "ordained to eternal life, believed."

So then, the difference is not in evangelistic furvor, but maybe in evangelistic methods. For the arminian, he must manipulate the will of the person being evangelized to bring him to the faith. He needs to bring the person to a "decision." I admit this arminian thinking takes more effort. The Calvinist need only present the Gospel. The Calvinist does not need to manipulate the will for a decision, but the Calvinist must only present the gospel with all the clarity he can muster. The Calvinist has no other duty in evangelism. For the Calvinist, the preaching of the word has power. It has the power to bring Gods call to the elect. God chose the elect, God chose the preaching of the word as the tool to call the elect, and Gods power brings faith to the person evangelized when the word is preached. The evanglist is nothing, the power of the word, the drawing of the Father, and the regeneration of the HS is everything needed to bring one to the gospel. God will sovereignly bring all these things into the life of the predestined. That includes evangelism.

Can a Calvinist evangelist go out and sit under a tree and expect to see souls saved? Such a concept is nothing but a mocking inaccurate caricature of Calvinists. Such mockery is intended only for insult.

Calvinists could make the same kind of mocking inaccurate caricature of Arminians. We could ask why do arminians pray to God for souls to be saved! If evangelism depends upon men, and not the sovereign choice (predestination and election) of God, why even pray about the salvation of souls. We could accuse arminians of not praying for the salvation of souls. Of course it would be absurd for Calvinists to speak as such.... But it is not less absurd for Arminians to suggests that Calvinists are not evangelistic.

Unfortunately, there is a people who call themseles Calvinists, but are not real Calvinists. They are commonly called Hyper-Calvinists. I would define a hyper-Calvinist as one so preoccupied with election that they actually do deny prayer, evangelism, and they think that one must ascribe to every point in the doctrines of Grace. I am not such a person. While I believe the doctrines of grace (TULIP) to be a correct discription of biblical theology, it is not a matter of salvation to agree with TULIP. Many in my own church do not understand those doctrines, but I have no doubt of their salvation. But I am digressing. The point is that one must not confuse Hyper-Calvinists with Calvinists. While there are similarities, Hyper-Calvinists are not Calvinists. In fact, it is not unheard of for a hyper-calvinist preacher to be defrocked in Calvinist circles.

 

[Drew]

Also from Romans 11 re the concept of "election":

28As far as the gospel is concerned, they (***the Jews, by context) are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable.

It seems pretty clear that, here, Paul cannot be referring to election to salvation for all Jews. Is anyone going to argue that all Jews are destined for heaven? This is what you have to believe if you apply a hermeneutical key of interpreting election as always being about "what happens when you die".

Even if one takes verse 26 as a statement that all Jews will be saved (and I don't, but that's another story), one still has to deal with the hard facts: from Paul's time to now, millions of Jews have lived and died and rejected the gospel. Unless all these people magically wind up justified, one cannot simply assume that all references to election are in relation to ultimate justification.

Using that assumption here would lead one to conclude that they are all indeed "heaven-bound" since Paul describes them as "as far as election is concerned, they are loved".

 

[GraceBwithU]

Mondar,
I must say I have to give you a Bravo! for your response. It was very well worded. And I'm as guilty as you (maybe even more so at times) to quickly reacting to a post here with out really thinking of what I was saying or how the other may interpret the response.

Can you please respond to another question I have about the TULIP. It's the L.

Why would there be any need for God to send His only son into the world to die for people He had already predestined to be saved?

As I have stated before...I DO belief in election, just not in the same way that John Calvin has defined it.

I have actually posted my understanding in more places than just here. My response has been very much the same...the non-Calvinist would see my point even if they did not agree...the Calvinist would emmediately reject it.

I'm not trying to insult...maybe I am speaking about hyper-calvinist not Calvinist as you stated.

I still have a very close IM friend that I met that is a Calvinist. we talk often. He is a good pool player Online

 

[mondar]

Mondar,
Can you please respond to another question I have about the TULIP. It's the L.

Why would there be any need for God to send His only son into the world to die for people He had already predestined to be saved?

The question shows some very basic failures to understand Calvinistic (which I believe is biblical) doctrine. The limited atonement is often the great bugaboo of arminians.

One of the biggest problems is that Arminians do not read Calvinists and do not honestly know what Calvinsts are saying on the subject of limited atonement. This results in a very wired situation in which the definition for the term "limited atonement" means one thing to Calvinists, and another to Arminians. I often have read and spoke to arminians saying that Calvinists believe there is only enough value in the atonement to save the elect. When Calvinists here that, they generally gasp and say "YOU THINK CALVINISTS TEACH WHAT!!!!" The doctrine of the limited atonement says nothing about how many God is able to save. It is all about who God chose to save.

I challenge you to find a Calvinist and ask him or her a question. "If God chose to save 1 more person, would Christ death still be sufficient." The Calvinists will answer that it is sufficient to save an infinite amount of elect. If God had intended the entire world to be saved, he would not fail to save the entire world. This is what the limited atonement is about. Who was God trying to save in the redemptive shed blood of Jesus Christ? Was God trying to save unbelievers but he just could not get the job done because unbelievers have an almighty sovereign free will that can over rule what God is trying to do in saving every single person?

This is why the bible says that Christ:
gave "his life a ransom for many" mark 10:45
laid "down his life for the sheep" John 10:14-15
"loved the Church, and gave himself for it." Eph 5:25
"shall justify many" Isa 53:11
"was once offered to bear the sins of many" Heb 9:28

Think about it. When Christ was the mediator, and entered the heavenly temple int he new covenant... and he applied the blood to the altar, and began intercession on the basis of his shed blood, and nobody is saved? This only makes salvation a provision that can be grasp by man?

Let me also say this. the bible no where teaches that faith is necessary for election. Faith is not necessary for redemption. Faith is not necessary for regeneration. The only thing that requires faith is justification and even then, the Father selects men (John 6:37 to draw to faith (John 6:44).

To believe in election is to believe in something limited, or its not election at all.



So what is the doctrine of the limited atonement? The term is very unfortunate in some ways. Charles Spurgeon tried to rename the doctrine and call it "particular redemption." The term particular redemption is vastly superior to the term limited atonement.

As I have stated before...I DO belief in election, just not in the same way that John Calvin has defined it.

I have actually posted my understanding in more places than just here. My response has been very much the same...the non-Calvinist would see my point even if they did not agree...the Calvinist would emmediately reject it.

I'm not trying to insult...maybe I am speaking about hyper-calvinist not Calvinist as you stated.

I still have a very close IM friend that I met that is a Calvinist. we talk often. He is a good pool player Online

Again, your concept of Calvinistic doctrine seems so fuzzy, it is hard for me to recognize what you are saying. Let me answer what you are saying by mentioned that I dont see how arminians can claim to believe in election. Most make dramatic attempts to explain election away. Many try to deny that the term election refers to individual salvation. If you read 2Thes 2:13, you will see that such a reading of election is impossible.

"13 But we are bound to give you thinks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth."

Can you define the word election. Look it up in a lexicon, the word eklektos means choice. God chose us. If we say he chose us on the basis of our choice of him (faith), then we chose him foirst and then he loves us because of our choice. No, we chose him because he first loved us.

Election is all about who chose who first. Does God love us because he looked into the future and saw that we would first love him? Or do we love him because he first loved us? I suppose the answer has to do with whom you believe is sovereign. I think the sovereign of not just the universe, but also of salvation, is God, bot humanity.

 

[Drew]

I want to write something about this whole issue of "importing concepts" into texts. It has been claimed that I am somehow bringing the notion of freewill to the Romans 1:20 text. I maintain that free will was there all along - bundled up in very concept of being "without excuse".

But either way, the "importing concepts" argument cuts equally against the position of those who would deny free will. It is essentially a circular argument, as I believe I can show.

The argument that I import "free will" into the Romans 1:20 notion of being "without excuse" obviously entails the belief that one can be in a state of being "without exuse" without having the freedom of contrary choice.

Well, where does that idea come from? It obviously comes from other bits of Scripture - bits that seem to close the door on free will. For example, we have this from Romans 6:

"But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you...."

The argument seems to be that since to be a slave entails lack of self-determining freedom, then Paul cannot possibly intend the reader to see "freedom" bound up in the concept of being without excuse. Hence, the assertion that I imported the idea.

Do you not see the problem with this thinking? If not, here it is: the person who reads "slave" and understands it to entail absence of self-determining freedom is doing the very same thing that I do when I read "without excuse" and reason that it entails free will.

In other words, to be fair to Mondar, he is being true to the concept of what it means to be a slave.

Of course, I am being equally true to the concept of being "without excuse". We are both doing the exact same thing - appealing to the "societal contract" in respect to what concepts entail.

I appeal to the societal agreement that being "without excuse" entails free will. And please do not argue that this is not indeed how people in our society understand this - it is clearly universally held that to be "without excuse" entails the notion of free will.

Mondar appeals to the societal agreement that being a slave entails a lack of free will. And I will not deny this at all.

So things are more or less a stalemate here. But I am no more guilty of "importing concepts" than is Mondar - we are doing precisely the same things, but with "opposite" polarities.

 

[JayR]

1. Repent. If you're not called, repenting is in vain.
2. Believe and trust in the Lord. If you're not called, it is in vain.

If you're not called, you're incapable of repenting. Repentance is God given.

If you're not part of the elect, you aren't capable of believing in and trusting the Lord, Faith is God given.

Your pride is keeping you from calling out for mercy. God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble.

You don't know and won't know whether you are part of the elect or not until you either die and go to hell or God saves you, so stop driving yourself insane by accepting the fact that you are damned when you have no idea if you are or not.

You need mercy. You need grace. You need the blood of Christ. Call out to God for mercy until He so regenerates your heart that you hate the evil you once loved and love the righteousness you once hated.

 

[mutzrein]

1. Repent. If you're not called, repenting is in vain.
2. Believe and trust in the Lord. If you're not called, it is in vain.

If you're not called, you're incapable of repenting. Repentance is God given.

If you're not part of the elect, you aren't capable of believing in and trusting the Lord, Faith is God given.

Your pride is keeping you from calling out for mercy. God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble.

You don't know and won't know whether you are part of the elect or not until you either die and go to hell or God saves you, so stop driving yourself insane by accepting the fact that you are damned when you have no idea if you are or not.

You need mercy. You need grace. You need the blood of Christ. Call out to God for mercy until He so regenerates your heart that you hate the evil you once loved and love the righteousness you once hated.

Two questions:

1. Where does it say the 'non-elect' go to hell?
2. If you are NOT 'part of the elect' what point is mercy or grace. And why on earth would you need the blood of Christ? Do you think that man can elect himself and cause God to write his name in the book of life when it wasn't there from the beginning?

 

[GraceBwithU]

Mondar,
I asked a simple question that you have still not answered...instead you danced around it with a response that all Calvinist give which does not answer the question that I asked about the L in TULIP. And quite frankly I think is very shallow of you to think that people are either Calvinist or Arminian. I do not follow Jacobus Arminius any more than I follow John Calvin…I follow Christ. Why do you think that this topic is debated so much? The answer to that is simple…there is much biblical evidence to support both arguments. The answer is that predestined election and freewill are both part of God’s plan. You play with the word election like you are the only one that knows its meaning.
You are not.

When someone is elected to public office, it is correct that they are elected or not. But this person must choose to run for that office before it is even possible to be elected.

Now back to the question. Why would it be necessary for God to send His Son to die for people that He had already elected to be saved before the world began.

The basic principle of Calvinism is the sovereignty of God.This doctrine allowed John Calvin to interpret Scripture in any manner he desired in order to fit his Institutes theology. God's other attributes such as love, justice, mercy and grace became less important so long as sovereignty reigned. Free will does not remove any sovereignty for God. It just completes the perfect unity between the God and His church.

 

[JayR]

Where does it say the 'non-elect' go to hell?

Where does it say that they don't go to hell?

If you are NOT 'part of the elect' what point is mercy or grace.

If someone is not part of the elect there is no mercy or grace for them. There is only judgment.

Do you think that man can elect himself and cause God to write his name in the book of life when it wasn't there from the beginning?

No I don't think that, but I don't know whether he's in the book or not, so I'm going to talk to him as I ought to, as a human being who doesn't know one way or the other.

 

[JayR]

Why would it be necessary for God to send His Son to die for people that He had already elected to be saved before the world began.

Because aside from Christ's death and resurrection those elect would remain under the wrath of God. The elect were chosen by God to be saved, but that doesn't role out the fact that before God saved them and aside from His grace they lived in wickedness and are deserving of hell.

Why did God set forth Christ as a propitiation? So that He might be just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus. Aside from Christ's work, God wouldn't be just in justifying the elect, in fact, Proverbs 17:15 says that He would become an abomination for doing so.

 

[mutzrein]

My response in red

Where does it say the 'non-elect' go to hell?

Where does it say that they don't go to hell?
It wasn't me that made the assertion - so tell me pray, where does scripture say the 'non-elect' go to hell?

If you are NOT 'part of the elect' what point is mercy or grace.

If someone is not part of the elect there is no mercy or grace for them. There is only judgment.
Again I would say you need to give scriptural support for such an assertion. Where does it say in scripture that there is only judgment for the non-elect? And what do you see as the outcome of this judgment?

Do you think that man can elect himself and cause God to write his name in the book of life when it wasn't there from the beginning?

No I don't think that, but I don't know whether he's in the book or not, so I'm going to talk to him as I ought to, as a human being who doesn't know one way or the other.
So why would you tell someone who is not the elect that they need the blood of Christ?

 

[mondar]

I want to write something about this whole issue of "importing concepts" into texts. It has been claimed that I am somehow bringing the notion of freewill to the Romans 1:20 text. I maintain that free will was there all along - bundled up in very concept of being "without excuse".

But either way, the "importing concepts" argument cuts equally against the position of those who would deny free will. It is essentially a circular argument, as I believe I can show.

The argument that I import "free will" into the Romans 1:20 notion of being "without excuse" obviously entails the belief that one can be in a state of being "without exuse" without having the freedom of contrary choice.

Well, where does that idea come from? It obviously comes from other bits of Scripture - bits that seem to close the door on free will. For example, we have this from Romans 6:

"But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you...."

The argument seems to be that since to be a slave entails lack of self-determining freedom, then Paul cannot possibly intend the reader to see "freedom" bound up in the concept of being without excuse. Hence, the assertion that I imported the idea.

Do you not see the problem with this thinking? If not, here it is: the person who reads "slave" and understands it to entail absence of self-determining freedom is doing the very same thing that I do when I read "without excuse" and reason that it entails free will.

In other words, to be fair to Mondar, he is being true to the concept of what it means to be a slave.

Of course, I am being equally true to the concept of being "without excuse". We are both doing the exact same thing - appealing to the "societal contract" in respect to what concepts entail.

I appeal to the societal agreement that being "without excuse" entails free will. And please do not argue that this is not indeed how people in our society understand this - it is clearly universally held that to be "without excuse" entails the notion of free will.

Mondar appeals to the societal agreement that being a slave entails a lack of free will. And I will not deny this at all.

So things are more or less a stalemate here. But I am no more guilty of "importing concepts" than is Mondar - we are doing precisely the same things, but with "opposite" polarities.

Drew, I still completely disagree. I am not looking to be insulting here but I honestly think you miss principles of proper exegesis. As I say this, of course neither am I the perfect exegete. My failures come from not knowing my Greek grammar well enough. But let me work with the passage below.

First, the concept of free will is not inherent in the word "anapologeetos" (witout excuse). Can you show me any lexicon that includes the term free will in the definition? Below is an abbreviated defination from Thayer.

Thayer Definition:
1) without defense or excuse
2) that which cannot be defended, inexcusable
Part of Speech: adjective

To come up with the term having the concept of free will implied, should not it be part of the definition at least in one lexicon?

More then this, if you look in Word Pictures by ATR, you will see the concept of "result" coming from the fact that anapologeetos is actually found in the accusative case (an accusative of general reference) eis, and the fact that an infinitive exists within the sentence. Again let me copy ATR below.

"The use of eis to and the infinitive (with accusative of general reference) for result like hÃ…Âste is reasonably clear in the N.T."

Now maybe I could be pushed further, to actually look up result clauses in Dana and Mante. But that is not the direction you are taking the conversation. You are saying that this is not a point of grammar, but that the concept of free will is inherent within the word. Do you then go to several other contexts in either NT, or secular koine or classical greek were the word anapologeetos is used and demonstrate from the context why the word has the implication of free will?

Now in saying this, yes, I know that you probably are unable to do these things. But lack of these skills does not give you the right to pontificate that the concept of free will is inherent in the word anapologeetos (without excuse).

If I understand you, you have already agreed that the context of the word anapologeetos(without excuse) within the sentence already relates to the the first part of the sentence. And grammatically, the concept of result is within the sentence. So then, God gave natural revelation with the result that we are in an inexcusable position.

I see absolutely no exegetical evidence presented that the term "anapologeetos" has any concept of free will." You have merely made the assertion, and not backed it up with the slightest bit of exegetical evidence. There is no circular reasoning on my part. I am just doing straightforward exegesis in the passage, you are not. You are importing concepts foreign to the context.

I know you feel strongly about free will. But it is simply not in Romans 1:20. Free will is a concept that you are bringing into the text (isogesis) and not taking from the text (exegesis).

PS, sorry if I dont respond to all of your posts, time is very limited. I really wish to be in other threads also. I would like to be posting in a discussion on sola scriptura, but I hardly have sufficient time to read the threads let alone return many posts.

If you want me to respond to Romans 6, I can do that, but it will be later. Do you really want me to work with Romans 6? I am guessing it will also take a lot of space for me to reply on Romans 6.