What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Election of the Wicked

J

JM

Member
Sometimes I hear, "the elect is always in reference to the saved." This isn't so.

Exodus 9:16 & Romans 9:17
- for this purpose have I raised thee up

Deuteronomy 2:30
- God harden the heart to direct history

Joshua 11:20
- harden those hearts

1 Samuel 2:25
- Jehovah was minded to slay them

Proverbs 16:4
- God made the wicked
- God made the wicked for the day of evil

Matthew 11:25
- hide these things from certain people

Matthew 13:10-15 & Isaiah 6:9-10
- spoke in parables to conceal the truth
see also Mark 4:12; Luke 8:10; John 12:40; Acts 28:27; Romans 11:9-10. It should be clear, the evangelical proclamation hardens some hearts.

Luke 2:34
- was set up for falling

John 9:39
- made blind

John 12:39-40
- they could not believe
- God blinded their eyes
- God harden their hearts

Romans 1:28
- God gave them over
- to do the things that are not fitting

Romans 9:22-23
- fitted for destruction, or prepared for destruction
- He (God) prepared for destruction to show His glory

2 Thessalonians 2:11
- God will send them strong delusion
- in order for them to believe the lie

1 Peter 2:8
- those who rejected Jesus
- were appointed

Jude 4
- marked out
- for THIS condemnation

2 Peter 2:12
- made to be taken
- and destroyed, hence made for destruction
- will perish

Revelation 13:8
- names were not written in the book of life

Revelation 17:17
- put in their hearts
- to fulfill His will

A few examples of national election
- Deuteronomy 7:6-8; 10:15
- Psalm 147:20
- Amos 3:2

A few examples of individual election
- John 6
- John 13:18; 15:16
- Mark 13:20
- Acts 13:48
- Romans 8:33
- Romans 9:23
- Romans 11:5-7
- 1 Thessalonians 1:4
- 2 Thessalonians 2:13
- Titus 1:1
- 1 Peter 2:9
 
I do not accept the doctrine of election (at least what I understand this doctrine to be). I understand that the doctrine of election entails the idea that God pre-determines who will be saved and who will not (in the sense of actually "making it happen" as importantly distinguished from God "knowing in advance" who will make a free-will decision to accept Christ).

My reasons are as follows. The doctrine of election truly is "non-sensical" to us. What I mean is that we simply cannot make sense of it in a way that consistently works with other things that almost all of us believe.

Suppose that you had a "mad scientist" for a child and this child managed to create life forms that can feel pain. The child fore-ordained that some these creatures would spend an eternity suffering pain. We would all rebuke the child and force him to give up his / her experiment. Why? Because, all humans know that punishing some being is simply "wrong" if that being had no freedom to choose a course of action that avoids the punishment. I take this truth to be "self-evident".

In my opinion, accepting a doctrine that we cannot "truly believe in our hearts and minds" is a sign that something is wrong....
 
I have to ask, did you read the quotations provided? You didn’t give any scriptural reason for not believing, just what you “feel†and what you “think†is correct. The will of man is fallen and is not able to come to a saving knowledge of Christ.

My remarks in bold:
“No one {that means no one} can come to me {can come to Christ} unless the Father who sent me draws {that means God draws men} him. And I will raise him up on the last day. {If all men are called, then all are raised up.}†John 6:44

“Jesus answered them, Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin {all have committed sin} is a slave {we are slaves} to sin.â€Â

Christ asks, “Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.â€Â

And then answers it, “Whoever is of God hears the words of God. {that means you must be of God to get it} The reason why you do not hear {you must be of God to hear God’s words} them is that you are not of God.†John 8

“Jesus answered him, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see {we can’t even SEE} the kingdom of God.†John 3:3

“For those who live according to the flesh { unregenerate man} set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.â€Â

“To set the mind on the flesh { unregenerate man} is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.â€Â

“For the mind that is set on the flesh { unregenerate man} is hostile {an enemy} to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot.†This is a good place to point out the inability of man and how the mind that is unregenerate is hostile to God and CANNOT submit to God’s law.

A description of man is given: as it is written: “no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.The venom of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known., There is no fear of God before their eyes.†Romans 3:10-18 We find that no one seeks God, and no one means NO ONE, in the literal it means, “there is no God seeker.â€Â

Divine order: “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him.†1 John 5:1 Everyone who believers was born of Him, we believe because we are born of Him. God’s work first. See also Acts 16:14; Hebrews 12:2; Philp. 1:29

We read in Acts 13, “as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.†It doesn’t read, “ many as appointed themselves to eternal life believed.â€Â

I leave you with this last thought, it is God’s doing and not ours, “Therefore, as it is written, Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.†1 Cor. 1:30-31
 
Parable of the Wedding

Mat 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
2 Cor 11:2-4, Rev 19:7-9

Mat 22:3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
those who received the bidding to the wedding feast would not come when His servants called them.

Mat 22:4 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.
What does one do at a wedding feast? One eats the feast, which is this book, HIS WORD.

Mat 22:5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
Just to busy with the ways of the world. Luke 14:18-20

Mat 22:6 And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.
The remnant are the murderers (next vs) of the house of Cain who took his servants ans slew them.

Mat 22:7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
In chapter 13, the tares, they are burned up. Their city is not our city. Ther temple is not our temple.

Mat 22:8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
The wedding did not take place at the 1st advent Luke 14:24.

Mat 22:9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
Salvation is now open to all peoples of all races, colors, creeds.

Mat 22:10 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.
Whom so ever will, heed the call.

Mat 22:11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
Rev 19:8 the fine linen, is symbolic of the righteous acts of the saints. This one has not done Father's will. Matt 7:21-23.

Mat 22:12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
He had no rightous acts, but was spiritually naked .

Mat 22:13 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.

Mat 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.
Many called to salvation, few chosen elect.
 
Greetings JM (and others):

I will not dispute that there are Biblical texts that, on a "plain reading" support the position I believe that you hold. My problem is a little more "technical" and it has to do with the fundamental nature of what it means to have a particular world-view. It is my contention that many Christians have not really come to grips with what it is they supposedly believe. Or, they claim to believe one thing but also believe other things that are logically inconsistent with the first belief.

The idea that God pre-destines people to hell simply clashes so violently with our other ideas - ideas about love and justice, for example - that it simply is not a workable idea.

For example, the concept of love entails ideas of concern for the comfort and well-being of others. Sure, there is a "tough" side to love, but it always has the best long-term interests of the other person at heart. How is an eternity in hell in someone's best interests?

Our concept of justice, as worked out in our legal system and as played out in our relationships is based on the notion that, in order to be accountable for one's actions, one has to have control over them. Here again, the idea of pre-determined eternal damnation makes no sense - it clashes with such a conception.
 
The election debate has been going on for centuries. It would be naive to think that there is not also a Biblical case against election. In my circle of friends, dedicated students of the Word all, there is not a one who believes in election.

I will leave it to others to debate the anti-election position from the Scriptures.

I still think that to conceive of God's love and justice as embracing election creates such wild contradictions to our conception of love that it is a hopeless position to hold.

Even we mortals, wicked though we are, can "see" that endless torment that cannot be avoided (this is what election involves, if I am not mistaken) is not workable with any real life model of love.
 
The choice of election

I'm not sure what Dopplegander meant above, if you might be inclined to explain further??

Here goes my attempt at reconciling election with the justice of God.

Clearly election/predestination is taught in scripture. A clear reference to such is Ephesians 1:3-5 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: 4According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
(apologize for the use of KJV, but it was on hand and well accepted)

Our trouble may be how we define election itself. As I look through the thread I get the sense that we are talking about God chosing each person specifically for whatever course their lives will take, forknowledge and predetermined destiny. Is this correct?


My professor at seminary taught me a way to interpret this passage that defines predestination differently. From the text we can say that we were "predestined to adoption" as children of God. But is this by predestining us to chose Christ or is this only our destiny because we chose Christ?

Election should not be defined as every person's life laid out before God. Election should be defined as God's creating the rulebook. Sinners are predestined for hell, and the 'born again' are elected for eternal life. Whichever category you chose to be a part of determines your destiny as God chose it to be from the "founding" of the world.

This places the burden upon us to choose Christ and choose life, it is not chosen for us. However, if we choose to reject Him, then we are elected for damnation by God's justice whether we accept it or not.
 
Re: The choice of election

thehayesman said:
This places the burden upon us to choose Christ and choose life, it is not chosen for us. However, if we choose to reject Him, then we are elected for damnation by God's justice whether we accept it or not.
Click to expand...
I hear you. I do not believe that this is what most people mean when they talk about election. Instead they mean that a person has no control over their destiny - God "pre-arranges" things so that a person has no degree of freedom whatsoever to choose (or not choose) the path of life. Others (such as JM) can correct me if I am misrepresenting them.

If the view that you are presenting is the "correct" way to see election, then all the objections I have provided in previous posts evaporate. I realize that it is a demanding request, but can you provide (or point us to) material that defends this particular view of the doctrine of election?
 
1 - Supralapsarianism
  • Elect some, reprobate rest
    Create
    Permit Fall
    Provide salvation for elect
    Call elect to salvation

2 - Infralapsarianism
  • Create
    Permit Fall
    Elect some, pass over the rest
    Provide salvation for elect
    Call elect to salvation

3 - Amyraldism
  • Create
    Permit Fall
    Provide salvation sufficient for all
    Elect some, pass over rest
    Call elect to salvation

4 - Arminianism
  • Create
    Permit Fall
    Provide salvation for all
    Call all to salvation
    Elect those who believe

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/ ... .htm#supra

I'm somewhere between #1 and #2.
 
Drew said:
The idea that God pre-destines people to hell simply clashes so violently with our other ideas - ideas about love and justice, for example - that it simply is not a workable idea.

For example, the concept of love entails ideas of concern for the comfort and well-being of others. Sure, there is a "tough" side to love, but it always has the best long-term interests of the other person at heart. How is an eternity in hell in someone's best interests?

Our concept of justice, as worked out in our legal system and as played out in our relationships is based on the notion that, in order to be accountable for one's actions, one has to have control over them. Here again, the idea of pre-determined eternal damnation makes no sense - it clashes with such a conception.
Click to expand...

I agree completely with what you are saying. However, perhaps Paul had exactly that objection in mind when he wrote-

One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? (Romans 9:19-21 NIV)
Click to expand...

So perhaps Christians should just accept that God has predestined millions of people to burn in hell? He is God, he can do what he likes, is it for you to question what he does?
 
Consider this discussion falls in line with the long existing Calvinism/Arminianism debate. Might I suggest the following books that I have read, or reading, on the subject:

Debating Calvinism by Dave Hunt & James White

Chosen But Free by Norman Geisler


I have completely read the first one listed (Debating Calvinism) and I have to say that unfortunately Mr. Hunt does a somewhat weak job arguing against Calvinism. The most prevalent weakness is the lack of a strong exegesis of scripture. While Mr. White on the other had does a great job, in my opinion, exegesis scripture, however; he does not answer a variety of question posed by Mr. Hunt.

As for Chosen But Free I have not read much of it but it looks as though Mr. Geisler like Mr. Hunt is failing to exegesis scripture. Despite that fact I do recommend people who are looking into the Calvinism/Arminianism debate give this book a look.

The reason I mentioned these two books is because I have noticed far too often that a lot of people who post on these forms about Calvinism/Arminianism are frankly quite ignorant about both sidesâ€â€me included. So because that fact is apparent I just want to suggest that people read a number of books on the subject, and if you have the means talk to a Professor at a Seminary (or talk to a pastor). In any event I think the Calvinism/Arminianism debate is important however it should NEVER take the place of building and maintaining ones relationship with Jesus Christâ€â€oh and evangelizing to the lost!
 
Calvinism/Armenianism

I'm glad you pointed this out Nocturnal_Principal_X, because many times we are all misinformed about the ideas we choose to debate. For instance, you can't really learn about Calvinism in most Baptist churches, you have to hear from those who believe to get real perspective.

Thanks for brining this up. Perhaps we could have a short explanation of some points to each argument or links?? (I'll look later)

The bottom line to that argument is that I know good Christians who obey Christ and believe either way, so it can't be all that important. I do think we have the biblical concept of God's election wrong, though.

JM- I would fall at number 4, elect those who believe, and those who don't for their respective reward.
 
I'm working on it be patient.

Before Abraham I was. Was refering Melchizedek to Christ.

In Genesis 14:13-17 we are told that Abram dwelt with Mamre the Amorite, Eshcol, and Aner: That they were a confederation of people. Lot was taken captive by Chedorlaomer and 3 other Kings from the East who were warring against The King of Sodom and 4 other Kings because they rebelled against paying tribute. It says Abram along with 318 of his servants pursued Chedorlaomer's army unto Dan (which means Judge or Judgement in this case, even though Dan wasn't even born yet, but that's a whole other story). And Abram (and this confederacy) and his servants divided themselves, smote them at night, and pursued them unto Hobah (Judges 4:11, Numbers 10:29), which is before Damascus. He brings back Lot and their goods. The King of Sodom and these 4 other Kings after fleeing from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer on them greet Abram after his victory.

Paraphrasing in Genesis 14:
21 And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me my people, but take the spoils for yourself.
22 And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have sworn an oath to the LORD, the Most High God, the Possessor of Heaven and Earth,
23 I will not take from you even a shoestring, I will not take any thing that is yours, lest you say later, I have made Abram rich:
24 I will only take that which my own men have already eaten, as for Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre let them take their portion of the spoils.

What oath did Abram take? Paraphrasing in Genesis 14
18 And Melchizedek King of Salem brought bread and wine: and he was the Priest of the Most High God.
19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the Most High God, Possessor of Heaven and Earth:
20 And blessed be the Most High God, which delivered your enemies into your hand. And Abram gave Melchizedek tithes of all. (The spoils of war he had gained in beating Chedorlaomer)

Notice, Melchizedek brought bread and wine, the symbol's of the sacrament. Hence, this symbolical ceremony was in effect BEFORE the Law. But through paganism this has turned into transubstatiation, the dipping of the bread in the wine by Judas, yeast and wine have a significance here. These event could also be seen in the feasts of Dionysis and Bacchus, but this is it's caracitured version. Notice also Abram makes an oath by which he promises not to receive of his own any of the spoils, which he would righty deserve. We can see the type of this, when the lord demands that all the Canaanites be delivered up, and for them not to mingle with the other tribes of the promised land. We can see this in Samuel's command to Saul to kill all the Amalekites and take none of the spoils for himself or to the Lord. Abram is soon visited by God's Spirit in the next chapter in which he receives the promised seed as the stars of heaven, his descendant deliverance from Egypt, and the promise to inherit the land which he now occupies as far as he can see. Here Abram believes in the LORD, and its counted it to him for righteousness.

Chapter 14 & 15, contains many references in allegory, and hidden double meanings to the Amorites Sin, The Abomination of Sodom and Gomorrah, The recurring message of the Kings of the East or World Powers, The trouble the Caananites pose to Jacob's seed, The Priestly Line of Moses' Father-in-Law Jethro a Midianite and a descendant of Abraham's 3rd wife Keturah, Abrams journey into Egypt, Nazerites, Rephaim and the Kenites. Melchizedek is a contraction of 2 words Melchi meaning king and Zadok meaning priest basically. The Jebusites occupied Mt Moriah which is called the threshing floor or place, today its the site of the Dome of the Rock. Also to note, the Hebrew letters of the name Eliezer, Abraham’s servant, have a numerical value of 318. Gen 14:14 says that Abraham took 318 trained men to pursue the kings from the east. Anyways, this list goes on and on so I'll stop here.

In Psalms 110:4, The Lord confers upon David, David's lineage of Kings, and even Christ to some extent, being of David's linaege, the same blessings Abram recieved from Melchizedek.
Which is why - Before Abraham I was. Was refering Melchizedek to Christ.

1 ¶ <<A Psalm of David.>> The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
2 The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.
3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.
4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

That's all for now I hope you liked it. I love Bible story's there awesome. I know I haven't gotten to the elect, election and the sent one's, or how this relates to Isaiah, the Millenium and Revelation. But I'll do that next, when I got time!
 
DivineNames said:
Drew said:
The idea that God pre-destines people to hell simply clashes so violently with our other ideas - ideas about love and justice, for example - that it simply is not a workable idea.

For example, the concept of love entails ideas of concern for the comfort and well-being of others. Sure, there is a "tough" side to love, but it always has the best long-term interests of the other person at heart. How is an eternity in hell in someone's best interests?

Our concept of justice, as worked out in our legal system and as played out in our relationships is based on the notion that, in order to be accountable for one's actions, one has to have control over them. Here again, the idea of pre-determined eternal damnation makes no sense - it clashes with such a conception.
Click to expand...

I agree completely with what you are saying. However, perhaps Paul had exactly that objection in mind when he wrote-

One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? (Romans 9:19-21 NIV)
Click to expand...

So perhaps Christians should just accept that God has predestined millions of people to burn in hell? He is God, he can do what he likes, is it for you to question what he does?
Click to expand...

Pardon me for not having read right through the thread but the last comment drew my attention.

Is this what you believe?
 
If you accept that salvation is by grace, then predestination seems to be the principle taken to its conclusion. If you choose to accept Jesus, then has not your own righteousness, (however little), played a part (however small) in salvation?

Perhaps that conclusion is not inevitable, but I imagine you can see what I am getting at.
 
Read James White's rebuttal to Chosen But Free by Norman Geisler, called Potter's Freedom. He picks Geisler's book apart.

Peace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top