Election of the Wicked

[DivineNames]

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).

Some Christians seem to think that God looks into the future to see who will accept Jesus. Something that may be relevant to this issue-

We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. (Romans 3:9-11 NIV)

If "no one seeks God", then if God looks into the future he will not see people accepting Jesus. He will see everyone rejecting Christ.

 

[mutzrein]

He is God, he can do what he likes, is it for you to question what he does?

Is this what you believe?

That is my impression of what Paul is saying.

Yep – and I have no problem either with ‘election’.

But what I do have a problem with is this. As a consequence of ‘election,’ and other streams of thought the conclusion is drawn that God has condemned among others - innocent children, the handicapped, people who have never heard the gospel let alone the name of Jesus, people from all races, all creeds, all tribes, all religions – on the basis that they are sinners. Consequently all are condemned to hell who have not received / accepted / believed / (whatever you want to call it) salvation through Christ.

Now this is not my conclusion but that of Christendom in general and it is in my estimation one of the root causes of so much dissention. How could a righteous & just God do this by meting out what seems such an unfair judgment?

The fact is He doesn’t. But no-one wants to accept that He doesn’t because to do so would be to accept that their theology is wrong. And to accept that their theology is wrong on this one count alone would mean that they would have to examine the premise upon which their theology is based. And then finding the premise wrong, they would have to re-write their theologies and doctrines. Can we see this happening? Not likely – especially when many say that acceptance of their creeds & doctrines is necessary for salvation.

Now I know that not all faiths / churches / denominations are like this, but the vast majority do have this one belief in common – all ‘sinners’ go to hell.

Well lets take perhaps one of the most commonly quoted verses in scripture, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.â€Â

Now we accept everlasting life (with its reward in heaven) but then we somehow conclude that to perish means to have everlasting life in torment in hell. Why?

 

[BenJasher]

Well, let me bait a hook and throw it in the water here:

There is a way that the predestination of the wicked and the predestination of the Elect are reconciled to each other in perfect harmony. But most of you here would rather sit around straining at gnats and swallowing camels than sincerely consider the concept that dispels the confusion of this issue.

Let me know if you want to know more about it.

 

[mutzrein]

Well, let me bait a hook and throw it in the water here:

There is a way that the predestination of the wicked and the predestination of the Elect are reconciled to each other in perfect harmony. But most of you here would rather sit around straining at gnats and swallowing camels than sincerely consider the concept that dispels the confusion of this issue.

Let me know if you want to know more about it.

Great BJ why don't you dispel everyone's confusion.

I'm assuming (although sometimes dangerous) you were responding to me. If so, while I'm working on the gnats and camels why don't you throw a couple of worms on your hook and throw your line in.

Thanks

 

[BenJasher]

Hey Mutt,

Allow me to PM you with my views on the subject.

 

[mutzrein]

Sure BJ - way you go

Thanks

 

[JM]

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.

Your starting with the persupposition that man should or wants to be saved. This isn't true. A dog returns to his vomit. Man is predestined to hell based upon his own volition. Man wants to do his own will, which is sinful, God saves some.

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?

You have to notice how much your argument is outside Scripture. You can't dispute the Scripture for the first argument, but offer known to support your idea of 'love' which I deny as unbiblical. A quick example of the Biblical view of God's love can be found in Gen. 50 and where Joseph was sold into slavery. You can't tell me God didn't love Joseph, yet Joseph was a slave! Read the chpt. Gen 50:20 But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive. We know man did an evil thing, yet it was God's hand that 'bring to pass' the deed. It was to 'save much people.' We cannot judge God on our terms, from our moment in history.

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.

Paul responded with this, "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:" We see God does fit one for honour and one for dishonour, it's a plain fact.

Paul answered your objections, your objections are not Biblical. This is a hard teaching, most of my family is outside of the faith and know nothing of the Covenant. But I have faith, that God's will be done.

Peace,

j