So to help me out, can you please define each - as concisely as possible of course.
Instead of the regular scripture and argument, think of election in this light.
From Macarthur:
"As William Perkins said, many years ago, “We must not think that God does a thing because it’s good and right, but rather is the thing good and right because God wills it and works it.†God defines for us what is justice, because God is by nature just and righteous, and what He does reflects that nature. His own freewill and nothing else is behind His justice, so whatever He wills, is just, and it is just, because He wills it, not because it is just, and therefore He wills it. Now as we think about the justice of God being representative of His character and not subject to fallen assumptions, we begin to understand that God in the nature of His own sovereignty defines everything that He does, as not only just, but perfect. The Creator owes nothing to the creature, not even what He is graciously pleased to give. So God does exactly what God chooses to do . . . that is what it means to be God.
We could talk a little bit about the idea, of course that salvation is not a matter of justice . . . and aren’t we glad for that . . . but it is in a sense because Jesus Christ had to pay the just price for sin, in order that grace might be extended to us. But salvation, of course, is for all of us who are fallen sinners, deserving of nothing but eternal damnationâ€â€really a matter, not of justice, but of mercy and grace, which requires justice, but comes to us in the form of mercy and pure grace.
...
The idea that God does what He wants, and that what He does is true and right because He does it, is behind, of course, the understanding of everything in the Scripture and certainly it is behind the doctrine of election. But we cannot isolate the doctrine of election, from election of the church, in regard to us from every other thing that God chooses to do. Because in the whole, large picture, God elects everything that He does. Everything that God does, He does because He chooses to do it and His choices are free from any influence outside Himself. So the doctrine of election fits into this broader comprehension of a sovereign God, by His own nature, doing whatever He chooses to do. That is the broadest perspective."
...
(read the whole discussion here.)
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/GTY65.HTM
If we look at the bigger picture, rejection of election is rejection of His sovereignty, at least in part. But can you reject in part with out rejecting all of God's sovereignty?
Is this rejection of election an outward sign of a much bigger rejection?
I believe that it is. If so, how far reaching is it?
I believe that it all starts from the rejection of God's sovereignty.
So then we must ask, does this affect the Gospel, and if so, how much. Is a person who rejects God's sovereignty puting their faith in an idol that they created with half being from scripture, and the other half from the flesh?
Here is something that I came acrass the other day that's worth pondering.
-----------------
II. "BUT ELECTION ISN'T FAIR!"
Some years ago I was at a weekend retreat with a group of university students. During a discussion period someone raised the subject of predestination and election. One girl asked, "Where does the Bible clearly teach that God sovereignly chooses some people to be saved?" I asked her to read Romans nine out loud. She paused a second with a surprised look on her face as she slowly read "before they were born or had done good or evil." When she got to 9:13 and read, "Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated," she stopped and said, "But that's not fair." I asked her to read the next verse. The King James Version says, "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid." She had a modern speech translation and it said, "You will object and say, 'but that's not fair.'" The surprised girl blurted out, "That's what I just said."
Now listen very carefully. If you object to election on the grounds that you think it is unfair, you are using an objection that has already been used and answered in the Scripture. The moment you say, "Election is unfair," you are admitting that you disagree with Paul's teaching in Romans 9:11-13 because that is the very objection he is presupposing his opponents will make. In his answer Paul does not back up or soften his statement. He declares that God has every right to show mercy to whomever he chooses.
The young lady continued to read Romans nine. She read verse 18, "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." She literally gasped, "Then man cannot be held responsible. He is only a robot." Again I asked her to read the next verse. The King James says, "Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?" The young lady's modern speech translation read, "You will say to me, 'Then man cannot be held responsible. He is only a robot.'" The poor girl said, "I did it again!" Let me repeat what I just said. If you object to election on the grounds that you think it makes man a robot, you are using an objection that has already been used and answered in the Scripture. The moment you say, "Election means man cannot be held responsible," you are admitting that you disagree with Paul's teaching in Romans 9:18. Again, we see that Paul did not soften his statement. He declares that the Potter has the sovereign right to fashion, as he chooses, the lump of clay which is sinful man.
Both of the above objections forget the fall of Adam and the doctrine of depravity. They treat sinners as if God created them sinful instead of remembering that we all chose, in Adam, to sin...."
http://www.gracesermons.com/hisbygrace/ ... ction.html
God bless
Dave
