The "Elect"

[Doulos Iesou]

Caps, Bold, Underlined - I'd really have to be dense now not to understand 'All' means All. I'm afraid you've put me into a box of stereotypical calvinists who'd struggle with their incomplete theology to somehow reinterpret certain words. As I've already stated, I don't need these prooftexted verses to show that the Gospel offer is unto All. Aren't you now simply nitpicking when I've already concurred that "the Gospel must be preached to ALL people without exception"?

Having already agreed with the universal scope of the Gospel offer, I now do want to read verses within their context - hence my question on how it's clear that Titus 2 deals with the reprobate contextually? You could have quoted Mark 16:15 to convey the same point without ambiguity, couldn't you?

Actually if you look at the text, this isn't talking about the offering of the gospel. The text starts with an explanatory conjunction "for" which is in response to his statement about slaves, in seeking that they adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.

His response to that is that grace of God appeared, bringing salvation for all people. The Greek word for "has appeared" is "Ἐπεφάνη" is the Aorist Indicative, which denotes an event that took place in the past which has been completed. Which would indicate that this is a reference to the grace of God in Christ's atonement, not an even that continues today, i.e. the offering of the gospel. This text I believe clearly teaches that God has intended with the Cross, the sins of all people.

Why do I think this? Well, because of his reasoning within the context. If he told them to seek the salvation of their slaves, and used the basis that the grace of God was bringing salvation for all people, we would understand as meaning the grace of God is intended for the slaves as well. Some of the slaves, or all of the slaves? All of them of course.

This is why I think the whole semantics that Calvinists use regarding the word "all," where they try to distinguish "all without exception" and "all without distinction." What they really try to squeeze in the "all without distinction," is that this only means some slaves, some Greeks, some Jews, some Gentiles. This is inserted due to their doctrine of reprobation and election, which has no Scriptural foundation. We have no reason to believe that Paul's words here were only applicable to some slaves, and therefore by extension, we have no reason to believe that God has not actually provided a way of salvation for every person who has lived on this earth after the resurrection.

 

[ivdavid]

This points to the biggest issue I think Calvinism presents. That all of God's other attributes become indiscernible and all you can say about God is, "he will always do whatever brings him the most glory."

Firstly, this was a refreshingly honest post, striking right at the heart of the matter. I too concur with this being the issue with most calvinists explaining their faith - this over-balancing in the opposite direction. Each of God's attributes are praise-worthy - none are to be upheld at the expense of violating another. While it is true that calvinism seeks to restore the importance due to God's attribute of sovereignty, it must only be within due measure and not at the altar of sacrificing His other attributes of love and goodness.

The problem we run into then is why does the physician only perform surgery on some, and not others?

To deny that this poses an immediate issue to the common mind is to enter a discussion without integrity. To my knowledge, all calvinists must have crossed this bridge - some may gloss over it, evading the issue altogether. Some like Spurgeon may hold both horns of a dilemma and claim that they'd rather be seen as inconsistent in believing A when Scripture states A and B when Scripture states B even if A and B were seemingly contradictory - while waiting for the Lord to reveal all truth eventually.

Well, why is there a problem in this proposition - because it seems to imply that God is partial, and Scripture is abundantly clear in its stating that God is no respecter of persons. Scripture is equally clear in stating Exo 33:19 - why did God even have to word it that way when He could have simply stated He'd will to have mercy upon each and every man. The initial way forward would be to hold both as true about God - that He is not partial and that He has mercy on whom He wills. The reconciling can be done later by an understanding of the differences between partiality and sovereignty in the context of grace and mercy.

You'll of course be quick to notice that it isn't because of anything good in them, but will likely cite the reason of "to the praise of his glorious grace."

Actually, I'd have cited the reason to be - "the fulfillment of His necessary purposes". God always had His final Kingdom in the new heavens and earth in mind whilst He planned unto it - and this is the best way He could attain unto all that He'd purposed for His final Kingdom. Elaboration on this would be content for a separate thread itself.

In Calvinism, the Love of God is truly on for himself, and then by extension he loves others only such to the degree that it serves himself....We do not have to deal with the idea that there is such a God like this.

I do not see the calvinist worldview resulting in such a picture of God, neither of His love. It is indeed intriguing to read such detailed arguments against this worldview - for it reveals that you actually believe its proponents to be either lacking in intellectual integrity so as to fail to see such a necessary implication or to be lacking in emotional integrity so as to accept God to be the self-obsessed tyrant that you think this worldview paints. Why isn't there any allowance for its proponents to have reconciled their beliefs while avoiding such pitfalls - and that it is the detractors who haven't understood this worldview in its entirety?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

This is a good starting point. We're agreed upon the fact that man does not have the inherent capacity to believe the Gospel and that God must do the enabling in such a man to believe in the Person of Christ. And we're also agreed upon the fact that such an enabling to believe is all of grace and not something any man merits or is entitled to. Great.

Where I think we differ is here - I cannot make sense of an additional stage beyond this enabling work of God and before man believing in God - to me, both amount to the same effect, the former implying the latter. Whereas I think you see this enabling of faith as only the first stage of salvation involving God's work which then needs to be completed by the second stage of man's willing to believe.

The condition of the New Covenant is faith, and in order to belong to Jesus one has to be united by him in faith. Regeneration then, comes from being united to the resurrection life of Jesus. One doesn't get new life, and then receive new life anew upon believing, it is all one event.

Whoever believes has eternal life, this is a conditional statement and I embrace it.

If we're on the same page still, then I'd like to know what was the inhibiting factor that caused this incapacity in man to believe in the first place, which had to be removed by God's enabling work? I hold it to be the stubborn stony heart of man itself(Eze 36:26) - which the enabling work of God regenerates into a new heart and why - so that it can no longer be stubborn and hardened against accepting the Gospel. So, once this enabling regeneration is done, what could still keep man from rejecting the Gospel after that? It would be quite futile to say that the will of man can still be disobedient and hardened against God when in the same breath we say that God's enabling work dealt with that very issue of a hardened and disobedient hearer.

I don't regard unbelievers to be benefactors of the promise of the New Covenant, therefore I don't see how the promise of having one's heart regenerated applies to unbelievers.

Here are a couple relevant texts within the NT on the matter specific to prior to one's coming to faith.

And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed, Acts 18:27 (ESV)

Apollos' preaching "greatly helped," the people who "grace" had believed. I don't see how an irresistible act of God can be "greatly helped," also the text simply says that these individuals believed by grace. This is where the idea of prevenient grace (grace coming before) comes from, that the grace of God enables people to believe the gospel.

"One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul." Acts 16:14 (ESV)

Here we have a little more detail, where God actually opens her heart to pay attention to what Paul was saying. Does he give her a new heart? No, but rather gives her the ability to pay attention to the gospel being presented so as to be able to respond apparently. Again, I don't see an irresistible act of God here, a sovereign aiding grace for sure, but not Calvinism.

Anyway, I guess you must have reconciled this differently where you hold the inhibiting factor to be something quite independently distinct from the hardened heart of the hearer - which is how you are able to hold both the enabling work of God and the hardening of the hearer's heart to happen simultaneously. What is this inhibiting factor then that you hold?

Men don't believe because of their wickedness. Men who do believe don't do so because they are more righteous, but rather because they respond to the conviction of the Holy Spirit with humility and an acknowledgment of One's wickedness. As the tax collector once said, "God have mercy on me a sinner," it was that man who went home justified, not the one who exalted himself for what he believes God has made of him.

Whoever humbles himself will be exalted, and whoever exalts himself will be humbled. The example used dealt with Justification and therefore I think this teaching has to do with the kind of person who comes to God, and is justified in the eyes of God. The one who trusts not in himself, but in the Lord.

This indicates a misunderstanding of each other's beliefs - for I too hold the above statement as true and yet it seems you think the opposite is what my worldview must hold. While dealing with causative reasons, Man perishes because of his own wickedness - God's election has no causative role to play in that. I'm guessing you have an issue when I say that election only determines the salvation of those who've been shown mercy - not the condemnation of those who weren't shown mercy. To you, it might seem like one being the converse of the other - but i don't see it that way at all. Apply it in the context of one common murderer being pardoned by a sovereign king, while another is not - is the king to be blamed for this person being hung according to the law that he transgressed? And yet we'd attribute the life of the first person entirely to the mercy of the king, wouldn't we?

I don't misunderstand at all actually. The reason that one person responds and another doesn't within Calvinism is the fact that one is sovereignly regenerated and the other is not. The doctrine of reprobation is basically just double predestination, for if God chose to save certain individuals he also needed to make choices to not save others. This "passing over" would therefore be deliberate, to which of course the Calvinist would respond that God is leaving them in their sinful condition and doesn't need to show them mercy. However, this condition is from birth and goes back to Adam, which by Calvinist dogma would be all a part of God's sovereign will and decree. That man should fall, and that God should choose to save only a few and then punish the others forever and ever.

The implications of God sovereingly decreeing everything that comes to pass is fatal to Calvinism IMO.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Firstly, this was a refreshingly honest post, striking right at the heart of the matter. I too concur with this being the issue with most calvinists explaining their faith - this over-balancing in the opposite direction. Each of God's attributes are praise-worthy - none are to be upheld at the expense of violating another. While it is true that calvinism seeks to restore the importance due to God's attribute of sovereignty, it must only be within due measure and not at the altar of sacrificing His other attributes of love and goodness.

I'm saying that within Calvinism, all become indiscernible, because of the way God acts. That every action seems to be under the pretense that he is doing it ultimately for himself. Teachers like John Piper, then present Christian Hedonism, which is basically a Puritanical effort to try to swallow this pill. That we should be happy that God is ultimately for God, as that is the only way he could be for us, and that us being satisfied in God is when he is most glorified, which of course is what God is really all about.

To deny that this poses an immediate issue to the common mind is to enter a discussion without integrity. To my knowledge, all calvinists must have crossed this bridge - some may gloss over it, evading the issue altogether. Some like Spurgeon may hold both horns of a dilemma and claim that they'd rather be seen as inconsistent in believing A when Scripture states A and B when Scripture states B even if A and B were seemingly contradictory - while waiting for the Lord to reveal all truth eventually.

Well, why is there a problem in this proposition - because it seems to imply that God is partial, and Scripture is abundantly clear in its stating that God is no respecter of persons. Scripture is equally clear in stating Exo 33:19 - why did God even have to word it that way when He could have simply stated He'd will to have mercy upon each and every man. The initial way forward would be to hold both as true about God - that He is not partial and that He has mercy on whom He wills. The reconciling can be done later by an understanding of the differences between partiality and sovereignty in the context of grace and mercy.

I actually disagree that it would make him a respecter of persons, as he wouldn't do it with particular concern for these people, but rather particular concern for himself. That these people's salvation and praise would serve the magnification of his glory.

Actually, I'd have cited the reason to be - "the fulfillment of His necessary purposes". God always had His final Kingdom in the new heavens and earth in mind whilst He planned unto it - and this is the best way He could attain unto all that He'd purposed for His final Kingdom. Elaboration on this would be content for a separate thread itself.

What do you believe is God's ultimate purpose, within a Calvinistic framework?

I do not see the calvinist worldview resulting in such a picture of God, neither of His love. It is indeed intriguing to read such detailed arguments against this worldview - for it reveals that you actually believe its proponents to be either lacking in intellectual integrity so as to fail to see such a necessary implication or to be lacking in emotional integrity so as to accept God to be the self-obsessed tyrant that you think this worldview paints. Why isn't there any allowance for its proponents to have reconciled their beliefs while avoiding such pitfalls - and that it is the detractors who haven't understood this worldview in its entirety?

Teachers within Calvinism acknowledge these issues, and I have heard many sermons on it when I was a Calvinist. John Piper's Desiring God and his related sermons, or Matt Chandler's God is for God sermon come immediately to mind. One who is deeply devoted to something often doesn't have the best perspective. I've certainly had some friends who were deeply "in love" with someone who I had no idea what they could see in that person, and were partially blinded by their devotion. I'm not saying Calvinists are partially blinded, as I made no statements about their character, but addressed the viewpoint alone.

I am a former Calvinist myself, and was an ardent defender of it's doctrine until I could no longer recognize the Savior who stood on the Cross. All I could see was a God who wanted to get glory no matter what. That he would be loving, and faithful only so long as it revealed his glory.

These I believe are the clear implications made by Calvinistic doctrine, and I don't see any way around it, or any reconciliation that made the idea the least bit palatable.

 

[ivdavid]

What do you believe is God's ultimate purpose, within a Calvinistic framework?

To establish an eternal kingdom without sin or corruption where He gathers together in Christ, a Holy people in love, where all shall know Him.

I shall try and address the remaining points as and when I can. Now that we've raised a good number of points, perhaps we could attend to only a few points at a time, so that the discussion remains focused and easy to follow.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

To establish an eternal kingdom without sin or corruption where He gathers together in Christ, a Holy people in love, where all shall know Him.

Yet, God ordained in his sovereign Decree that man should fall and that there should be sin in the world. So his ultimate purpose would seem to point to something else wihthin Calvinism.

Do you believe that God has sovereignly ordained and decreed everything that has ever come and will come to pass?

I shall try and address the remaining points as and when I can. Now that we've raised a good number of points, perhaps we could attend to only a few points at a time, so that the discussion remains focused and easy to follow.

That's fair, I kind of gave the shotgun argument and now you're left to pick up the pieces. I think sticking to a few points will be helpful.

Blessings,
DI

 

[Deborah13]

The promises of God are always declared initially - and yet none pays heed to it or seeks after God. God says, ask and you shall receive - God says, seek for me with all your heart and I will be found of you. None in the flesh exercises these promises. Therein God's mercy begins a new work in such a hardened heart, where the convictions of God are laid upon his heart as a process - at the end of which, this man inevitably boils over to cling on to God's promises - and asks for forgiveness through repentance and seeks God's righteousness through faith - evidencing the result of the preceding completed regeneration meant for this very purpose of leading him to salvatio.

I agree with what you have said here except for the inevitably of it. Irresistable grace.

Could we continue any further discussion on this later, on another thread? We began discussing who/what the elect referred to - and invariably that term is always in association with calvinist doctrines and consequently, every other unrelated doctrine within calvinism is pulled into question instead of discussing just that specific point that we began with. But if you must discuss this here, then also provide explanations from your worldview to the questions/points I've raised on this topic to make it a fair discussion.

You are correct that when the question arises, who are the elect, all the different views will appear in the discussion.
And there will be questions about why one has the view they do. In my study I find that none of the individual views of Calvinist doctrine are unrelated, they are like blocks in a tower each supporting the next.
But we do need to get back on track with the elect. You have made your points clear, thank you for indulging me with my endless questions.
Blessings to you and yours.

 

[ivdavid]

Do you believe that God has sovereignly ordained and decreed everything that has ever come and will come to pass?

Of course. Don't you? Am I to read further into the application of your above question - for it seems pretty straightforward to me. What is it that you hold to have occurred without God decreeing that it could happen? I mean, if God didn't want anything at all from happening here, couldn't He have simply not begun His work of creation at all - and the corollary being, if God did go ahead with His work of creation, it is evidently because He has decreed for it to happen, either to His pleasure or by permission unto a greater purpose.

Yet, God ordained in his sovereign Decree that man should fall and that there should be sin in the world. So his ultimate purpose would seem to point to something else within Calvinism.

All necessary milestones in order to reach the final purpose of gathering a holy people in Christ. My understanding began backwards from the final purpose - Given that after the final resurrection, there'd be no sin or corruption in the kingdom of God, Have you ever wondered how it is that such perfection can be maintained eternally? Why can't there even be the possibility of another fall in the final Kingdom? Won't man have the freewill to choose to sin there?

 

[Stan1953]

We do find reprobate in about four verses. Regeneration in 2.
Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
I'm not sure how all these words were/are defined though.

This is the main reason I don't like the KJV... it uses old Elizabethan English that is inaccurate. It is more properly rendered as "new birth", in Titus 3:5 NIV
Basically RT uses regeneration to signify restored to a better, higher, or more worthy state. How is that possible, when we never were in that state? Jesus said "born again", referring to our spiritual nature. The New Covenant is the NEW creation were are reborn into and that is under faith, not works.
When they come up, I try to deal with them.

 

[Stan1953]

IVDAVID,
I'm a little lost in this debate with you and OZSPEN, can you give me a quick synopsis?
Thanks.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Of course. Don't you? Am I to read further into the application of your above question - for it seems pretty straightforward to me. What is it that you hold to have occurred without God decreeing that it could happen? I mean, if God didn't want anything at all from happening here, couldn't He have simply not begun His work of creation at all - and the corollary being, if God did go ahead with His work of creation, it is evidently because He has decreed for it to happen, either to His pleasure or by permission unto a greater purpose.

Calvinism goes further than Arminianism in that he doesn't just allow or permit things to happen, but ordained that it should come to pass.

All necessary milestones in order to reach the final purpose of gathering a holy people in Christ. My understanding began backwards from the final purpose - Given that after the final resurrection, there'd be no sin or corruption in the kingdom of God, Have you ever wondered how it is that such perfection can be maintained eternally? Why can't there even be the possibility of another fall in the final Kingdom? Won't man have the freewill to choose to sin there?

Redeemed humanity will be like Christ, and Adam was not created to be Holy like God. I don't think there will be any potential for another fall, due to the nature of what mankind will be. Free will doesn't mean every choices is possible, just that in certain contexts there is a possibility of true contrary choices to be made.

What is your view on the divine decrees? This is different with certain Calvinists, but I imagine you hold to the Infralapsarian view?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

This is the main reason I don't like the KJV... it uses old Elizabethan English that is inaccurate. It is more properly rendered as "new birth", in Titus 3:5 NIV
Basically RT uses regeneration to signify restored to a better, higher, or more worthy state. How is that possible, when we never were in that state? Jesus said "born again", referring to our spiritual nature. The New Covenant is the NEW creation were are reborn into and that is under faith, not works.
When they come up, I try to deal with them.

I don't like the rendering of "born again," but born anew works well.

Jesus uses this word in Matthew 19, that I think sheds light on it's meaning.

Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Matthew 19:28 (ESV)

The translation of "new world" is the same Greek word "palingenesia". The word "palin" means more so the word "anew" or in some instances "from above," rather than "again" which is represented better by another Greek word. The other Greek word where it gets it's root from is very well known, which is the word "genesis," which of course can mean "beginning, birth." So in a sense, Jesus is saying, "Truly, I say to you, in the new beginning..." Very interesting.

I too would translate it "washing of the new birth," or "washing of the new beginning." I think the relation of this to the future age is very important, where we come to be a part of God's future kingdom in the present, by the power of the Holy Spirit. It isn't about changing a person so that they then believe, it is about changing a person who already believes to be a part of God's family. For it is on the basis of faith that we are adopted as children, all those who receive him did he give the right to become children of God. "Regeneration," which we agree is a bad translation, therefore does not precede faith.

 

[Stan1953]

I don't like the rendering of "born again," but born anew works well.

Jesus uses this word in Matthew 19, that I think sheds light on it's meaning.

Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Matthew 19:28 (ESV)

The translation of "new world" is the same Greek word "palingenesia". The word "palin" means more so the word "anew" or in some instances "from above," rather than "again" which is represented better by another Greek word. The other Greek word where it gets it's root from is very well known, which is the word "genesis," which of course can mean "beginning, birth." So in a sense, Jesus is saying, "Truly, I say to you, in the new beginning..." Very interesting.

I too would translate it "washing of the new birth," or "washing of the new beginning." I think the relation of this to the future age is very important, where we come to be a part of God's future kingdom in the present, by the power of the Holy Spirit. It isn't about changing a person so that they then believe, it is about changing a person who already believes to be a part of God's family. For it is on the basis of faith that we are adopted as children, all those who receive him did he give the right to become children of God. "Regeneration," which we agree is a bad translation, therefore does not precede faith.

Agreed, but even then I have a problem with NEW birth when Jesus said; "you must be born again", not anew or to be new, which is how RT likes to render it. It's that same spirit that is born again, just into a different reality, or covenant.

 

[Stan1953]

This is such a simplistic argument - do we throw out the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as mere dogma by the same measure just because the term doesn't exist in the NT?
While the term total depravity does not exist in the NT, I am referring to Rom 3:9-19, Rom 7:18 and Rom 8:7-8 by it. Would you rather me quote these entire passages each time I want to claim man can do no good in the flesh or can we make such references simpler by assigning a commonly agreed term for it such as 'total depravity'?

I qualified my statement. "Trinity" exists in the totality of scripture, along with all the Omni attributes, not only the words, of God, but the attributes that RT espouse aren't there.
Rom 9:9-19 refers to the LAW and those that we under it in the OT, as that is what is quoted by Paul. He was bringing the good news of the new covenant which taught different. Not the bondage of the OC, under which no one could be considered righteous.
Rom 7:18 and 8:7-8 again are referring to the law and the person whose nature was under the flesh. Rom 8:9-11 explains the difference very well.
I think it's best in instances where vernacular IS part of the doctrine, to stick with the scriptural vocabulary.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Agreed, but even then I have a problem with NEW birth when Jesus said; "you must be born again", not anew or to be new, which is how RT likes to render it. It's that same spirit that is born again, just into a different reality, or covenant.

I totally messed up, "palin" does mean "again or anew," but the Greek word used in Jesus statement in John 3:3 is the Greek word "anothen." Which definitely does not mean again.

To me, it seems clear that it means either "born from above" or "born anew." There is one other usage which this word denotes "anew," which is in Galatians 4:9. Here Paul uses two adverbs "palin" and "anothen" which is why the word here denotes not "from above," but rather "anew."

I certainly find the usage and language used regarding the New Birth interesting.

 

[reba]

I totally messed up, "palin" does mean "again or anew," but the Greek word used in Jesus statement in John 3:3 is the Greek word "anothen." Which definitely does not mean again.

To me, it seems clear that it means either "born from above" or "born anew." There is one other usage which this word denotes "anew," which is in Galatians 4:9. Here Paul uses two adverbs "palin" and "anothen" which is why the word here denotes not "from above," but rather "anew."

I certainly find the usage and language used regarding the New Birth interesting.

Way to often it get easy to forget many poster do the 'right thing' Thanks Doulos for your post...

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Way to often it get easy to forget many poster do the 'right thing' Thanks Doulos for your post...

 

[OzSpen]

Caps, Bold, Underlined - I'd really have to be dense now not to understand 'All' means All. I'm afraid you've put me into a box of stereotypical calvinists who'd struggle with their incomplete theology to somehow reinterpret certain words. As I've already stated, I don't need these prooftexted verses to show that the Gospel offer is unto All. Aren't you now simply nitpicking when I've already concurred that "the Gospel must be preached to ALL people without exception"?

Having already agreed with the universal scope of the Gospel offer, I now do want to read verses within their context - hence my question on how it's clear that Titus 2 deals with the reprobate contextually? You could have quoted Mark 16:15 to convey the same point without ambiguity, couldn't you?

I was simply responding to what you had written. There was no ulterior motive or niggle. I would not include Mark 16:15 as I don't consider it is part of the original MSS of the NT.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I was simply responding to what you had written. There was no ulterior motive or niggle. I would not include Mark 16:15 as I don't consider it is part of the original MSS of the NT.

I would agree, rather obvious interpolation.

 

[Stan1953]

I would agree, rather obvious interpolation.

It may or may not be, but it doesn't negate what is being said as true.