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!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Drew
Member
On the matter of whether reference to an elect group necessitates that the members of that group also need to be elected. I believe that the answer is "no". So when we have, for example, the reference to an "elect chosen by grace" in Romans 11, we need not conclude that the individual members of this elect have also been "elected".
My argument is as follows: God obviously can sovereignly pre-destine a plan for the salvation of some human beings. In other words, he can pre-destine a pathway to justification - He can sovereignly carve out such a pathway in His universe. Now to be charitable to the standard "pre-destination" position, I will not argue that the "pre-destination" of a simple pathway to justification, an "empty" category if you will, is all that is meant by reference to an "elect". Even though I think such an argument might actually have some force, I will not go there.
I will therefore concede that if God pre-destines an "elect" unto salvation, there must be actual people in that category in order for reference to "an elect" to be even sensible. Nevertheless, I still maintain that one need not have God "picking the members of this elect" - the members of the elect can "freely" choose to enter that category, to "walk down that pathway to justification".
How can this view be sustained? Well, I will assert without argument that God can know the future without fore-ordaining it. In other words, He can know that I will have tea after dinner on January 20, 2013 without pre-desting me to make that choice. There is an argument that undergirds this and I think it is rock-solid. I will not provide in this post, however. So God can indeed pre-destine a category called "the elect" - this is a set of persons who freely choose to accept the invitation to walk down the pathway to justification. And he knows who will be in that set, even though He did not pre-destine that specific people will or will not be in the set. So indeed, it is sensible to make reference to an "elect".
I claim that this is not "election light" - it is not a way to slither out of the rather obvious implication that when God "elects", He is doing more than simply foreknowing. I would indeed be guilty of such a dodge if I were to say that the "elect" are simply those whom God foreknows will accept salvation. That leaves nothing for God to fully and sufficiently choose. And I understand why those of a Calvinist bent do not like such an argument. Election is indeed not the same as simply as fore-knowing.
But, on the view that I am proposing, there is indeed real "election" going on - God pre-destines that a set will indeed exist, guaranteed to be non-empty in virtue of foreknowledge as opposed to election of specific members. By fully and sufficiently pre-destining the existence of a category that He knows will be filled by "volunteers" (I use this word guardedly), it can indeed be said that God is creating an elect.
My argument is as follows: God obviously can sovereignly pre-destine a plan for the salvation of some human beings. In other words, he can pre-destine a pathway to justification - He can sovereignly carve out such a pathway in His universe. Now to be charitable to the standard "pre-destination" position, I will not argue that the "pre-destination" of a simple pathway to justification, an "empty" category if you will, is all that is meant by reference to an "elect". Even though I think such an argument might actually have some force, I will not go there.
I will therefore concede that if God pre-destines an "elect" unto salvation, there must be actual people in that category in order for reference to "an elect" to be even sensible. Nevertheless, I still maintain that one need not have God "picking the members of this elect" - the members of the elect can "freely" choose to enter that category, to "walk down that pathway to justification".
How can this view be sustained? Well, I will assert without argument that God can know the future without fore-ordaining it. In other words, He can know that I will have tea after dinner on January 20, 2013 without pre-desting me to make that choice. There is an argument that undergirds this and I think it is rock-solid. I will not provide in this post, however. So God can indeed pre-destine a category called "the elect" - this is a set of persons who freely choose to accept the invitation to walk down the pathway to justification. And he knows who will be in that set, even though He did not pre-destine that specific people will or will not be in the set. So indeed, it is sensible to make reference to an "elect".
I claim that this is not "election light" - it is not a way to slither out of the rather obvious implication that when God "elects", He is doing more than simply foreknowing. I would indeed be guilty of such a dodge if I were to say that the "elect" are simply those whom God foreknows will accept salvation. That leaves nothing for God to fully and sufficiently choose. And I understand why those of a Calvinist bent do not like such an argument. Election is indeed not the same as simply as fore-knowing.
But, on the view that I am proposing, there is indeed real "election" going on - God pre-destines that a set will indeed exist, guaranteed to be non-empty in virtue of foreknowledge as opposed to election of specific members. By fully and sufficiently pre-destining the existence of a category that He knows will be filled by "volunteers" (I use this word guardedly), it can indeed be said that God is creating an elect.
Vic C.
Member
I often ponder over the concept of an elect, finite group chosen by God for 1) salvation and 2) to spread the news to those who were never elected, but come, or not come, by choice. This way, His will can be accomplished without running fullspeed into the idea of double predestiny.
That's the part that gets to me about limited atonement, one has no choice but to assert that HE determines one to one group or the other. Well that and the unnecessary need to sacrifice Someone for a group already predestined anyway. :-?
That's the part that gets to me about limited atonement, one has no choice but to assert that HE determines one to one group or the other. Well that and the unnecessary need to sacrifice Someone for a group already predestined anyway. :-?
Vic C.
Member
That's a good question, Ed. Maybe I'm just guilty of viewing limited atonement from a human perspective. The way I understand limited atonement is that God predetermines who will be saved, leaving the rest to the the unsaved group. It asserts that Jesus died only for those the Father has chosen, or elected. Yes, I know one can rattle off verses that say just this, but in light of context, better off, the whole body of scripture, I see a different view. Even systematic theology has it's drawbacks.
It just sounds so exclusive to me and I don't really view God as being exclusive in this sense. I can't comprehend Him as saying, "ok, my Son died you you, but not for you. I believe the whole of scripture teach us that Jesus' death was sufficient for all, but effective only for those who accept and believe in Christ as Savior.
I know the patented response to me would be that I'm the one who is limiting atonement. I disagree. I feel that anyone who says that God doesn't make some sort of provision for those outside of the predetermined, elect group, are the ones doing the limiting.
Ed, I doubt this is a sufficient answer to your question; I hope it is though. I just expressed in my previous post, some thoughts I've been pondering. I didn't do it to enter into a debate with anyone. I know how these debates go; questions are designed to force another into answering in a specific way, with a specific answer. We all do it; I've done it.
I've been around many a child and this is how they wear you down. They keep asking questions, all the time narrowing down the questions until you are left without any more answers. What do you think leads so many parents to spout out the dreaded, "BECAUSE I SAID SO!"? LOL
NO, I'm not calling anyone a child; I'm using this as an example. 8-)
It just sounds so exclusive to me and I don't really view God as being exclusive in this sense. I can't comprehend Him as saying, "ok, my Son died you you, but not for you. I believe the whole of scripture teach us that Jesus' death was sufficient for all, but effective only for those who accept and believe in Christ as Savior.
I know the patented response to me would be that I'm the one who is limiting atonement. I disagree. I feel that anyone who says that God doesn't make some sort of provision for those outside of the predetermined, elect group, are the ones doing the limiting.
Ed, I doubt this is a sufficient answer to your question; I hope it is though. I just expressed in my previous post, some thoughts I've been pondering. I didn't do it to enter into a debate with anyone. I know how these debates go; questions are designed to force another into answering in a specific way, with a specific answer. We all do it; I've done it.
I've been around many a child and this is how they wear you down. They keep asking questions, all the time narrowing down the questions until you are left without any more answers. What do you think leads so many parents to spout out the dreaded, "BECAUSE I SAID SO!"? LOL
NO, I'm not calling anyone a child; I'm using this as an example. 8-)