What is unconditional election, and is it biblical?

[rrowell]

rr said



Now he said whenever anyone puts on Christ he adds them to His Church. This statment is false unless he can show where the bible says that.

First we can prove that it requires "water baptism" to "put on Christ"

Galatians 3:27 (KJV)
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Romans 6:3-4 (KJV)
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

So after one is "water baptized" the submersion "burying the old man sin", when we "come up out of the water" likened to the resurrection of Christ walking in a new life, we to have washed away our sins and "should" <-meaning we need to try to stay that way, "walk in newness of life".

When at Pentecost Peter was asked "men and brethren what shall we do?" Peter told them:

Acts 2:37-41 (KJV)
37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

"and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls" and what were they added to? Peter said 6 verses later:

Acts 2:47 (KJV)
47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

 

[smaller]

It does not say "God can't save the lost", it says "if you don't obey God, God cannot save the lost"... big difference there...

God will without any doubt destroy the wicked and will not save one single vessel of dishonor, period.

God puts boundary upon himself, he said salvation is for those "in Christ" so unless you "by your own free will" obey Him and Christ add you to His body by your obedience putting you "in Christ" God is bound by His own law to not save the lost. He IS a just God.

They have yet to prove that.

Election and predestination is much more interesting than what most see.

In Paul for example, by his own words he had evil present with him and even a devil in his flesh [read: an entity that was not him]

Paul was a vessel of honor. A truthful man of his own conditions in faith.

God showed him his prior slaveship and turned him from it to the power of Light on the road to Damascus. There was zero choice involved in that matter for Paul. He was predestined and elected by direct intervention of God in Christ to see and see he would.

Yet Paul remained truthful to his factual conditions post salvation.

Paul was elected and unconditionally saved. And he was also above all honest about the continuing fact of the resistance that remained within him by his and our mutual adversary, as were the other Apostles.

What applied to Paul on election and salvation did in no way apply to the evil present with him/that messenger of Satan that was simultaneously within his flesh. Those workings of the adversary within the heart and mind include temptations of every sort shown by Paul in Romans 7 where that power caused within him every sort of concupiscence.

That working in him was condemned. Paul remained saved regardless as that was his election and his God Determined fate as a vessel of honor.

Paul had this to say about believers regarding 'turning' from the vessel of dishonor. This is an 'internal' matter:

2 Tim. 2:
20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.
21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.


This is a picture of a believer who is turned from the power of the adversary, even while under constant influences of same. They 'know' the difference between themselves and the workings of the adversary within them. They are 'truthful' to the facts of this matter. This is how one knows 'who' is elect and predestined and who remains purposefully blinded by God's workings against the adversary within their hearts and minds.


It is Gods Sole Choice to raise a vessel of honor to see. Otherwise they remain blind by Gods Sole Intentions.

The only partial doctrines are man made, the Doctrine of Christ is complete

Untruthful doctrines are all doctrines of devils. They have little if anything to do with the person holding same because such are not alone heart or in mind.

Those who do not know where the adversary is are doomed to understandings of mixtures.

The adversary is 'in heart.' No person is alone in this way. We all have sin and sin is and remains of the devil.

s

 

[savedbygrace57]

rr

First we can prove that it requires "water baptism" to "put on
Christ"

So far you have not proved anything but that you post what you want to because this is an open forum !

 

[rrowell]

God will without any doubt destroy the wicked and will not save one single vessel of dishonor, period.



Election and predestination is much more interesting than what most see.

In Paul for example, by his own words he had evil present with him and even a devil in his flesh [read: an entity that was not him]

Paul was a vessel of honor. A truthful man of his own conditions in faith.

God showed him his prior slaveship and turned him from it to the power of Light on the road to Damascus. There was zero choice involved in that matter for Paul. He was predestined and elected by direct intervention of God in Christ to see and see he would.

Paul always did what he thought was pleasing to God, Lord Jesus showed him that Paul's way was not Gods way. he and the other Apostles were "chosen vessels". but we are not "Apostles".

Yet Paul remained truthful to his factual conditions post salvation.

Paul had a choice, "remain truthful" or "not remain truthful" and unlike Judas, he chose (remain obedient), and Judas chose not to (became disobedient) so to remain "elect" required (requires) "obedience"

Even those who Christ Chose to be "elect" had to make "choice". Just like those of us who "chose" to be elect "in Christ" ("in Christ" = "elect") require obedience to Him

Paul was elected and unconditionally saved.

He was NOT "unconditionally saved", Judas election was the same as Paul's and therefore the Apostles perpetual election required perpetual obediance.

 

[rrowell]

rr



So far you have not proved anything but that you post what you want to because this is an open forum !

I posted what is required to be saved... and it was from the Bible like you asked.

 

[smaller]

Paul always did what he thought was pleasing to God, Lord Jesus showed him that Paul's way was not Gods way. he and the other Apostles were "chosen vessels". but we are not "Apostles".

Paul had a choice, "remain truthful" or "not remain truthful" and unlike Judas, he chose (remain obedient), and Judas chose not to (became disobedient) so to remain "elect" required (requires) "obedience"

Even those who Christ Chose to be "elect" had to make "choice". Just like those of us who "chose" to be elect "in Christ" ("in Christ" = "elect") require obedience to Him

He was NOT "unconditionally saved", Judas election was the same as Paul's and therefore the Apostles perpetual election required perpetual obediance.

That's what I love about theology in general. Details can be observed by some and totally ignored by others.

In this particular sequence you completely missed the fact that Paul had evil present with him, even a devil. And you would more than likely also miss that same fact with Judas. All in order to fly past obvious counters and uphold hollow positions.

s

 

[rrowell]

That's what I love about theology in general. Details can be observed by some and totally ignored by others.

In this particular sequence you completely missed the fact that Paul had evil present with him, even a devil. And you would more than likely also miss that same fact with Judas. All in order to fly past obvious counters and uphold hollow positions.

s

You have not made ONE obvious counter, you talk in mystery like your some poet and cannot make a direct statement, you counter everyone beliefs yet have not made one statement to what yours is?

So far I see nothing of value in your posts other than to stir up this forum.

 

[smaller]

You have not made ONE obvious counter,

I used Saul on the Road to Damascus as an observation of election and God in Christ's choice to turn him from the power of Satan unto same he was blinded prior. Saul had no choice in encountering that fact neither could he have avoided it. If eyes see the sky is blue choosing to believe it's another color is not choice, but blind disobedience to a fact.

you talk in mystery like your some poet and cannot make a direct statement, you counter everyone beliefs yet have not made one statement to what yours is?

What I write of does seem that way because I see the fact that believers inclusive of myself have 'evil present' with them not one bit different than Paul.

And that working does not enjoy being found out and will blind the person to it's presence. Simple enough?

So far I see nothing of value in your posts other than to stir up this forum.

Evasion is always my anticipated expectation because of what scriptures show to be facts.

There is no evil present in man that welcomes scriptural light to be shed on that fact. Freewillers seek to be only one party when in fact evil is present with them.

I accept that you are saved and evil present with you not saved. There is nothing either party can do to change the equations. The only difference is that a believer may see it or be blinded to it. For any believer I can only say they are under partial blindness, yet saved regardless.

s

 

[rrowell]

I used Saul on the Road to Damascus as an observation of election and God in Christ's choice to turn him from the power of Satan unto same he was blinded prior. Saul had no choice in encountering that fact neither could he have avoided it. If eyes see the sky is blue choosing to believe it's another color is not choice, but blind disobedience to a fact.

I not only addressed this, but I agreed to it... Paul an Apostle was "chosen by Christ as his vessel" scripture proves it, there is no denial here...

What I denied to, and still adhere to is even though he was a "chosen vessel" it still required perpetual obedience to maintain being that chosen vessel.

When Jesus here told Peter (another chosen vessel):

Matthew 16:17-19 (KJV)
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

What Honor was bestowed to Peter here by our Lord Jesus, and what great faith was shown here by the great Apostle...

Yet we see here, even a "chosen vessel" must make a choice to remain faithful:

Luke 22:31-32 (KJV)
31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

by the very words of Jesus "I have prayed for the, that thy faith fail not" says Peter has a "free will choice", if he did not, why would Jesus pray for him?

What I write of does seem that way because I see the fact that believers inclusive of myself have 'evil present' with them not one bit different than Paul.

So it is and has been "evil present" since the fall.

Evasion is always my anticipated expectation because of what scriptures show to be facts.

more precisely if someone says something that may differ with what you interpreted something to be, you call them "evasive" and whats worse is you make it virtually impossible as to what your interpretation is because you cannot make a direct statement in its regard!

 

[smaller]

I not only addressed this, but I agreed to it... Paul an Apostle was "chosen by Christ as his vessel" scripture proves it, there is no denial here...

Indeed. Preeminent choice over the will of the man is easily demonstrated in this particular matter.

And by virtue of His Same Power to choose prevailing, inaction means He chooses not to exercise that same preeminence with others.

s

 

[savedbygrace57]

I posted what is required to be saved... and it was from the Bible like you asked.

You have not proved it from scripture. I have never seen a verse in scripture that says,this is what is required to be saved. Never read Paul saying that or Peter.

 

[dadof10]

First: are you truly stating that evangelists are charged with causing change in people? Because the last time this happened the Church burned people who disagreed with them.

No. Not ultimately. That's why this was in my previous post:

"Scripture commands us to "go and make disciples". Certainly the Spirit is the one ultimately responsible for any change of heart, but that's what it is, a TRUE change. The person "accepts Jesus" and moves from death to life, truly from being damned to being saved. On the other hand if the same person, once TRULY SAVED, later rejects Christ and His Church, that person has gone from light and again into darkness."

In other words, these people who are converting were TRULY lost (unsaved), then, once the Spirit converts them (or whatever terminology you care to use), they are TRULY SAVED. They weren't already saved from the foundation of the world, but only REALIZED it when they heard the Gospel, they went through a change from darkness to light.

Honestly, evangelists are not charged with changing hearts. They are to shine the light of reflected Glory, exposing the truth to the people around them. Those who are of the light are attracted to the light and come into the light. Those who are not, scurry into the darkness around them.

It's more than that. They are charged with actively preaching the Gospel, not just being holy. There are many instances where the apostles tell people to "repent and be baptized". Are these people "saved from the beginning of the world" in your opinion? If so, why do the apostles have to preach at all? Wouldn't they find the True Church because of the guidance of the spirit?

No, God's family is more than that. Is it not true that "we are His offspring"? If that were solely and purely after conversion, then we'd have a problem.

Why? We are called "adopted sons". There is a time when an adopted family member is not part of the family, then, after adoption, he is.

The Son of Man came to seek and to save the LOST. Lk 19:10

The Son of Man came to seek and to save the LOST. Lk 19:10

Should I keep saying it? The LOST were never Christians in the first place.

So why would they be considered "lost"?

So, the "lost" aren't Christians? So they CAN become saved, go from darkness to light? Be converted? How does this square with UE, which states the saved have always been the saved and (I assume) never lost?

I believe I've pointed it out, but I can point out other references like this.

... though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.†Rom 9:11-12

And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. Rom 8:30

In fact the well-trod passage in 2 Peter also brings this up:
The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. 2 Pt 3:9

I don't see why you think there should be many references to something the Scripture said the God of the Universe wouldn't typically do such a thing.

Still, those instances exist where it's quite clear, the Spirit of God is leading Apostles directly to those the Spirit of God is going to convert.

Acts 8:26ff comes to mind. Acts 9 comes to mind. Acts 10. Acts 11:21 particularly calling out the conversion of Gentiles in Antioch as God-caused. Acts 13:2. Acts 13:4. Acts 14:27. Acts 16:6-7. Acts 16:9-10. Acts 19:21.

I agree. However, it seems like if UE were true, the Spirit would be leading the ALREADY SAVED to the apostles, doesn't it? Where is this model in Scripture? The Biblical model is for the disciples of Christ to go out and actively preach and convert the LOST.

Well, it says to "make disciples", or "students", of the nations. But it doesn't tell us to convert people. Scripture tells us to preach to people to repent, but that's something they do, not other Christians.

True, so why would we need to "MAKE disciples"? Again, only the Spirit working within the person can convert, but it is blatantly obvious that we are to take an active role in conversion, no matter how small. It is also obvious that before conversion the man is lost and after, he is saved.

They repent in the power of God by the Gospel message.

As I've said before, we have to, because God wants us to be involved in this way -- to bring the news to them. God does not want one child of God to attack and attempt to disown another. Instead God wants the children of God to encourage and join with one another.

So ... could you point out the verse where Scripture says an evangelist changes the heart of someone without God's involvement?

No, I can't. I never said there existed such a model. Can you point out one instance where a disciple is sent to an ALREADY SAVED person?

"persuade" and "convert" are two fundamentally different concepts. If you actually convert someone, that means you're responsible and not they, themselves.

We are to take some kind of active role, right? Use whatever term you want to, but the fact that Jesus set His Church up to be missionary at it's core, and take an active role in the conversion of SINNERS, proves that UE is a false doctrine.

So at this point I think it would be good for me to know what you think really changes someone's heart? Because we know that sheer information doesn't do it. I can state the same Gospel to a room of hundreds, and they will not completely convert.

The Holy Spirit does the conversion, we COOPERATE (that word again) with the Spirit and in the sinner's conversion. This really isn't the point. As far as I understand it, UE says basically a person is "saved from the beginning of time", he just is oblivious to this FACT until the Spirit awakens him. If this were a true Scriptural doctrine, there would be examples of people coming into the Church simply by the guidance of the Spirit, without the apostles having a role in the process. Gotta get back to work. Hopefully I'll have more time later.

 

[heymikey80]

No. Not ultimately.

And so a theology that attributes the TRUE cause of change to the Spirit of God, and not to human will -- why would that be a problem?

That's why this was in my previous post:

"Scripture commands us to "go and make disciples". Certainly the Spirit is the one ultimately responsible for any change of heart, but that's what it is, a TRUE change. The person "accepts Jesus" and moves from death to life, truly from being damned to being saved. On the other hand if the same person, once TRULY SAVED, later rejects Christ and His Church, that person has gone from light and again into darkness."

In other words, these people who are converting were TRULY lost (unsaved), then, once the Spirit converts them (or whatever terminology you care to use), they are TRULY SAVED. They weren't already saved from the foundation of the world, but only REALIZED it when they heard the Gospel, they went through a change from darkness to light.

Yeah, if you want to discuss how different these items are when you attribute the TRUE cause of change to God the Spirit -- it doesn't work this way. God isn't vacillating. People are. So the rules change: vacillation itself indicates a lack of God's power in our lives -- a power that can raise flesh from the dead can certainly sustain a spiritual faith, alive that He has resurrected.

 

[heymikey80]

It's more than that. They are charged with actively preaching the Gospel, not just being holy. There are many instances where the apostles tell people to "repent and be baptized". Are these people "saved from the beginning of the world" in your opinion? If so, why do the apostles have to preach at all? Wouldn't they find the True Church because of the guidance of the spirit?

I don't remember asserting "saved from the beginning of the world". Could you point me to that quote? The assertion is "chosen from the beginning of the world.", and that admittedly is chosen to be saved from then. But that choice is no more "saved" (past, completed) than, say, a promise to marry is a marriage.

Why? We are called "adopted sons". There is a time when an adopted family member is not part of the family, then, after adoption, he is.

Yes. BTW, this term "lost" also indicates that there was a time when the family was actually "found", when the person was actually a part of the family, and then lost that membership, or not continued on track with that promise, into the family.

So, the "lost" aren't Christians? So they CAN become saved, go from darkness to light? Be converted? How does this square with UE, which states the saved have always been the saved and (I assume) never lost?

Yes, the lost are not Christians, not part of God's family, gone astray from this family membership. They will be saved, they will go from darkness to light, they will be converted.

Unconditional Election states a choice of God's, which results in a promise; a vow taken for the future redemption of those God chose. Election is not itself salvation. It's a choice, backed by a promise, from God. "Unconditional Election is the doctrine which states that God chose those whom he was pleased to bring to a knowledge of himself, not based upon any merit shown by the object of his grace and not based upon his looking forward to discover who would "accept" the offer of the gospel." -- reformed.org

 

[savedbygrace57]

Unconditional Election is really nothing but Salvation by Grace, and yes that is biblical !

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

Danus,



this is an assertion. Where is your evidence of this teaching.
There are ONLY five uses of election in all of scripture. NOt a single one deals with salvation. And more importantly, none of them deal with salvation of individuals.

The five examples of election in scripture are Christ, and Paul as individuals, and Israel, Apostles, and the Elect(Church) as groups. All of them were selected for specific services as part of the whole plan of salvation. However, not one of them deals with salvation or believing of any individual.

Presdestination has long been shown to be a man made theory imposed upon scripture. Its root is in Augustine's synthesis of Christian thought with pagan Manicheanism/Gnosticism. However, it was Calvin that actually fleshed it out into a systematic theology. The specific points of the ancronym TULIP cannot be found in scripture. They are solely based on the false premise of predestination. The teaching is quite contradictory to scripture. It denies the purpose of God creating man and then saving man from the fall. It also denies the content of the Incarnation and resurrection of Christ.

this statement is based on the false supposition of the "satisfaction theory of atonement" as well.

It really misses most of scripture's teachings on the relationship between God and man. It is why there are so many contradictions that "reformed" proponents constantly need to redefine so much of scripture to make it fit.
If one does a study of history and theology of the Church, none of Calvin's theology can be found prior to Himself. Even at that, after 500 years, it is still being changed, redefined, enhanced, further developed. Hardly a Gospel ONCE given to the saints.

The three facts you've missed about little lord Johnny Calvin's conjecture.
Calvinism's trollers. They all use the same script and try and verify their assumption by getting whosoever to agree with them.
1. If the assumption of unconditional election is true there cannot, as an absolute, be the preexisting requirement to first hear a message that convicts you people of guilt in regard to a sin. See Jn. 16:8 & 17:20 ""through 'their message'.
2. For the assumption of unconditional election to be true you people have another hurdle to jump and it is higher than #1. The only event that is necessary to kick unconditional election into gear is the individual's natural birth if the conjecture is true. But EVERY natural born person Jew and Gentile alike are NOT GOD's children because they have only been naturally born. JN. 1:13 & Rom. 9:8
So then. Take a hike Calvin troller. Git your arse on down the road. I fully agree that God has elected you people, but not for what you say it is. Your election is like that of Pharaoh's. So that God can prove what he says is right. For "ye MUST be born again" to even see the kingdom of God. You yourselves prove what destiny he has elected you for, disobey the message. 1Pt. 2:8b Because to be born again of God you must first hear their message and obey what you are told to do. Little lord Johnny Calvin never obeyed their message and never has anyone Johnny Calvin has taught. A student is always like his teacher and cannot be otherwise. Lk. 6:40`

 

[Cassian]

The three facts you've missed about little lord Johnny Calvin's conjecture.
Calvinism's trollers. They all use the same script and try and verify their assumption by getting whosoever to agree with them.
1. If the assumption of unconditional election is true there cannot, as an absolute, be the preexisting requirement to first hear a message that convicts you people of guilt in regard to a sin. See Jn. 16:8 & 17:20 ""through 'their message'.
2. For the assumption of unconditional election to be true you people have another hurdle to jump and it is higher than #1. The only event that is necessary to kick unconditional election into gear is the individual's natural birth if the conjecture is true. But EVERY natural born person Jew and Gentile alike are NOT GOD's children because they have only been naturally born. JN. 1:13 & Rom. 9:8
So then. Take a hike Calvin troller. Git your arse on down the road. I fully agree that God has elected you people, but not for what you say it is. Your election is like that of Pharaoh's. So that God can prove what he says is right. For "ye MUST be born again" to even see the kingdom of God. You yourselves prove what destiny he has elected you for, disobey the message. 1Pt. 2:8b Because to be born again of God you must first hear their message and obey what you are told to do. Little lord Johnny Calvin never obeyed their message and never has anyone Johnny Calvin has taught. A student is always like his teacher and cannot be otherwise. Lk. 6:40`

If you in fact intended to use my post above, you really missed what I stated. I think you intended to use a statement in support of Calvinism, whereas mine is against Calvinism.

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

If you in fact intended to use my post above, you really missed what I stated. I think you intended to use a statement in support of Calvinism, whereas mine is against Calvinism.

No I did not intend to use your post intentionally. And I am in no way an endorser of of any of the proposals of John Calvin. I think that because Calvin was a lawyer is the reason that he developed his theory of selection in regard to difficulties that the theory of substitutionary atonement poses. The response I made was in opposition againist the OP which is a document that I hotly contest because it is a falsehood.

 

[Cassian]

No I did not intend to use your post intentionally. And I am in no way an endorser of of any of the proposals of John Calvin. I think that because Calvin was a lawyer is the reason that he developed his theory of selection in regard to difficulties that the theory of substitutionary atonement poses. The response I made was in opposition againist the OP which is a document that I hotly contest because it is a falsehood.

Great. I didn't think that you could be that poor a reader.