What is unconditional election, and is it biblical?

[savedbygrace57]

gordon

I have not fully made up my mind about Calvin.

What about what the Word of God Teaches ?

 

[Gordon]

gordon



What about what the Word of God Teaches ?

If you are asking if I am a Christian yes I believe Jesus died for me and he was the Son of God. I am believe this fully without doubt. I am just curious how everything works perhaps too much so. I think there must be answers that would make sense to my limited mind though I know this might not be true.

 

[savedbygrace57]

gordon

If you are asking if I am a Christian yes

No, that is not what I am asking. I am asking what about the the scripture and what it teaches about unconditional election, forget about calvin, but what says the scripture ?

 

[Gordon]

gordon



No, that is not what I am asking. I am asking what about the the scripture and what it teaches about unconditional election, forget about calvin, but what says the scripture ?

I think the scripture seems to suggest Calvin may be right I just have a very hard time with it. I think about the part about the potter smashing his own pots. I also think when Jesus said no one comes unless they are attracted is quite definite. I mean a bunch of people left him so I don't think this was a misunderstading or something. Maybe I'm in denial but I also see some holes in the logic. My mind can't reconcile a perfectly fair and just God and making people to send them to hell. It seems at least some people are destined for heaven outside of their actions. Whether everyone else is destined for hell I don't know.

 

[Drew]

I think the scripture seems to suggest Calvin may be right I just have a very hard time with it. I think about the part about the potter smashing his own pot.

I believe you are referring to Romans 9. That text, I politely suggest, has been widely misunderstood. I can argue at length that Paul is not making an argument about "personal salvation" in Romans 9; He is making an argument about Israel.

The arguments for this are, I suggest, overwhelming and decisive. While it may be the case (and I don't think it is, but that's another story) that other texts suggest unconditional election, Romans 9 is certainly not one of them.

And the fact that Romans 9 gets so often used to support unconditional election suggests that we need to a better job at educating people about how to read texts in context - one cannot simply presume that the potter metaphor deals with the issue of personal election in relation to salvation. But, it appears that many people do precisely this - they come to the text "looking for" support for the unconditional election and thereby entirely miss the intended meaning.

 

[Gordon]

Oh thanks. Here to learn.

 

[Butch5]

I have not fully made up my mind about Calvin. If you could answer some questions I would appreciate it.

When Jesus says pray for more workers or pray that God's will be done on Earth as it is in heaven what does he mean? Why would we pray that God's will be done if everything is God's will?

The implication of this is the the elect were specifically grouped into places like the Bible belt where countries like China are full of the non elect. Why do you think this is? Why are Christians unevenly distributed if we are the salt of the Earth?

When Satan tempted Jesus what was he thinking? Was it even though nothing can happen I should play the role of Satan? If Satan is smarter than us is his understanding of Metaphysics wrong? Does he not think he has some chance or could have some effect? Or is he merely God's play actor?

Similarily is reality basically a scripted play? For instance when Jesus preformed miracles was this just for show? Like God has already determined who will believe so is a miracle really needed? Isn't it a little over the top? And when Jesus said I speak in parables because if I spoke plainly they may believe and be forgiven what did he mean? How could there be a chance a non elect would believe? Why is it needed to be careful?

Despite the tone of my questions I am very open to answers. I recently believed in Calvins ideas and I am new in my theology. I am also very interested in the nature of reality according to the Bible. Thanks.

Hi Gordon,

Calvin's teaching on election is wrong, plain and simple. He simple didn't understand election and predestination. He got his ideas from Augustine. His teaching on election and predestination have their roots in Gnosticism.

 

[savedbygrace57]

gordon

I think the scripture seems to suggest Calvin may be right I just have a very
hard time with it.

What about the scripture is right, calvin merely like any other person was enabled to believe the scripture and what it teaches, do not give credit to calvin for what the scripture teaches.

My mind can't reconcile a perfectly fair and just God and making people to send
them to hell.

Thats a normal natural response to God's Truth, Paul would tell you Rom 9:18-22

18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

20 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?

21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22 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:

It seems at least some people are destined for
heaven outside of their actions. Whether everyone else is destined for hell I
don't know.

Its True, some where created by God to be damned for their sins, though their sins were not His Motive foundationally, it was Just His own Will !

 

[Adullam]

Unconditional election in the world: tyranny

Unconditional election in the church: The monkeys have taken over the zoo

 

[Danus]

I have not fully made up my mind about Calvin. If you could answer some questions I would appreciate it.

When Jesus says pray for more workers or pray that God's will be done on Earth as it is in heaven what does he mean? Why would we pray that God's will be done if everything is God's will?

The implication of this is the the elect were specifically grouped into places like the Bible belt where countries like China are full of the non elect. Why do you think this is? Why are Christians unevenly distributed if we are the salt of the Earth?

When Satan tempted Jesus what was he thinking? Was it even though nothing can happen I should play the role of Satan? If Satan is smarter than us is his understanding of Metaphysics wrong? Does he not think he has some chance or could have some effect? Or is he merely God's play actor?

Similarily is reality basically a scripted play? For instance when Jesus preformed miracles was this just for show? Like God has already determined who will believe so is a miracle really needed? Isn't it a little over the top? And when Jesus said I speak in parables because if I spoke plainly they may believe and be forgiven what did he mean? How could there be a chance a non elect would believe? Why is it needed to be careful?

Despite the tone of my questions I am very open to answers. I recently believed in Calvins ideas and I am new in my theology. I am also very interested in the nature of reality according to the Bible. Thanks.

To me, Calvin posed very simple philosophical points based on what can be known to man, and then applied that to scripture. He used the acrostic TULIP, to help recall the points. Each philosophical point relies on the other, starting with the idea of sin, which Calvin saw as a totality. To Calvin, sin, in mans natural condition, was like the yoke of an egg is to a scrambled egg. It is so totally mixed in to the whites of the egg that it can not be separated. We could say of a scrabbled egg that it is totally scrambled.

In the same way Calvin describes the nature of sin in man as totally depraved. Others have said, utterly sinful, or radically sinful, but what ever the term it is in a state of completeness that requires something else to initiate a change since it can not be changed by it self in it's own condition. Just as, you can not separate the egg whites from the egg yoke of a scrambled egg.

So the "T" in TULIP stand for total depravity. The rest of the philosophical points tend to fall into place for the most part when this point is accepted.

The arguments against John Calvin are many. Too many to list. They range from the reasonable to the ridiculous. However, there are plenty of "mixed bag" philosophical theologies that either lean on, or borrow from some of the philosophical parts of what Calvin said. In any case, Calvin's points are not new. They are not his own really. He did not invent or discover anything that was not already. The philosophical points are very simple.

The one we are talking about is the "U" in TULIP, "Unconditional Election." I see no reason to rehash it. I opened the OP with what it is, taken from a site which I provided a link to, and a few post down from that are some thoughts from Dr John Piper, one of the most influential Calvinistic Baptist Christian preachers and authors of the 21st century. You can also check out Ligonier Ministries, founded by Reformed theologian Dr. R.C. Sproul.

An important note, "Calvinist" is a derogatory term used to label anyone who subscribes to these philosophical theologies and teaching born out of the reformation back in it's day, circa 1500. Calvin was a prolific voice of that time using this TULIP teaching for the masses and so the term "Calvinist" allowed people then to "spit" after saying it. Another term used was "Puritan", that allows you to spit while your saying it.

Another important note is that the reformation, as a movement, was an attempt to de-institutionalize the RCC and set the gospel free within the church body. The RCC resisted this for many reasons. The most obvious was the danger of letting the common man interpret scripture, but the less obvious was money, power and control. The reformation spawned many denomination over the years, some holding more to the ideas of mans free will in line with, but not completely, the RCC, while others held more to the solvently of God, grace, mercy and forgiveness.

So on to your questions. I'll boil them down to one. If everything is pre-planed by God, what's the point in doing anything? Just let the chips fall where they may. This is the ultimate best question to ask when confronting the subject of Predestination.

I personally would attack it from the same method that Calvin might, and that is to take stock in what I can't know vs what I can know. For example, I can not know the future, but God can. I am limited by my own self which the bible says is sinful, God is limited only by his righteousness. He can only do right, I alone can only do wrong. Again, this comes down to what one believes about sin. You can find plenty of people who say they are sinless, or that they where born without sin, or that they choose to sin or not to sin. They have determined that the condition of sin is an optional choice at their choosing by their will and not the condition of man.

You'll have to discern for yourself what the bible is telling you. To me it's quite clear that we are all sinners. That being the case, what is a righteous God to do to gather the unrighteous into his presence? The answer is of corse Jesus Christ who took the penalty for our unrighteousness in our place for those who will be saved, and since I can not see the future, and I assume you can not either, then neither of us can know it. Because neither of us can know it, and are utterly sinful, we do not have the power to save ourselves anymore than we can separate eggwhites from scrambled eggs. We have to be saved, and God has to be the only one who can do that.

The saved, and I am speaking for myself, know they are saved. Just as surly as the blind man knew he was once blind and now he sees. It's obvious, it's clear, and it's undeniable. When Jesus came upon the blind man he healed him so that God's glory could be displayed in him. That's it.

That man told everybody. Everybody saw the change in him. The man's own parents verified that he was born blind. When the Pharisees Investigate the healing they did not like it, believe it, or accept it. They accused Jesus of being a sinner and a sorcerer, they even accused the man of lying. But the man just said this; "25 He replied, “Whether he is a sinner or not, I don’t know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!†John 9 1:25

Why preach the gospel? Why do anything if it's all planed out? For the same reason Jesus healed the blind man, so that the glory of God can be seen. Why tell anyone God healed your blindness? So that the glory of God can be known.

I can not tell, nor do I care, who is saved and who is not. Like the bland man told the Pharisees; All I know is that I was once blind and now I see, once I was lost and now I'm found. It is not my duty to spread the gospel because God does not need me to do it. It is not my duty, it is my privilege, and that is the answer to the fantastic questions you posed.

 

[Tri Unity]

An important note, "Calvinist" is a derogatory term used to label anyone who subscribes to these philosophical theologies and teaching born out of the reformation back in it's day, circa 1500.

Should strange philosophical doctrines which are contrary to scripture be spoken of in high regard? Is that what you were meaning when you asked if I was a Jehovah's Witness? Was this not implied as a derogatory comment?

Calvinism is more based on philosophy than it is on scripture. In short, Calvin took a few scriptures on predestination out of context and built an empire on them. Those who follow Calvin belong to Calvin's empire. Calvin was a murderer and a psychotic war-lord who tortured people in the name of Christ. He did this because he was empowered by his unique philosophy. Like Obama said; you can put lipstick on a pig; but it's still a pig. You can put lipstick on Calvin - but he is still a cold blooded murderer. Look at the big picture.

 

[Gordon]

Hi again Danus. Thanks for answering. I see what you are saying. I guess this raises more questions for me. Doesn't the Bible work on the basis that things are not all divine will? Like what if Moses told the Lord...."Lord I see you are angry but did you not will these people to disobey you?" Or when Moses was angry at the people was he not really angry at the Lord? Or when Jesus asked Peter why he doubted what if he would have said...but Lord did you not will me to doubt?

It just seems to me if you believe this you have to completely ignore this belief in order for it to function. For instance if someone were to punch you in the head do you not get angry because it is the Lord's will? How do you apply this belief? Would you not learn just as much about God's will from a former murderer winning the lottery as reading the Bible? Also do you think Moses and Peter were aware this is how things work? And sorry for implying you were a Calvinist if it's a dirty term .

 

[Danus]

Hi again Danus. Thanks for answering. I see what you are saying. I guess this raises more questions for me. Doesn't the Bible work on the basis that things are not all divine will? Like what if Moses told the Lord...."Lord I see you are angry but did you not will these people to disobey you?" Or when Moses was angry at the people was he not really angry at the Lord? Or when Jesus asked Peter why he doubted what if he would have said...but Lord did you not will me to doubt?

It just seems to me if you believe this you have to completely ignore this belief in order for it to function. For instance if someone were to punch you in the head do you not get angry because it is the Lord's will? How do you apply this belief? Would you not learn just as much about God's will from a former murderer winning the lottery as reading the Bible? Also do you think Moses and Peter were aware this is how things work? And sorry for implying you were a Calvinist if it's a dirty term .

I've been called worse.

Keep in mind that this TULIP is more than a belief, it's an understanding in light of ones belief.

You bring up a good point about God's will and man's will. Often Calvin is misunderstood in saying that he believed man does not have free will. That's not the case. man does have a will and it is free, but it is trapped in a sinful nature. man's will is not righteous, nor can it be.

Does God allow man to exercise his own sinful will? Have you read the paper today? ;)....Yes, God allows man to exercise his fallen self in his fallen will, but God is still in control. Why did he allow those planes to fly into the towers, or that guy to shoot up a theater, or that person to do you wrong, (general assumption of all people) So that his glory may be known.

So yes, if someone punched me in the head or even murdered me, God's ultimate glory would be seen, not in that, (although some may disagree ) BUT, from that.

On what basis does God allow these things? I don't know. But, I also don't care. Because not all men are saved. Any man can be, but not all are, and as I mentioned, the saved (congestive that is), know they are saved. And when you are saved, nothing else matters. there are no alternatives to what has been, is or what will be. God is in control and he is always there.

 

[Gordon]

Ok guess I didn't read about Calvin as much as I thought. I also think I am missing another key point. Are you saying that people are saved having never become Christian? Or is it that you were predestined to become Christian. I don't think I understand the whole arguement. I thought unconditional meant God destined who would become Christian and conditional is they had some part in the decision as they were given the chance to accept or reject the truth. Am I wrong about this? Are people who never heard the good news also possibly saved if they go to the grave that way?

 

[Danus]

Ok guess I didn't read about Calvin as much as I thought. I also think I am missing another key point. Are you saying that people are saved having never become Christian? Or is it that you were predestined to become Christian. I don't think I understand the whole arguement. I thought unconditional meant God destined who would become Christian and conditional is they had some part in the decision as they were given the chance to accept or reject the truth. Am I wrong about this? Are people who never heard the good news also possibly saved if they go to the grave that way?

The argument is often called the great Calvin Armenian debate. In this case, do we choose Christ or does he chose us? Is righteousness Imputed or Infused? But, that's a side track a little.

You asked if the unevangelized have any hope of being saved? To quote john Calvin;....."beyond the pale of the Church no forgiveness of sins, no salvation, can be hoped for"....He may have said this to keep from getting killed, or he may in some way believe it.

The church, you and I, have an enormous responsibility. If God is the father the church is the mother so to speak, the bride of Christ. No one is forced in this, it is what it is. Do I evangelize? Do I share the gospel, even after I've said all this?. YES, YES and YES! How can I not? Why would anyone not tell others about this?

However to say that anyone is saved out side of hearing about Jesus or the gospel is called "Inclusivism" it has some interesting points. Do I believe it's possible for people to be saved by God outside of hearing the word? Yes. I do think it's possible, but I don't care and it's another thread. This is not to say that I don't care about people who have not heard God's word. I do, but the saved shine the light of Christ to the world. That's just what we do. It is far more than pounding God's word into people. It's actually demonstrating it. being the hands, feet, mouth, and body of Christ. Again this is not a duty to the saved. This is a natural reaction for the saved to do. It's what the saved do because it's a reflection of who they are. It is a privilege of the saved in Christ that only the saved can truly do.

 

[Gordon]

Thanks again. I guess I am stuck on this issue as I am basing a big part of my life on it. I am working to save money to help spread the word. I am doing this under the assumption it's conditional and people choose Christ. I am also under the assumption that it can have an impact. I am in no way saying I think you aren't living up to your responsibility or anything if you believe this way. In fact maybe it's more noble to evangelize under no thought of duty or that not one more person may be saved. I guess I just need to figure this out if I base my life around it. Especially if people are saved without even hearing the word. I guess that's another topic. Even if I convert to your belief I'd probably still help evangelize like you but it would definitely change the tone and urgency that I approach it with.

 

[Danus]

Thanks again. I guess I am stuck on this issue as I am basing a big part of my life on it. I am working to save money to help spread the word. I am doing this under the assumption it's conditional and people choose Christ. I am also under the assumption that it can have an impact. I am in no way saying I think you aren't living up to your responsibility or anything if you believe this way. In fact maybe it's more noble to evangelize under no thought of duty or that not one more person may be saved. I guess I just need to figure this out if I base my life around it. Especially if people are saved without even hearing the word. I guess that's another topic. Even if I convert to your belief I'd probably still help evangelize like you but it would definitely change the tone and urgency that I approach it with.

I don't think it would change how you do things. It's a different perspective, but I've meet people how just get Calvin and many who don't. It's not something anyone have to convert to. Calvin does not have exclusive rights to salvation. It's just an understanding.

In essentials of the faith, unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity.

 

[Gordon]

I don't think it would change how you do things. It's a different perspective, but I've meet people how just get Calvin and many who don't. It's not something anyone have to convert to. Calvin does not have exclusive rights to salvation. It's just an understanding.

In essentials of the faith, unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity.

Maybe not for you but I think that speaks to your character. For instance if I thought me going to Church would mean someone else might get saved I would probably not miss Church. I've noticed you've said stuff like not institutionalizing Christ and not "pounding" the word into their heads. I'd think you'd have a more aggressive approach if it's a choice someone is making. Again I am not trying to imply you aren't living up to your responsibilites or something not at all as you seem a more "serious" Christian than I. I am just saying I think I'd have a different approach as I think something I say may lead or lead someone away from salvation.

 

[ivdavid]

Why would we pray that God's will be done if everything is God's will?

Why must we ask to receive(Matt 7:7) when God already knows what we have need of, even before we ask(Matt 6:8)? As C.S.Lewis observed, prayer does not change God - it changes us. What I pray for and how I do it shows me what truly lies in my heart as my treasures. If I don't pray, it shows me my apathy towards the things of God. If I pray to God treating Him as my personal genie, even if it's out of much visible reverence, I'd still know that I'm using God for my self-centered needs and not praying out of a genuine concern for His glory or out of true brokenness and trusting dependence on Him.

This is God's process - He commands us to pray according to His will, convicts us on how we do not keep this command and in that reveals to us our own scant regard for the things of God, grants us repentance and causes us to love and desire what He wills, which leads us to willingly ask Him for the things we now are given a godly desire for, and which are then fulfilled by God for His own name's sake as He had originally planned - wherein through all this, He has granted us the privilege of being participants of His manifested grace.

Why are Christians unevenly distributed if we are the salt of the Earth?

Why did God choose for Himself the very small nation of Israel as His elect, wherein only to them was committed the oracles of God(Rom 3:2) as opposed to electing a larger part of the world back then? Rom 11:33-34 seems to be an apt answer.

Does he[satan] not think he has some chance or could have some effect [in tempting Jesus]? Or is he merely God's play actor?

He is not directed by God in any sense. God can cause no evil. Here, let's not attribute satan more wisdom than is due unto him. He is of course, by nature, the wisest of God's creations - but he still doesn't have the mind of Christ - which we Christians are privileged to have(1 Cor 2:16). He didn't know what God's purpose was in sending Christ in the flesh - but given that satan rules over the flesh, he at least could now grieve God by his actions.

There need not be a utilitarian purpose in satan's actions - he probably knows all too well that he's no match for God and that he's going to be vanquished in the end. But a certainty of this end result leaves nothing but a complete resentment towards God - which would lead satan to cause as much grief to God, whenever possible.

Like God has already determined who will believe so is a miracle really needed?

This is a slippery slope which if continued on, would logically lead you to ask - "if God has already determined who will believe, does the Gospel need to be preached?" Your question is basically why there is the need for a process when the end result is anyway going to be achieved - if the elect are anyway going to believe, why the miracles. Perhaps the miracles were part of the process leading to the inevitable end-result. And why must the miracles be of use only to the believers? What if the miracles served as much purpose to the unbelievers in justifying God's judgement against their sins and unbelief(Psalms 51:4)?

And when Jesus said I speak in parables because if I spoke plainly they may believe and be forgiven what did he mean?

Well, if you note, Jesus did speak plainly after that and it has been recorded in Scripture for all to see - and through all ages since, many have seen and yet not understood nor believed and been forgiven.

I'd think this is a form of superimposition. For eg: God uses food laws to teach about the spiritual truths on clean/unclean people. God uses the OT exodus to teach about the NT salvation process. Similarly, God uses the instance of parables to show how His grace is efficacious towards His elect while not to the non-elect. He uses plain-speaking vs parables at that point in time in a temporal physical-world sense to construct His eternal spiritual teaching on His efficacious grace vs His universal command.

 

[ivdavid]

For instance if I thought me going to Church would mean someone else might get saved I would probably not miss Church.

Well, even those who accept the doctrine of unconditional election believe that their doing the will of God(as participants of God's intended salvation process) might get someone saved. They just don't believe that their not doing so might result in someone being lost - because the ultimate efficacious saving cause is not man's will but God's mercy(Romans 9:16). Why then the impetus to evangelize? - purely for the joy of pleasing God through sacrificing oneself unto Him in this grandiose work of His.

Paul spent a considerable time trying to teach people about grace over the law. The law is spelt out in Lev 18:5 - the conditional that if a man will do His commandments, he shall live. Further, this life is what is commanded for us to Choose in Deut 30:19. And yet all of us have chosen death for all are under the curse of the law(Gal 3:10-13). If that's where our own choosing leaves us - what trust would I have in the arm of my flesh. Is this not where faith in the arm of God rises? Faith that He will do the things that we ought to have done ourselves - purely out of His grace and compassion.

The old covenant of conditionals is replaced by the new covenant of grace. What conditional do you find in Ezekiel 36:23-28? Our being saved into the Kingdom of God is the hope(certainty of an event to be fulfilled in the future) we have been called unto and the entire basis/substance of this hope are the trustworthy attributes/nature/abilities of God that we rest on(Heb 11:1), such faith itself being the gift of grace(Eph 2:8). By grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

I've noticed you've said stuff like not institutionalizing Christ and not "pounding" the word into their heads. I'd think you'd have a more aggressive approach if it's a choice someone is making.

You're right in the fact that we are to pay more attention in addressing the person who makes The choice. Those who believe that God chooses us and not the other way around(John 15:16), are indeed 'aggressive' in seeing the work of God done. Evangelism is comprehensively captured in Ezekiel 37:1-10 - "O Lord GOD, thou knowest."