SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Access over 100,000+ Sermons from Ancient to Modern
See Opportunities to Serve with SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Personal Election (not corporate)

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 Next Page )
PosterThread
Christinyou
Member



Joined: 2005/11/2
Posts: 3710
Ca.

 Re:

"God has a rule or principle for evaluating or testing those HE elect, What is it?"

The Cross of Christ.

O'wisevirgin, you are so correct, Jesus said, "He came to save the world not judge it.

Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life.

2Ti 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

2Pe 1:3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that [pertain] unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

You want criteria and progression of Gods election?

Romans 8:29-30 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

God does not need man to work out why, what and how, when and where He does what He does unto election of son's into the Fathers own family and who will live in His House, it is His House and He gives rebirth to all that He wants in it. He is a Father and does not have to consult, whom He wants to birth. My earthly father did not ask my opinion and neither did My Heavenly Father, He chose to birth me, Praise God.

The manifestation of the Elect:

Romans 8:31-39 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

In Christ: Phillip


_________________
Phillip

 2008/5/14 4:42Profile
whyme
Member



Joined: 2007/4/3
Posts: 293


 Re:

Logic, would it offend you if God chose or acted in a believer according to His good pleasure?

 2008/5/14 9:23Profile
whyme
Member



Joined: 2007/4/3
Posts: 293


 Re:

Logic, another thing I would point out is that God dispenses His grace ( or doesn't ) all the time without regard to any revealed criteria. Common grace and spiritual gifts being the obvious examples of this. It, at the least, would not be inconsistent to expect effectual grace to be otherwise.

 2008/5/14 10:56Profile
Logic
Member



Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


 Re:

Quote:
whyme wrote:
Logic, would it offend you if God chose or acted in a believer according to His good pleasure?

No, His good plesure is Good. But that is not criteria.
That would be soley upon will, which is of an arbitrary decision based on or determined by His individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of His standard of judgment according to Justice and righteousness.

However, His good pleasure is always based upon the intrinsic nature of His standard of judgment according to Justice and righteousness; therefore, [b]what is HIS good pleasure?[/b]

Back to the question.
What is the Standard judgment of electing by HIS good Plesure?

 2008/5/14 11:52Profile
whyme
Member



Joined: 2007/4/3
Posts: 293


 Re:

If it is according to His pleasure, then no standard. Ask the same question you have but as to why God chose mankind to have salvation ( salvific grace ) and not the fallen angels. What criteria?

 2008/5/14 11:58Profile
Logic
Member



Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


 Re:

Quote:

whyme wrote:
If it is according to His pleasure, then no standard.

His Good pleasure is a standard.
What is His Good plesure?
What is the standard of His Good Plaure?

Quote:
Ask the same question you have but as to why God chose mankind to have salvation ( salvific grace ) and not the fallen angels. What criteria?

That is another thread.

 2008/5/14 12:10Profile
Logic
Member



Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


 Re:

Quote:
Christinyou wrote:
"God has a rule or principle for evaluating or testing those HE elects, What is it?"

The Cross of Christ.

O.k; how is the Cross of Christ a principal or standard for evaluatiing those He elects?

Quote:
You want criteria and progression of Gods election?

Romans 8:29-30 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

I'll ask again:
What did God foreknow of the "whom" which He did predestinate...

Quote:
God does not need man to work out why, what and how, when and where He does what He does unto election of son's into the Fathers own family and who will live in His House

I'm not implying that we "work out" why, how, when, where & what.
All I am asking is how He descides by His good plesure to elect and mot elect.

Quote:
it is His House and He gives rebirth to all that He wants in it. He is a Father and does not have to consult, whom He wants to birth.

Does He not want to "birth" every one?
If not, then God is not love as the Scriptures say He is.

Quote:
My earthly father did not ask my opinion and neither did My Heavenly Father, He chose to birth me, Praise God.

I'm not sugjesting that He does ask opinions.

 2008/5/14 12:18Profile
Logic
Member



Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


 Re:

Quote:
wisevirgin wrote:
According to the definition furnished for criteria I do logically conclude that God the Father has no more and no less of "A Standard of Judgment for Election" than God the Son.

Explain how His Son is the Standard of Judgment for Election.

How dow God decide whom He elects by Jesus?

Quote:
Being created in Christ Jesus as opposed to not being created in Christ Jesus is God the Father's criteria "by which individuals are compared and judged".

How does God choose to create those to be "in Christ"?
What is the standard of judgment that He uses to create those to be in Christ?

Quote:
The Son and the Father's love for His Son is the sole criteria for electing.

Still, How does God choose to create those to be "in Christ"?
What is the standard of judgment that He uses to create those to be in Christ?

Quote:
Christ and the love of God the Father are certainly no arbitrary cause for the subject in question.



I believe this has satisfactorily answered your query, and may all who read make their own judgment as to whether this statement is true.

No, it only raises a simular question as to what is the criteia for creating to be in christ?

 2008/5/14 12:20Profile
Logic
Member



Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


 Re:

Quote:
tjservant wrote:
Quote:
God has a rule or principle for evaluating or testing those HE elect, What is it?

Does God have to give this information? Can His ways not just be above our understanding?

These are not too lofty for us to know. He has given the information needed for the answer, though dome migh not like the answer.

Quote:
When you ask me "why?" about God, you've taken me out of my zone. God does what He does because He chooses to do it.

That is the very definition of arbitraryly deciding.

Quote:
And, He is not subject to my evaluation.

He is subject to justice & righteousness, which He has the very nature of.

Quote:
How God does things is revealed in scripture. The means by which a sinner can be saved is revealed in scripture. Why God chooses to do what He does, puts me in the same category as Job was in.

No, it does not, because He has reveald the answers already.

I am only trying to get y'all to answer what HE has already reveald.

Ya'll seem to be afraid to give the answer.
Yall only give an answer that brings about the same question.

 2008/5/14 12:25Profile
HomeFree89
Member



Joined: 2007/1/21
Posts: 797
Indiana

 Re:

Hi Logic,

The following article may not be exactly what you're looking for, but I thought that I'd just post it, just in case.

The Danger of Teaching that Christ Died Only for the Elect





This is commonly known as a belief in a "limited atonement" (some Reformed men prefer to call it "definite atonement"). It is the teaching that Christ died on the cross and paid the penalty only for the sins of the elect. He did not die for the ones who eventually will be in the lake of fire. Often it is worded as follows: "Christ died for all men WITHOUT DISTINCTION but He did not die for all men WITHOUT EXCEPTION." This is a subtle game of semantics which makes it possible for them to say that He died for all without really meaning that He died for all. What they really mean is that Christ died for all kinds of people and all classes of people, but He did not die for every single person. That is, He died for Jews and Gentiles, rich and poor, slave and free, male and female, etc., but it is understood that He died for only elect Jews and Gentiles, only elect rich and poor, etc.

Dr. Paul Reiter, has clearly and simply summarized the Scriptural teaching on this issue. FOR WHOM DID CHRIST DIE?

HE DIED . . .

1. For all (1 Tim. 2:6; Isa. 53:6).
2. For every man (Heb. 2:9).
3. For the world (John 3:16).
4. For the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).
5. For the ungodly (Rom. 5:6).
6. For false teachers (2 Peter 2:1).
7. For many (Matt. 20:28).
8. For Israel (John 11:50–51).
9. For the Church (Eph. 5:25).
10. For "me" (Gal. 2:20).

[From unpublished lecture notes written by Dr. Paul Reiter, former professor at Appalachian Bible College, Bradley, WV.]

It is evident that the extreme Calvinist must ignore the clear language and obvious sense of many passages and he must force the Scriptures and make them fit into his own theological mold. Limited atonement may seem logical and reasonable, but the real test is this: IS IT BIBLICAL? "What saith the Scriptures?" (Rom. 4:3). In childlike faith we must simply allow the Bible to say what it says.

Those who promote this erroneous doctrine try to tell us that "world" does not really mean "world" and "all" does not really mean "all" and "every man" does not really mean "every man" and "the whole world" does not really mean "the whole world." We are told that simple verses such as John 3:16 and Isaiah 53:6 must be understood not as a child would understand them but as a theologian would understand them. That is, we must reinterpret such verses in light of our system of theology.

The true doctrine of the atonement could be stated as follows:

The Scriptures teach that the sacrifice of the Lamb of God involved the sin of the world (John 1:29) and that the Savior’s work of redemption (1 Tim. 2:6; 2 Pet. 2:1), reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19) and propitiation (1 John 2:2) was for all men (1 Tim. 4:10), but the cross–work of Christ is efficient, effectual and applicable only for those who believe (1 Tim. 4:10; John 3:16). We could even say it in a simpler way: "Christ’s death was SUFFICIENT FOR ALL but EFFICIENT only for those who believe." The cross–work of Christ is not limited, but the application of that cross–work through the work of the Holy Spirit is limited to believers only.


The extreme Calvinist would say that the cross was designed only for the elect and had no purpose for the "non–elect" (persistent unbelievers). But the death of God’s Son had a divine purpose and design for both groups. For the elect, God’s design was salvation according to His purpose and grace in Christ Jesus before the world began (2 Tim. 1:9; 2 Thess. 2:13). For unbelievers, God’s purpose and design is to render the unbeliever without excuse. Men are CONDEMNED because they have rejected the Person and WORK of Jesus Christ and refused God’s only remedy for sin (John 3:18; 5:40). Unbelievers can never say that a provision for their salvation was not made and not offered. They can never stand before God and say, "The reason I am not saved is because Christ did not die for me." No, the reason they are not saved is because they rejected the One who died for them and who is the Savior of all men (1 Tim. 4:10). They are without excuse.

This issue is not merely academic. It is extremely practical. It affects the very heart of the gospel and its presentation. The gospel which Paul preached to the unsaved people of Corinth was this: "Christ died for our sins" (1 Cor. 15:3). Do we really have a gospel of good news for all men (compare Luke 2:10–11)? In preaching the gospel, what can we say to an unsaved person? Can we say, "My friend, the Lord Jesus Christ died for you. He paid the penalty for your sins. He died as your Substitute"?

One Reformed writer said this:

But counselors, as Christians, are obligated to present the claims of Christ. They must present the good news that Christ Jesus died on the cross in the place of His own, that He bore the guilt and suffered the penalty for their sins. He died that all whom the Father had given to Him might come unto Him and have life everlasting. As a reformed Christian, the writer believes that counselors must not tell any unsaved counselee that Christ died for him, FOR THEY CANNOT SAY THAT. No man knows except Christ Himself who are His elect for whom He died [emphasis mine]. [Jay Adams, Competent to Counsel, p. 70.}

As C.H.Mackintosh has said, "A disciple of the high school of doctrine [extreme Calvinist] will not hear of a world–wide gospel–of God’s love to the world–of glad tidings to every creature under heaven. He has only gotten a gospel for the elect."

How can we sincerely offer to men what has not been provided for them? How can we offer them a free gift if the gift has not been purchased for them? How can we urge them to drink from the fountain of life if no water has been provided for them? How can we tell them to be saved if the Lord Jesus Christ provided not for their salvation? How can we say to a person, “Take the medicine and be cured!” if there is no medicine to take and no cure provided? W. Lindsay Alexander explains: “On this supposition [that of a limited atonement] the general invitations and promises of the gospel are without an adequate basis, and seem like a mere mockery, an offer, in short, of what has not been provided.” [W. Lindsay Alexander, A System of Biblical Theology, 2nd volume, page 111]

If the Reformed preacher were really honest about it, he would need to preach his "gospel" along these lines:

"Perhaps Christ died for you."

"Maybe God so loved you."

"Christ shed His blood for you, perhaps."

"Salvation has been provided for you, maybe."

"Possibly God commendeth His love toward you."

"Hopefully He’s the propitiation for your sins."

"There is a possibility that Christ died as your Substitute."

"I bring you good news, maybe."

"It’s possible that Christ died for you. If you get saved then we know that He did die for you, but if you continue to reject Him then He did not die for you."

"Christ died for you only if you believe that Christ died for you (thus proving you are elect), but if you do not believe this and if you continue in your unbelief until the day you die, then Christ did not die for you."

Those who hold to a definite or limited atonement do not present the gospel in this way, but would not such a presentation be consistent with their theology? Would it not be a correct and cautious and sincere way of sharing with the unsaved? An extreme Calvinist must be very careful how he presents the cross-work of Christ to an unsaved person because he never really can be sure if Christ has made provision for that person. As Robert Lightner has said, "Belief in limited atonement means that the good news of God’s saving grace in Christ cannot be personalized. Those who hold to such a position cannot tell someone to whom they are witnessing that Christ died for him because that one may, in fact, not be one for whom Christ died." [This quote is from an article by Robert Lightner in the book, Walvoord: A Tribute, p. 166].

John Bunyan made this observation: "The offer of the Gospel cannot, with God’s allowance, be offered any further than the death of Christ did go; because if it be taken away, there is indeed no Gospel, nor grace to be extended" (Bunyan’s Works). In other words, how can you offer the gospel to a person if Christ did not die for that person? How can we offer the sinner what has not been provided? As Lightner has said, "No maxim appears more certain than that a salvation offered implies a salvation provided." [Robert Lightner, The Death Christ Died, p. 114]

Boettner says: "Universal redemption means universal salvation" (cited by Lightner, The Death Christ Died, p. 96). The extreme Calvinist argues that Christ must save everyone that He died for. They reason thus: "If Christ died for everyone, then everyone will be saved." Let’s think about the logic of this statement. This would be like saying, "If medicine is available for everyone, then everyone must be healed." This is obviously false. The medicine, though available, will not do any good unless it is taken. "There is more than enough cool, refreshing water for every thirsty person in the village." Does this mean that every person in the village will have his thirst quenched? Only if every person drinks! We need to make a difference between redemption accomplished and redemption applied.

"Lord, I believe were sinners more
Than sands upon the ocean shore,
Thou hast for all a ransom paid,
For all a full atonement made."

--Nikolaus L. von Zinzendorf, 1739

Taken from:

[url=http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/dangerso.htm]The Dangers of Reformed Theology[/url]

Jordan


_________________
Jordan

 2008/5/14 12:50Profile





©2002-2021 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy