Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, and John 6:37

[justbyfaith]

I have discovered through being banned a few times that any thorough refutation of hyper-Calvinism is a forbidden topic here.

Nevertheless, I believe that it is expedient to give to those who are in authority here the benefit of the doubt; since if that were indeed a forbidden topic it would be to the indictment of those who are in authority here.

So, I will try again.

I would give as my primary argument, that if Calvinism (or hyper-Calvinism) has the ability to stand as a doctrine, then it has the ability to stand apart from certain posts that are in refutation of it being deleted by moderators.

I will say that my contention in this post, in particular, has to do, not with a refutation of Calvinism, but with a contention that I have with it...

(which, I believe, if it is properly understood, cannot be considered to be an indictment on Calvinism; but rather, it is something that creates a problem within Calvinism if it is not properly understood; and therefore, it becomes needful that it be properly understood in the back-burner of the thinking of every Calvinist.)

Which is, that if Limited Atonement and Unconditional Election be true, then there are those who are not included in the Limited Atonement, who are not included in it as the result of God's free will choice (Ephesians 1:11) and that they do not have a choice in the matter of whether they will be saved but it is based entirely on His choice (Unconditional Election).

Now, it seems to me that this creates a problem from time's perspective.

Because, if a person comes to God based on His Unconditional Election, he will find that if God has not chosen him, he is ultimately rejected by God, and that he has no choice in the matter of whether or not he will be saved.

Because in certain Calvinistic circles, it is contended that the following understanding does not accurately portray true Calvinism:

That I stand at a door, over which the inscription is written, "Whosoever will, let him come"...

And that when I enter in through that door, I will find a table and a place at it with my nametag; and that when I look back at the other side of the doors, I see the inscription written on the door, "Predestined from before the foundations of the world"

The contention being that in true Calvinism, the person who is first outside the door cannot enter in if his nametag is not inside the door.

To which I say, Can he not enter in, from the perspective of being outside the door?

Jesus said that any who will come to Him He will in no wise cast out (John 6:37).

Now, there is an answer even within Calvinism.

That the one whose nametag is not found inside the door would never be inclined to enter in.

But I want to deal with the misconception that may come up when a person is introduced to Calvinistic theology, that a person may be found unable to come to Christ over the fact that he is of the non-elect. (No one knows whether they are of the elect until they make a decision to come to Christ.)

The reality is that if anyone comes to Christ, it is the proof that he is of the elect!

Thus the decision to come to Christ may be looked back upon as a catalyst or reason why that person is found in the kingdom.

 

[brightfame52]

@justbyfaith

Which is, that if Limited Atonement and Unconditional Election be true, then there are those who are not included in the Limited Atonement, who are not included in it as the result of God's free will choice (Ephesians 1:11) and that they do not have a choice in the matter of whether they will be saved but it is based entirely on His choice (Unconditional Election).

Thats True, man has no choice in Salvation, Salvation A to Z is grounded in Gods choice. Also Reprobation to damnation is grounded in Gods choice.

 

[Mr GLee]

Which is, that if Limited Atonement and Unconditional Election be true, then there are those who are not included in the Limited Atonement, who are not included in it as the result of God's free will choice (Ephesians 1:11) and that they do not have a choice in the matter of whether they will be saved but it is based entirely on His choice (Unconditional Election).

Now, it seems to me that this creates a problem from time's perspective.

Because, if a person comes to God based on His Unconditional Election, he will find that if God has not chosen him, he is ultimately rejected by God, and that he has no choice in the matter of whether or not he will be saved

God who is not served by the dying hands of mankind as in dying powerless daily fulfilling the appointment to die once.

A freed will the free woman the bride. (Galatian 4) eats the spiritual food that Jesus ate as that needed to finish the will of the father. The bread that the disciples "knew not of".

Our daily bread or hidden manna . We pray his unseen will be done on earth as it is loosed from heaven. God working in us both to will and empower do do the work of the Holy Father again working in us yoked with him just as in the Son of man, Jesus

The kind of bread that is elevated more than food necessary for these earthen bodies of death

God is of one mind and always does whatsoever "let there be" and "it was good" no man can turn him to repent. He alone makes our hearts soft with the water of the word the gospel of our salvation. everyone receives the same reward .Eternal life

Job 23:12-16 Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food. But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth. For he performeth the thing that is appointed for me: and many such things are with him.Therefore am I troubled at his presence: when I consider, I am afraid of him.
For God maketh my heart soft, and the Almighty troubleth me

Ask oneself. . . who makes your heart soft daily ?

Jesus empowered by the Father did his will with delight . Don't be a don't be like Jonah the murmurer he desired to die rather than know those who knew nothing of the gospel, the Father empowered them to believe and give glory to God .God can use a unbeliever to preach the gospel

Philippians 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
Do all things without murmurings and disputings:

 

[makesends]

Which is, that if Limited Atonement and Unconditional Election be true, then there are those who are not included in the Limited Atonement, who are not included in it as the result of God's free will choice (Ephesians 1:11) and that they do not have a choice in the matter of whether they will be saved but it is based entirely on His choice (Unconditional Election).

Already you have strayed into 'strawman' territory. Every person has a choice, but until God regenerates them, they will not choose Christ. They may even think they have chosen Christ, and responded to the Altar Call, and 'yielded their life', and so on, but they have not actually done so, because they are dead and powerless. They will always choose contrary to God, with whom they remain at enmity. Eph 2, Rom 8

You exhibit here the tendency of self-determinists, who interpret what is sure to happen as "no choice". We always choose what will happen.

 

[Arial]

I have discovered through being banned a few times that any thorough refutation of hyper-Calvinism is a forbidden topic here.

Nevertheless, I believe that it is expedient to give to those who are in authority here the benefit of the doubt; since if that were indeed a forbidden topic it would be to the indictment of those who are in authority here.

You were given a temporary ban because of repeatedly after being warned continuing to post about the poster instead of the post with derogatory remarks and personal insults. That is the only reason you were banned and you were told that, so don't try to pass the buck.

I would give as my primary argument, that if Calvinism (or hyper-Calvinism) has the ability to stand as a doctrine, then it has the ability to stand apart from certain posts that are in refutation of it being deleted by moderators.

Nothing was deleted that did not violate forum rules. Nothing was deleted because it refuted Calvinism as nothing ever did refute it. Refute meaning demonstrate that it was wrong. And even if it did refute C'ism it would not be deleted because of that. Posts that were deleted were not even assaults on Calvinism but assaults on the character of persons.

Which is, that if Limited Atonement and Unconditional Election be true, then there are those who are not included in the Limited Atonement, who are not included in it as the result of God's free will choice (Ephesians 1:11) and that they do not have a choice in the matter of whether they will be saved but it is based entirely on His choice (Unconditional Election).

This is true. The very character of God and who He is as Creator, Other, eternal, self existent, precludes that He is ever obligated to or dependent upon anything. He is the author and finisher of all things, not the least of which is redemption.

Now, it seems to me that this creates a problem from time's perspective.

Because, if a person comes to God based on His Unconditional Election, he will find that if God has not chosen him, he is ultimately rejected by God, and that he has no choice in the matter of whether or not he will be saved.

Time and our perspective have nothing to do with it.

A person who is not of the elect does not come to Christ. John 6:39-40 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 44. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. 3-65 It is the Spirit who gives life; and the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life, But there are some of you who do not believe. (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." John 5:37 All the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 37 cannot be used in a way that isolates it from the rest of what is said, nor can it be ignored that it says all who the Father gives Him, just as it does in v. 39

John 10:25-28 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand."

 

[Arial]

Because in certain Calvinistic circles, it is contended that the following understanding does not accurately portray true Calvinism:

What are these certain circles? What is it they say? And could you rearrange the sentence in way that makes sense instead of requiring someone to guess at what you are saying. You cannot argue against what certain circles say without proof and example of what you mean. That is meaningless post with nowhere to go. Otherwise it cannot be addressed in any meaningful way. You are simply arguing against Calvinism while trying to pretend that you aren't.

That I stand at a door, over which the inscription is written, "Whosoever will, let him come"...

And that when I enter in through that door, I will find a table and a place at it with my nametag; and that when I look back at the other side of the doors, I see the inscription written on the door, "Predestined from before the foundations of the world"

The contention being that in true Calvinism, the person who is first outside the door cannot enter in if his nametag is not inside the door.

To which I say, Can he not enter in, from the perspective of being outside the door?

That is all humanistic, philosophical reasoning used as an argument, and has nothing to do with attempting to find out what the scripture actually means. Or in any way presenting what Reformed might say about it. All by itself it is approached through a number of different types of logical fallacies. You do not even say what scripture you are referring to: Rev 3:20 or Matt 7:7 Actually you seem be combing them. One has Him knocking, (Rev) the other has the person knocking, so if examined they would not be making the same point.

But I want to deal with the misconception that may come up when a person is introduced to Calvinistic theology, that a person may be found unable to come to Christ over the fact that he is of the non-elect. (No one knows whether they are of the elect until they make a decision to come to Christ.)

Why deal with misconceptions that may come. Did Jesus or the apostles ever water down or back away from truth because of potential misconceptions? Reformed theology is being debated in these threads. Should it not be lest there be misconceptions? A person who is not of the elect will come to Christ, no matter how it is first presented. A person who is not of the elect will not come to Christ no matter how palatable and sugar coated it is. It isn't knowing how one comes to Christ that decides whether or not one is saved. And it is not choosing to believe that brings one to Christ. It is believing.

If someone is trusting in the fact they are saved because of what they did, rather than because they believe and what they believe, they may not actually believe at all. See the parable of the sower. They may have merely been offered the loaves and fishes and never told who Christ is.

The reality is that if anyone comes to Christ, it is the proof that he is of the elect!

So what is your problem with Reformed theology? Is it that trusting yourself and your decisions feels safer than trusting God?

Thus the decision to come to Christ may be looked back upon as a catalyst or reason why that person is found in the kingdom.

Sure it can but it still won't be accurate and produces large amounts of contradictions in the Bible, misinterpretations out the ying yang, and opens a door (which is wide open. One might even say our walls are torn down and out gates burned with fire.) to all sorts of false teaching and false teachers, standing in pulpits unrecognized. The very thing Paul warned Timothy to guard against at all costs, that Paul himself died for. Teach and train up in sound doctrine! was Paul's parting words to his "son."

 

[makesends]

justbyfaith said:
Which is, that if Limited Atonement and Unconditional Election be true, then there are those who are not included in the Limited Atonement, who are not included in it as the result of God's free will choice (Ephesians 1:11) and that they do not have a choice in the matter of whether they will be saved but it is based entirely on His choice (Unconditional Election).

This is true. The very character of God and who He is as Creator, Other, eternal, self existent, precludes that He is ever obligated to or dependent upon anything. He is the author and finisher of all things, not the least of which is redemption.

I have highlighted above what @justbyfaith said, that is not true. They have a choice in the question of their salvation, and they choose not to be saved. The question of whether they are elect of God is another question. JBFaith said they have no choice. That is wrong. They will always choose contrary to faith. Just as would the rest of us, were it not for God regenerating us, and his gift of faith.

Then he repeats further down:
justbyfaith said:
Now, it seems to me that this creates a problem from time's perspective.

Because, if a person comes to God based on His Unconditional Election, he will find that if God has not chosen him, he is ultimately rejected by God, and that he has no choice in the matter of whether or not he will be saved.

The fact of God's election, whether for heaven or not, will indeed happen as God determined, but does not translate to 'the reprobate has no choice'. The reprobate always chooses.

 

[justbyfaith]

@justbyfaith



Thats True, man has no choice in Salvation, Salvation A to Z is grounded in Gods choice. Also Reprobation to damnation is grounded in Gods choice.

So, someone who chooses to come to Christ, his choice is invalid; and God's choice to condemn him will prevail over his decision to receive Christ.

Thus, Jesus casts out some of those who come to Him; which is contrary to scripture (John 6:37).

 

[justbyfaith]

Ask oneself. . . who makes your heart soft daily ?

It is certainly God...and does He not do so because I have asked Him to?

He said to me, "Seek my face" and I said to Him, "Your face, O Lord, I will seek..."

Truly He initiated a relationship with me by calling me to Himself.

But I had to respond to His call in the affirmative in order for His salvation to be wrought in me.

 

[justbyfaith]

Already you have strayed into 'strawman' territory. Every person has a choice, but until God regenerates them, they will not choose Christ. They may even think they have chosen Christ, and responded to the Altar Call, and 'yielded their life', and so on, but they have not actually done so, because they are dead and powerless. They will always choose contrary to God, with whom they remain at enmity. Eph 2, Rom 8

You exhibit here the tendency of self-determinists, who interpret what is sure to happen as "no choice". We always choose what will happen.

Call it a straw man if you will. I am merely dealing with a conclusion that might be made if a person believes in Calvinism. I have said that I am dealing with a misconception.

That misconception is the common thinking in those who hear the preaching of Calvinism that "I may not be of the elect; and if that is true, I cannot be saved". I am not saying that such a thing is the true conclusion that might be made from Calvinistic thinking; just that it seems to follow and that clarification needs to be made.

It needs to be understood that if anyone comes to Christ and perseveres to the end, that they are of the elect; and that we know whether we are of the elect by virtue of whether or not we come to Christ and persevere to the end. We can also know that we know that we know that we are children of God and that therefore it is inevitable but that we will persevere to the end (Romans 8:16, 1 John 5:13).

I would say therefore that if anyone comes to Christ and comes to the faithful conclusion that they are a child of God, that they can look back on their decision to receive Christ as being the catalyst and reason why they are in the kingdom.

Because Jesus will never cast out anyone who comes to Him. Therefore if I come to Him, I am of the elect; and I am of the elect because I came to Him.

Otherwise, I might come to Him and He might reject me because I am of the non-elect. However, that is not a biblical concept (see John 6:37).

 

[justbyfaith]

You were given a temporary ban because of repeatedly after being warned continuing to post about the poster instead of the post with derogatory remarks and personal insults.

I don't recall insulting anyone.

 

[justbyfaith]

Nothing was deleted that did not violate forum rules.

That is not true. I recall one post that was very much similar to this one and I know that it was deleted because it presented a logic that certain people in authority found themselves unable to refute. It was deleted immediately before I was banned. You may recall it as in it I asked people to cease from calling me a troll since I was not exhibiting trollish behaviour in most of what I had been posting.

 

[justbyfaith]

Posts that were deleted were not even assaults on Calvinism but assaults on the character of persons.

I have not assaulted the character of any person.

 

[justbyfaith]

A person who is not of the elect does not come to Christ.

I would only mention that, therefore, those who come to Christ are, in fact, of the elect.

My conclusion is that from time's perspective, they are of the elect because they came to Christ.

That they can look back on their decision to receive Jesus as their Lord and Saviour and see it as being the catalyst and reason why they are in the kingdom.

And also, that if they do not have such an experience behind them, that they are therefore not in the kingdom.

 

[justbyfaith]

Why deal with misconceptions that may come.

Um...so that people might not believe in a misconception but rather in the truth?

 

[justbyfaith]

It isn't knowing how one comes to Christ that decides whether or not one is saved.

If you don't know how to come to Christ, how will you come to Christ?

And, are we not saved when we come to Christ?

 

[justbyfaith]

Sure it can but it still won't be accurate and produces large amounts of contradictions in the Bible,

Such as?

 

[justbyfaith]

They have a choice in the question of their salvation, and they choose not to be saved.

Then their choice has a bearing on the matter; and the matter is not entirely up to God.

But I think that you think that their choice in the matter is entirely dictated by God's choice.

If that is the case, then God chooses for them; and chooses for them damnation.

 

[justbyfaith]

justbyfaith said:
Which is, that if Limited Atonement and Unconditional Election be true, then there are those who are not included in the Limited Atonement, who are not included in it as the result of God's free will choice (Ephesians 1:11) and that they do not have a choice in the matter of whether they will be saved but it is based entirely on His choice (Unconditional Election).
I have highlighted above what @justbyfaith said, that is not true. They have a choice in the question of their salvation, and they choose not to be saved. The question of whether they are elect of God is another question. JBFaith said they have no choice. That is wrong. They will always choose contrary to faith. Just as would the rest of us, were it not for God regenerating us, and his gift of faith.

Then he repeats further down:
justbyfaith said:
Now, it seems to me that this creates a problem from time's perspective.

Because, if a person comes to God based on His Unconditional Election, he will find that if God has not chosen him, he is ultimately rejected by God, and that he has no choice in the matter of whether or not he will be saved.

The fact of God's election, whether for heaven or not, will indeed happen as God determined, but does not translate to 'the reprobate has no choice'. The reprobate always chooses.

@justbyfaith



Thats True, man has no choice in Salvation, Salvation A to Z is grounded in Gods choice. Also Reprobation to damnation is grounded in Gods choice.

Here, there is an apparent disunity in what is believed by certain Calvinists here.

@brightfame52 agreed with my statement that Calvinism preaches that man has no choice in the matter of whether he is saved; while @makesends disagreed

 

[justbyfaith]

It also seems to me that the concept of whether or not man has a choice concerning his salvation is not a small issue.