Chosen "IN HIM" before the foundation of the world...

[ALAYMAN]

Now is the assertion being made that one is not "Elect" until they are "In Christ?"

The way most answer that question relating to Eph 1:4 is that they are Elect "in Christ" and His plans for their eternal destiny outside of time (because God is not limited to being within a single point of time) but the language of Eph 1:4 isn't as much as predestining their eternal soul's state (regarding regeneration) but is rather dealing with defining God's intent in predetermining their sanctified purpose post-regeneration.

I would rather have someone accurately and fairly articulate my position and then explain why they disagree. I believe such would be more fruitful and Christ-honoring than what is going on these days! I don't think we will ever settle the matter but hopefully what comes out of such discussions is edifying to all. That is all I ask.

Totally agree bro. Matter of fact, ironically, it was this very subject that led me to that same conclusion about fairly representing viewpoints/perspectives while not unfairly making a caricature of those with whom you disagree. It was due to research and awareness on the subject of Calvinism that came about as a result of my readings on this FFF decades ago. My pastor at the time (a HAC young man who I had tons of respect for) knew I had questions about the Sovereignty/Free Will argument and told me that Spurgeon wasn't a Calvinist and that Charles had "evolved" over his life to come to a place of opposing Calvinism. As I have always been somewhat of a maverick, and subscribe to the motto "trust but verify", I continued my research only to be disappointed that he was wrong and had occasionally misrepresented Calvinism (I won't speculate on his motives for why this mis-information was propagated, and since I fully discovered this after he had left our church there was no reason to try and contact him after the fact to fin out his motives). That was a pivotal moment in my theological development, because though I appreciate he may have simply been trying to protect me from what he perceived to be dangerous (or even heretical, from his perspective) doctrine that young minds should be shielded from, I come from the belief system that truth honors God, no matter how difficult that truth is. In the case for Cal/FW debates, I find that (somewhat as aleshanee sorta indicated) that the acrimony defeats the over-arching purpose of why Christ has me here on this earth. I most certainly staunchly advocate for sound doctrinal fidelity in Christianity, but I find this debate often brings more heat than light, so I generally avoid it. I do strongly ascribe to the Sovereignty of God, and believe many elements of the "Doctrines of Grace" favor systematic approaches that lean towards God's glory more than the end of the FW spectrum that lurches towards (as you alluded to) Open Theism. I believe there is a ditch on both sides (Hyper Cal predestinarian hard determinism/fatalism on the opposite of Open Theism), and generally find discussion of Biblical Christianity to be more profitable in other arenas. That is not said in efforts to duck the conversation, just keepin' it real.

 

[aleshanee]

First of all, if I have ever offended you in any manner regarding this, please accept my humble apology! I hope I have somewhat grown in grace since then. The problem with this issue and the reason why there is so much contention is because both sides have been intentionally misrepresented by the other to the point that your average Pastor/Teacher can hardly bring up the issue or go through a passage of scripture where the doctrine of election is clearly expressed!

The problem is we often make the issue about us and elevate our position above the authority and sufficiency of scripture. This is where we have to deal with our pride and ensure it is about God, about what is edifying to others, and not about us! The reason there is strife and contention is because we are too much focused on US rather than about God!

And I have seen the cycle myself. I don't think I know of any Calvinists who have apostatized (some have gone extremely liberal, one FFF example I am thinking of) but I do know of one who went the Unitarian Universalist route before deciding he was full-blown atheist - some here likely know who I am speaking of. One extreme is fatalism and the other is universalism: both are heretical and very wrong! A well-balanced position embraces both God's Sovereignty and Man's Responsibility and in order to get there as a Church congregation, these issues need to be adequately and accurately represented.

And for the record, a Semi-Pelagian is someone who claims that it is man’s responsibility to take the first step towards God whereas an Arminian acknowledges that God must be the one taking the first step revealing himself so that a man may respond in faith. Calvinists who automatically label anyone who is not Calvinist as being "Semi-Pelagian" are dead wrong and may even have to give account to God regarding the bearing of false witness against their brother! I do not wish to be that person!

We do not have to agree, we may never agree and that is just fine. There are some essential doctrines on which we must agree and others where there will always be some disagreement. We should be able to exercise adequate spiritual maturity and charity in these matters. We may disagree about election but so long as we understand we have received the spirit of adoption and are, in fact, "in that number," then this is what matters! We do not know who the elect are so we preach to EVERYONE and God will draw those of whom he so chooses and we can rest in the fact that he will be faithful to do so!

I believe that the consultation of sources outside of whatever given position you may have is a good thing and will keep you on your toes! Just be careful to allow the scriptures to have the ultimate rule and authority!

Peace

no..... you have never offended me... ...you have always been a good friend on the fff... .in fact even being called a semi-pelagian didn;t even offend me.... .. like i said i had to look it up to find out what it meant..... it was completely wrong... ..and whoever said it had no clue about what i believe or why... .. ...but what looking all that up actually did was to get me interested in learning about ancient rome.... and specifically rome when it occupied brittain... and that ended up being an interesting study....

the thing that bothers me about calvinism is the obsession calvinists have with talking about it... and also the obsession with making everyone else either see it their way or be considered an idiot... .or even be called an idiot..... on the older forums the calvinists used to describe calvinism as something only the intelligent could understand.... and for that reason i have always seen it as an elitist ideology....

but i ask again... what;s the point of continually pushing it?..... whether true or not.. what does that concept have to do with our commission to go out and spread the gospel and with serving those who are less fortunate in the name of Christ?....... and what part does it play in explaining the gospel to the lost?... leading them to Christ or bringing them to an understanding of salvation?.... .none that i can see....... ..in fact i can see it being a huge problem going out to serve in such in a way with the idea that only some of them can be saved ..and the rest are already pre-condemned whether they like it or not .. as part of my message.....

i know people personally who have been driven away from church and from God by the concept of calvinism and the way it was continously pushed... . i have even heard the statement huk made in his post spoken almost word for word by people who wanted no further part of church or christianity.. of any kind.. because of what calvinists said to them. ....and sadly i can see their points....

 

[Baptist Renegade]

So, basically, by your own statement, you ARE here to argue about C Vs. A....UGH! Ray, I thought I knew you better than this. Fruitless arguments on both sides, leading to NOTHING profitable. The Bible tells us to avoid these kinds of conversations. There are better things to be concentrating on.

Where are you getting that I am arguing about Calvinism and Arminianism? I told Huk I did not wish to argue with him and this is what I sincerely meant. I asked for clarification regarding a statement he made and he graciously provided. I am satisfied.

The Bible says to shun profane and vain babbling but we are talking about doctrine here! It is something that matters! Something that affects our Churches and the ability to teach the whole counsel of God! Like it or not, Election pops up all throughout the scriptures. I don't think we should always seek it out and make such our main focus but when it does come up, it would be nice to be able to have full liberty to fully explore the text without feeling the need to pander to one side or the other or worrying about a Calvinism/Arminianism fight breaking out don't you agree? I don't really care to prove Calvinism for the most part. I'm really not even sure how good of a Calvinist I am when all is said and done!

Finally, someone in their wisdom has created a "Calvinism/Arminianism" section apart from the rest of the forum. What is the purpose of this section if not to discuss matters specifically related to the doctrines of election and other matters relating to Calvinism and Arminianism and those who wish not to be bothered are free to steer clear?

 

[AverageJoe]

Where are you getting that I am arguing about Calvinism and Arminianism? I told Huk I did not wish to argue with him and this is what I sincerely meant. I asked for clarification regarding a statement he made and he graciously provided. I am satisfied.

The Bible says to shun profane and vain babbling but we are talking about doctrine here! It is something that matters! Something that affects our Churches and the ability to teach the whole counsel of God! Like it or not, Election pops up all throughout the scriptures. I don't think we should always seek it out and make such our main focus but when it does come up, it would be nice to be able to have full liberty to fully explore the text without feeling the need to pander to one side or the other or worrying about a Calvinism/Arminianism fight breaking out don't you agree? I don't really care to prove Calvinism for the most part. I'm really not even sure how good of a Calvinist I am when all is said and done!

Finally, someone in their wisdom has created a "Calvinism/Arminianism" section apart from the rest of the forum. What is the purpose of this section if not to discuss matters specifically related to the doctrines of election and other matters relating to Calvinism and Arminianism and those who wish not to be bothered are free to steer clear?

You say we shouldn't seek out the word election as a practice, yet, the subject is constantly being brought up though both sides are fully aware that this "doctrine" won't be settled because of the sufficient evidence on both sides to back up their claims. Therefore, it's a fruitless conversation. Whether it's important or not is really out of the question. If it's so important, I don't believe the Holy Spirit would lead Christians to hold such differing views on it. It isn't conducive to being of "one mind."

 

[Baptist Renegade]

I have not heard of him. Sorry. I was baptized in the Church of Christ in 1985, but was rebaptized in a baptist church in 1989.

If Robert Shanks is a Church of Christ "Water Dog" then his position on election is the least of his problems! Perhaps Anti-Cals need to look for some more credible "Apologists" who will champion their position?

 

[AverageJoe]

Yet, allowing free will doesn't negate the Sovereignty of God, nor does allowing it in any way diminish from his nature of being an all-knowing God. Calvinists don't like this. He knows and he lets it play out. He's still having mercy on whom he would have mercy.

 

[Baptist Renegade]

Yet, allowing free will doesn't negate the Sovereignty of God, nor does allowing it in any way diminish from his nature of being an all-knowing God. Calvinists don't like this. He knows and he lets it play out. He's still having mercy on whom he would have mercy.

I have absolutely no problem with your statement. It is the rabid anti-Calvinists who accuse Calvinists of saying men are mindless robots doing whatever God dictates!

Mankind can do whatever he desires so long as it is within his ability. A man cannot flap his arms and fly up to the top of the Empire State Building and he does not have the capability to live without sin so these are two instances where the free-will of man is limited.

A man can do pretty much whatever he wants. The problem is in what a man WANTS to do! Scriptures clearly state man will not seek after God. I purposely play dumb on whether a man actually has the ability to do so, the fact of the matter is, apart from supernatural providence, a man WILL NOT! An unregenerate man desires the benefits of knowing God but does not actually want to KNOW GOD. An unregenerate man wants go to Heaven when he dies but he does not want to find God there. These are simple cold-hard FACTS!

And yes, this is quite relevant and essential! It underscores the necessity of the Gospel and affects the way we evangelize the lost!

 

[AverageJoe]

I have absolutely no problem with your statement. It is the rabid anti-Calvinists who accuse Calvinists of saying men are mindless robots doing whatever God dictates!

Mankind can do whatever he desires so long as it is within his ability. A man cannot flap his arms and fly up to the top of the Empire State Building and he does not have the capability to live without sin so these are two instances where the free-will of man is limited.

A man can do pretty much whatever he wants. The problem is in what a man WANTS to do! Scriptures clearly state man will not seek after God. I purposely play dumb on whether a man actually has the ability to do so, the fact of the matter is, apart from supernatural providence, a man WILL NOT! An unregenerate man desires the benefits of knowing God but does not actually want to KNOW GOD. An unregenerate man wants go to Heaven when he dies but he does not want to find God there. These are simple cold-hard FACTS!

And yes, this is quite relevant and essential! It underscores the necessity of the Gospel and affects the way we evangelize the lost!

I can agree with that. I agree that it's the "rabid" on both sides that make this debate so hard...much harder than it has to be.