What biblical passage do you find most problematic for your view on election?

[The Remonstrant]

I find the term "election" problematic. Why does God use the term? It seems to just make for a big fight. Some are happy to find out God elected them. Others are mad that He didn't elect everyone. Some think they elected themselves. People like to debate about it and make others feel stupid for thinking God would elect someone. Stuff like that is problematic to me.

Aside from that, even if I were to mention a verse that seems problematic to my view, I would just hide out in Romans 9 all day in order to deal with the apparent problem. And that is probably problematic to someone else.

GoBahnsen:

I'm afraid you're missing the point. As Dante touched upon above, the issue is the nature of election to salvation. Surely you are aware that Arminius (for example) affirmed divine election and predestination to salvation. The problem arises when words like "election" and "predestination" become conflated with unconditional election and/or unconditional predestination. Only when election and predestination are understood to be unconditional in nature may it be said that non-Calvinists "deny" election. You may also say that only Calvinism affirms God's sovereignty. This is false as well. Divine sovereignty must never be conflated with exhaustive divine determinism. This is merely one way to understand divine sovereignty. Non-Calvinists believe God is ultimately sovereign as well, but not in the same way Calvinists do.

Allow me to cite one more example. It is (unfortunately) not uncommon for Protestant annihilationists to be accused of denying "hell" by those who advocate the conventional/standard view of final punishment. Of course, if final punishment is arbitrarily defined as endless conscious torment, annihilationists emphatically deny "hell".¹ While such reasoning is completely disingenuous, sadly many are not above this kind of sophistry. (Beware of word-loading, a favorite tactic employed by theological tricksters looking to score cheap points.) The nature of "hell"/final punishment is the question, not the concept itself. We should never conflate our personal understanding of concepts with the concepts themselves. We can all agree that divine sovereignty, election to salvation and "hell"/final punishment are concepts clearly presented in Scripture. However, this doesn't answer whether God exercises exhaustive determinism, whether election to salvation is conditional or not, or whether the lost will be tormented endlessly.²


Notes

¹ I almost can't wait for some theological huckster to quote mine me on this one.

² I cite these three examples because of the sheer frequency with which they arise as topics for theological debate.

[GoBahnsen]

GoBahnsen:

I'm afraid you're missing the point. As Dante touched upon above, the issue is the nature of election to salvation. Surely you are aware that Arminius (for example) affirmed divine election and predestination to salvation. The problem arises when words like "election" and "predestination" become conflated with unconditional election and/or unconditional predestination. Only when election and predestination are understood to be unconditional in nature may it be said that non-Calvinists "deny" election. You may also say that only Calvinism affirms God's sovereignty. This is false as well. Divine sovereignty must never be conflated with exhaustive divine determinism. This is merely one way to understand divine sovereignty. Non-Calvinists believe God is ultimately sovereign as well, but not in the same way Calvinists do.

Allow me to cite one more example. It is (unfortunately) not uncommon for Protestant annihilationists to be accused of denying "hell" by those who advocate the conventional/standard view of final punishment. Of course, if final punishment is arbitrarily defined as endless conscious torment, annihilationists emphatically deny "hell".¹ While such reasoning is completely disingenuous, sadly many are not above this kind of sophistry. (Beware of word-loading, a favorite tactic employed by theological tricksters looking to score cheap points.) The nature of "hell"/final punishment is the question, not the concept itself. We should never conflate our personal understanding of concepts with the concepts themselves. We can all agree that divine sovereignty, election to salvation and "hell"/final punishment are concepts clearly presented in Scripture. However, this doesn't answer whether God exercises exhaustive determinism, whether election to salvation is conditional or not, or whether the lost will be tormented endlessly.²


Notes

¹ I almost can't wait for some theological huckster to quote mine me on this one.

² I cite these three examples because of the sheer frequency with which they arise as topics for theological debate.

Well said

[The Remonstrant]

Well said

Thanks.

(You're the only Calvinist who ever gives me credit. )

[RBerman]

Actually, Classical Arminians would have been regarded as "two point Calvinists" since Arminius himself stressed total depravity and the perseverance of the saints. I think this illustrates the problem with most Calvinists in that they do not actually understand Arminianism apart from Calvinist caricatures.

You are of course correct that there are flavors within Arminianism, but one so rarely has the opportunity to meet a true "Classical Arminian," in the sense of a member of the Reformed Church who holds Arminius' specific variations from Calvin. Regarding Total Depravity, man will affirm it in theory but then plead Prevenient Grace to deny it in practice. But most Arminians are not that sophisticated, in my ample experience.

[Dante]

You are of course correct that there are flavors within Arminianism, but one so rarely has the opportunity to meet a true "Classical Arminian," in the sense of a member of the Reformed Church who holds Arminius' specific variations from Calvin. Regarding Total Depravity, man will affirm it in theory but then plead Prevenient Grace to deny it in practice. But most Arminians are not that sophisticated, in my ample experience.

From my experience, most are liberals, not Arminians, since there is no real teaching of Arminian theology.

[GoBahnsen]

From my experience, most are liberals, not Arminians, since there is no real teaching of Arminian theology.

Outside of places like this, Christians as a whole are not very sophisticated doctrinally. But a lot of them know and love Jesus. Dumb sheep like me included.

[GoBahnsen]

So this baseball coach wants to start up a team and he puts an invite in the local paper. He says that all are welcome on the team and none who show up for practice will be turned away. A big group of guys shows up and the coach keeps them all as promised. Later he tells them that they are his elect...that he elected them to be on the team. All the players smile, but go away scratching their heads in confusion.

"What did he mean that we are his elect?" "I don't know, I thot we chose to be on the team?" "Maybe he meant that he just likes us...I dunno, but he's a nice coach."

[The Remonstrant]

Actually, Classical Arminians would have been regarded as "two point Calvinists" since Arminius himself stressed total depravity and the perseverance of the saints. I think this illustrates the problem with most Calvinists in that they do not actually understand Arminianism apart from Calvinist caricatures.

It is not clear at all that Arminius affirmed the impossibility of apostasy. At the very least, he appears to never have denied the possibility of apostasy. For a more in depth discussion, see the link below. (Note: It is worth mentioning that Arminius' protege, Simon Episcopius, didn't share the same reservations as his predecessor in affirming the possibility or actualization of apostasy. Episcopius may be said to have been more consistent than Arminius in his theology.)

http://classicalarminian.blogspot.co...of-saints.html

[phat8594]

So this baseball coach wants to start up a team and he puts an invite in the local paper. He says that all are welcome on the team and none who show up for practice will be turned away. A big group of guys shows up and the coach keeps them all as promised. Later he tells them that they are his elect...that he elected them to be on the team. All the players smile, but go away scratching their heads in confusion.

"What did he mean that we are his elect?" "I don't know, I thot we chose to be on the team?" "Maybe he meant that he just likes us...I dunno, but he's a nice coach."

I guess, I'd say "Elect for what?" or "What are you choosing us for?" Is the coach choosing them to be on the team? Or is he choosing the team for something else (to bless them, use them, etc.)

The idea of election has more to do with God choosing to bless more than choosing certain individuals, IMO. In other words, the question becomes what is the point of election? Is it just to send some people to heaven, or is the purpose of election to accomplish God's will. IMO, its the latter. Israel was chosen not to be saved (although many Jews thought this way -- & Romans refutes this), but rather Israel was chosen to be a light to the world to point the world to God. (surprise, they failed) They were to be a conduit of God's blessing to the rest of the world.

In the same way, God's blessing (and choice to do so) is never about us...its about accomplishing His will. So although people are chosen to salvation through their belief, that is not the point of their election, but rather a benefit thereof. It is one of the MANY blessings of God which are found IN CHRIST and that should freely flow from us to the world. So the point of election is to accomplish what God has said He would do from the beginning: redeem the world.

God is sovereign so He can choose whoever He wants (Romans 9), and God has chosen to give His promises and blessings to those who walk by faith (the rest of Romans & Romans 9:30-32)

[Dante]

I guess, I'd say "Elect for what?" or "What are you choosing us for?" Is the coach choosing them to be on the team? Or is he choosing the team for something else (to bless them, use them, etc.)

The idea of election has more to do with God choosing to bless more than choosing certain individuals, IMO. In other words, the question becomes what is the point of election? Is it just to send some people to heaven, or is the purpose of election to accomplish God's will. IMO, its the latter. Israel was chosen not to be saved (although many Jews thought this way -- & Romans refutes this), but rather Israel was chosen to be a light to the world to point the world to God. (surprise, they failed) They were to be a conduit of God's blessing to the rest of the world.

In the same way, God's blessing (and choice to do so) is never about us...its about accomplishing His will. So although people are chosen to salvation through their belief, that is not the point of their election, but rather a benefit thereof. It is one of the MANY blessings of God which are found IN CHRIST and that should freely flow from us to the world. So the point of election is to accomplish what God has said He would do from the beginning: redeem the world.

God is sovereign so He can choose whoever He wants (Romans 9), and God has chosen to give His promises and blessings to those who walk by faith (the rest of Romans & Romans 9:30-32)

Amen!

[footwasher]

So this baseball coach wants to start up a team and he puts an invite in the local paper. He says that all are welcome on the team and none who show up for practice will be turned away. A big group of guys shows up and the coach keeps them all as promised. Later he tells them that they are his elect...that he elected them to be on the team. All the players smile, but go away scratching their heads in confusion.

"What did he mean that we are his elect?" "I don't know, I thot we chose to be on the team?" "Maybe he meant that he just likes us...I dunno, but he's a nice coach."

God called Israel out of Egypt, crisis, to fulfill the promise to make them a blessing to the world, restoration to a previous path.

However only Joshua and Caleb were "elected" out of one million who were "called".

Thus many are called but only a few chosen, based on performance, strong belief in God's promise.

Similar to an election, where the President is elected based on his speechmaking and policy proposing performance.

Two examples of election based on performance. Why is biblical election any different?

The called were those who sought God through petition for help to avoid judgment, like Zacharias and Cornelius. He heard their petition and gave them to Christ, who never turned them away. Others came too, but only those given by the Father remained. He was the answer to their prayer to God, the one who had words of eternal life, instruction to overcome their problem of avoiding wrath. They were initially puzzled that it required eating His flesh and drinking His blood but later understood it meant understanding/digesting His teachings and obeying them, laying down their lives. The others were attracted by the bread that gave only temporary filling. Jesus's sheep heard His voice and followed His commands. The miracles were only confirmation by God that proved the truth of His teachings.

[GoBahnsen]

God used the term because that's the way God works. The only difference is what kind of election did God use, whether it is individual or corporate, conditional or unconditional, that we are working out from the Bible. The only people who should feel stupid are those who insist that God does not elect anyone, since the Bible makes it clear that God does elect people.

And of course, those who believe that God elects individuals would have a different interpretation of Romans 9 than those who believe God elects corporately.

Jesus said 'My sheep know My voice and a stranger they will not follow." In another place He says "Ye do not believe me because ye are not of my sheep." (paraphrased to the best I can remember). My position would be that in this world there are lost sheep, found sheep, and goats. The goats aren't sheep, never will be. But lost sheep get found by God and become "found/saved" sheep. He finds them all and He won't lose any (John 6).

I propose that these lost sheep are part of God's individual election. They did not make themselves sheep. But since they are sheep, they hear the gospel and it resonates with them...and eventually they believe the gospel. The goats cannot hear, cannot believe, do not believe. They won't come to Jesus because they are not of His sheep. In fact, they are of their father, the devil.

There you go...that's the way I see it brother. And if you don't, that's ok. It's not a deal breaker...you just don't see it yet and maybe never will. Or maybe I am wrong too. Either way, so long as we believe the gospel, we can be wrong on how election operates. It is a difficult subject to understand. Or sometimes a difficult subject gets twisted to make it easy to understand.

[GoBahnsen]

God called Israel out of Egypt, crisis, to fulfill the promise to make them a blessing to the world, restoration to a previous path.

However only Joshua and Caleb were "elected" out of one million who were "called".

Thus many are called but only a few chosen, based on performance, strong belief in God's promise.

Similar to an election, where the President is elected based on his speechmaking and policy proposing performance.

Two examples of election based on performance. Why is biblical election any different?

The called were those who sought God through petition for help to avoid judgment, like Zacharias and Cornelius. He heard their petition and gave them to Christ, who never turned them away. Others came too, but only those given by the Father remained. He was the answer to their prayer to God, the one who had words of eternal life, instruction to overcome their problem of avoiding wrath. They were initially puzzled that it required eating His flesh and drinking His blood but later understood it meant understanding/digesting His teachings and obeying them, laying down their lives. The others were attracted by the bread that gave only temporary filling. Jesus's sheep heard His voice and followed His commands. The miracles were only confirmation by God that proved the truth of His teachings.

I agree with some points you make.

However I do not agree that election is based on human performance. To me that smacks of works righteousness, though I know that just shifts the debate to whether believing/faith is meritorious. I don't believe faith merits God's favor. Rather I see faith as a gift from God to His elect. But like I said to Dante, we don't have to see eye to eye on this doctrine.

[footwasher]

Scripture records the act of having faith as worthy of payback:

Galatians 3
6Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Belief is contrasted with works, to demonstrate that it , faith, is sufficient to obtain acceptability from God.

In no place is acceptability obtained without a choice being made by the individual candidate. Corporate election however can be so obtained:

Romans 9
8That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. 9For this is the word of promise: “AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON.” 10And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.” 13Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.”

It's clear that nations are being discussed here, as Esau never served Jacob, but Edom did serve Israel.

This is a necessary distinction, worthy of defending,

1. To encourage the making of a decision to choose God, IOW eschewing fatalism.

2. To possess a view of God that says good things about Him.

Mark 9
39But Jesus said, "Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me.

Summary
Faith is sufficient for justification to be given.

Faith is an act, response, deserving of reward.

At the least, the situating demonstrates God's justice. Granted, other situations occur that demonstrate God's mercy in forgiveness , or love in giving of Himself to undeserving men. It , the occurrence , in no way detracts from, prohibits, the manifestation of God's justice, fairness in rewarding good responses.

I agree with some points you make.

However I do not agree that election is based on human performance. To me that smacks of works righteousness, though I know that just shifts the debate to whether believing/faith is meritorious. I don't believe faith merits God's favor. Rather I see faith as a gift from God to His elect. But like I said to Dante, we don't have to see eye to eye on this doctrine.

[KingsGambit]

I was not intending for this to become a debate thread. We have enough of those as it is.