Sure, Christ was God's elect. That doesn't mean God's election is limited to Christ.
Calvinism is Gospel !
- Thread starter brightfame52
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
"Your attempt to confine the absolute immutability of God strictly to national Israel is a textbook example of a severe exegetical error. You are confusing the historical occasion of a text with its universal theological reality. God's attributes are who He is in His eternal essence; they do not switch on and off depending on who He is talking to.
Let’s look at exactly where your argument collapses:
1. You Misrepresent the Scriptural Baseline
You claim that 'every single instance' of God's unchangeableness is tied to Israel. That is flatly false.
Look at James 1:17, written to the New Testament church: 'Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.' This has absolutely nothing to do with geopolitical plans for national Israel. It is an absolute declaration that God’s being, essence, and will are completely unchangeable.
Furthermore, Hebrews 6:17-18 completely shatters your theory by anchoring the salvation of the New Testament elect directly to God's unchangeable nature:
The 'heirs of promise' here are the elect, New Covenant believers who have fled to Christ for refuge. Paul explicitly states that God wanted to show them the absolute immutability of His counsel. If God's mind could be shifted or influenced by man, His counsel would not be immutable, His oath would be void, and the New Testament saint would have zero 'strong consolation' or security.
2. You Ignore the Explicit Reason God Cannot Change
When Numbers 23:19 states, 'God is not a man, that he should lie; Neither the son of man, that he should change his mind,' the text grounds His immutability in His divine nature, not in Israel. The contrast is between the creature (man, who changes his mind) and the Creator (God, who cannot).
By your logic, if God is only unchangeable when dealing with Israel, then when He deals with Gentiles, He behaves exactly like a fluctuating, unpredictable man. That is a direct assault on the eternal perfection of God.
3. Your Argument Concedes to Open Theism
You argue that God's mind can be 'influenced through prayer and obedience.' You can try to dress this up as a 'touchable relationship,' but what you are actually advocating for is Open Theism—the heretical idea that God modifies His eternal plans in response to human actions.
If human input can alter, shift, or manipulate the mind of God, then man’s will has become sovereign over the Almighty.
4. The True Reality of Prayer
The Calvinist position does not deny that God is reachable through prayer. Rather, we believe that God is so sovereign that He has ordained the means as well as the ends (Isaiah 46:10, Ephesians 1:11).
God does not learn new information when we pray, nor does He alter His eternal decrees based on our advice. God sovereignly decrees that an event will happen, and He simultaneously sovereignly moves His elect to pray for it to happen. Prayer is not a tool for creatures to rewrite the script of the Creator; it is the gift whereby God aligns our hearts with His unchangeable, victorious will. An unchanging God is the only reason prayer has any solid security to begin with."
In Mat. 7:13-14, Jesus gives us a choice of either going by the broad way or the narrow way. Only those who choose to go by the narrow way will have eternal life. Does this sound like predetermination? At the same time, according to 2 Pet. 3:9, God does not want anyone to be lost or destroyed. Doesn't this sound like fore-ordaining?
When I speak about free-will, I am not saying that man is independently choosing God. According to Rom. 10:13-15, there is a process by which man makes the decision. Man's decision is based on the faith which is a gift of God he receives as he listens to the gospel. This is when free-will is exercised. So, God gives the person an opportunity to choose him.
When I said that God fore-ordains that we should be like Christ, I never said that he leaves it to us to fulfill it. I would say that it is God who initiates our salvation, sustains our salvation, and keeps our salvation until the end provided we are careful to reach out to God as mentioned in Rom. 8:26. This is what triggers the fore-ordination to be performed. If we remain passive, God will not move an inch. Definitely, he will woo us to have fellowship with him but he will never violate our free-will.
"Your argument relies on a manufactured linguistic rule and a direct denial of the plain text of the New Testament. You are trying to use Christ's unique role as the Messiah to erase the sovereign election of His people to eternal life.
Let’s look at exactly where your argument falls apart:
1. Your 'First Mention Principle' is Factually Incorrect
You claim Isaiah 42:1 gives us the baseline definition of election because it is the 'first mention.' That is linguistically false. The Hebrew root for elect/chosen is bachar. God explicitly uses this word to describe His sovereign choice of Abraham (Nehemiah 9:7) and His choice of Jacob over Esau long before Isaiah ever wrote a word. You are fabricating a definition based on a false structural premise.
2. Christ is the Head; The Elect are Chosen IN HIM
You ask, 'Was Christ elected for salvation?' as if that disproves Calvinism. Christ was not elected for salvation; He is God manifested in the flesh. Christ was elected to be the Federal Head and Savior, and the elect were sovereignly chosen IN HIM.
You cannot separate the Covenant Head from His covenant people. Look at Ephesians 1:4: 'According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.'
We are not chosen for an abstract 'earthly service.' We are chosen in Christ before time began, for the explicit purpose of being made holy, blameless, and adopted as sons into eternal life (Eph 1:5).
3. The New Testament Explicitly Links Election to Salvation
Your bold claim that 'the context of election is never about salvation' is completely blown out of the water by the Apostle Paul. [1]
Look at 2 Thessalonians 2:13:
Paul does not say God chose them for a temporary task or service. He explicitly states that God chose them to salvation from the beginning.
Furthermore, Romans 11:7 completely destroys your idea of a merely 'vocational' election: 'What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.' The election obtained the righteousness of faith (salvation), while the reprobate were blinded.
To say election is only about service is to ignore the uniform testimony of Scripture. Christ is the Elect Servant who perfectly achieved salvation for the elect body chosen in Him before the world began (2 Tim 1:9). You are fighting against the plain words of the text."
"Furthermore, your appeal to Isaiah 42:1 completely backfires if you bother to read the rest of the text. You claim this election is 'never about salvation, but service,' but look at exactly what Christ was elected to do in verses 6-7:
Christ’s elected 'service' is the literal, sovereign execution of eternal salvation for His people. He was elected to be given as a covenant head, to sovereignly open spiritually blind eyes, and to deliver helpless captives out of the prison house of sin and darkness.
You tried to invent a false dichotomy between service and salvation. Isaiah 42 proves that the Elect Servant was chosen for the explicit purpose of saving the elect sheep given to Him by the Father. You cannot isolate verse 1 from verses 6 and 7 without tearing the gospel out of the prophecy."
a. I do not read where David insisted that he sinned because he had been compelled to do so because of some polluted essence he inherited from Adam. This idea was simply not part of Jewish thought. In fact, no one held such ideas until Augustine began teaching it in the Fifth Century. If David had really intended to say that why does he say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about Adam's fall from grace in the garden?
b. What David actually DID say was that he had been conceived by a sinful mother into a sinful family and race. Thus he had been exposed to sin and unrighteousness before he could say what it was. We have only to recall that David's own great-great-grandmother was Rahab the Canaanite who was a prostitute
c. Perhaps you believe as some others do that humanity is totally depraved FROM CONCEPTION. Perhaps, like the late Voddie Baucham you believe babies are vipers in diapers. If so then you are at odds with Jesus Christ who said the Kingdom consists of those who like infants are pure of heart.
d. However, consider this - the one of the main things that makes child sacrifice so repulsive to God is their helpless innocence. This is why God indicted Israel for following the practice of child sacrifice during the reign of King Manasseh. As Bible says:
Moreover, Manasseh shed very much innocent blood until he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another; besides his sin with which he made Judah sin, in doing evil in the sight of the Lord
(2 Kings 21:16)
d. While there is no doubt that Adam's sin brought great damage our race and to the order of our planet, one thing Adam could not pass down to us was his personal guilt.
"Your response attempts to create a middle ground, but it ultimately collapses into a direct denial of the power of God's grace. You claim that God initiates salvation, but then you utter the ultimate theological contradiction: claiming that God’s eternal decree is frozen and that 'God will not move an inch' unless a spiritually dead sinner 'triggers' Him.
Let’s look at where your arguments completely shatter against the text of Scripture:
1. The 'Two Ways' Require a Sovereign Heart Change
You point to Matthew 7:13-14 to ask if a choice sounds like predetermination. High Calvinism does not deny that man makes a choice. We ask the biblical question: Why does anyone choose the narrow way?
Scripture is uniform: the natural man, left to his own 'free will,' always chooses the broad way because his carnal mind is enmity against God and cannot be subject to His law (Rom 8:7). The only reason an elect soul chooses the narrow way is because God sovereignly pre-determined to quicken them, taking away their heart of stone and giving them a heart of flesh that willingly runs after Christ (Ezekiel 36:26, Phil 2:13). The choice is the fruit of God's predetermination, not the cause of it.
Furthermore, your use of 2 Peter 3:9 ignores the text's own boundary. Peter is writing to the 'beloved' elect (v. 1, 8), stating that God is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any of us should perish. If God's absolute will was to save every single human being without exception, and yet billions perish, then man’s will is more powerful than Jehovah's decree. But Scripture says, 'He doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand.' (Daniel 4:35).
2. You Turn the Gift of Faith into a Conditional Work
You admit that faith is a gift of God received through the Gospel, but then you claim this is where 'free-will is exercised' to give man an opportunity to choose or reject Him.
Think through your own logic: if the sinner has the ultimate power to reject the gift, then the deciding factor in salvation is not God's sovereign gift, but man’s free-will cooperation. You are still making salvation conditional upon a human action, directly violating Romans 9:16: 'So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.'
3. Romans 8:26 Completely Reverses Your Argument
You attempt to use Romans 8:26 to claim that our 'reaching out' triggers the fore-ordination to be performed. You have read the verse completely backward.
Look at what Romans 8:26 actually says: 'Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.'
The text does not say man groans to trigger a passive God who 'won't move an inch.' It says man doesn't even know how to pray, so the Holy Spirit sovereignly moves inside the believer to produce those groanings! The spiritual movement of the believer is the result of the Holy Spirit's active power, not the trigger for it.
4. God Moves When We Are Dead
Your assertion that 'If we remain passive, God will not move an inch' is a direct assault on Ephesians 2:4-5. When God saved us, we were not 'reaching out' to Him; we were dead in trespasses and sins.
A corpse in a graveyard is completely passive. It cannot reach out, it cannot trigger a doctor, and it cannot cooperate. Yet Paul writes: 'Even when we were dead in sins, [God] hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved
'God did not wait for us to move an inch; He ran the whole distance, raised us from spiritual death by His irresistible power, and guaranteed our glorification. Your theology leaves God bound by the will of a corpse, but the God of the Bible is the absolute Sovereign who speaks life into the dead whenever and wherever He pleases."
No, but it means that election is tied to service, not salvation.
Nope, I stated that every instance that scripture states God will not repent, in every instance the context is Israel. Read my post.
No again, God has made a covenant with Israel, and he will see this through. He will not change his mind concerning this covenant.
Calvinists like to place themselves as the context of Ephesians 1. The context of Ephesians 1 are the spiritual blessings found in Christ. Christ is the context of Ephesians 1. All the blessings are in Christ. This was determined before the foundation of the world. You ignore the word "according".
They all were chosen to serve God's purpose. They were not chosen to be saved. Thanks again.
"Your response relies on historical myths, a direct twisting of David’s words, and a severe misunderstanding of how Jesus used analogies. Let’s look at exactly where your arguments collapse under the text of Scripture:
1. Your Historical Claim is Flatly Unscriptural
You claim inherited pollution was 'not part of Jewish thought' until Augustine. You are completely ignoring the Jewish scriptures.
- Job asks: 'Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.' (Job 14:4).
- Job 15:14 reiterates: 'What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?'
An unclean root can only produce unclean branches.
2. You Slander David's Lineage to Excuse Personal Depravity
Your attempt to drag Rahab and David’s mother into Psalm 51:5 to claim David was just born into a 'sinful family' completely subverts the text. David is not deflecting blame onto his family tree; he is undergoing deep confession for his own adultery and murder.
Look at the grammar: 'Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.' The pollution is located inside the 'I' and the 'me' from the very moment of conception. David is confessing that his outward acts of sin were the inevitable fruit of an inward nature that was corrupted from his very origin.
3. You Misrepresent the Words of Jesus
You claim Jesus stated that infants are 'pure of heart' by nature. Jesus never said that. In Matthew 18:3 and Mark 10:14-15, Jesus states that we must become like little children to enter the kingdom.
He is not speaking of moral perfection, but of absolute helplessness and lack of merit. A little child cannot earn a living, has no legal status, and is entirely dependent on the provision of the father. Jesus is teaching that unless you strip away your self-righteous free-will pride and come to God as an utterly helpless dependent, you cannot be saved. If children were naturally pure of heart, they would not need a Savior, contradicting Christ's mission to save that which was lost (Matt 18:11).
4. You Confuse Civil Innocence with Inherent Corruption
You point to the condemnation of child sacrifice in 2 Kings 21 as proof of natural purity because the Bible calls it 'innocent blood.' You are committing a severe category error.
In terms of human society and civil justice, an infant is completely 'innocent.' They have committed no crimes, broken no laws, and done no personal harm to their neighbor. Murdering them is an abomination. But civil innocence does not equal decretal purity before God. Paul closes the case for the entire human race in Ephesians 2:3, stating that before we are quickened, we are 'by nature the children of wrath, even as others.' You do not become a child of wrath by copying your neighbors; you are a child of wrath by nature.
5. The Verdict of Romans 5
You conclude that Adam could not pass down his personal guilt. If that is true, then your entire gospel falls apart. Romans 5:18 states: 'Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation...' And verse 19: 'For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners...'
If you deny that the guilt of the first Adam was legally imputed to those he represented, you have no theological ground to stand on to claim that the righteousness of the Second Adam (Christ) is legally imputed to the elect. You are destroying the very mechanism of substitutionary justification to protect the imaginary free will of a fallen race."
"You claim that I am ignoring the word 'according' and inserting myself into the text, but your response requires a complete rewriting of Greek grammar and a direct denial of the plain pronouns Paul uses.
Let’s look at what the text actually says versus what your synergistic theology forces it to say:
1. The Direct Object of God's Choice is 'Us'
You try to argue that only Christ is elected and that Ephesians 1 is just an abstract list of blessings. But look at the explicit grammar of Ephesians 1:4: 'According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world
- The Subject performing the action is God the Father.
- The Direct Object receiving the action is 'us' (particular, elect individuals).
- The Sphere in which this choice happens is 'in him' (Christ).
2. The Word 'According' (Kathōs) Completely Reverses Your Argument
You accuse me of ignoring the word 'according.' Let’s look at it. The Greek word is kathōs, which means 'just as' or 'in conformity with.' Paul uses it to link the spiritual blessings of verse 3 to the eternal decree of verse 4.
Paul is stating that God blesses us in time in direct conformity with the fact that He personally chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world. The blessings do not hang in a vacuum waiting for a human 'free-will' trigger to activate them. They are effectively poured out on the specific individuals whom God sovereignly chose before time began.
3. Abstract Blessings Cannot Be Adopted
Your theory that election is not personal completely falls apart in the very next sentence. Look at Ephesians 1:5: 'Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself...'
An abstract list of blessings cannot be adopted as a child. A corporate, empty framework cannot be adopted. Only distinct, individual image-bearers can be adopted into a family. Paul explicitly states that God predestinated us to personal adoption, and He did so 'according to the good pleasure of his will' (v. 5), completely excluding human input.
I don't have to 'place myself' in the context of Ephesians 1; the Holy Spirit put the elect there when He inspired Paul to write that God chosen us before the universe was even created. You are fighting against the very grammar of the passage to protect human pride."
First of all, Rom. 9:16 is not about salvation. It is about God's sovereign will to build the nation of Israel where he does not ask anyone's consent to build that nation. He does that unilaterally."Your response attempts to create a middle ground, but it ultimately collapses into a direct denial of the power of God's grace. You claim that God initiates salvation, but then you utter the ultimate theological contradiction: claiming that God’s eternal decree is frozen and that 'God will not move an inch' unless a spiritually dead sinner 'triggers' Him.
Let’s look at where your arguments completely shatter against the text of Scripture:
1. The 'Two Ways' Require a Sovereign Heart Change
You point to Matthew 7:13-14 to ask if a choice sounds like predetermination. High Calvinism does not deny that man makes a choice. We ask the biblical question: Why does anyone choose the narrow way?
Scripture is uniform: the natural man, left to his own 'free will,' always chooses the broad way because his carnal mind is enmity against God and cannot be subject to His law (Rom 8:7). The only reason an elect soul chooses the narrow way is because God sovereignly pre-determined to quicken them, taking away their heart of stone and giving them a heart of flesh that willingly runs after Christ (Ezekiel 36:26, Phil 2:13). The choice is the fruit of God's predetermination, not the cause of it.
Furthermore, your use of 2 Peter 3:9 ignores the text's own boundary. Peter is writing to the 'beloved' elect (v. 1, 8), stating that God is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any of us should perish. If God's absolute will was to save every single human being without exception, and yet billions perish, then man’s will is more powerful than Jehovah's decree. But Scripture says, 'He doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand.' (Daniel 4:35).
2. You Turn the Gift of Faith into a Conditional Work
You admit that faith is a gift of God received through the Gospel, but then you claim this is where 'free-will is exercised' to give man an opportunity to choose or reject Him.
Think through your own logic: if the sinner has the ultimate power to reject the gift, then the deciding factor in salvation is not God's sovereign gift, but man’s free-will cooperation. You are still making salvation conditional upon a human action, directly violating Romans 9:16: 'So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.'
3. Romans 8:26 Completely Reverses Your Argument
You attempt to use Romans 8:26 to claim that our 'reaching out' triggers the fore-ordination to be performed. You have read the verse completely backward.
Look at what Romans 8:26 actually says: 'Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.'
The text does not say man groans to trigger a passive God who 'won't move an inch.' It says man doesn't even know how to pray, so the Holy Spirit sovereignly moves inside the believer to produce those groanings! The spiritual movement of the believer is the result of the Holy Spirit's active power, not the trigger for it.
4. God Moves When We Are Dead
Your assertion that 'If we remain passive, God will not move an inch' is a direct assault on Ephesians 2:4-5. When God saved us, we were not 'reaching out' to Him; we were dead in trespasses and sins.
A corpse in a graveyard is completely passive. It cannot reach out, it cannot trigger a doctor, and it cannot cooperate. Yet Paul writes: 'Even when we were dead in sins, [God] hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved
God did not wait for us to move an inch; He ran the whole distance, raised us from spiritual death by His irresistible power, and guaranteed our glorification. Your theology leaves God bound by the will of a corpse, but the God of the Bible is the absolute Sovereign who speaks life into the dead whenever and wherever He pleases."
Now, when it comes to salvation, you're stuck with the "spiritually dead sinner" phenomena. You have to understand that salvation is a process which begins with justification, followed by sanctification, and ends with glorification. A person is a spiritually dead sinner only until he is justified. Once he is justified, it is wrong for you to call him a "spiritually dead sinner". Once a person is justified, he is "righteous" in the sight of God. Having become righteous, now he is called to engage himself in reaching out to God as mentioned in Rom. 8:26. Since it is God who calls, justifies, and glorifies, so when the person is reaching out to God, the Holy Spirit helps him by interceding on his behalf. Is this not in alignment with Rom. 8:30 where it is God who sustains our salvation? So, if the person had not reached out to God, do you think God will sustain his salvation? Not at all.
Here, you have a twisted reasoning because of your concept of predetermination. I would say that the person is walking in the will of God as fore-ordained by God when he walks in the narrow way.
Your definition of elect comes from your concept of predestination. I would say that the elect is the one who is walking in the will of God as fore-ordained by God.
Adam was given a choice not to eat the forbidden fruit and live or eat the fruit and die. It is the same concept throughout the ages.
Yes, because it is the Holy Spirit who is interceding on man's behalf, it perfectly aligns with Rom. 8:30 where God is the one who begins, sustains, and keeps our salvation until the end. Had man not taken the initiative to pray, the HS would not have come on the scene.
This is the justification part. At this stage, God will not look at our merit. However, at the sanctification stage, God very much want us involved in our spiritual growth, otherwise God will not move an inch.
A fallen human race is not a corpse. Yes, the spirit of the person is dead, but his soul is very much alive. It means the person is able to think, reason, and decide. So, how is the person saved? Rom. 10:13-15 gives us the process. The preaching of the gospel produces faith, which causes the person to believe and then he calls on the name of the Lord. This is how he is saved. You may say that man should not be involved in the process of salvation, but faith is causing the man to be involved in the process of salvation.A corpse in a graveyard is completely passive. It cannot reach out, it cannot trigger a doctor, and it cannot cooperate. Yet Paul writes: 'Even when we were dead in sins, [God] hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved
"Your pivot to 'vocation and service' is a classic theological smoke screen that attempts to split what God has joined together. You claim that Abraham, Jacob, and the elect were merely chosen to 'serve a purpose' and 'not chosen to be saved.' This statement flatly contradicts the explicit text of Scripture.
Let’s look at where your 'service-only' theory completely shatters:
1. Romans 9 Destroys Your 'Service/Works' Theory
You claim Jacob was merely chosen for a temporal service. If election is strictly about a task or a job that someone performs, then election is ultimately based on human actions and works.
But look at how the Apostle Paul completely shuts this down in Romans 9:11-12: '(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
...' [1, 2, 3, 4]Paul explicitly states that God's election of Jacob over Esau had absolutely nothing to do with what Jacob would do, achieve, or serve. It was entirely 'not of works.' Furthermore, Paul frames this election as God's saving, covenantal love: 'Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated' (v. 13). God didn't just give Esau a 'different job description'; He made him a vessel of wrath fitted for destruction, while Jacob was a vessel of mercy prepared unto glory (Rom 9:22-23). That is the literal definition of eternal salvation versus eternal damnation.
2. You Are Flatly Denying the Plain Text of the New Testament
Your claim that 'They were not chosen to be saved' requires you to erase the plain vocabulary of the Holy Spirit.
Look at 2 Thessalonians 2:13: 'But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.'
Paul does not say God chose them for an abstract earthly chore. He says, in unmistakable, plain language, that God chose them to salvation from the beginning.
3. Scriptural Service is the Downstream Fruit of Blood Redemption
You are trying to create a false choice: 'service, not salvation.' But Scripture uniformally teaches that true, spiritual service is a physical impossibility until a person is first sovereignly saved and legally cleansed by blood. Salvation is entirely unto service. [1, 2]
Look at the explicit order of the Gospel in these foundational passages:
- Hebrews 9:14: 'How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?' You cannot serve the living God while trapped in the 'dead works' of your natural, unregenerate state. Christ must first legally purge your conscience by His blood—which is the essence of salvation—so that you are enabled to serve Him.
- 1 Thessalonians 1:9: Paul praises the saints because they 'turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God.' Turning from idols to God is the miracle of the New Birth and conversion. True service only begins after God sovereignly turns a heart from its idols.
- Revelation 5:9-10: Look at the cosmic order of election, salvation, and service sung by the redeemed in heaven: 'For thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.'
A spiritually dead corpse cannot serve a holy God. To be chosen to truly serve God in spirit and in truth requires that you first be redeemed, justified, and regenerated. You are desperately trying to turn election into an empty employment contract, but Scripture reveals it as an unbreakable covenant of eternal life that inevitably produces holy service."
"Your response has forced you into a massive chronological blunder, a severe misreading of the text, and a complete reversal of the biblical Order of Salvation (Ordo Salutis). To rescue human free will, you have fractured the finished work of Christ into disjointed, unbiblical pieces.
Let’s look at exactly where your system shatters against the text:
1. Your Chronological Blunder: Justification vs. Regeneration
You claim a person is a spiritually dead sinner only until he is justified. Think through the logical absurdity of your timeline: you have a sinner who is still 'spiritually dead' exercising saving faith to trigger justification, so that they can finally stop being dead. [1]
How can a spiritually dead soul produce a living, holy act like saving faith? It is a spiritual impossibility. A corpse cannot believe. Justification is a forensic, legal court verdict; it is not the injection of spiritual life.
Scripture is explicit: Regeneration (the New Birth) must precede the experiential reception of justification. God must first sovereignly quicken and raise the dead soul to life ('Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ' — Eph 2:5) so that the newly alive soul can then believe and rest in the legal verdict of justification. You have a corpse acting like a living man to get a legal status.
2. You Have Read Romans 8 Completely Backward
You state that 'had man not taken the initiative to reach out to God, the Holy Spirit would not intercede.' This statement is a direct assault on sovereign grace.
If the Holy Spirit is standing around waiting for unregenerate men to 'take the initiative' to reach out to God, then heaven would be completely empty. Why? Because God Himself declared the universal condition of the human race in Romans 3:11: 'There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.'
If none seek God in their natural state, then a man taking the initiative to truly reach out to God is not the trigger for the Holy Spirit to arrive; it is the undeniable proof that the Holy Spirit has already sovereignly invaded that heart, quickened it, and produced the desire to seek Him! Look at what Romans 8:26 actually says: 'the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.' The spiritual movement of the believer is the result of the Holy Spirit's active power inside them, not the trigger for it.
3. The Unbreakable Chain of Romans 8:30
You boldly ask: 'if the person had not reached out to God, do you think God will sustain his salvation? Not at all.' You have just completely denied the text you cited.
Look at the absolute, unconditional verbs in the Golden Chain of Romans 8:30: '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.'
Paul does not insert any human conditions. He does not say, 'whom He justified, He will glorify provided they reach out to Him so He sustains it.' The chain is forged in the immutable decree of God. 100% of those who are justified will be glorified, because God's sovereign power ensures they will persevere. By claiming God will fail to sustain those He has justified, you are claiming that human failure can break God's eternal chain.
4. The Target of Romans 9:16
Finally, you try to brush off Romans 9:16 by claiming it is just about national Israel and 'not about salvation.' Look down at the direct climax of that exact same context in verses 23-24: 'And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles.'
An abstract nation of Israel does not include called Gentiles. 'Glory' is not an earthly political boundary. Paul is explicitly talking about the eternal salvation of individual vessels of mercy, Jew and Gentile alike, chosen before time began.
By claiming God 'won't sustain' salvation unless man initiates the process, you have turned salvation back into a conditional system of human works. You are fighting a losing battle against the absolute, unchanging sovereignty of the Almighty."
You wanna hear something truly terrifying? Look up the concept of "evanescent grace"
Its a temporary grace God gives to someone, to trick them into believing they are true believers, only to find out later that oh whoops, it wasnt effectual grace, it was evanescent grace.
All these categories, effectual call, general call, decretive will, revealed will, common grace, irresistable grace, evanescent grace. This theology just keeps piling on the different categories to avoid the contradictions. Instead of just trying to understand predestination in a different way which would solve all these without needing these categories
- Status