Election
Mission Possible: A Response to Shai Linne
Submitted by WilliamBirch on Tue, 03/02/2010 - 7:48amThe following is an edited response to Shai Linne's Limited Atonement rap
song, "Mission Accomplished." The original version was posted by "Murray" in the comments at the Gadgetry, Thoughts, Unleashed! blog. What is in brackets has been re-written or re-worded for this posting on SEA.
_____
Well excuse me Mr. Linne, but I think you’re confused.
And there are one or two verses which you have misused.
It’s true – God only saves the group He’s elected.
But that doesn’t mean we’re born preselected.
The "children of promise" He’s chosen to save;
All who seek God through works remain in the grave.
And God truly desires all men to believe;
His words in The Book weren’t meant to deceive.
_____
And the elect themselves were just like all others,
Once children of wrath, just like their brothers.
So even if His death was selective,
Romans 5:6: Who are the Ungodly?
Submitted by bossmanham on Mon, 02/22/2010 - 10:40amA single verse I think speaks volumes about the extent of Christ's atonement is Romans 5:6. Paul writes, "For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly" (NASB). Paul tells us here explicitly who Christ died for; the ungodly. Now, many Calvinists claim that Jesus only died for a select few on the cross. He only paid for the sins of the elect. But if this is the case, then Romans 5:6 would indicate that the non-elect aren't ungodly, since Christ died for the ungodly. Or it means, as the Arminian insists, that Christ really did die for the ungodly; namely all those who are at odds with God because of their sin, who Paul identifies as every individual on earth (Romans 3:23).
Joshua Ratliff, "Ephesians 1:3-4: An Explanation of the Corporate and Christocentric Nature of Election"
Please click on the attachment to view Joshua Ratliff, "Ephesians 1:3-4: An Explanation of the Corporate and Christocentric Nature of Election"
Church History vs. Calvinism (Part One)
Submitted by WilliamBirch on Tue, 02/16/2010 - 9:12amTo say that any semblance of a Calvinistic framework is entirely absent from the teachings of the early Church fathers, as will become evident shortly, is an understatement. Ironically enough, however, John Calvin was not the originator of a predestinarian construction, strictly speaking. The founder of this doctrine was none other than St. Augustine (AD 354-430).
According to Vance, "The influence of Augustine upon history in general and Christianity in particular is incalculable -- but not surprising -- since, like Calvin, he was an extensively prolific writer. . . . When a modern Calvinist endeavors to substantiate Calvinism by an appeal to men, the first name mentioned is always that of Augustine."1
Ironside on Calvinism
Submitted by SEA on Mon, 02/15/2010 - 9:13amTaken from: http://www.thebereancall.org/node/8145
Ironside on Calvinism
"Turn to your Bible and read for yourself in the only two chapters in which this word predestinate or predestinated is found. The first is Romans 8:29-30, the other chapter is Ephesians 1:5 and 11. You will note that there is no reference in these four verses to either heaven or hell but to Christ-likeness eventually. Nowhere are we told in scripture that God predestinated one man to be saved and another to be lost. Men are to be saved or lost eternally because of their attitude towards the Lord Jesus Christ. Predestination means that someday all the redeemed shall become just like the Lord Jesus"
"D.L. Moody used to put it very simply the elect are the 'whosoever wills' the non-elect 'whosoever wont's'. This is exactly what scripture teaches, the invitation is to all, those who accept it are the elect. Remember, we are never told that Christ died for the elect".
An Apparently Not so Brief Response to C. Michael Patton on Rom. 9
Submitted by Ben Henshaw on Tue, 02/02/2010 - 9:08amBelow is a response to C. Michael Patton from my site. It has been slightly edited for publication here.
I wrote a lengthy response to C. Michael Patton’s post on Rom. 9 entitled "Why Doe He Still Find Fault”: Predestination, Election, and the Argument of Romans 9. Apparently, it was a little too lengthy for Patton’s taste since he deleted all but the first in a series of posts and then made a general comment about people spamming his site, to which I responded,
Glen Shellrude, “The Freedom of God in Mercy and Judgment: A Libertarian Reading of Romans 9:6-29”
Please click on the attachment to view Glen Shellrude, “The Freedom of God in Mercy and Judgment: A Libertarian Reading of Romans 9:6-29”, Evangelical Quarterly 81.4 (2009), 306–318.
Here is the author's abstract:
Romans 9:6-26 is commonly interpreted to mean that Jewish unbelief and Gentile
responsiveness to the Gospel was something ordained or predestined by
God. This article identifies elements in the whole context of 9 – 11 which call this
approach in question. It then proposes that Paul’s intent is to rebut the claim
that God was under obligation to ensure that Israel recognize the time of fulfillment.
Paul argues that God: 1. is free to define his people on the basis of who
responds to his gracious initiative; 2. is free to respond to Israel’s unbelief with
a judgment of hardening rather than turning up the heat of irresistible grace; 3.
is free to use the occasion of a hardened Israel for a broader proclamation of the
Supralapsarian Calvinists Criticize Infralapsarian Calvinist C. Michael Patton
Submitted by Kevin Jackson on Wed, 01/13/2010 - 1:52pmCalvinist C. Michael Patton recently did a post entitled Calvinism and the Divine Decrees – Correcting a Misunderstanding. In the post Patton argues for the Infralapsarian view of Calvinism. The infralapsarian view is a less extreme form of Calvinism. It states that in the logical order of God's decrees, God first decreed the creation of man and then allowed for the fall.
Patton's post has been criticized by Supralapsarian Calvinist "Tur8infan" of Alpha and Omega Ministries (James White's organization). That post can be found here: Response to C. Michael Patton on the Divine Decrees and Hyper-Calvinism. The Supralapsairan view is the most extreme form of Calvinism. It states that God decreed the fall of man before the creation of Adam was decreed.
Introducing Dr. Brian Abasciano's "Clearing Up Misconceptions About Corporate Election"
Submitted by Ben Henshaw on Tue, 01/12/2010 - 12:01pmSEA is excited to announce the addition to our site of Dr. Brian Abasciano’s recently published article Clearing Up Misconceptions About Corporate Election which argues forcefully and compellingly for the corporate view of election. The theological concept of corporate election has been gaining force in modern scholarship for quite some time. It is widely held among scholars that a primarily corporate election is the election described in the OT. It is on this basis that Dr. Abasciano and others argue that this corporate view of election is the view that Paul and the other apostles would naturally carry over into the NT. This is not just speculation but is strongly supported by the language of election used especially by Paul, not least in Romans and Ephesians.
Brian Abasciano, "Clearing Up Misconceptions about Corporate Election"
This article defends the concept of corporate election against the criticisms that have been leveled against it, showing that they arise mostly from misunderstanding of the concept. It argues that corporate election is the biblical view of election unto salvation, which means that election unto salvation is conditional on faith in Christ. This version of the article has different page numbers and may have some other slight differences from the published version.
Please click on one of the attachments to view Brian J. Abasciano, "Clearing Up Misconceptions about Corporate Election", Ashland Theological Journal 41 (2009) 67-102. The first attachment has footnotes with 12 point font and double spaced. The second attachment is simply the same article with footnotes that are 10 point font and single spaced .
