Unconditional Election: "What Does it Mean?" (James White)

[RomainesIX]

really enjoyed this one

[10152dianc]

awesome study.!! going to go back over it and "word study" the verses. thank you so much for posting this!

[CBALLEN]

There is only one God and one truth,if people teach a about a different god other than James White has described,they have chosen an idol to worship.

[nvisionmd]

@RUNNDD no go and hang yourself on it.

[nvisionmd]

ALLAH WILL RULE THE WORLD OVER CHRIST AND BITCH SLAP HIM UNTIL EVOLUTION RIDS THE WORLD OF GOD.

[forhisglory700]

@RUNNDD

context easily refutes your position on universalism. The Holy Scriptures are saturated with information that makes it clear that not ALL will enter The Kingdom of GOD. I cannot take your position seriously because it is self refuted. I don’t see any benefit to you & I continuing with this dialogue because you will believe what you believe irrespective of Scripture & I simply believe what the Scriptures clearly say about itself re: unconditional election.

For His Glory!!!

[forhisglory700]

@RUNNDD

clearly in opposition to Christ would be included with those in "the world" who "IS (PRESENT TENSE) gone after Him". So to answer your question, yes I can read; & better yet He has given me the Grace to allow ALL of Scripture to interpret itself. It should be clear to those that have discernment that your applying eisegesis to ALL of the text you have quoted (& I agree that in your case all means all) on this subject matter vs exegesis. The entire Holy Bible within its proper

[forhisglory700]

@RUNNDD

Wow! I must admit that I find it incredibly amusing that a self proclaimed former calvinist of 30 yrs can so grossly misapply Christ words as it relates to the Whole Council of GOD. It is clear to me this is why you are no longer a calvinist because your arguments are so inconsistent & out of sync with the Holy Scriptures. John 12:19 within the same chapter alone refutes your erroneous position. If what you claim is true, then even the pharisees who are quoted in this verse who are

[forhisglory700]

@RUNNDD

unwilling or more correctly UNABLE to answer what Christ meant simply say so. There is no shame in that, however the shame comes when you attempt to make the Scriptures say something that the original author never intended. You my friend are doing that very thing. If you do NOT respond directly to my inquiry about what Yeshua meant within its proper context, this will be my final correspondence with you regardles of what you have to say.

For His Glory!!!

[forhisglory700]

@RUNNDD

re: what Yeshua meant about being lifted up & drawing ALL MEN unto Him. I am fully aware that you cannot adequately or sufficiently respond to my inquiry without destroying your position that ALL means ALL, ALL of the time. TheKJVberean suspicion of you being a Universalist is correct. From a “so-called” former Calvinist to a universalist. Wow! The Scriptures declare that a double minded man is unstable in ALL his ways. This very well could be referring to you. If you are

[forhisglory700]

@RUNNDD

Thank you for your time, however I do not find your comments to be fruitful at all or the least bit edifying. Your arguments are weak & do NOT take into consideration the Whole Council of GOD. You have not responded to any of my inquiries directly, but have been evasive. This is understandable as I shamed you re: your previous argument about ALL men/ALL times & demonstrated how incoherent your argument is.

You still have NOT responded to my question (& this is for the 3rd time)

[TheKJVberean]

@RUNNDD You're right election does not stop, everyday someone can believe and be elected into the House of God. And yes it's eternal, but no not all will be saved. You sound like a universalist!

[forhisglory700]

@RUNNDD

Exactly WHAT resurrection are you referring to when you say "there is no more sin"?

In Romans 5, WHO has DIED? & WHAT kind of death does this represent?

WORLD??? Does the Holy Bible give different classification for the word world? & could you please identify them for me using the Scriptures ONLY. Thank you.

For His Glory!!!

[forhisglory700]

@RUNNDD

Unfortunately you did NOT provide an adequate response to Yeshua's statment that if He be lifted up He WILL draw ALL MEN unto Himself. Clearly not ALL men have been drawn to Him. A matter of fact MOST men have been REPULSED by Him & who & what He represents - The Kingdom of GOD.

Please address this quote from the Holy Bible directly, thank you.

For His Glory!!

[forhisglory700]

@RUNNDD

Quote: "Are all men of ALL TIME condemned by the sin of Adam? YES!"

The correct answer IS actually NO! Your consistent with regards to your argument, unfortunately that still makes you wrong. Using your above argument, we must conclude that "all men" ARE still condemned since All men still exist within ALL time. Yeshua entered time to set "His people free" from the bondage of sin so therefore they are no longer condemned despite existing within ALL time.

For His Glory!!!

[forhisglory700]

@RUNNDD

Unfortunately you're still deceived as it relates to election. Romans 5:18 does not support your position nor The Gospel of Yeshua. ALL MEN, does not mean all men all of the time. Yeshua said if He be lifted up He WILL draw ALL MEN unto Him. He was in FACT lifted up by means of His crucifixion, however since His crucifixion ALL MEN have NOT been drawn to Him. The UNREGENERATED Sinner is not free to choose GOD. This IS a Biblical FACT. Your position is incorrect.

For His Glory!

[TheKJVberean]

@candiceevans1 Election is conditional, all throughout the NT God says He is NOT a respecter of persons, thats what unconditional election does, makes God out to be respecter of persons. Read the famous calvinist scripture that they use to defend this doctrine and read carefully. We are elect based on God's foreknowledge of us believing in Him. Take your time studying and ask the Lord for understanding.

[candiceevans1]

@RUNNDD please prove your points through an exegesis of the text and not casting stones,,,

[hemet92544]

words without video is boring, fail

[TheKJVberean]

Calvinism is nothing but doctrines of devils. Enemies of the cross! Doctrine of unconditional election is blasphemy. I pray for all calvinists, its a dangerous damnable doctrine to believe. Christ shed His blood on the tree for the whole world not willing that any should perish.

[fre4409]

@TheKJVberean If you are going to quote 2 Peter 3:9 you should be aware that that passage is dealing with believers.....read it in its context :-)

[fre4409]

@TheKJVberean You ought to ask yourself this, "why would the Father punish the Son for the sins of people He infallibly knows will never "choose" Jesus? Why punish the Son for those sins and yet punish all those who reject Jesus forever and will spend eternity in hell for those very same sins?"

[forhisglory700]

@fre4409

Excellent Point!! I noticed that TheKJVberean NEVER attempted to reply to your question 5 months ago, but simply ignored it. The TRUTH be told, NO rational response can be given EXCEPT for Unconditional Election; however the UNREGENERATED Sinner still believes the lie that he is able somehow (of his own accord to) please an INFINITELY HOLY GOD; despite the fact that the Holy Scriptures declare the absolute DEPRAVITY OF MAN apart from His Grace. GOD bless you.

For His Glory!!!

[candiceevans1]

@TheKJVberean please prove that through an exegesis of the text,,,anyone can say this or that,,,none of it means anything until you demonstrate it through scripture and exegesis of the original language,,,words have meaning and they had a specific meaning when they were written,,,so using syntax, context, grammar, etc prove your position

[Ricardius1710]

You guys might not be really saved. You might really be fooling yourselves through some form of self deception. God may have not chosen you. You are left in your sin.

[Ricardius1710]

It's all a bunch of non sense guys. Don't waste your time.

[newbirth35]

Are there sermons from this conference on Irresistible Grace and Perseversance of the saints? So far I'm found the sermons on the T, U, and L. I'm looking for the I and the P.

[fre4409]

@Lane

James White is so crystal clear........election is truly biblical and not based on, as James would say, "the autonomous will of the creature."

[pwreric]

@fre4409 Thank God for that.The Word clearly teaches if it were up to us we would all perish and none would seek Him.Men truly are evil and hate God because our deeds are evil and he is holy.WE DID ALL THE SINNING AND HE DID ALL THE SAVING.He cant sin and we cant not sin or seek Him in our own will.We "will not come to Him." "Because our deeds are evil.""That that I would, I do not but that that I would not that I do." Pauls struggle against the flesh after being given a new heart.B4 he was ok.

[sketchbook1]

"...so clear and forceful in what it says..."

about John 6...

That's exactly the same kind of language non-Calvinists use when quoting the many more Scriptures which talk about universal atonement and the love of God for the whole world, etc.

John 3:16 is just as clear and forceful in its plain, clear teaching...

[rpavich]

@sketchbook1

I would heartily agree with you there...John 3:16 is clear in it's teaching, but there are A LOT of assumptions made about John 3:16 that aren't in the text...which leads me to ask: Are you citing John 3:16 because you believe that it teaches something that refutes a tenant of Calvinism?

If so...could you explain as well as you can within the 500 character limit?

[pwreric]

@rpavich In the same Gospel didn't Christ say that he prays not for the world but those that the Father gave Him out of the world. I encourage anyone who wants to know the truth to look up "world" in a Concordance. Does it always mean the same thing. There is an old world, this world, and a new world in the Bible. Also the world can mean just the people in the world, the people not saved in this world and the saved in this world. The Bible also refers to the world as the world system.Look t up

[ducatisamazing]

u guys should watch the video again and counter the points the speaker made

[jesuitinfiltrator]

JOHN CALVIN TELLING LIES:

"God commends to us the salvation of all men without exception, even as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world." .(Calvins Comments on Galatians 5:12)

[LaneCh]

How is that a lie? You are familiar with how he renders the words "all" and "world" in this context, right?

[jesuitinfiltrator]

In an explanation and exposition of John 3:16 I would buy that explanation, but how in the wide world does that intrepretation clarify the text. Futhermore this smacks the 'universal offer of the gospel' theory. Is that what you believe also that God OFFERS grace to ALL sinners???

[LaneCh]

I believe that God offers a common grace in terms of "he makes the rain fall on the just and the unjust", but I believe he only offers salvific grace for the elect. Since we don't know who the elect are, we proclaim the Gospel to every creature therefore we "offer grace to all sinners" but only the elect are going to receive the Gospel and believe.

[jesuitinfiltrator]

Everything you say sounds orthodox EXCEPT the part about OFFERING grace. Can you not see your contradiction in theology here? You claim to believe in a Sovereign God yet you as a depraved sinner CAN OFFER GRACE??? to begin with even God doesnt OFFER grace to anybody, HE APPLIES it in the covenant of redemption, so don't give me this OFFER Of GRACE theory calvin pushed, its erroneous and a misrepresentation of the gospel. Was Paul OFFERED the gospel on the road to Damascus? I say no.

[LaneCh]

"Was Paul offered the Gospel on the road to Damascus? No."

Again all that needs to be proven is one example to show that your assertion is wrong. Were the Jews offered grace by Jesus yet rejected it? Yes.

[tezkingkong]

No,his destiny was thrust upon him...Don't overcomplicate it.

[Studier101]

Right on. We urge all men to submit to the repentance commanded in the Gospel, and to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. And we promise grace and mercy to those who will come, because of all those who have come, he has never cast one out. But we know that this grace is only offered to those who REPENT and BELIEVE, and we know that back of this is God's sovereign will, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy and compassion on whom I will have compassion."

[jesuitinfiltrator]

Ahhh excuse me??? Jesus taught "extreme calvinism"... that is just pure rot... John Calvin didn't even exist when Jesus Christ came to this earth. So what now? we are going to make Jesus Christ our lord submit to Calvin? or do we put calvin under the gospel of Jesus Christ? which is it? What came first? STOP MAKING the bible a calvinistic bible when the term is not even in the bible, and geuss what neither are some of his teachings like INFANT BAPTISM.

[LaneCh]

"Jesus taught "extreme calvinism""

It was obviously not meant to be taken literally and somewhat sarcastically. Calvin got his theology from Augustine who got his from Paul who got his from Jesus. The "Jesus taught extreme Calvinism" comment is referring to John 6:35-45 and other passages.

(cont...)

[LaneCh]

"STOP MAKING the bible a calvinistic bible when the term is not even in the bible,"

Neither is the term "Trinity" but do you throw out that teaching even though the Scriptures clearly present the concept?

PS. James White would actually agree with you about the point on infant baptism.

[jesuitinfiltrator]

neither is the term rapture though the concept of translation of saints is taught in the bible which of course reformed theologians hate

The point here is the BIBLE is NOT a calvinistic bible... its time to put calvinism and the EXCESSES of covenant theology into the garbage where it belongs. SHAME on calvinists for their FAMILY COVENANT errors and amillenial heresies they promote, not to mention a sacramental theology that JESUS nor the apostles had an affinity with.

Time to wake up church!

[LaneCh]

Jesuitinfiltrator, I deleted your last comment. If you can address certain issues without using obsenities, you're free to post again and we can discuss your points.

How do you understand soteriology?

[jesuitinfiltrator]

What aspect of soteriology would you like to discuss? I personally do not believe sinners are justified before God by any act of faith or any work done by the sinner, but I believe in justifcation by grace and grace alone... by the imputed righteousness of Christ at the cross ADD NOTHING... faith and works are not a reason any sinner is justified before God: see romans 3:21-24. I believe faith and works are part of the scheme of justification in the bible BUT NOT BEFORE GOD..

[LaneCh]

So you don't believe that a person must have faith to be justified, a person is not justified by faith alone, or are you arguing against the "free" will notion of faith? I'm confused as to your position. Why do you hold that a person receives imputed righteousness and their sin imputed to Christ?

[jesuitinfiltrator]

Lets not complicate things please. Its is amply clear the new testament teaches all three aspects of justification.. justification by grace alone, justification by faith before ones conscience; romans 5:1 and justification by works.. see James on that... but it is also abundantly clear to any informed christian that his or her standing before God has nothing do with a performance of faith or work of any kind but rests strictly in the sole merit of Jesus Christ alone and HIS righteousness alone.

[LaneCh]

"Lets not complicate things please."

Amen to that.

Do you hold that there are works that a person must do to be saved or do you believe that a faith without works is dead and not faith at all? How do you interpret James 2? (I'm only asking because I'm trying to understand your position, and the more thorough you are, the more I can understand it.  It helps a lot to communicate without using pejorative argumentation as your last comment has shown to be true.)

[jesuitinfiltrator]

You asked me to pick between the two choices, I pick the latter obviously because that is what James states clearly. Justification by works is to prove and demonstrate our God given faith before men just as abraham was tested so our faith will be tested IF its true faith of course, but even this justification by works abraham experienced and that is laid out for believers to be tested IN, is I repeat NOT a reason a sinner is justified before God.

[LaneCh]

Right. We agree that James 2 speaks of a faith being without works dead and doesn't teach that a person's works merits salvation. This is what Calvinists believe, too. What problems are there specifically with Calvinism or things that you disagree with Calvinism about? It seems we agree on much so far.

[x2bnex2me]

Good answer. Calvinists seem to worship John Calvin more than Jesus Christ.

[LaneCh]

x2bnex2me, will you lay aside your obvious ignorance and please answer this question honestly if you're able to:

Do you agree that man has a free-will and that because he chooses God first, God will choose him?

[x2bnex2me]

I don't believe in free-will. What's your point, minus the cheap insults?

[LaneCh]

If you're ignorant, it's not a cheap shot, it's a statement of fact. Gathering from all of the comments you've made thus far, it's a statement of fact.

Since you don't believe in free-will, how do you believe a person is saved by God?

[x2bnex2me]

I think you're ignorant too, and it's not a cheap shot either. Moving on,,I think Calvinism makes sense, but not in my own case. I've pursued God all my life and I can't seem to find him. At least not compared to other Christians. I'm left to conclude I'm not one of the elect and I want to know why, but God won't tell me. Thank you for asking.

[LaneCh]

I admit I'm ignorant about certain things in terms of theology, sport stats, and even Pokemon. The difference, though, is that the thing I'm not ignornat of is what you've demonstrated to be ignorant of. It's not an empty assertion without an object such as yours is.

(cont...)

[LaneCh]

As far as your further comments, though, are you sure that you've pursued God or the benefits that you believe serving God will give you? Please give that question much thought because it could really shed some light on your situation. You don't even have to reply and tell us here if you don't want to. Not answering here isn't something that myself or anyone rational would hold against you.

[jesuitinfiltrator]

Arminian Pelagian theology which rules in the majority of churches today is the FAR deeper heretical lie of course, but the sublety of Calvinistic COVENANT theology which seeks to dethrone the supremacy of the NEW COVENANT by making one flat grade covenant of grace across the entire bible from genesis to revelation is rubbish.... THERE IS ONE ETERNAL COVENANT OF GRACE That is true.. but the NEW COVENANT is a BETTER covenant, something historical calvinists don't seem to grasp.

[LaneCh]

Are you a molinist? I see "jesuit" in your name, so I'm just going on a leaf here and asking.

[jesuitinfiltrator]

NO I do NOT follow the doctrine or name of Luis De Molina... I hate the Jesuits and all their stratagems with a passion, if you would take time to see the videos on my channel I am sure you will see that. I love how people try to pigeonhole everyone they dont understand, thats okay. I like a lot of the videos you uploaded on your channel, its the calvinist part you defend I cannot tolerate truly, it is a disgusting affront to the majesty and sovereignty of God that calvinist only do lipserve to.

[LaneCh]

"its the calvinist part you defend I cannot tolerate truly, it is a disgusting affront to the majesty and sovereignty of God that calvinist only do lipserve to."

Yet all you've provided to "substantiate" your assertions are pejorative statements; no substance whatsoever. Take Calvinism and prove that the exegesis of Scripture that is ascribed to Calvinism is wrong and people would actually have something to investigate rather than pejorative statements. John 6:35-45 is a good place to start.

[jesuitinfiltrator]

I love your circuitous logic here.. going back to Johns gospel in relation to election and predestination when the subject is JOHN CALVIN we are discussing and his theology. You want assertions, no problem.. Calvin believed Mary was a perpetual virgin...I can provide sources if you like... absolutely no different than the papist position I might add. Calvin loved to condemn the anabaptists rightfully so for their heresies, but he preached heretical paedobaptism, something NO calvinist will admit

[LaneCh]

Well, you do realize that I'm a Calvinist not because of what John Calvin wrote; I'm just one because of the exposition of Scripture, right? I don't even like the term "Calvinist" because of the baggage that comes with it, but it is useful in sharing with others my position in short hand terms that people are familiar with. Also, I'm not a paedo, I'm credo.

(cont...)

[LaneCh]

"he preached heretical paedobaptism, something NO calvinist will admit"

I know plenty of Calvinists who openly proclaim paedobaptism. They admit it freely. Are you sure that you've spoken with these people?

[jesuitinfiltrator]

They openly proclaim it because they don't have a clue what the difference is between the old and new covenant is in relation to outward ordinances and inward spiritual reality. I have spoken with enough of these pharisees sure, and they boot you right out of their church everytime, they are not interested in the new testament teaching on baptism.

[jesuitinfiltrator]

I'm just one because of the exposition of Scripture, right?

WRONG, you like every calvinist before you, is a calvinist because of the SACRMANETAL TRADITIONS OF YOUR ELDERS. You like many other calvinists see some truth in Calvins writings and therefore swallow lock stock and barrel everything he wrote as gospel truth.

[LaneCh]

"WRONG, you like every calvinist before you, is a calvinist because of the SACRMANETAL TRADITIONS OF YOUR ELDERS. You like many other calvinists see some truth in Calvins writings and therefore swallow lock stock and barrel everything he wrote as gospel truth."

For that statement to be proven false, only one exception would have to be provided, right? I'm a credobaptist not a paedo so your assertion is proven false and absurd.

[jesuitinfiltrator]

Why would you even call yourself a calvinists or appeal to calvinist AS THE SYSTEM OF TRUTH to defend, as you do in your many and varied videos, when you say you don't believe in Paedobaptism? Calvin strongly defended the papist position on paedobaptism. If the system of theology is severely flawed as calvinism is why would you defend it as it was some holy grail of reference point when it is NOT!!! time to sort out your theology I would say... if your a calvinist chuck it already.

[LaneCh]

Are you familiar with the term "Reformed Baptist", sir? I agree with Calvin in terms of soteriology, the 5 solas, "free"-will, and other doctrines. I don't agree with him in terms of baptism hence the term "Reformed Baptist" or "Calvinistic Baptist". It's only short hand. I consider Presby's to be brothers in Christ even though we disagree on baptism.

(cont...)

[LaneCh]

"If the system of theology is severely flawed as calvinism is why would you defend it as it was some holy grail of reference point when it is NOT!!!"

I point out again that you have made the assertion that "Calvinism is severely flawed" yet you have to prove that or even declare what you believe is severely flawed other than baptism! It would help your position if you substantiated at least a few of your assertions.

[LaneCh]

"time to sort out your theology I would say..."

You would say that and have, but have given no reason WHY. For someone that disagrees with Arminianism so, I must point out that your "argumentation" is quite similar to their's in this respect.

[Studier101]

Guys, see if you agree with the "Plank of Wood" section of my blog, as well as my recent post on Calvinism. If so, we all have a basic agreement, but maybe we struggle with our definitions (I hope it is only this! :-) ).

[jesuitinfiltrator]

so your like one of these borderline religionsts then, one foot in sadducees calvinism and the other foot in apostate baptist. I love the way you religionists make it as you go along, just cobble here and nail a little there and think you can just create your own theology that somehow will approve you before God. Until you chuck ALL the systems of mens unreasonable half cooked theologies, how can you claim to be sincere in following CHRIST ALONE?

[LaneCh]

You have proven again that you have no sense of how to partake in defending what you believe exampled by your ability to provide nothing more than pejorative argumentation for your basis. You may come back if you ever understand what conversation and argumentation is and/or grow up, but until then, I have no desire to read your empty rhetoric every time you are inclined to share it. If this is the fruit of your position, it shows the "meaningfulness" of what it is you embrace. Take care.

[jesuitinfiltrator]

religious hypocryte

[LaneCh]

The only reason I let this last comment through is so people can see first hand how truly pathetic you are. Thanks for giving everyone insight to your opinions to other views yet not giving any substinative arguments for your reasons. I would like to see you and an Arminian debate. Well, actually, scratch that. It would be painful.

[LaneCh]

lol, I just checked through your videos because I've never done that before because they're unappealing and it seems that you have several Calvinistic videos posted from people who are Calvinists themselves. So much for consistency, eh?

[Studier101]

You probably should have said "...How pejorative your responses have become" instead of "...How truly pathetic you are".

I appreciate your ministry and I know that you are typically very patient (especially if anyone is honest in their arguments)in your responses, and I also realize that you were somewhat provoked here, but I believe that in this part of your reply you slipped and made a comment that was not necessary (too harsh wording).

Take Care brother & good luck at law school! : )

[Studier101]

I don't get the background of this interchange, so I hate to comment much; but are you calling Lane, "...Like one of these borderline religionsts...one foot in sadducees calvinism and the other foot in apostate baptist"?

And are you calling Calvinism a "system of man's unreasonable half cooked theology"?

Or am I missing something (i.e., is there more to the story)?

[Studier101]

Calvinism, properly, is defined as the acceptance of the basic theology represented by Calvin; which was defined by the judgements of the Synod of Dort(e.g., TULIP).

This is like asking someone why they call themselves American, if they don't like hot dogs or football (i.e., More than those things distinguishes our Country).

[Studier101]

WHOA!...You are making a gratuitous assumption here...

In your favor:

1. Reformation theology often carries a real sacramental tradition baggage.

2. Some Calvinists are bound on that "lock stock and barrel...gospel truth" view of reformed theology.

3. There is alot of unregenerate church membership and compromise that can result from such a system.

4. Presbyterian church has mostly been taken by liberals.

Cons:

1. Not all Calvinists are what you claim.

2. Assuming this of Lane

[YHWHisElohim]

Interesting message.

The "Bread of Life" phraseology would seem to be a clear nod to the manna that fed Israel while wandering in the wilderness.

[milkman589]

Why would god let be in control of anything? Don't he know we are the ones to decide things? As free agents we can do whatever we want, and don't need a god to say yay or nay, cause that would make him responsible, if we do wrong! I mean if god didn't make sin, so he had to make the world and run it hands free so that it would be fair for all. Why can't they see it? Listen people Ephns 1:4 means he chose us only because we chose, it should read we choose us!

[gracetalks]

excellent, thanks