I am sorry that no one addressed your good, heart-felt question. If you would care to e-mail me from my church website, I will gladly correspond with you on this matter.

Love in Christ,

Jeff

Amen and Amen.

If the elect are those who believe in Christ, and are foreknown but not predestined, and they cannot come to Christ without God drawing them, but may resist God’s drawing when/if He does draw them, what attitude should a parent take toward their childrens spiritual education? Should it be any different from the attitude of those who firmly believe in predestination per Alan’s two questions?

My answer is no. Why? Because, Arminian or Reformed, none of us knows the means by which God will draw a person to salvation. But we know that God uses His word to draw people to Christ. We teach the word, knowing full well we have no control over the outcome (see the parable of the sower and the seed).

If the elect are those who believe in Christ, and are foreknown but not predestined, and they cannot come to Christ without God drawing them, but may resist God’s drawing when/if He does draw them, what attitude should a parent take toward their childrens spiritual education? Should it be any different from the attitude of those who firmly believe in predestination per Alan’s two questions?

My answer is no. Why? Because, Arminian or Reformed, none of us knows the means by which God will draw a person to salvation. But we know that God uses His word to draw people to Christ. We teach the word, knowing full well we have no control over the outcome (see the parable of the sower and the seed). Best argument I’ve ever heard for not having kids.

Not only reformed, but every Christian will say those two statements are correct. Everyone knows someone whose parents are not believers and yet God reached that person.
Everyone also knows Christian parents who have unbelieving kids.

That’s not reformed per se, it’s Christianity of all stripes.

I don’t think any Christian would say that those statements, in any way, absolve the parents of their responsibility to raised their kids right.

I think what you’re trying to get at is that if people believe those 2 statements they won’t raised their kids to be Christians. That’s about as far from Reformed Theology as it gets…

Your last question presupposes that we can know the non-elect or that we shouldn’t even care…Of course it matters if we lead the non-elect to believe that they are elect.
Why it matters is twofold (in my mind):

A) Since we don’t know who is elect, and we earnestly desire all men to be saved we must encourage the unrepentant to repent. Their hardness of heart is in God’s hands, but we must combat it for who know but that God may grant repentance.

B) We must obey God and leading men astray is to lie to them. Ezekiel made it plain that the watchman on the wall is personally responsible for the blood of those who are not warned. Warning them resolves the watchman of responsibility and demonstrates love to all men, even the non-elect. As Paul said “I could wish myself accursed for the sake of the Jews, my kinsmen in the flesh”. If Paul loved his non-elect brethren so much, should we not also? And does love permit the provision of false security?
OF course it doesn’t.

I’m assuming your not reformed Alan. What you are claiming to be reformed teaching is correctly called hyper-Calvinism. About as akin to Calvinism as monkeys are to people. Looks similar sometimes, stands up even, but completely COMPLETELY different creatures.

First, you said

“Daryl, appreciate your response. “You’re right, a child’s election is settled in eternity past. That said, so are the means by which that child will come to faith.” You just made the child elect. By reformed understandings, very few persons (expressed as a percentage) are elect. You got off the track in the 2nd sentence.”

You have no idea what I said, do you (and your points 2 and 3 confirm that…)

I made no one elect, I simply said that if the child is elect, the means by which he is brought to faith as as settled in heaven, as his election (if he is elect) is. So parents, don’t worry, but do be faithful, God is using you…

Alan

Next you said:

“Daryl, you are getting tooooooo plain spoken here for the reformed. I admire your courage. At the same time, it would be better to say that the final state of Johnny’s soul does not depend in any way, shape, form, or fashion on our efforts. Zip, Zero, Nada. Amen.”

Which is, of course, exactly what I said, his final state is in God’s hands and too God’s glory, if that is too plain spoken for you…well what can I say?

Alan…lastly you got way off the tracks, ignored everything I wrote and tried to make your own point..

“Here is stated the reformed doctrine of “ACCIDENTALLY resisting God’s will with the final result of missing salvation notwithstanding God’s sovereign election in eternity past according to His good pleasure!” Honestly! Pleeeeeeeeease!”

I said no such thing!! It is apparent that you are simply trying to twist what I say plainly to your own odd-looking ends. What I actually said is this:
“Two, it would reassure the child that they won’t accidentally resist his will and so miss salvation”
In no way is that now or ever, reformed theology. IT IS NOT!! Come on man, be honest!! What I said was that the teaching of irresistible grace, besides being biblical, will reassure the child that they CAN’T accidentally miss the boat. While accidentally going to hell is not reformed theology, it certainly is how kids think.

Do me a favour, if your going to comment on what I say, then go back, read it again, and again, make sure you understand me and then quote me, in context.

And, lastly (for Steve’s sake) you said to Steve “But, percentage wise, most are not elect, are they?”

Got a reason for saying that? Got an inside peek into the Lamb’s Book of Life do you? Get a grip…

To answer your question, a non-elect person will not accept the gospel in the first place. That is why they are the non-elect. Charles Spurgeon put it this way.

“But there are some who say, “It is hard for God to choose some and leave others.” Now, I will ask you one question. Is there any one of you here this morning who wishes to be holy, who wishes to be regenerate, to leave their life of sin and walk in holiness? “Yes, there is,” says some one, “I do.” Then God has elected you. But another says, “No: I don’t want to be holy; I don’t want to give up my lusts and my vices.” Why should you grumble, then, that God has not elected you to it? For if you were elected you would not like it, according to your own confession. If God, this morning, had chosen you to holiness, you say you would not care for it. Do you not acknowledge that you prefer drunkenness to sobriety, dishonesty to honesty? You love this world’s pleasure better than religion; then why should you grumble that God has not chosen you to religion? If you love religion, He has chosen you to it. If you desire it, He has chosen you to it. If you do not, what right have you to say that God ought to have given you what you do not wish for?”

If Charles Spurgeon’s “reformed-speak” language is too difficult, then I am sorry. I would hate for you to miss out on the words of one of Christianity’s (and reformed theology’s) greatest spokesmen.

As has been mentioned already, God’s sovereignty in election does not eliminate man’s responsibility, and that is the answer to your question. You asked a loaded question in the first place. “He’s non-elect! He is toast. Am i right?” Yes and no. Yes in the sense that God’s election is unconditional, and no in the sense that we do not know who is the elect. That man had every chance to believe, yet refused. So what right (as Spurgeon said) does that man have to blame God for not being the elect when he did not want it anyway? This is not very difficult for someone with eyes to see.

Daryl, appreciate your response. “You’re right, a child’s election is settled in eternity past. That said, so are the means by which that child will come to faith.” You just made the child elect. By reformed understandings, very few persons (expressed as a percentage) are elect. You got off the track in the 2nd sentence.

Steve Lamb, nice direct answer! However, “There is also plenty of Biblical ground for a believing parent to be hopeful that, by means of God’s sovereign design, their Godly actions and prayers will have some positive impact on the salvation of their own children (and non-family members as well). Again, God uses such means to bring His elect to Himself.” The child has been made elect again! Of course, if the child is elect, God uses the parents wonderfully powerful, God designed influence! But, percentage wise, most are not elect, are they?

Richard P, thanks for your input. Completely off the deep end of reformed-speak.

Daryl #2, “In either case, we must trust the providence of God, that he will always do the right and good thing. If that means Johnny’s salvation, to God be the Glory. If that means Johnny’s damnation, to God be the Glory.
The end result is that we do our best and trust God, knowing that the final state of Johnny’s soul does not depend ultimately on our efforts.” Daryl, you are getting tooooooo plain spoken here for the reformed. I admire your courage. At the same time, it would be better to say that the final state of Johnny’s soul does not depend in any way, shape, form, or fashion on our efforts. Zip, Zero, Nada. Amen.

Richard P #2, No doubt you love God and are serving Him, but you are DEEPLY mired in reformed-speak which is unintelligible to all except the well read reformed.

Rob L, thanks for your input. Remarkably brief. Completely off topic.

Richard P #3, poor old Daryl is as of yet not able to scale the heights of your reformed-speak. That’s why it is not “obvious.”

Daryl #3, Oh Daryl, now you have shot waaaaaaaay out there into reformed speculative outer space. However, I am truly grateful we did get several responses in before you brought up the universally feared “P” word! (and the equally shunned “semi-P” word) Now this quote is, by far the spaceyiest we have seen so far “Two, it would reassure the child that they won’t accidentally resist his will and so miss salvation.” Here is stated the reformed doctrine of “ACCIDENTALLY resisting God’s will with the final result of missing salvation notwithstanding God’s sovereign election in eternity past according to His good pleasure!” Honestly! Pleeeeeeeeease! I may have to ask Scotty to beam me up if things get any weirder than that! Too much Whitfield and Boettner there! No disrespect meant, Daryl. But no one from east Texas will ever, ever understand that one.

Next question:
How would it make ANY difference if a non-elect person was given false assurance of salvation by some well meaning evangelistic type person who gets in a hurry and baptizes too soon (according to the reformed)? He’s non-elect! He is toast. Am i right? Once more, try to use plain English rather than reformed-speak so everyone can profit from this discussion. After all, Paul did say he’d rather speak five understandable words than, oh well, you know the passage, right?