"3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him." (Ephesians 1:3-4) In the above verse the Apostle Paul writing to the believers at the church in Ephesus is declaring that God the Father chose 'us' i.e. the believers, before the foundation of the world. If that were the case all the believers whoever was and is and will be believing in Jesus and thus become believers only those people were chosen to become believers much before their creation. That's basically predestination of certain individuals to become believers. However, that effectively leaves out all those who are not chosen by God to go to hell. In other words, it is God who creates certain individuals meant to go to heaven and others to hell. If the above statements were to be true, then, God will be unjust and unloving. Furthermore, it will be unfair for God to command his people to preach the gospel to all creation. In the light of the above conundrum how to understand "God chose us before the foundation of the world?"

I web-searched the expression, 'universal election', used on SE-BH, but without success. I keep finding information about 'universal salvation' which, I assume, is not the same thing. I am interested in when this expression was coined and by whom. I am aware that some say 'election' means that God foresaw who would 'choose Christ' and by looking into the future, as it were, he 'chose' those who would, in time, make this decision. I am also aware that some say 'election' conveys the concept that the Father, before the foundation of the world, purposed to beget sons and purposed to bring them to glory. But I have only today read the words 'universal election' and I am interested in which Christian groups use the word and what they, themselves, would understand by the term, and when it became common parlance.

I'm an evangelical myself (Anglican) and I wonder how could we deal with this apparent contradiction. The question is whether there is a clash between the concept of predestination and 1 Timothy 2:4. Predestination, especially as articulated in certain interpretations of Calvinism, suggests that God has foreordained some people to salvation and others to damnation. In contrast, 1 Timothy 2:4 states, "God desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth". ### Predestination Predestination, as understood in Calvinist theology, is the doctrine that God has chosen certain individuals for salvation before the foundation of the world. This choice is not based on any foreseen merit or action on the part of the individual but solely on God's sovereign will. This is often coupled with the doctrine of election, which holds that God's grace is extended to those He has chosen, and they will inevitably come to faith. ### 1 Timothy 2:4 1 Timothy 2:4 is often cited by those who argue against the Calvinist interpretation of predestination. The verse suggests a universal salvific will, indicating that God's desire is for all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. This seems to conflict with the idea that God has only predestined a select group for salvation.

For those that believe some are predestined to reject Christ, is the gospel still offered to them?

The Protoevangelium, which can be found in Genesis 3:15, holds significant value in Christian theology as it serves as God's initial proclamation and a prophetic utterance. The concept of Redemption in its early stages is thought to cover important elements of the Plan of Salvation, such as the understanding of election and its scope. By examining Protoevangelium, we can better understand the initial notions and beliefs linked with the election and its significance in God's plan of salvation. The Scripture verse provides a key starting point to comprehend the all-encompassing concept of election and its relation to the coming of the Messiah in the scheme of salvation. **Text:** > "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” (ESV)

***First, to explain where I am coming from with this question.*** I believe that Jesus prayed "not for the world" "but for them which you have given me" John 17:9,20. Then Romans 8:28-30 shows that those who love God are “called according to his purpose”, being predestined for conformity to the image of his Son. That’s the essence, but by no means the full explanation! I’m not here to explain my beliefs, but to ask questions based on them. ***Second, to specify what I mean by “elect”*** – basically, it means chosen – chosen by God. And chosen for the purpose of becoming conformed to the likeness of the Son of God. ***Third, what this question seeks to dig into*** - the reason why some people never believe in Jesus Christ as the Saviour of lost, repentant sinners. Consider what Jesus did NOT say in John 10:24-30 – He did NOT say, “You are not my sheep because you do not believe”. He said: > “I told you [that I am the Christ], and ye believed not… But ye > believe not because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you, ‘My > sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me, and I give > unto them eternal life” etc. John 10:2-30, K.J.V. extracts – please > read the entire section. Does this mean, then, that to be saved, a person has to be one of Christ’s sheep, and that all of Christ’s sheep are elect – chosen to be Christ’s sheep? Is it for those ones only that Christ died? Does this mean that some will never believe because they were never Christ’s sheep? Someone on this site once said, ***“You don't have to be Calvinist to be one for whom Christ died, but you do have to be elect!”*** That is what has inspired this question (but I don't want anyone sounding off about Calvinism, which is why I have deliberately avoided using that as a Tag).

Since the Reformation and especially the influence of John Calvin, a part of the church has believed doctrines of sovereign, unconditional election, predestination, and eternal security in a multitude of forms. Are there any statistics on how many Christians belonged to denominations holding such beliefs, by century? I am curious to know how rapidly these ideas spread and when the number of believers in these ideas peaked, or if their numbers now are the most seen so far in church history.

R.C. Sproul, a Reformed thinker said in his book “Chosen by God” that: “Jimmy Swaggart has made it clear that he considers the Reformed view a demonic heresy.” (Page 7) Obviously, disagreements can exist in a ***healthy manner*** with respect to Soteriological beliefs… **Q: Why do some **arminians** think that the reformed view is as distasteful to be called demonic or heresy?**

I have finally come to think the election debate is *de facto* rather esoteric. First, I have heard prominent Christian figures say belief in election is not necessary for salvation. But even more so, because even electionists acknowledge the saved will do certain things that bring about their salvation. Therefore, one way to summarize it is that we are debating whether God decides that the sinner decides to come to Christ and accept Him as Lord and Savior and repent, or whether the sinner decides that the sinner decides to... So what difference does that make? Does anyone know of any standard arguments or theology about why it matters so much? Or some theology that might say the above is not quite right? I don’t want to debate election or even cull standard or Biblical reasons for believing or not believing it; the purpose is only about how meaningful the election question is.

Just to set the stage for this question, Jesus said that the gate is narrow and there are few that find it. As this question has to do with the Calvinist understanding of Election (and the flip side which is Reprobation), I wanted it to be clear that the Elect are few and that, correspondingly, most people are not Elect. > The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. - 2 Peter 3:9 Here we have the divine desire regarding the eternal destiny of each person expressed as both positive and negative: Negative - God **does not** wish (will, desire) that **any** should perish Positive - Goes **does** wish (will, desire) that **all** reach repentance Calvinism teaches (and I realize that this is condensed) that every person is completely unable to repent, to respond to the gospel in faith, to seek God or approach Him in any way unless God specifically gives that person the ability. Calvinism also teaches that God does give this ability, but only to some. These are called the Elect. The Elect repent and escape death because, and only because, God has given them the ability to do so. Everyone else, the non-elect (or reprobate), not only don't repent and escape death but literally can't because God has withheld the ability to do so from them. Since the Elect are those who have "found" the narrow gate we can easily deduce that God has actively enabled few individuals and prevented most from escaping death and reaching repentance. Setting this Calvinist premise beside the stated desires of God we have: 1) God - I do not desire that any should perish 1a) Calvinism - God actively ensures the death of most 2) God - I desire that all should reach repentance 2a) Calvinism - God actively prevents most from repenting Does Calvinism recognize that it has God working at cross purposes to His stated desire? If so, how is the phenomenon biblically justified?

I learned today, from *The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations*, that the phrase **"Damned if you do and damned if you don't"** was coined by Lorenzo Dow , the 19th century American preacher. According to said publication, Dow was speaking specifically about the Calvinist doctrine of **"Particular Election"**. I've not heard of Particular Election before, but I am familiar with **Unconditional Election**, and, judging by the phrase, that sounds rather like what Dow was getting at. **Are Particular Election and Unconditional Election synonymous?** If not, please give me a condensed version of what Particular Election entails.

Calvin, among his other points includes the point that we are Unconditionally Elected and chosen by God alone and nothing we can do can help or hurt this fact. What is the Biblical basis for this?

In 1 Timothy 5:21 we read: >I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism. *1 Timothy 5:21 (NIV)* My understanding is that a Reformed Protestant would use the word "elect" to describe Christians predestined by God to be saved from their sin, and brought into His kingdom . I'm not aware of any biblical evidence that angels have gone through that process, so it seems odd for Paul to use that word here. **How would a Reformed Protestant understand Paul describing angels as elect?**

From the perspective of Reformed Theology, in relation to Unconditional Election : What happens if someone who is not elect, tries to seek God? Does God reject them? Or this an impossibility - does the mere act of seeking God mean that the person must be elect?

I've just read from this link , an explanation by John Piper : > Nobody is in hell that doesn't deserve to be there
and
> isn't in active rebellion to God Because my own interpretation that Total Depravity means:
Before the creation, after knowing that Adam and Eve will eat the fruit, in God's point of view : *none deserve to be in heaven - everybody deserve to be in hell even if there is no active rebellion to Me yet (Adam and Eve has not eat the fruit yet or the generation to come die as a baby) *... Then it made me wonder, why later on God change His mind into *"not everybody deserve to be in hell - some deserve to be in heaven"*, hence the Predestination/Election ? If I myself try to answer :
Because God is sovereign
So He is free to change His mind anytime He will. But that leads me to conclude :
Then it's possible that to the one whom He already elected to deserve Heaven, later on He put him/her back to deserve hell. (Which I don't think this is what the Calvinist view). Assuming my interpretation of Total Depravity is correct, so my question is : why later on God change His mind into *"not everybody deserve to be in hell - some deserve to be in heaven"* ?

> 1 Thessalonians 1:4
For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has > chosen you ---------- Before the creation: A.
Because God love some people
that is why He choose these people or.... B.
Because God choose some people
that is why He love these people ---------- If there is an answer, I would like to have the verse also as the reason of the answer.

> (37) He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. > (38) The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the > kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, (39) and the enemy > who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and > the reapers are angels. (40) Just as the weeds are gathered and burned > with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. Here is my personal interpretation of this passage:
1. Jesus is the one who sows the sons of the kingdom
2. Devil is the one who sows the sons of the evil one
3. God let the sons of the kingdom and the sons of the evil one live together
4. At the end of the age, the sons of the kingdom are sent to heaven and the sons of the evil one are sent to hell. ---------- Assuming that my interpretation above is correct, I am facing a "dead end" in an effort to connect it with the election before the beginning of the age. If in the beginning there were already two different beings who sow and two different kinds of seed, how is this consistent with election? for example like this illustration :
There is a box.
There are two people placing balls in a box, Mr. X and Mr. Y. From Monday to Saturday, Mr. X places white balls in the box while Mr. Y places black balls in the box. Mr. X lets the white and black balls sit together in the same box. On Sunday, Mr. X burns the 90 black balls and play with his 10 white balls. I am confused on how to apply a kind of election event before the "filling the box with white balls" event take place, but I can apply it on Sunday ---> On Sunday, Mr. X choose the white balls from all the balls in the box. Assuming my interpretation above is consistent with Calvinist theology, how do Calvinists reconcile it with unconditional election? ---------- I found a new verse, John 8:44 > You belong to your father, the devil So Jesus is saying that the devil claimed them before they were created. Jesus informed them that they never came from God and they are certainly going to hell. Based on my own understanding, the parable in Matthew means something like this :
1. In the beginning there are two beings, God and the Devil. Each of them has their own children. God's children are the sons of the kingdom, the Devil's children are the sons of evil. 2. After the creation, God "sows" His good seeds (the sons of the kingdom) into the world - and the Devil (God's enemy) also "sows" his weeds (the sons of the evil) into the world. God let the weeds grow together with His good seeds. 3. At the end, God separates his wheat from the Devil’s weeds. He keeps the wheat and burns the weeds. I do not see how 1 could have occurred before creation without 2 and 3 also having been planned before creation. Let’s go back to the ball illustration. Mr. X puts his white balls into the box for 6 days, but before he began putting balls into the box, he developed his plan: - He determined that Mr. Y will put black balls into the box over the same six days. - He will allow both kinds of ball to mix together. - On Sunday, he will remove the white balls from the box. Is this how the Calvinist thinks of election with regard to the parable in Matthew? Thank you.

**Question:** Does God, according to Calvinism, command people *He has specifically given neither the ability nor choice to do so* to repent and believe in Christ *or be damned?*1, 2 And if so, why? --- Scriptures such as as 1 Corinthians 10:13 come to mind: >(NASB) No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it. The converse of which means God would be *unjust* to tempt (or let suffer temptation rather: Jas 1:13) and *not* give means of escape. Thanks in advance. --- 1 By 'choice' I don't mean a 'creaturely will' as James White puts it, but a will that can choose salvation or damnation with the help of God post Fall (in the sense of refusing salvation in the case of damnation; and in the sense of accepting Christ and all that means in the case of salvation). I specify this as a 'creaturely will' which God *invented to specifically not choose* salvation does not meet the definition of 'was given the choice to be saved,' since such a choice was never even theoretically possible. Choice is here assumed to mean there is more than one *really possible* outcome (else choice is defined as 'you are free to do exactly what I tell you and nothing else.' 2 By 'ability' I mean the real and not merely theoretical capacity and power to do or perform some thing.

A. To every human (including Adam and Eve) who will exist in the future.
B. To every human (except Adam and Eve) who will exist in the future.
C. To every human who will exist in the future after Jesus ascended to heaven.
D. (if not A/B/C) In detail :
A. Once Adam and Eve exist on earth (and all the rest of their generation), the possibility for them are :
- they are all the elected one (absolutely go to heaven)
- none of them are the elected one (absolutely go to hell)
- some of them are the elected one
B. That kind of possibility applied only to Adam's generation.
For example : once baby Cain/Abel/Seth (Adam and Eve not included, but the rest of their generation) were born. C. That kind of possibility applied only to Adam's generation who will be born after Jesus ascended to heaven
For example : assuming there are 10 babies were born at the same time soon after Jesus ascended to heaven, then the possibility on these babies after they die (even if they die after a few days) are :
- all of these 10 babies will go to heaven (all are the elected one)
- all of these 10 babies will go to hell (none of them is the elected one)
- some of them will go to heaven, the rest to hell (some of them are the elected one

The Westminster Confession : > 3.1 "God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to > pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is > violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or > contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." From this link I get an answer (which I hope I'm not mistaken the answer) that before Adam and Eve exist on earth (including before they eat the fruit), either both of them already destined for heaven or both of them already destined for hell or one of them already destined for heaven. > Genesis 2:17
but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge > of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly **die**. Assuming that the word "die" means "die spiritually" I put like this :
A. Before He create Adam and Eve - before Adam and Eve eat the fruit, God destined each human (including Adam and Eve) who will exist on earth will die spiritually. next :
IF God's Original Sin is in the time-frame AFTER Adam eat the fruit, then "die spiritually" can not be like point-A. So, the one which "fit" with God's Original Sin is : B. Before He create Adam and Eve - before Adam and Eve eat the fruit, God destined that : IF Adam eat the fruit THEN each human (including Adam and Eve) who will exist on earth will die spiritually. To me, if it's about baby Cain/Abel/Seth, then point-B "fits" with God's Original Sin. So, it's certain that when those babies will be born, they are already in "die spiritually" condition and the election can happen from a situation like that. One is elected from those who "already" die spiritually. So, the one who is not elected goes to hell. But if Adam and Eve already destined beforehand (as to me that's the answer to the question before), my own conclusion is :
then there is no Original Sin, because the election itself is not based on any kind of act (including break His Law such as Adam eat the fruit) - but from Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Seth (before they exist, before they do anything - before they are in a die spiritually condition) either all the five of them destined to hell or all the five of them destined to heaven or some of them destined to heaven and the rest destined to hell. So my question is : From what kind of condition of Adam and Eve (before they exist - before they eat the fruit - before they die spiritually) when they are elected ?