# Unconditional Election trumps CT



## Radar (Jan 11, 2005)

Concerning the argument that unconditional election trumps CT because if children of believers are either a) more likely to be elect, or b) members of the New Covenant, then election is made conditional, I have had this thought:

The primary meaning of "U" is that it is not by works, since man is dead in sin and Christ died for those who the Father gave Him and will draw to Him.

To equate heritage (or lineage) with conditionality, as though it were on par with some good work, seems to forget that the God who elects the elect, and uses the family unit as a means of preparing and drawing His sheep, is the same God who opens the womb -- and decrees where each one lives (the location and time of their lives). How then is that any man's work? Even heritage is God's gracious work. Thus I fail to see the validity of this common baptist argument. 

Further, it seems to be an argument that almost necessitates a perfect 50/50 split of election among those who are of Christian families and those who are not, such that if the scale tips to even 51/49, then there is a statistical favoring, and thus as the argument wrongfully implies, a "condition" favoring election.

Thoughts?


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jan 11, 2005)

I question why a Calvinist who doesn't believe the family unit can be a means of God's enacting his election (and thus, in a sense, children of believers are more likely to be elect) would even want to have children. It is natural to desire godly offspring and to want to raise children in the ways of God and teach them the gospel. If you thought they had no better chance (I hate to use that word, since election is divine), why would you take the risk? Fortunately, no one really acts this way.

Besides, it is apparent through our own families that God can use the family as the means of teaching the gospel... and if you are a Baptist, you explain the household baptisms through saying they all believed, which still necessitates God having worked in that family and brought them to faith through the means of their being led by the head of their household. Not conditional upon their being a member of that family, but _through_ their being a member. The idea of infants in the covenant is no different... it's not a condition, but a means.

So the positions are not really so far apart. My credobaptist father and I agree on a lot more than we (respectfully) disagree on... He completely agrees (as a Calvinist and a father) that the family unit is a means of teaching the gospel. 

If CT were a violation of Unconditional Election, we'd have to say that the doctrine of salvation through the preaching of the word is also a violation, since in places conditions (the preaching of the word and someone providentially being present to hear it) on the administration of saving grace. Obviously no one believes that. 

I agree, Glenn... Unconditional refers to works, not heritage (which is in itself a gift of God).


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 11, 2005)

I basically agree with what has been said here, but remember that the "unconditional" in unconditional election refers not only to "works" per se, but to saving faith as well. People like Dave Hunt can believe in a "works"-free Gospel in a sense, but hold that election is conditioned upon foreseen faith. Even though I think that is ultimately inconsistent, and that their atonement does not cover the sin of unbelief, it is still good to make clear that we see election as being unconditional of faith, and not just "works" as some people use the term.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Jan 11, 2005)

Do you think that Dave Hunt's view makes faith a work, the one thing that is left to us?


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jan 11, 2005)

Radar,

Good points. I've basically wonder that myself and found it a bit reaching at best. The idea that infant baptism (still on the fence) denies UE seems a bit forced. It only would seem valid if one took Rome's position on infant baptism rather than the Reformed. And anyone confusing these two simply is uninformed or being recalcentrant about it. 

One could easily using a similar approach argue that requiring professions ONLY does the same thing - that is requiring the work of profession (which many indeed hang their hats on today). The perfect irony in the protestant realm is that UE is denied by-in-far by "believers only" churches who tend to if not exclusively house most Arminians today. That is not to say all "believers only" churches house Arminians just the vast majority. The SB which I belong is one example.

That would be like saying OT circumcsion denied UE. It only did so, actually people only did so not circumcision itself, when it was wrongly understood and applied, not in and of itself. Similar to Rome and infant baptism.

Larry


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Radar_
> Concerning the argument that unconditional election trumps CT because if children of believers are either a) more likely to be elect, or b) members of the New Covenant, then election is made conditional, I have had this thought:
> 
> The primary meaning of "U" is that it is not by works, since man is dead in sin and Christ died for those who the Father gave Him and will draw to Him.
> ...



You have some false presumptions here brother. Your correct in the fact that God uses family lineage to do work.

Malachi 2:15 Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. 

Baptist don't deny this. All the Baptist are saying is that one needs to confess Christ before baptism, as that is the model found in the scriptures. 

Your argument seems to be built upon false pretense. The Presbyterian's have to implore their children to call upon the Lord just as the Reformed Baptist do. Regeneration and Conversion are the same.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Regeneration and Conversion are the same.



On what basis do you believe this? Ever since embracing the doctrines of grace, I never understood them to be the same, even before I ever studied paedobaptism. Nor have any of the works on Reformed soteriology that I have read tried to speak of them as being one and the same, either.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...



Poor wording. They are the same in our thinking. (i.e. the Presbyterian's and Reformed Baptist) I didn't mean they were the same in essence. Sorry.


----------



## Radar (Jan 14, 2005)

I addressed an argument used already on the PB by one of our esteemed fellow Baptist colleagues. I never thought of this argument until it was made here. But, I don't believe it is a good argument, for the reasons I offered.

Peace


----------

