I'll try to answer a few of these questions. But I may be treading near the limits of my knowledge, so someone might have to correct me.
believingThomas said:
Furthermore, was the Bible only written to the elect?
This is an interesting question. I would say no (and yes?). God is glorified when his word is proclaimed, to elect and non-elect. Plus, there are numerous places in the Bible that speak of Scripture as convicting and curbing the sins of even non-Christians. But, there is also a sense in which the Bible is written to the elect specifically. Without a regenerate heart, one is not capable of understanding the true meaning of many parts of the Bible. Also, in many of the epistles where the first person "we" is used, I don't think you can say that that "we" includes non-elect.
Did Jesus only die for the elect?
Yes, his death secured forgiveness of sins and salvation for the elect only. But, while on this earth, non-Christians also receive some temporal benefits of Christ's death. For example, God sends rain, which benefits elect and non-elect alike.
Did He only love the elect and thus is the "Kosmos" of John 3:16 only the elect?
I think the "Kosmos" of John 3:16 is only the elect, but others are much more capable of exegeting that passage them I am. I'm not 100% sure the two part of your question go hand-in-hand, but I would say that Jesus loves only the elect. I'm interested in hearing other opinions on the first part of this question.
Can only the elect receive Christ? What are they receiving if they are already chosen of God?
Only the elect can receive Christ, and the elect will receive Christ because God will regenerate their heart first so that they are able and will be willing. They are receiving Christ as their Saviour. Even though they are elect from eternity, there is still a temporal aspect of salvation. We do have to at some point in time actually accept Christ into our hearts.
When we preach to the lost for their salvation, should we have it in the back of our minds that many that are hearing are incapable from the foundation of the earth to receive the message of saving grace? If salvation is by grace, then it must have been exercised only once when God chose the elect. Their acceptance would only be a formality.
Someone touched on part of this question recently, but I can't remember who/which thread it was.
Of course it should be in the back of our minds that only the elect will accept the Gospel message (after God regenerates their hear), but that shouldn't prevent us from preaching. God is glorified when the Gospel is preached and it is the means he has ordained to bring the elect to Christ. I'm not sure I can answer latter half of the question (I guess the first half really wasn't a question though). I don't think I would say that their acceptance is only a mere formality because it seems to make the acceptance of Christ into a believer's heart meaningless.
Perhaps some of you have heard this description and you may likely call it an Armininiast compromise: That God's choice in the begining was to set down the plan of salvation and that all who would accept it would become the elect.
This question has been dealt with many times already, but I'll say that if this were (subjunctive tense) the case then the word "elect" doesn't really have much meaning (IMO).
Unless most of you beleive that the "elect" start out on the proper side of the fence, "they (we)" just do not know it yet until we appropriate it by making our spirit conscious of the fact.
The elect most definitely do not start out on the proper side of the fence. The Bible declares many times that all are sinners and under the penalty of death. Until that point in time at which God regenerates the person's heart and they accept Christ as their saviour, they are under God's wrath (Ephesians 2:3). All the elect will come to Christ though, i.e., it's not possible they might die before they accept Christ. It's not the case that the elect only have to make their spirit conscious of the fact. Until God changes our hearts, our spirits are at emnity with God. Our spirits hate the things of God and God himself until we are changed by God's grace.
Be kind to me now...dont' load the guns of Navarone....I am not Arminian, nor Calvinist, nor Lutheran, nor King Jamesian, nor John MacArthurian, I am a Christian. I follow Christ and hold His words above those other noble, yet fallible men.
Labels don't necessarily have to be a bad thing. I find them very useful in that I can convey a large amount of information in a short amount of time. When I'm talking with someone if I say, "I'm a Calvinist," or they say, "I'm an Arminian," we are able to get a quick feel for one another's beliefs. It's sometimes the case when probing a little deeper that the other persons true beliefs aren't what they claim they are, but this is usually from misconceptions of what the terms imply instead of deception. Of course, many people often abuse labels, and, hence, the aversion many people have with them. My point is, though, that if you examine your beliefs closely, you can probably align it fairly well with one of the major systems of though (since really new ideas don't come around very often).
I am curious, did Calvin's teachings need reforming or did he speak infallibly?
I don't think you'll find anyone on this board advocating the position that Calvin spoke infallibly. Even Calvin himself wouldn't say that. In fact, since I've been on this board, I've heard most everyone mention personal disagreements with Calvin or point out some of Calvin's ideas that are not correct. For the most part, however, Calvin was spot on in his theology (IMO).
John
p.s. I'm waiting to be correct <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
