Romans 9 and election...

[cyberjosh]

This is an overflow topic from another thread which developed a different course of discussion along the way between Unread and myself. This is to discuss whether God elects individually or collectively as an undefined group which may be added or subtracted from. Romans 9 seems to point to individual election, but of course God's promises are given collectively to all his elect, thus we see a dual emphasis. But what can this emphasis reveal about the personal application of election to the individual beleiver? That's what we seek to find out here.

The last series of posts from the last thread, with my response in turn:

quote by cybershark5886 :

Ah, this reminds me that people have different views on election. You seem to be one of those that thinks God elects you only on his foreknowledge that you will choose Christ in the future. Many people (including myself) do not believe that, while many other people do (it's a long-standing doctrinal difference people have had). I believe God's Sovereignty is far more active in election and is not a mere (basically effortless/passive) looking ahead to "find out" so that God can then go down a list and check off "He will believe in me - Elected", "She won't - Condemned", He won't either - better check off as condemned".

Hmmnnn… my view is easy to hold but hard to explain. I do NOT believe that it is a mere looking ahead to "find out" so that God can then go down a list and check off "He will believe in me - Elected", "She won't - Condemned", He won't either - better check off as condemned". That is about as opposite as you can get from what I tried to say. It’s hard getting my point across, but I must be an even worse communicator than I thought.

Maybe if I put it into a scenario like you did. God is in the beginning, planning creation. He wants to create beings who have their own wills and don’t HAVE to obey and love him unless they want to. But if he gives them a will of their own and a choice between obeying him or not, there is the inevitable chance that they will eventually choose to disobey and at that point, he must either destroy them or redeem them somehow. But how can he do it without causing them to die for their sin and be lost for eternity?

Since he has infinite wisdom, he knows what he can do. He can make an offer some time in the future to those who want to repent and obey of their own free will. So he plans right then that he will call those who love him to come to his word, which he will send to earth and be born as his son, die in the place of all mankind and redeem them back unto himself.

All who repent, he decides, will be given all the advantages they need to follow and obey. And eventually they will be reborn as his children. These are called the elect ones in the Bible. At this point there are no names or people to pick from, only the plan to choose whoever chooses to obey. They are not Bobby, Tom and Natasha, but the elect are ‘whosoever’ will choose to repent, obey and come to Christ.

You’re not getting this, are you?

:-?

No actually I'm now understanding what you are saying quite well. But before I continue I must acknowledge that I thoroughly appreciate the respectful tone of the conversation we have had thus far, as two mature Christians trying to discuss doctrinal truths. I enjoy such discussions as this, as they do not involve bickering and are serious talks.

Now, this is so interesting that you have brought this back to my mind, as I had forgotten all about this interpretation. I remember right before School started this semester entertaining the idea of the elect as a group that had undefined individual members, and that the predestining was done for the "group" of the elect. Unfortunately I don't remember ever reaching a conclusion in my mind. But now that I think back on it I believe that it may have been (as I am now thinking) that I made no such definate conclusion because I wanted to read in the Bible several places where election is discussed to test such a theory to see if it holds up to the truth. This is of course the proper response to any new doctrine presented to you, "Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

My first hurdle which I must present to throw in the way to test it, is the individuality stressed in such passages as Romans 9, and how God can prepare individuals for honor or dishonor, etc. What do you think of the indivuality emphasized in Romans 9, as concerns election?

I'll look forward to your feed back on this.

 

[cyberjosh]

Oh, and I would like to say ahead of time that even if we do end up parting with different convictions that I would prefer it to be on good terms. There are some doctrinal differences which can land some in the pit of hell, but others that may matter only in ones understanding (basically essential vs. nonessential doctrines - a thread I've made before BTW). The truth of election is essential, but understanding all its ins-and-outs and a "how-it-works" description, well... let's just say I plan to ask God just that when I see him in Heaven and let Him explain how He woo'd me by His amazing power and grace, and called me according to His purpose - and I will stand amazed at His wisdom on that day. Until then I will try to get as close as possible, but I can be satisfied with only knowing in part in this life (1 Corinthians 13:9). That's what faith is for, that essential belief in Christ as our Savior and conducting our lives in accordance with that truth.

 

[Drew]

I think it is clear that Romans 9 has nothing at all to do with the election of individuals, whether as the main meaning or even as a "double meaning". The case that this text is about Israel, and not individuals, is very powerful and I would be happy to provide it even though it has been given before in other threads.

In this post, I will only give summary points:

1. Romans 9 and 10 is a re-telling of the covenant history of Israel from establishment of the covenant with Abraham all the way through to exile and covenant renewal. All the highlights of the covenant history - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses + Pharaoh, exile, and covenant renewal - are all there in the correct sequence. And that is just the beginning of the case that this is about Israel

2. Paul is rather clearly using the covenant history he presents here to make the following case: God has been faithful to the covenant even though ethnic Israel has rejected the gospel.

3. The "potter and his clay" (as per Romans 9) echoes several Old Testament passages in Isaiah and Jeremiah where God's treatment of Israel is likened to the relationship between a potter and clay.

4. It would make Paul a very confused writer to insert statements about election of individuals to salvation or loss in the middle of an argument that is otherwise so clearly about Israel and how God has been faithful to his covenant with her.

5. Even though there is no explicit statement to this effect, a powerful argument can be made that, in the potter account in Romans 9, Paul is saying that Israel is a "vessel fitted for destruction" inasmuch as she "acts out the Christ pattern" in being "cast away for the sin of the world". This notion is derived from material in Romans 5 and is echoed again in such passages as Romans 11:15.

 

[beloved57]

think it is clear that Romans 9 has nothing at all to do with the election of individuals,

False , jacob and easu their mother , father were all individuals, you start off with deception and handling the word of God decietfully...

 

[Drew]

think it is clear that Romans 9 has nothing at all to do with the election of individuals,

False , jacob and easu their mother , father were all individuals, you start off with deception and handling the word of God decietfully...

Your counterargument here simply is not correct.

Paul indeed refers to indivduals in support of what is clearly an argument about the nation of Israel. It only takes a little thought to realize how invalid this "Paul refers to Esau and other individuals, so the potter account must be about individual election" argument really is.

Paul is making an argument that there is an "Israel according to the flesh" and there is another Israel - an "Israel that are the 'children of promise' " that is the true Israel. Given that Paul says this so clearly, it is a mystery to me why readers would not realize that the entire chapter is about these 2 "versions" of Israel and God's treatment of them.

For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised![a] Amen.
6It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." 8In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring

Now, having established that there are these 2 Israels - "national Israel" and "true Israel" (those who are the children of the promise), Paul quite naturally then proceed to illustrate this "group - level" distinction by referring to individuals. But, of course, this does not mean that he has changed his focus from God's treatment of these 2 Israels and how God has remained faithful to the covenant in constructing an "Israel who are the children of the promise". It simply means that he is giving examples that illustrate a type distinction that exist at the level of these groups.

Let's say there exists a group of 100 volunteer firemen. Furthermore, let's say that one wishes to construct an argument that there is a "second" group of firemen that are a subset of this first set. And let's say that you want to make an argument that the criteria that places a fireman in this second set is, say, that he has not chosen to become a fireman simply to "impress the babes" - that he has become a fireman to save lives.

You might make the case for the existence of this distinct subset by referring to individuals who are in the original set of 100 firemen - the "firemen according to the flesh", if you will. You might say: "Fred wants to save lives, but Joe just wants to impress the babes, Jim want to save lives, but Phil just wants to impress the babes. And so on.

Just because you use individuals to express this distinction does not mean that your main point ceases to be to draw attention to the existence of this "firemen according to the true spirit of saving lives" group that is a subset of the "firemen according to the flesh" group.

Paul begins the chapter talking about Israel and he ends the chapter talking about Israel. So why in the middle would he veer off into a theology about the salvation of individuals? This makes Paul a very incompetent writer. And I give him more credit.

 

[cyberjosh]

I don't want to continue too much of this discussion until unred posts, as this was originally a discussion continuum for he and I, but given that you see the theme of Romans 9 as electing Israel, how then does that apply the individual? That's what I want to know. So now apply what you have already said, as to God's personal salvation of the individual. If you look at the other thread where this started I also mentioned how Peter says that we should make our own election and calling sure, that is one example of an individual application of election in the Christian life.

And take note, this topic should not be limited to Romans 9 - that was just an arbitrary starting point for the discussion. I would like to examine several passages about election all throughout the Bible.

 

[Drew]

....given that you see the theme of Romans 9 as electing Israel, how then does that apply to the individual? That's what I want to know. So now apply what you have already said, as to God's personal salvation of the individual.

I believe that Romans 9 has precisely zero application to individuals, in relation to salvation anyway. I assume that you do not believe that the text must, by logical necessity, have something to say about individuals in respect to their salvation.

If I say something like "National Israel has been elected to, for example, boot the Amelakites out of Palestine this year", this applies obvious constraints on individuals within national Israel - they cannot all decide to spend the year fishing, since that leaves no one to kick out the Amelakites.

However, there is no necessary implication or connexion to the salvation of individual Israelites in relation to this hypothetical election.

I think that there are compelling arguments that national Israel has been elected to "be the place where the sin of the world is accumulated" so that it can then be transferred to Jesus. I see no necessary connexion between this election and the salvation status of specific individuals in Israel - "Fred the Benjaminite" need not be elected to salvation or to loss for this particular election to be fulfilled. As I write this, I think there might be an exceeding subtle connexion after all, but I will not explore that further in this post. And it really is just a footnote to my position on this matter.

If you check out the Old Testament, you will find several texts which liken God's relation to Israel, as a nation, to the relation that a potter has to his clay. I think Paul knew this very well and that is talking about an election of Israel as a nation - he is not concerned with individuals in Romans 9.

He may deal with individuals elsewhere but context tells us that Romans 9 is about Israel and Israel alone.

 

[cyberjosh]

He may deal with individuals elsewhere but context tells us that Romans 9 is about Israel and Israel alone.

That's what I want to talk about. You should have read my disclaimer above, that Romans 9 was an arbitrary starting point. Please, cover the other areas where it does apply to individuals. I never started this discussion with the intent on debate but rather on investigation.

 

[Drew]

He may deal with individuals elsewhere but context tells us that Romans 9 is about Israel and Israel alone.

That's what I want to talk about. You should have read my disclaimer above, that Romans 9 was an arbitrary starting point. Please, cover the other areas where it does apply to individuals. I never started this discussion with the intent on debate but rather on investigation.

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding between us. Here is something from your OP:

Romans 9 seems to point to individual election, but of course God's promises are given collectively to all his elect, thus we see a dual emphasis. But what can this emphasis reveal about the personal application of election to the individual beleiver? That's what we seek to find out here.

and something else from your OP (I added the bolding)

My first hurdle which I must present to throw in the way to test it, is the individuality stressed in such passages as Romans 9, and how God can prepare individuals for honor or dishonor, etc. What do you think of the indivuality emphasized in Romans 9, as concerns election

I am simply responding to these statement of yours and contesting any claim that there is any issue at all of election of individuals in Romans 9.

If you wish to discuss texts other than Romans 9, that's fine. But certainly the title of the thread and the content of your OP suggests that you want to discuss what Romans 9 has to say about individual election.

And my view is that it say nothing at all on the matter.

If yo

 

[cyberjosh]

I am simply responding to these statement of yours and contesting any claim that there is any issue at all of election of individuals in Romans 9.

If you wish to discuss texts other than Romans 9, that's fine. But certainly the title of the thread and the content of your OP suggests that you want to discuss what Romans 9 has to say about individual election.

And my view is that it say nothing at all on the matter.

Fair enough. I must say though that, not just here but even in the other places in the Bible that I have always held true that God acts a the the Potter for the individual clay vessels as well as shaping the whole nation or Church. I believe the metaphor extends to the individual, just as Proverbs says that the King's heart is in the Lords hand to turn where he wishes. The general idea that we are moldable in the hands of our God, and God acting as Sovereign. This goes back to my idea of Sovereignty (as you can see in the quote inside the quote in the OP). I would like to discuss about what me and unred originally embarked upon about:wether election is a looking ahead and just electing based on foreknowledge (which I don't believe) or if God is truely Sovereign in his choices (Abel over Cain, Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, etc.). Did God merely look ahead to see if Cain, Ishmael, or Esau would choose him and then decide that they were not among the elect, or did He make a choice ahead of time? Note: I am not calvinistic in my beliefs. I don't believe God will condemn a person to hell before they are born, for it is contrary to His will. Still we must balance the idea of our free will with God's Soveriegnty.

 

[beloved57]

Please, cover the other areas where it does apply to individuals

Romans 9 is primarily about individuals , individual election..jacob and easu were examples of individual election.. Just like pharoah another example of Gods sovereingty over individual, you can apply rom 9 to nations simply because God made them the heads , but first and foremost the truth of individual election is pauls main point..

 

[Drew]

I must say though that, not just here but even in the other places in the Bible that I have always held true that God acts a the the Potter for the individual clay vessels as well as shaping the whole nation or Church.

I agree that there are lots of places in Scripture where God indeed "manipulates" individuals (and I mean this in the "divine, holy, and righteous sense).

 

[Drew]

Romans 9 is primarily about individuals , individual election..jacob and easu were examples of individual election.. Just like pharoah another example of Gods sovereingty over individual, you can apply rom 9 to nations simply because God made them the heads , but first and foremost the truth of individual election is pauls main point..

Not true. And I trust that your argument is not basically that "because individuals are named here, Paul must be dealing with the election of individuals". That is an invalid argument as has been demonstrated in this very thread.

Here is my marked up, admittedly somewhat editorialized version of the first bit of Romans 9, where I imagine that Paul has submitted Romans 9 in an English class as an essay and then has to add "comments" to explain to the teacher that he really is talking about election of individuals:

I speak the truth in Christâ€â€I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit 2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised![a] Amen.

[***I apologize for making this introduction so obviously about national Israel, given that I am shortly going to make theological statements that have no bearing at all on national Israel. I guess I was hoping that the reader would magically know that I have changed topics from Israel to individual election.]

6It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." 8In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring. 9For this was how the promise was stated: "At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son."
10Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or badâ€â€in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who callsâ€â€she was told, "The older will serve the younger."[d] 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."[e]

[***Again I apologize. Here I connect my introduction, which is obviously about national Israel, to specific individuals in order to address their election to salvation or loss without any reference at all to national Israel and this new "Israel according to the promise" that I have just introduced and talked about at length. I know that it looks like I am referring to these people to explain this "nation-level" distinction, but I really am not. Despite all the effort I have invested in talking about national Israel and now this new "true" Israel, my real goal here is a theology about individual election]

14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!

[***Given my detailed emphasis on explaining the differences between these 2 Israels, and given that the obvious question at hand from context would be "Is God acting justly to form these 2 Israels?", I am really asking whether is just for God to do things like elect Ed Jones of Cincinnatti, Ohio to salvation and Fred Johnson of Scranton Pennsylvannia to damnation. Sorry about setting this up so the reader will think I am still talking about these 2 kinds of Israel.]

15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."[f] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."[g] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

[***Ooops. Misleading analogy again. Given my obvious reference to Exodus material where God angrily says "I will destroy Israel and make a nation of you, Moses", I am not really intending to talk about whether God has the right to define Israel any way He wants. I intend to talk about election of individuals, instead. And it was bad form of me to choose to refer to a story where God acts to harden someone to make a specific act of large scale redemption at a specific point in history. After all, I am going to shortly be talking about how, throughout history, God will elect this person and not that person to salvation, with no obvious reference to my working in history to fulfill my covenant. And even though I have talking about national Israel all along, and even though reference to the hardening of Pharoah suggests that I am about to make a point about the hardening of Israel, and even though I say the following in Romans 11 where it seems that national Israel has been hardened to reconcile the whole world to God, I am really talking about the election of individuals.]

For if their (national Israel's) rejection is the reconciliation of the world....

[***I, Paul, will try to be a better writer next time]

 

[GraceBwithU]

Beloved57,

You speak a lot about the elect.
I understand who the elect are. I’m curious about what you perceive them to be.

Could you please just answer a few questions for the people here? It may get things back on track if you do.

Who is the scripture talking about below?

Isa 45:4
4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.
Rev 7:3
3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.

Who is Jesus taking to below?

John 6:70
70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

John 15:16
16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

Who is Jesus referring to below?

Matt 24:31
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

John 3:16

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Please think carefully about your answer before you call me the devil for asking

 

[beloved57]

gbwu ask

Could you please just answer a few questions for the people here? It may get things back on track if you do.

Who is the scripture talking about below?

Isa 45:4
4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.
Rev 7:3
3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads

The election of grace is being spoken of here in both places...

Who is Jesus taking to below?

John 6:70
70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

John 15:16
16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

The election of grace is spoken of here except for judas , he was chosen for a evil diabolical purpose , he never was a believer according to jesus ..

jn 6:

70Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

71He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

and

Jn 6

But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Matt 24:31
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

John 3:16

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

The election of grace..

And you are a false teacher and a deciever..

 

[GraceBwithU]

gbwu ask

Could you please just answer a few questions for the people here? It may get things back on track if you do.

[quote:c8c3b]Who is the scripture talking about below?

Isa 45:4
4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.
Rev 7:3
3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads

The election of grace is being spoken of here in both places...

Who is Jesus taking to below?

John 6:70
70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

John 15:16
16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

The election of grace is spoken of here except for judas , he was chosen for a evil diabolical purpose , he never was a believer according to jesus ..

jn 6:

70Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

71He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

and

Jn 6

But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

Matt 24:31
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

John 3:16

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

The election of grace..

And you are a false teacher and a deciever..[/quote:c8c3b]

Although your answers were shallow and incomplete, the main thing that got my attention was the fact the you called me a flse teacher and All I had done is ask you questions. Is it impossible for you to answer a post without rude remarks or insults. Can we please just have a discussion.

I must admit though you do amuse me! It's hard do believe How someone could come to the conclusions you have about scripture. You look at everything with tunnel-vision. By the way, I asked who not what. You should be a politician..

 

[Vic C.]

Actually, I'm not very amused by these personal accusations. It's 1) a violation of Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
and 2) the continued insults against all those who differ from your beliefs is a violation of our ToS.

Beloved, this is the third time we are reminding you of this. Continuing in this vein will only result in you being blocked from posting in the Apologetics thread.

This is not because of what you believe; it's because of how you are expressing yourself. Refrain from insulting others and you'll be fine.

 

[cyberjosh]

I had no desire to get into any kind of debate with this thread and Unred hasn't been around recently to reply, so I'm just gonna leave this thread alone for a while.

 

[Drew]

Before I begin my post, I need to acknowledge that my ideas here are not substantially my own, but are rather those of NT Wright (or at least my understanding of his views).

Romans 11 adds evidence to the case that, in the potter account of Romans 9, Paul is saying that it is ethnic (national Israel) that is elected to be a "vessel of destruction". Israel has been elected to "act out the Christ pattern" and be the place where the sin of the world gets accumulated before it is then transferred to Jesus where it is condemned in His flesh (Romans 8:3 if my memory is right).

Note how Paul describes ethnic Israel in Romans 11:

11Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!

God "elected" ethnic Israel to stumble precisely in order to bring salvation to the rest of the world. National Israel, just like her representative Messiah Jesus, is "cast away for the sin of the world". Israel is sent into political exile, Jesus is sent into the exile of death.

It is not an "accident" that Israel has stumbled. It was God's sovereign plan that this happen all along. And, for reasons that are not entirely clear, I think this had to be way God's plan of redemption played out. We all owe ethnic Israel a huge debt. Even though it is Christ and Christ alone who has atoned for our sin (Romans 8:3 again), Israel plays a role that she has been elected to play.

And it is a terrible role indeed. And a role that we all owe her greatly for. Israel was given the Law which, ironically, served to intensify her sin - not just reveal it, but actually intensify it. And her rejection of God's Son brought her national sin to its full height. I suggest, that in some almost "physical" way, the sin of the world was been accumulated and concentrated in national Israel, until it finally gets transferred onto the shoulders of the One who is her true representative - Israel wrapped up into one person.

And when sin had been thus cornered in the flesh of Jesus, God condemned it there. Jesus' death means life for us all. And Israel has been elected to play a grim, yet vital role in that plan. Israel is not God's "plan A" which, when Israel fell, was replaced with "plan B" - Jesus. It's all one plan.

 

[unred typo]

quote by cybershark5886 :
No actually I'm now understanding what you are saying quite well. But before I continue I must acknowledge that I thoroughly appreciate the respectful tone of the conversation we have had thus far, as two mature Christians trying to discuss doctrinal truths. I enjoy such discussions as this, as they do not involve bickering and are serious talks.

Now, this is so interesting that you have brought this back to my mind, as I had forgotten all about this interpretation. I remember right before School started this semester entertaining the idea of the elect as a group that had undefined individual members, and that the predestining was done for the "group" of the elect. Unfortunately I don't remember ever reaching a conclusion in my mind. But now that I think back on it I believe that it may have been (as I am now thinking) that I made no such definate conclusion because I wanted to read in the Bible several places where election is discussed to test such a theory to see if it holds up to the truth. This is of course the proper response to any new doctrine presented to you, "Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

My first hurdle which I must present to throw in the way to test it, is the individuality stressed in such passages as Romans 9, and how God can prepare individuals for honor or dishonor, etc. What do you think of the indivuality emphasized in Romans 9, as concerns election?

I'll look forward to your feed back on this.

Sorry, Josh, I thought I had answered this but I guess I messed up and was thinking of another thread. Drew has a good understanding and explanation of election but it differs somewhat with mine, in that same vein that you mention, although I don‘t claim to be dogmatic about my ideas here. Strangely, the views we hold about the knowledge of the future seems to be at the crux of our differences. My view is more comfortable with the idea of a future that doesn’t actually ‘materially’ (for want of a better word) exist as a place or thing that can be known, even by God. I see the idea of a future that could be traveled to or visited by or lived in by even God, as a work of total fiction. Great stuff for movies and books and stories but like fairies and elves, just make believe.

The word ‘Future’ to me is just a term of convenience enabling us to speak of the time that hasn’t occurred yet that will become the ‘present’ when it arrives. There is no ‘future’ that God pulls up on his memory screen where he can look to see future individuals being born, living lives and dying saved or lost. The future to God is his ‘to do’ list. He lives and acts in the ever present present. To put it mysteriously, he is the eternal ‘I am’. It is in him we live and move and have our being.

So when I think of the elect, I see them exactly as you mentioned above. They are an undetermined group of individuals who fit a predetermined set of requirements that God ordained in the beginning of time. I hope you have had the opportunity to test this theory against any Bible study you have done lately. I have not found anywhere that it doesn’t fit well with the text and in many cases has cleared up some problems that I had in the past. (no pun intended)

As for Romans 9, it doesn’t really figure into the equation here. The individuals mentioned in Romans 9 are not chosen from the distant past, but are chosen as they are conceived, or as they are needed, in the present tense of the choosing. Drew’s interpretation works well and I concur with what he wrote. He may have a different opinion of the future than I do, which is fine with me. I held the view of the future being known by God for years and only recently (a few years) changed my thinking on this because it makes for such a messy theology with parallel universes and all manner of confusion, so it had a certain appeal when I considered that if the future didn’t exist, not knowing it was not a deficiency in God’s knowledge. The more I apply this to scripture, the better things fit together and more mysteries clear up. I like that in a theory, don‘t you? :-D