What is Election?

[ivdavid]

"I will draw all men unto me, cast none out, and I will raise all up on the last day." (Jesus, the Father)

Could you clarify a couple of your beliefs here -

Do you believe in Universalism where each and every human will have eternal life in the kingdom of God?

Do you believe in Modalism where the same God takes various forms as Father and Son - but where these are not distinct in themselves.

 

[mondar]

If one is to take Psalm 51:5 literally than one must also take the whole Psalm literally including verse 7 and 8.
Psa 51:7 Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
Psa 51:8 Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.

Can hyssop make one clean? Did God break David's bones and now those bones can rejoice?
Consider the state of remorse that David was in when he wrote this Psalm.

Here's another verse that is quite similar. Is Job speaking these words literally or is he in an emotional state and speaking figuratively?
Job 1:21 And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken.

Every fair minded student of the poetic sections of the bible recognizes that Hebrew poems employs figurative language. Both Psalms and most of Job are written in Poetry, and thus have a many figures of speech. In fact, poetry in general in any culture and language abounds with figures of speech. What I am hearing you say in your above post is that because the Psalms are poetic, that I cannot draw doctrinal or theological conclusions from the poems. Is this what you are saying? So if we see a figure of speech we just throw language out the window? Really? Such a conclusion would just not fit the reality of language. If language means anything, and it does, then even the figures of speech mean something specific.

However, this does not address your presupposition that if there is a figure of speech in a poem, then even the literal language cannot be understood literally.

If you deny theological propositions in a poem based upon some figurative language being used somewhere else in the poem, or even if the proposition is in figurative language, would you dismiss the theological or doctrinal content of that Poem? Would you employ this rule consistently? Does the hymnal of your church would have no theological or doctrinal content? Take Luthers hymn "A mighty fortress." Would you say that because this is figurative language then we can just throw out the doctrinal content of that poem by Luther? Because Luther employed non-literal language therefore it says nothing about God?

I think we both know the unspoken background behind your denial of the doctrinal propositions of Psalm 51. You want to believe that all babies go to heaven. Maybe they do. To say that all babies go to hell would be beyond the theological propositions that Psalm 51 made, or that I, myself asserted. Psalm 51 does not address the eternal destiny of infants, but it does address their sinful nature. David was conceived and born a sinner. He had an evil nature from his conception. The theological point is great. Do we sin because we were conceived as sinnners? Or do we sin and then become sinners? If we were born innocent, and not born with a sinful nature, then why do babies die. That is a huge question that if it is ignored, means you cannot be consistent with your theology.

Romans 12 says
12 Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned:
Death passed upon all men, because all sinned. The question is when did all men sin. In that passage, we sinned in Adam. If that passage is speaking of personal individual sins, then why do babies die. Sin and death go together in that passage.

IVdavid previously gave an illustration of M1, M2, M3, etc. That illustration gets to the concept of federal headship. What he says is true, our flesh was corrupted in Adams sin. His sin affected the nature of the whole human race. We all entered the rebellion in Adam. We entered into that rebellion not when we commit our first personal sin, but when Adam sinned, all humanity became sinful, including infants.

Back to Psalm 51,
Yes, I love the figures of speech in Psalm 51. I love Psalm 51. It is such a beautiful and emotional portrait of repentance. David begs God to make him clean in many difference ways. He cannot be clean unless he recognizes his personal sin in verse 4. It is a deep black dark sin. Verse 4 sounds like a cry of anguish.
4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, And done that which is evil in thy sight; That thou mayest be justified when thou speakest, And be clear when thou judgest.
Then he recognizes that he is far worse then just a person who made a boo boo, he speaks of his sinfulness in verse 5. He laments his sinful nature.
5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.

His desire is for that cleanness that only God can accomplish. He appeals to God for cleansing. David does not appeal for just forgiveness of his personal sin, he asks God for that change in his nature that will lead him to righteousness.
10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; And renew a right spirit within me.

Well, if I apply your rule consistently, I guess there is figurative language, so David never repented of his sin with Bathsheba. Maybe we cannot say Adultery is really so bad that David needed to repent. There was never really any remorse on Davids part. Hey, you know there is figurative language in Psalm 51 so we cannot take that repentance literally. Is this the kind of conclusions we should draw?

 

[chessman]

I think we both know the unspoken background behind your denial of the doctrinal propositions of Psalm 51. You want to believe that all babies go to heaven. Maybe they do.
The question is when did all men sin. In that passage [Rom 12:12] , we sinned in Adam. If that passage is speaking of personal individual sins, then why do babies die. Sin and death go together in that passage.

Psalm 51:4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, And done that which is evil in thy sight; That thou mayest be justified when thou speakest, And be clear when thou judgest.
Then he recognizes that he is far worse then just a person who made a boo boo, he speaks of his sinfulness in verse 5. He laments his sinful nature.
5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me.

His desire is for that cleanness that only God can accomplish. He appeals to God for cleansing.

Yes.
Ps 51:9 Hide your face from my sins,
and blot out all my iniquities

As does Jesus, on other's behalf (like all babies), make a similar request/prayer?

Luke 23:34
And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

Yes, I know that this prayer seems specifically meant for the soldiers that were following orders and had no idea that they were putting the God-Man to death evidently. But still, babies do not "know what they do" until they reach some age/intellect either.

 

[Dan00]

Hi, Deborah,

I would like to add my two cents. I don't recall reading anywhere in the scripture about your last statement; but since it happened to me that way, it makes sense.

Regarding "drawing," see if this makes sense:

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. "(John 6:37)

"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:44)

"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." (John 12:32)

Well, who does the "drawing," Jesus or the Father? I believe this is the answer:

"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:" (John 3:14)

"... he that hath seen me hath seen the Father..." (John 14:9)

Now, those scriptures taken together can be interpreted this way:

"I will draw all men unto me, cast none out, and I will raise all up on the last day." (Jesus, the Father)
Dan

I forgot to include this verse:

" I and my Father are one." (John 10:30)

 

[Dan00]

Could you clarify a couple of your beliefs here -

Do you believe in Universalism where each and every human will have eternal life in the kingdom of God?

Do you believe in Modalism where the same God takes various forms as Father and Son - but where these are not distinct in themselves.

I was seeking an answer to what Jesus said. But since you asked, and without applying labels (to you or me,) this is what I believe:

First, all the Lord requires of me is to keep his commandments, which, in a nutshell, is to love my neighbor as myself. I am unqualified to judge a man's soul, so I leave that to those more qualified, such as the Apostles and Saints. This is my general belief on the formation and current status of the Church:

1) Most prophecy was fulfilled in the first century

2) The first resurrection occurred around A.D. 70, when Jesus came with his angels, as he said he would. Those redeemed included the prophets, saints, apostles and holy men of old. These are most-likely the 144,000 standing on mount Sion in Revelation 14:1-5, since they were the first redeemed from the earth. They are also the same priests who sat on thrones and reigned during the "thousand years." As is written, the twelve apostles sat on thrones and judged the twelve tribes of Israel. The remainder of the saints, by default, judge everyone else, as is also written.

3) Immediately after the millennial reign, Satan was released out of his prison to deceive the nations. Recall that when Jerusalem (Babylon the Great) was made desolate, it was written about her, "by thy sorceries were all nations deceived." At that time Satan was bound so that he "should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled." It is not merely a coincidence that both Babylon the Great and Satan were deceiving the nations at the same time.

4) Once released, Satan went out to deceive the nations and gather together quite an "army." Then he and his army went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city.

I believe this is happening now: that Satan's armies can be found over the entire earth (the "breadth" of the earth) and they are after the Church. Where else do we find the camp of the "saints" and the "beloved city", but on heavenly mount Sion in the holy city, New Jerusalem, which is the Church.

Until Satan is defeated, the very public and open spiritual war will continue against the Church and anything representing Christianity--such a public prayer, Christian education of our children, and morality--worldwide.

I have plenty of scripture to back this up, without "spritualizing."

One point that seems to be confusing to a lot of people. Satan does not go after old Jerusalem, as is generally taught. His armies cover the "breadth" of the earth, which by definition is the entire world.

Dan

 

[mondar]

Yes.
Ps 51:9 Hide your face from my sins,
and blot out all my iniquities

As does Jesus, on other's behalf (like all babies), make a similar request/prayer?

Luke 23:34
And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

Yes, I know that this prayer seems specifically meant for the soldiers that were following orders and had no idea that they were putting the God-Man to death evidently. But still, babies do not "know what they do" until they reach some age/intellect either.

Chessman, you might be agreeing with me here, I do not know. You begin the statement with the term "yes." I am not sure what your saying. When I read your comments, my thoughts are that your comments are non-sequitur. Maybe I just do not understand your thinking here or what you were saying. Can you clarify? Are you agreeing that all men are sinful from conception? Then even Babies are saved only by the blood of Christ? Or are babies saved in some other way? I must admit, when I read what you said, it sounds like it is possible that you are suggesting that God forgave babies on the basis of their lack of understanding. If that is what you are saying, we do not agree. I believe babies are guilty before God being in Adam. Infants are evil from conception, as I am, and so are you. Sin nature resides in all our flesh. Do Babies have no need of forgiveness based upon Christs blood because they have no guilt of personal sins? Are you dening that Psalm 51 proposes that David was sinful from conception and birth?

How is your statement related to my statements? Is this just something you want to talk about and its not related at all?

Maybe Deborah can respond also. By what means does a baby get to heaven? Is it because of their own personal lack of sin and lack of knowledge of sin that they get to heaven? Or are they also guilty before God and need the substitution of Christs shed blood for forgiveness? Are their different ways to heaven? If they are guilty and need the grace of God in the shed blood of Christ........., then what is the means of their guilt? They never committed a personal sin? How then do they need the shed blood of Christ? Also, a major issue that I presented is if babies are not under the guilt of original sin, then why do they die? Do you disagree with Genesis and the statement of God when he told Adam that if he eats of the tree that he will die? Did that apply only to Adam? Or did Adam, as the federal head plunge the whole race into sinfulness? The consequence of sin is death. If babies are not sinners, then why do some babies die? This thread is on election. I am assuming that you are making points related to election. What is the relationship between the guilt or innocence of babies have to do with election? Do you think some babies are non-elect and still go to heaven and that this somehow disproves election?

Do you want me to respond to the verse you mention? Or you think that verse disproves what I said?

 

[chessman]

Chessman, you might be agreeing with me here, I do not know. You begin the statement with the term "yes." I am not sure what your saying. When I read your comments, my thoughts are that your comments are non-sequitur. Maybe I just do not understand your thinking here or what you were saying. Can you clarify? Are you agreeing that all men are sinful from conception?

Yes I was agreeing with your post. My “Yes” was to the last sentence of your post where you made the statement that David asked for forgiveness. Then I just posted one of the verses in that Psalm that shows what you said. And yes, I can clarify. And yes, I’d love your comments to my further idea of what Jesus statement on the cross means (if anything) relative to the discussion of whether babies go to heaven when they die (let’s just say prior to birth or even at birth, to make it a simple issue.)
I thought it best to just directly answer each of your questions so here goes:
Are you agreeing that all men are sinful from conception? Yes. Of course they are.
Then even Babies are saved only by the blood of Christ? Yes. All that are saved, are saved via the same blood of Christ. That’s why I think it’s important that Jesus made this prayer on that very cross.
Or are babies saved in some other way? No, the same way.
I must admit, when I read what you said, it sounds like it is possible that you are suggesting that God forgave babies on the basis of their lack of understanding. Not sure that I would phrase it that way “basis of their lack of understanding”. I think it’s on the “basis of Jesus”. But I do think the fact that Jesus asks for forgiveness “for they know not what they do” means something that put’s babies in that same condition “for they know not what they do”. But, again, I am not saying they are not born/conceived even with a sin nature that is in need of forgiveness. That’s the point. And I know that Jesus means the soldiers and not babies. But I once asked my pastor this question. He said; "Do you think God answered Jesus' prayer". I gave him a funny look and just said, yes. I think God did answer that prayer and dropped the obvious issues he'd have with Jesus praying for anything outside of God's will.

If that is what you are saying, we do not agree. Again, I do not think the basis of their salvation is based on anything other than Jesus.
I believe babies are guilty before God being in Adam. Me too.
Infants are evil from conception, as I am, and so are you. Sin nature resides in all our flesh. I agree.
Do Babies have no need of forgiveness based upon Christs blood because they have no guilt of personal sins? No. Babies have need of forgiveness of sin/nature they inherited just as everyone else born of the flesh also needs forgivenss. (Oh, except Mary. Just kidding I even think Mary was born with a sin nature.) But that’s exactly the point of Jesus saying “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.” And of course Jesus was God and had the ability to forgive sins. If he merely meant for those two individuals to receive forgiveness, He didn't really even need to say it. BUT He did. why? He doesn’t say they don’t need forgiveness. Yes, I know that the passage is NOT Jesus talking about babies (rather soldiers). But it is Jesus saying “they know not what they do”. I assume he meant what he said and these soldiers really/truly didn’t know they were sinning that day. They were just following orders.
Are you dening that Psalm 51 proposes that David was sinful from conception and birth? No. Of course not. That’s what the Psalm says. I believe it. I agreed with everything you said in that post.

How is your statement related to my statements? Because you were discussing whether babies are “elect” if/when they die. I often hear people say there’s no Scripture that supports what happens to babies that die. And I suppose there is no direct Scipture that says “all babies go to heaven when they die”. Though I would point out that there are Scriptures that teach "the elect" have eternal life. But, I do find support for their FORGIVENESS in Jesus praying “forgiven them for they know not what they do”. I’m a little reluctant to carry it too far because it’s obvious that Jesus specifically meant the soldiers. But still, frankly I find it hard to believe that Jesus wasn’t pointing out something a little more significant than asking for forgiveness for two or three Roman soldiers. And He does say they know not what they do, like babies don’t.

Maybe Deborah can respond also. By what means does a baby get to heaven? Not sure if you meant for me to respond to the rest of this paragraph or Deborah. I’ll just respond with my answer to some:
If they are guilty and need the grace of God in the shed blood of Christ........., then what is the means of their guilt? Adam’s sin... right on down the line. If anything, there shouldn't be anybody past Adam to begin with except for God's patience, His Mercy and oh (His Plan A for demonstrating salvation through Jesus Christ).

However, let’s turn this question around and ask someone that does NOT believe in election this questions: If they are guilty and need the grace of God in the shed blood of Christ........., then what is the means of their guilt salvation? If they must make a personal intellectual “choice” and repent for their sin (preferably publically), then I guess they have no means of salvation and all babies go the Hell. Right? I mean that's the logical conclusion without God's election. Though question to answer without election, right? That’s why it stumps people. No election, there are no babies in heaven! On the other hand. If Jesus himself has died on the cross for “the elect’s” and He specifically forgives the sins for those few cases where they “know not what they do” then there are babies in heaven. Every single one that been given to Jesus since before time will be in heaven. Period. No abortion doctor has “snatched” them out of His hand just because they didn’t grow up to “accept Christ” one day when they are old enough.

Also, a major issue that I presented is if babies are not under the guilt of original sin, then why do they die? Good point. I agree. They die basically for the same reason we all do (Adam brought death to mankind)
Do you disagree with Genesis and the statement of God when he told Adam that if he eats of the tree that he will die? Did that apply only to Adam? No. It applies to all mankind after Adam.
Or did Adam, as the federal head plunge the whole race into sinfulness? Yes.

The consequence of sin is death. If babies are not sinners, then why do some babies die? Again, good point. The question I have is, is the Scripture I mention support for their forgiveness (not their sinlessness) based on the idea that babies "know not what they do".
This thread is on election. I am assuming that you are making points related to election. Yes. I think the “election” of babies makes a heck of a lot more sense than having babies never; 1) hear the gospel message preached (preferably in a revival setting) 2) acknowledge their sins 3)Invite Christ into their repentant hearts, 4) preferably have these steps accompanied by evidence of the Holy Ghost filling these little pre-born babies’ hearts. That process seems obviously inaccessible to pre-born babies. But "forgiveness for they know not what they do" sounds pretty accessible to them.
What is the relationship between the guilt or innocence of babies have to do with election? I don’t know. You and Deborah were discussing babies and election. I don’t think there are any non-guilty babies. I do think there are forgiven ones (theoretically every single one of them if they are all elected)! That’s my point.
Do you think some babies are non-elect and still go to heaven and that this somehow disproves election? I’m not sure that this one is for me. I do believe in election and therefore if babies are elect they will be in heaven, period. If not, then no, they will not go to heaven.
Do you want me to respond to the verse you mention? Yes but only if you feel lead to. I respect your opinion. If I’m badly abusing this verse where Jesus is praying a prayer that says “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do” by suggesting that it might be applicable to babies, then please tell me so and why. I get that the prayer was made for the soldiers. But still think the principle for forgiveness of elect babies is there as well.
Or you think that verse disproves what I said? No, I agree with everything you said.

 

[ivdavid]

If they must make a personal intellectual “choice” and repent for their sin (preferably publically), then I guess they have no means of salvation and all babies go the Hell. Right? I mean that's the logical conclusion without God's election. Tough question to answer without election, right? That’s why it stumps people. No election, there are no babies in heaven!

That's an excellent point. But how would you respond to the alternate doctrine which says God simply treats these people "who do not know what they do" differently - and makes provision for them to be saved(through Christ Himself, maybe) without their personal intellectual choice. Essentially where God elects them - but not an election purposed in Himself, instead an election based on their not knowing what they do. Are there any reasons why you'd reject such a doctrine as unbiblical?

 

[chessman]

how would you respond to the alternate doctrine which says God simply treats these people "who do not know what they do" differently -

I'm not following your question exactly? Are you asking relative to “these people” being a babies or adults?
I don't see where there is any scripturally consistent alternate doctrine to the doctrine of election (for babies or adults) so in a way I guess it doesn’t matter. And on an individual basis, not just the "election" of a group of people basis, either. Nor do I see any conflicts with God electing babies for their salvation. In fact, it makes much more sense than the alternative doctrine-they are required to respond to the gospel message being preached to them, etc.
So I’m not really the person to ask about alternate doctrines to election.
The reason I thought to ask the question on how Luke 23:34 meshes with the doctrine of “election” is precisely to discuss the issue of elect babies not so much adults which is now several hundred posts, re-posts, clarifications, misunderstanding, etc.
To me, election of the individual is even easier to understand as just, merciful, Biblical and entirely consistent with God’s nature to apply it to babies first (and just kind of forget about adults for a moment). Then, once that makes sense to you, go on to the slightly more complicated issue of adult’s election. It’s only slightly more complicated because there’s more human will, choice and demonstrated personal sin involved. But the real issue is the sin problem which indeed is applicable to all. All that really matters is that our sin problem is forgiven, not so much the sequence of events that leads up to that or whether man is in charge of those events (or not).
Now, on all the non-election views (if I could speak for them), I see all kinds of problems for an individual baby's salvation. Unless, of course, someone thought no baby had a sin problem to begin with. But that’s anti-Biblical so I wouldn’t know what to say (how to respond) to someone that thought that way. I’d probably just say God loves them.
Now, on the non-election view (if I could speak for them) that babies need to be baptized or sprinkled to be saved. Again, I have no good way to respond to a mother/father who’s child died in the womb on that view of salvation, Scripturally speaking. What can be said using Scriptures to them?
Now, on the non-elect view (if I could speak for them) that babies need to “accept Christ as their personal Lord and Savior as a response to hearing the Gospel preached to them [and even keep holding on to that acceptance for the rest of their lives]”, again, I have no good way to respond to that mother/father who’s child died in the womb, Scripturally speaking. What can be said to them using Scripture?
And so on and so forth…
The salvation of infants making sense via the rather “one-sided” act of God on their behalf is just one of the many reasons (the Scriptures that support it being #1 reason) that I hold to the doctrine of election. But it's a pretty good reason and an often overlooked reason, if you ask me. Which is why I mentioned it here in this thread.
You asked; “Are there any reasons why you'd reject such a doctrine [non-election-even for babies-is what I assume you mean] as unbiblical? Probably. I’d have to know which non-election doctrine you meant specifically.
If it’s the one about 100% of the time needing to hear the gospel preached and responding appropriately in order to be saved, I’d point out that when Jesus says what He did in Luke 23:34 He did not say “Father, forgive them for these soldiers have made a decision for Christ”. For Jesus clearly did see them as needing forgiveness.
Now to step into the adult world. When adults sin (and they know it’s sin) and they all do, I see no Scriptures that teaches the principle of “Father forgive them, for I know they are better than average.” That’s antithetical to Scripture.
When you ask about a non-elect doctrine saying: “instead an election based on their not knowing what they do.” Again, we are back talking about adults obviously and I see zero wrong with the way you and/or Mondar have discussed election here (as it applies to adults).

 

[ivdavid]

The salvation of infants making sense via the rather “one-sided” act of God on their behalf is just one of the many reasons (the Scriptures that support it being #1 reason) that I hold to the doctrine of election.

Yes. You first try and understand the concept of election in the salvation of infants - and then extend the same understanding to adults too. And that's because you believe the same principle of election covers both infants and adults against sin. Now my question was - what if one believed the same as you did concerning infants alone - but switched over to a non-election doctrine such as the 100% Gospel response, with respect to adults? Where their doctrine states that it is not the same principle of election for both infants and adults - given the fact that the infants did not know about sin at all, while the adults did. What then are your reasons for believing that the same principle of election unto salvation extends over all - infants and adults alike?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

It's interesting that in the church 'election' automatically means 'predetermined', as if that's the definition of it. (That's that circular reasoning I was talking about before.)

Election is not what is in dispute. Whether or not 'election' is pre-determined is what is in debate.

The mistake is thinking that since election is by faith in the promise, and faith can not be a 'work' of man, or else that would supposedly be a 'works' gospel, that election must then be pre-determined by God alone. Very distorted doctrine. And as I say, all because the Protestant church has failed to understand that man's 'believing' is NOT included in the works that Paul says can not justify. That work of believing is in fact the very thing that justifies and is indeed a responsibility of man, not something assigned to him without any consideration of whether the individual wants to believe or not.

 

[chessman]

What then are your reasons for believing that the same principle of election unto salvation extends over all - infants and adults alike?

Because it's the same God
Because God is sovereign.
Because God-Jesus says; All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. John 6:37

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I wonder if Revelation shows us when those who lived and died in this life without being able to make a decision for the gospel (because they were mentally incapable of making that decision) will be tested as to whether they will, or will not, accept the gospel and be judged in fairness in regard to righteousness:

2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.

7 When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore.9 They marched across the breadth of the earth and surroundedthe camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. (Revelation 20:2-3, 7-9 NIV)

Those of us who were tested in this life and made right decisions for the kingdom will not, and can not be deceived by this last effort of satan to deceive mankind. So who are these people in the Millennium who can be deceived by satan? I wonder if it is those who died young, or were mentally handicapped in this age and who will be raised to life to live during the Millennium?

 

[Dan00]

I wonder if Revelation shows us when those who lived and died in this life without being able to make a decision for the gospel (because they were mentally incapable of making that decision) will be tested as to whether they will, or will not, accept the gospel and be judged in fairness in regard to righteousness:

2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.

7 When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore.9 They marched across the breadth of the earth and surroundedthe camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. (Revelation 20:2-3, 7-9 NIV)

Those of us who were tested in this life and made right decisions for the kingdom will not, and can not be deceived by this last effort of satan to deceive mankind. So who are these people in the Millennium who can be deceived by satan? I wonder if it is those who died young, or were mentally handicapped in this age and who will be raised to life to live during the Millennium?

Hi, Jethro. Where do I find scriptural support for this statement by you?

"Those of us who were tested in this life and made right decisions for the kingdom will not, and can not be deceived by this last effort of satan to deceive mankind."

Thanks,
Dan

 

[ivdavid]

Because it's the same God
Because God is sovereign.
Because God-Jesus says; All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. John 6:37

 

[Dan00]

Because it's the same God
Because God is sovereign.
Because God-Jesus says; All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. John 6:37

I have struggled with the words of Jesus in John. I now believe he was referring to his disciples in many of those "last day" posts in John, including John 6:37. Not sure about the rest. See if this sounds right.

Recall those God gave to Christ will be raised up on the last day:

"And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." (John 6:39)

So, we see that all those that God gave Christ he will raise up on the last day. But who were those "given to Him?" The answer is, his apostles, as follows:

"While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled." (John 12:17)

Jesus said the same thing at his arrest when he pleaded for his apostles' release:

"Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way: That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none." (John 18:8-9)

So those God gave to Christ--his disciples--are raised on the last day. Now, recall this statement regarding the placement of the those of the first resurrection:

"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." (Revelation 20:4)

The first resurrection sounds a lot like reward for martyrdom. But notice the highlighted words. Who are they? Well, Jesus gave future judgement over the twelve tribes to the twelve apostles:

"And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Matthew 19:28)

Those sitting on the thrones in judgement over the twelve tribes of Israel after the first resurrection will be the apostles. Therefore, the first resurrection occurred on the "last day" and included at least the apostles and the martyred saints.

Now we have to figure out what "last day" meant to the apostles and the Jews, who receive most of the glory, and nearly all the persecution and punishment.

Anyone have any ideas? Was the "last day" another term for the "end of the Jewish Age," as the disciples implied (in some translatons) while on Mount Olive in Matthew 24, Luke 21 and Mark 13?

Thanks,

Dan

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Hi, Jethro. Where do I find scriptural support for this statement by you?

"Those of us who were tested in this life and made right decisions for the kingdom will not, and can not be deceived by this last effort of satan to deceive mankind."

Thanks,
Dan

There is none that I know of. I was sharing my opinion.

I suppose faith that has been tested and found to be genuine and strong in this age could possibly shrink back in the kingdom, but that's a stretch for me.

It's those who were NOT found to have a genuine and strong faith in this age, but who were spared Judgement, because of the inability to decide, or who did not live long enough to strengthen their faith, they are the one's IMO who will be susceptible to the deceits of satan described in the passage I quoted.

We are taught in the church that when we die we will be far and away from the presence, the power, and the (I forgot the other 'p', lol) of sin. But we see in Revelation that God's history long process of cleansing and purging a people for himself does not end with the end of this age, but that there is still one more final purging of evil from this creation of mankind.


Do you have an opinion that you'd like to share on who these people are that will rebel against God at the end of the Millennium?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I have struggled with the words of Jesus in John. I now believe he was referring to his disciples in many of those "last day" posts in John, including John 6:37. Not sure about the rest. See if this sounds right.

Recall those God gave to Christ will be raised up on the last day:

"And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day." (John 6:39)

So, we see that all those that God gave Christ he will raise up on the last day. But who were those "given to Him?" The answer is, his apostles, as follows:

"While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled." (John 12:17)

Jesus said the same thing at his arrest when he pleaded for his apostles' release:

"Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way: That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none." (John 18:8-9)

So those God gave to Christ--his disciples--are raised on the last day. Now, recall this statement regarding the placement of the those of the first resurrection:

"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." (Revelation 20:4)

The first resurrection sounds a lot like reward for martyrdom. But notice the highlighted words. Who are they? Well, Jesus gave future judgement over the twelve tribes to the twelve apostles:

"And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." (Matthew 19:28)

Those sitting on the thrones in judgement over the twelve tribes of Israel after the first resurrection will be the apostles. Therefore, the first resurrection occurred on the "last day" and included at least the apostles and the martyred saints.

Now we have to figure out what "last day" meant to the apostles and the Jews, who receive most of the glory, and nearly all the persecution and punishment.

Anyone have any ideas? Was the "last day" another term for the "end of the Jewish Age," as the disciples implied (in some translatons) while on Mount Olive in Matthew 24, Luke 21 and Mark 13?

Thanks,

Dan

You are correct, those that the Father gave to the Son are the apostles save Judas.

While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. John 17:12 (ESV)

All of these statements are past tense coming from Jesus, and Jesus is specifically praying for them until v.20, where he states, "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word."

Those who wish to individualize every saying of Scripture to pertain to themselves, will often misinterpret these sayings and create doctrines such as Calvinism.

 

[ivdavid]

Those who wish to individualize every saying of Scripture to pertain to themselves, will often misinterpret these sayings and create doctrines such as Calvinism.

Could you cite some Scripture which has been so individualized to necessarily give rise to Calvinistic doctrines.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Could you cite some Scripture which has been so individualized to necessarily give rise to Calvinistic doctrines.

Besides the ones I was just referring to in the Gospel of John. There is also Romans 9, where Paul is speaking about God's plan and justification for the rejection of unbelieving Israel and how he is bringing about the inclusion of the Gentiles.

For instance.

Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?[1]

This is an allusion to Jeremiah 18:6, where God says, "Can I not, O house of Israel, deal with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel." (NASB) Paul is appealing back to God's sovereign right over Israel, to take from one lump (Israel) and make one vessel for honorable use (the remnant) and another for common use (unbelieving Israel).

This is demonstrated in the next verse.

What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?[2]

Most Calvinists look at these verses as referring to God's election, that he makes some to be vessels of wrath and others to be vessels of mercy. However, the context proves this incorrect. There are certain vessels that are κατηρτισμένα or having been fitted or ripe, namely the people of Israel who rejected the Messiah Jesus. What if God was willing to demonstrate his wrath and make his power known by punishing them, but instead chose to endure them with much patience. And why would he do that?

And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,[3]

And he did so, to the end that his glorious mercy might be demonstrated. To who?

even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.[4]

All of this was to fulfill the prophecy that was about the coming inclusion of the Gentiles and rejection of unbelieving Israel. As Paul quotes in the next verse, “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.' And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”

Notice how well this fits with more clear passages in Romans 11.

I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous.[5]

The "they" is the unbelieving Israelites, who have been temporarily hardened (notice how the Israelites are the only ones who are said to be hardened) in keeping with God's right to harden and have mercy. Though in Romans 11, Paul goes beyond his point in Romans 9 and demonstrates how even his inclusion of the Gentiles was meant to bring about the jealousy of the Israelites and thus graft them back in. It is all apart of God's sovereign plan to have one people in Christ, not by individually electing who will be saved and who will not, but rather to do as Paul said, "For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all."[6]

I could go on to Ephesians 1, which I think is another major instance, but I'll have you chew on that for now.

[1] Romans 9:21 (NASB)
[2] Romans 9:22 (NASB)
[3] Romans 9:23 (NASB)
[4] Romans 9:24 (NASB)
[5] Romans 11:11 (NASB)
[6] Romans 11:32 (NASB)