What is Election?

[Sparkey]

But let's keep the discussion on the principles of election itself. I want to fully understand what people think that means before I chime in.

Here is a link to a 'scholarly article' found on the BLB in the Dictionary section about Election (e-lek'-shun; ekloge, "choice," "selection"):

• International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: ELECTION

Selected Quote from the above cited article:

A necessary caution in view of the whole subject is that here, if anywhere in the regions of spiritual study, we inevitably "know in part," and in a very limited part. The treatment of election has at times in Christian history been carried on as if, less by the light of revelation than by logical processes, we could tabulate or map the whole subject.​

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Hi Chopper, thanks for putting up with me.
I'm not so diplomatic as you are.
Varied opinions do abound on this forum, people from every conceivable denomination and more.
When I first came on the forum I was intimidated by some.
Now I hope I'm not the one who would do that.

With that said, I'm not so sure the 1st century believers had it so easy.
Those trying to bring the Law into the church were plenty.
Others were deceiving believers for their own gain.

With great modern thinkers as C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaefer, A.W. Tozer, and more, we do have some advantages.

 

[Chopper]

Here is a link to a 'scholarly article' found on the BLB in the Dictionary section about Election (e-lek'-shun; ekloge, "choice," "selection"):

• International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: ELECTION

Selected Quote from the above cited article:

A necessary caution in view of the whole subject is that here, if anywhere in the regions of spiritual study, we inevitably "know in part," and in a very limited part. The treatment of election has at times in Christian history been carried on as if, less by the light of revelation than by logical processes, we could tabulate or map the whole subject.​

Thank you my Brother. I have bookmarked that site, it looks very informative. I will study it right away. I appreciate your posts very much, they mean a lot to me because they are well thought through and to the point of the thread....Love you Brother.

 

[Sparkey]

Your words mean more to me than I may at this time say or rightly explain. They are simple words, given in kindness, filled with understanding and compassion. What means this thing you have declared, "Love you Brother," ??

Could it be that the Lord is forming His banner over us? Will there come a time when such things are revealed and the world itself will marvel at the unseen and hidden things that are here now and visible to a select few? I believe. I do. That includes the trust that I have placed in Him for me, for my very life --being caused to work for each brother and sister whom the Lord has and shall call.

Thank you kindly, sir. I salute the love that is found in your heart. That doesn't happen as often as it will. Ours is a love that grows into eternity and I am certainly not one to miss or to pass on that opportunity. Thanks are given this day for that simple utterance, where even strangers who have never met get to know and grow together.

In Christ,
~SparrowHawke (also called Michael)

 

[Chopper]

Hi Chopper, thanks for putting up with me.
I'm not so diplomatic as you are.
Varied opinions do abound on this forum, people from every conceivable denomination and more.
When I first came on the forum I was intimidated by some.
Now I hope I'm not the one who would do that.

With that said, I'm not so sure the 1st century believers had it so easy.
Those trying to bring the Law into the church were plenty.
Others were deceiving believers for their own gain.

With great modern thinkers as C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaefer, A.W. Tozer, and more, we do have some advantages.

Yea, you are right. I have wanted to study 1st Century customs for a long time. I have a few references, now all I need is time. I have heard of your reputation in this forum, and it all is good. I was hoping, when I first come on, that I would meet you computer to computer. All that was said is true. Thank you for your friendship and your instruction, I value them!

I guess the grass is always greener on the other side. I do value those theologians of years ago.

The love of Jesus is shared by you and me.

 

[Tristan]

Why would people quote TULIP and then not quote reformed people? Why? It is normally to set up a straw man.

The TULIP concept was actually a response to the Remonstrants and their protest against reformed theology. The two different groups had completely different concepts of the atonement. The Remonstrants wrote from the perspective of a General Atonement. Such a one was Hugo Grotuis, and friend of Arminius. Hugo Grotius defended the "General Atonement." He said that Christ died only to satisfy the justice of God, and then God can offer salvation to the whole world. In other words, Christs death saves no one, but only makes men savable.

Opposite this was the theology of the Dutch Calvinists, and other reformed groups from around Europe (I believe the French King refused to allow the Huguenots to come). Their view of the atonement is called the "penal-substitutionary" view. TULIP is tied in with the penal-substitutionary view of the work of Christ's cross. It is an actual salvation. This view conforms to the sola's, especially sola gratia (grace alone). The cross saved people and saved them to the uttermost.

All this ties in with views of Election. The scriptures use the term election in different ways. Christ was the elect of Israel. Israel was an elect nation. Then also, the scriptures uses the term with regard to personal individual election. The question of the thread is to define election, and it seems to me the OP was asking about individual election. The big question, is individual election "conditional" or "unconditional."

I think any conditions at all would violate Romans 9:11
11 for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,
Individual election occurs long before the birth of the Children. The idea of this verse is that nothing Jacob or Esau did or could do affected God's election in any way. If faith were the basis of election, this would be the perfect verse for Paul to say that. In verse 15, the basis of election is made clear.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.
There is nothing in us which is the basis of election, the basis is in God himself. Notice how verse 16 reinforces this concept.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.
Election is not of the one doing who "willeth." Election is not of him that "runneth." The text is clear that the basis of Election solely rests in God who is the one showing mercy.
As for we humans, we are all of the same clay.
21 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?
There is no difference between us an unbelievers as far as election is concerned. If God chose us because he looked into the future and saw faith, then it would not be the "same lump" of clay. We would have been different from the start and God would have made the lump of faith into a vessel of honor. We are of the same lump.

The question is why election? Why is election so important to God? I think God reserved that decision to himself for one main reason. He is maintaining his own free will. God is the ultimate free will in the universe.

We might all have free will too. As Rebels and sinners we all use that free will to choose sin. That is because we have a sinful nature. By nature, we are dead in our sins and we all use our free will to be children of wrath. This is our nature. See Ephesians 2:1, 3
1 And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins,
3 And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins,
There was no faith in anyone's future without God giving that gift of faith. Faith is granted to the believer, not generated by the believer himself of his own righteousness. See Philippians 1:29 because to you it hath been granted in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer in his behalf:
So in unconditional election, God chooses some, gives them faith, and saves them. Then salvation is all God's grace. Grace is totally sufficient for salvation. Nothing more is needed other than God's grace. Grace is not merely just necessary, not absolutely sufficient. See ya all elsewhere.

Nobody seems to understand when I explain God having foreknowledge. It's really not that complicated.

God is outside the universe. When asked who he was at the burning bush, all he said is "I AM". God just 'is'. This means he is outside of time. That means God sees the end from the beginning. He knows what will come to pass at every moment along the timeline. This also means that if he wants certain things to happen, he can make sure they happen based on the way everyone will act of their own free will. That isn't to say that God makes the choice for us, it's more that he uses our choices to fulfill his will. If he needs to intervene, he does. If someone is going to do something, he will set it up so that they fulfill his will...because he knows what they will choose. He may have a plan for you to fulfill some purpose before you are born...but that doesn't mean that you don't make the choices or that you were elected first. It just means that you will serve God's will with your final choice.

Think of it like two generals in battle. One of them predicts what the other will do and counters it brilliantly in order to win the battle. Did the general decide the outcome of the battle before he entered it? No, he knew what was coming and prepared for it and thus won the battle. It is the same with God.

Here's the issue...and I generally approach this sort of thing logically...the scriptures shouldn't be illogical, right?

If God elects people beforehand, we do not have free will. We are not in control of our choices. This is because if we had free will, and God had chosen us to be elect, we could be the worst of sinners and still be saved. You can't reverse that and say "but you wouldn't" because that's circular logic, and a full presupposition.

So there are two options: God's election: no free will...or Rational choice of man: free will. If you'd like to argue free will with me, I'd be more than happy to...but I believe we have free will, and our salvation is based on whether or not we are led by the Holy Spirit.

 

[mondar]

Nobody seems to understand when I explain God having foreknowledge. It's really not that complicated.

Of course its not complicated and I understand what you are saying completely. It is not a new thought. Westley and many other arminians articulated this thought long ago. It is just not biblical.

Tristan, let me put it up front that unless we discuss scripture, I am not really interested in a conversation. When I talk about scripture, I am referring to an exegetical conversation which discusses specific verses. In my post, I made several quotes of verses, and you did not bother to even refer to those verses but totally ignored the scriptural evidence I quoted. We can continue with the conversation, but if you refuse to discuss scripture, I will probably drop the conversation. Let me return to the scriptures I quoted once again.

Romans 911 for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,
If election were on the basis of foreseen faith, then this verse would be the perfect place to make such a proposition. However, the proposition of election of the basis of foreseen faith is completely absent from what the verse says. In fact the opposite is stated. The verse asserts that the basis for election is according to the "purpose of God." The verse also asserts that election is not of man ("not of works") but of "him that calleth." The word "call" here is not referring to some ineffectual non-powerful, general invitation to anyone to believe. If you look to the context to define the word "call" then it would relate to the elected ones. They are the ones called. So then, the word "call" refers to a powerful, all sufficient, completely effectual act of God. All those called, will come to Christ because they are elected or chosen. That is the "purpose of God."

Romans 913 Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.
Paul is here presenting his evidence that there is an all powerful, completely effectual call, that is the action of God. This "call" went to Jacob, but not to Esau. That is the whole point of God's hatred of Esau. It was not a generalized hatred, but a specific elective hatred. That is what the context is about, election. so then, because of his love for Jacob, God gave the effectual call to Jacob, and because of his hatred of Esau, Esau did not receive that elective, all powerful, effectual call. Now there is a point here. To assume that election is based upon foreseen faith, and not in God, then you must deny that the "call" is very ineffectual, weak, and powerless, and goes to the whole world.

Romans 915 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.
Again, right in the same context, this is another strong verse that asserts that the mercy and grace of God in election is based not in something in man (such as foreseen faith), but something in God. The purpose of Paul's statement here concerns election. In election, God shows Mercy not to those he foresees faith in, but rather simply those whom he desires and chooses to show mercy to. Again, election is based in God, not man. To postulate that election is based upon foreseen faith would be very humanistic, and not theocentric.

Romans 916 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.
This of course is a very very strong verse to support my assertion that election is based upon the will of God and not foreseen faith in the will of man. Man is the one who "willeth." The term "willeth" would include the concept of faith. Faith is an act of the will of man. Repentance is an act of the will of man. Verse 16 expressly says that election is not based upon the person making a decision with his will, it is not of the man who "runneth." Again, the context points to God as the one that election is based upon. It is "God that hath mercy."

Romans 918 So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth.
Paul here might sound repetitive that God is the source of election when he repeats the phrase "he hath mercy on whom he will." This is the ultimate statement of Gods free will. In the view of foreseen faith, it reduces Gods free will to electing on the basis of something in man, faith. Of course faith pleases God (see Heb 11:6) and then one man would be more pleasing to God than another man, and then God's free will would be reduced to choosing the best man for salvation. Salvation would then be on the basis of works in election.

The 2nd part of the sentence talks about the none elect. He hardens them. He hardened Esau, but the context specifically speaks of his hardening of Pharaoh. The idea is that Pharaoh never really had a chance. That is why Paul makes a hypothetical complain in verse 19 "Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?"

Romans 921 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?
Here the point is "from the same lump." If election were on the basis of foreseen faith, then this verse would talk about two different lumps, one of faith, and the other not of faith. The fact is, we are no different from the unbeliever.

The bottom line in our difference of opinion is actually the source of faith. I see God as not only the object of faith, but he is the source that faith comes from. John 6:44 says that 44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day. A major reason election is not on the basis of foreseen faith is because none of us have the ability to have faith. Even faith itself comes not from the human heart, but from the divine action of Gods drawing. See the verse. So then, the scripture in no way supports the thesis that election is based in God's foreseen faith. I have many more reasons and texts, but this should be enough to start a scriptural and exegetical conversation.

God is outside the universe. When asked who he was at the burning bush, all he said is "I AM". God just 'is'. This means he is outside of time. That means God sees the end from the beginning. He knows what will come to pass at every moment along the timeline. This also means that if he wants certain things to happen, he can make sure they happen based on the way everyone will act of their own free will. That isn't to say that God makes the choice for us, it's more that he uses our choices to fulfill his will. If he needs to intervene, he does. If someone is going to do something, he will set it up so that they fulfill his will...because he knows what they will choose. He may have a plan for you to fulfill some purpose before you are born...but that doesn't mean that you don't make the choices or that you were elected first. It just means that you will serve God's will with your final choice.

Think of it like two generals in battle. One of them predicts what the other will do and counters it brilliantly in order to win the battle. Did the general decide the outcome of the battle before he entered it? No, he knew what was coming and prepared for it and thus won the battle. It is the same with God.

Here's the issue...and I generally approach this sort of thing logically...the scriptures shouldn't be illogical, right?

I have to comment here. If we stand on logic, I am guessing unbelievers will all unite and agree that much of the scriptures is not logical. We as believers might believe the scriptures are logical, however, sometimes our logic is not scriptural.

If God elects people beforehand, we do not have free will. We are not in control of our choices. This is because if we had free will, and God had chosen us to be elect, we could be the worst of sinners and still be saved. You can't reverse that and say "but you wouldn't" because that's circular logic, and a full presupposition.

So there are two options: God's election: no free will...or Rational choice of man: free will. If you'd like to argue free will with me, I'd be more than happy to...but I believe we have free will, and our salvation is based on whether or not we are led by the Holy Spirit.

If you want to debate free will in a 1 on 1 thread, I am game. How about discussing election in this thread?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Mondar, you have put a lot into two posts yet I still don't see the answer.
As a born again Christian, am I elected or is a special group outside of me elected?
Is there any thing at all one can do to be elected or was there no free will involved?

 

[Chopper]

Nobody seems to understand when I explain God having foreknowledge. It's really not that complicated.

God is outside the universe. When asked who he was at the burning bush, all he said is "I AM". God just 'is'. This means he is outside of time. That means God sees the end from the beginning. He knows what will come to pass at every moment along the timeline. This also means that if he wants certain things to happen, he can make sure they happen based on the way everyone will act of their own free will. That isn't to say that God makes the choice for us, it's more that he uses our choices to fulfill his will. If he needs to intervene, he does. If someone is going to do something, he will set it up so that they fulfill his will...because he knows what they will choose. He may have a plan for you to fulfill some purpose before you are born...but that doesn't mean that you don't make the choices or that you were elected first. It just means that you will serve God's will with your final choice.

Think of it like two generals in battle. One of them predicts what the other will do and counters it brilliantly in order to win the battle. Did the general decide the outcome of the battle before he entered it? No, he knew what was coming and prepared for it and thus won the battle. It is the same with God.

Here's the issue...and I generally approach this sort of thing logically...the scriptures shouldn't be illogical, right?

If God elects people beforehand, we do not have free will. We are not in control of our choices. This is because if we had free will, and God had chosen us to be elect, we could be the worst of sinners and still be saved. You can't reverse that and say "but you wouldn't" because that's circular logic, and a full presupposition.

So there are two options: God's election: no free will...or Rational choice of man: free will. If you'd like to argue free will with me, I'd be more than happy to...but I believe we have free will, and our salvation is based on whether or not we are led by the Holy Spirit.

OK my Brother, you and I are going to stir up a hornets nest! you are afraid of the idea that God chooses a person to be saved before the person was born and had no choice in the matter, but that is the truth! As I have explained before, God has always had a remnant of believers, O.T. and N.T. God chooses those that He wants in that remnant.God cannot fail. I'll repeat that, God cannot fail! That is election. God chooses my birth, He chooses my Salvation, He chooses my purpose, and chooses my death. What you don't grasp is that God chooses the absolute best for our eternal life with Him. I'm glad that I had no "free will" in my Salvation. My life has not been easy, Jesus said it would not be easy. Through all the hardships, I would not change anything regarding His purpose for my life, certainly not my wonderful Salvation.

 

[Sparkey]

Quote: "Here's the issue...and I generally approach this sort of thing logically...the scriptures shouldn't be illogical, right?"

Show me chapter and verse for this please. I'd like to be able to search and prove what you say and I'd also welcome being held accountable for the things I teach in His Name. For example (as an illustration of something that does not follow man's logic) we may consider what Jesus did to cure blindness. Do you remember reading about when he took dirt and made a paste for the blind eyes? That is only one of many examples that seems to defy man's logic.

I'd like to examine where you get the idea. I really don't believe that God is bound by Gene Roddenberry's concept of 'logic' at all. Is it Scriptural? I'll wait for your answer.

~Sparrow

 

[Chopper]

Quote: "Here's the issue...and I generally approach this sort of thing logically...the scriptures shouldn't be illogical, right?"

Show me chapter and verse for this please. I'd like to be able to search and prove what you say and I'd also welcome being held accountable for the things I teach in His Name. For example (as an illustration of something that does not follow man's logic) we may consider what Jesus did to cure blindness. Do you remember when he took dirt and made a paste for the blind eyes? That is only one of many examples that seems to defy man's logic.

I'd like to examine where you get the idea. Is it Scriptural? I'll wait for your answer.

~Sparrow

Mondar in post #67 has done a great job in supplying Scripture for election.

 

[Chopper]

Of course its not complicated and I understand what you are saying completely. It is not a new thought. Westley and many other arminians articulated this thought long ago. It is just not biblical.

Tristan, let me put it up front that unless we discuss scripture, I am not really interested in a conversation. When I talk about scripture, I am referring to an exegetical conversation which discusses specific verses. In my post, I made several quotes of verses, and you did not bother to even refer to those verses but totally ignored the scriptural evidence I quoted. We can continue with the conversation, but if you refuse to discuss scripture, I will probably drop the conversation. Let me return to the scriptures I quoted once again.

Romans 911 for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,
If election were on the basis of foreseen faith, then this verse would be the perfect place to make such a proposition. However, the proposition of election of the basis of foreseen faith is completely absent from what the verse says. In fact the opposite is stated. The verse asserts that the basis for election is according to the "purpose of God." The verse also asserts that election is not of man ("not of works") but of "him that calleth." The word "call" here is not referring to some ineffectual non-powerful, general invitation to anyone to believe. If you look to the context to define the word "call" then it would relate to the elected ones. They are the ones called. So then, the word "call" refers to a powerful, all sufficient, completely effectual act of God. All those called, will come to Christ because they are elected or chosen. That is the "purpose of God."

Romans 913 Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.
Paul is here presenting his evidence that there is an all powerful, completely effectual call, that is the action of God. This "call" went to Jacob, but not to Esau. That is the whole point of God's hatred of Esau. It was not a generalized hatred, but a specific elective hatred. That is what the context is about, election. so then, because of his love for Jacob, God gave the effectual call to Jacob, and because of his hatred of Esau, Esau did not receive that elective, all powerful, effectual call. Now there is a point here. To assume that election is based upon foreseen faith, and not in God, then you must deny that the "call" is very ineffectual, weak, and powerless, and goes to the whole world.

Romans 915 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.
Again, right in the same context, this is another strong verse that asserts that the mercy and grace of God in election is based not in something in man (such as foreseen faith), but something in God. The purpose of Paul's statement here concerns election. In election, God shows Mercy not to those he foresees faith in, but rather simply those whom he desires and chooses to show mercy to. Again, election is based in God, not man. To postulate that election is based upon foreseen faith would be very humanistic, and not theocentric.

Romans 916 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.
This of course is a very very strong verse to support my assertion that election is based upon the will of God and not foreseen faith in the will of man. Man is the one who "willeth." The term "willeth" would include the concept of faith. Faith is an act of the will of man. Repentance is an act of the will of man. Verse 16 expressly says that election is not based upon the person making a decision with his will, it is not of the man who "runneth." Again, the context points to God as the one that election is based upon. It is "God that hath mercy."

Romans 918 So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth.
Paul here might sound repetitive that God is the source of election when he repeats the phrase "he hath mercy on whom he will." This is the ultimate statement of Gods free will. In the view of foreseen faith, it reduces Gods free will to electing on the basis of something in man, faith. Of course faith pleases God (see Heb 11:6) and then one man would be more pleasing to God than another man, and then God's free will would be reduced to choosing the best man for salvation. Salvation would then be on the basis of works in election.

The 2nd part of the sentence talks about the none elect. He hardens them. He hardened Esau, but the context specifically speaks of his hardening of Pharaoh. The idea is that Pharaoh never really had a chance. That is why Paul makes a hypothetical complain in verse 19 "Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?"

Romans 921 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?
Here the point is "from the same lump." If election were on the basis of foreseen faith, then this verse would talk about two different lumps, one of faith, and the other not of faith. The fact is, we are no different from the unbeliever.

The bottom line in our difference of opinion is actually the source of faith. I see God as not only the object of faith, but he is the source that faith comes from. John 6:44 says that 44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day. A major reason election is not on the basis of foreseen faith is because none of us have the ability to have faith. Even faith itself comes not from the human heart, but from the divine action of Gods drawing. See the verse. So then, the scripture in no way supports the thesis that election is based in God's foreseen faith. I have many more reasons and texts, but this should be enough to start a scriptural and exegetical conversation.



I have to comment here. If we stand on logic, I am guessing unbelievers will all unite and agree that much of the scriptures is not logical. We as believers might believe the scriptures are logical, however, sometimes our logic is not scriptural.

If you want to debate free will in a 1 on 1 thread, I am game. How about discussing election in this thread?

Thank you Mondar, I will use your Scriptures as a foundation for election. You saved me the time in looking up those Scriptures.

 

[Deborah13]

Of course its not complicated and I understand what you are saying completely. It is not a new thought. Westley and many other arminians articulated this thought long ago. It is just not biblical.

Tristan, let me put it up front that unless we discuss scripture, I am not really interested in a conversation. When I talk about scripture, I am referring to an exegetical conversation which discusses specific verses. In my post, I made several quotes of verses, and you did not bother to even refer to those verses but totally ignored the scriptural evidence I quoted. We can continue with the conversation, but if you refuse to discuss scripture, I will probably drop the conversation. Let me return to the scriptures I quoted once again.

Romans 911 for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,
If election were on the basis of foreseen faith, then this verse would be the perfect place to make such a proposition. However, the proposition of election of the basis of foreseen faith is completely absent from what the verse says. In fact the opposite is stated. The verse asserts that the basis for election is according to the "purpose of God." The verse also asserts that election is not of man ("not of works") but of "him that calleth." The word "call" here is not referring to some ineffectual non-powerful, general invitation to anyone to believe. If you look to the context to define the word "call" then it would relate to the elected ones. They are the ones called. So then, the word "call" refers to a powerful, all sufficient, completely effectual act of God. All those called, will come to Christ because they are elected or chosen. That is the "purpose of God."

Romans 913 Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.
Paul is here presenting his evidence that there is an all powerful, completely effectual call, that is the action of God. This "call" went to Jacob, but not to Esau. That is the whole point of God's hatred of Esau. It was not a generalized hatred, but a specific elective hatred. That is what the context is about, election. so then, because of his love for Jacob, God gave the effectual call to Jacob, and because of his hatred of Esau, Esau did not receive that elective, all powerful, effectual call. Now there is a point here. To assume that election is based upon foreseen faith, and not in God, then you must deny that the "call" is very ineffectual, weak, and powerless, and goes to the whole world.

Romans 915 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.
Again, right in the same context, this is another strong verse that asserts that the mercy and grace of God in election is based not in something in man (such as foreseen faith), but something in God. The purpose of Paul's statement here concerns election. In election, God shows Mercy not to those he foresees faith in, but rather simply those whom he desires and chooses to show mercy to. Again, election is based in God, not man. To postulate that election is based upon foreseen faith would be very humanistic, and not theocentric.

Romans 916 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.
This of course is a very very strong verse to support my assertion that election is based upon the will of God and not foreseen faith in the will of man. Man is the one who "willeth." The term "willeth" would include the concept of faith. Faith is an act of the will of man. Repentance is an act of the will of man. Verse 16 expressly says that election is not based upon the person making a decision with his will, it is not of the man who "runneth." Again, the context points to God as the one that election is based upon. It is "God that hath mercy."

Romans 918 So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth.
Paul here might sound repetitive that God is the source of election when he repeats the phrase "he hath mercy on whom he will." This is the ultimate statement of Gods free will. In the view of foreseen faith, it reduces Gods free will to electing on the basis of something in man, faith. Of course faith pleases God (see Heb 11:6) and then one man would be more pleasing to God than another man, and then God's free will would be reduced to choosing the best man for salvation. Salvation would then be on the basis of works in election.

The 2nd part of the sentence talks about the none elect. He hardens them. He hardened Esau, but the context specifically speaks of his hardening of Pharaoh. The idea is that Pharaoh never really had a chance. That is why Paul makes a hypothetical complain in verse 19 "Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?"

Romans 921 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?

Here the point is "from the same lump." If election were on the basis of foreseen faith, then this verse would talk about two different lumps, one of faith, and the other not of faith. The fact is, we are no different from the unbeliever.

Hi mondar, I do not see that this verse is saying that all of US are from the same lump of clay. In the context of the scripture, being Esau and Jacob who were of the same lump, being twins. The scripture compares the twins to each other and God's will.
How do you see this as meaning all people?

The bottom line in our difference of opinion is actually the source of faith. I see God as not only the object of faith, but he is the source that faith comes from. John 6:44 says that 44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day. A major reason election is not on the basis of foreseen faith is because none of us have the ability to have faith. Even faith itself comes not from the human heart, but from the divine action of Gods drawing. See the verse. So then, the scripture in no way supports the thesis that election is based in God's foreseen faith. I have many more reasons and texts, but this should be enough to start a scriptural and exegetical conversation.



I have to comment here. If we stand on logic, I am guessing unbelievers will all unite and agree that much of the scriptures is not logical. We as believers might believe the scriptures are logical, however, sometimes our logic is not scriptural.

If you want to debate free will in a 1 on 1 thread, I am game. How about discussing election in this thread?

 

[mondar]

Mondar, you have put a lot into two posts yet I still don't see the answer.
As a born again Christian, am I elected or is a special group outside of me elected?
Is there any thing at all one can do to be elected or was there no free will involved?

allenwynne, I am confused why your saying this.

Nevertheless, no, there is nothing we do to get elected. That is one of the points I was trying to make in Romans 9.

Concerning the term "free will," that is a more difficult subject, and one that I fear will detract from discussing the scriptures concerning election. Nevertheless, it seems to be such a huge issue that I guess I should make some comments. The difficulty is that people use that term in so many different ways. If I might ask you some questions to begin to define the term "free will." Do we have the free will to never ever sin in our whole lives? Do we have the free will to be sinless from birth? Let me again direct the conversation toward scripture.
1 John 110 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
Is it not obvious that we do not have such free will? There are many more scriptures that one could quote to demonstrate that men do not have the free will to remain sinless from birth. One could go to Romans 3 and find a host, but I do not intend to lengthen this issue.

Lets change the definition and make man a little less self-righteous and ask if we have the free will to choose Christ.
John 644 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Here, if you had ability to look at the greek, the word "can" speaks of ability. If I were to expand the discussion and include a discussion of the context, it would be an obvious denial that men, unaided by God, can come up with faith. To be clear, this would deny that men have the free will to come up with faith by themselves.
* Let me note that even classic Arminians would agree that men cannot come up with faith by themselves. This is a doctrine accepted universally by most Christians. In the fall of Adam, men inherited sin nature, and lost the ability to believe. Arminians have a general consensus that this lost ability to believe was restored by God in a general work of Grace. John 6:44 is opposed to this because notice that all those that "the Father that sent me draw him." All that group will be "raised up in the last day." In other words, all who are drawn, go to heaven. To postulate that there is a universal work of Grace in drawing would then be a doctrine called universalism.

Let me change the definition once more. John MacArther once said that "all men have the free will to choose whatever path of sin they desire."
This is a definition in accord with the sin nature of man. It is also in accord with the scripture that states men can "resist the Holy Spirit." One of the key parts of JMac's definition is the last two words "they desire." JMac is speaking of the nature of man (sin nature). With sin nature we desire our rebellion. This does not mean that we cannot choose Christ, but that we will never desire to choose Christ. With this "free will" we can do exactly what we went to do, but we will always want to reject Christ. It is our nature. I have no problem with this definition and would be in full agreement. I see no scriptural problem with this definition of free will. It still leaves sin nature in place, but it also allows for the claim, I can do what I want to do with my free will. Yet behind this statement is the idea that because of your sin nature, you will want rebellion against Christ. Of course this leads back to John 6:44. No man can come to me, unless the power of God draws that man through a powerful, irresistible and effectual call to salvation (commonly referred to as "Irresistible Grace" in tulip.)

Do I believe in "free will?" Well, that depends upon what you mean by the term.

 

[Chopper]

Your words mean more to me than I may at this time say or rightly explain. They are simple words, given in kindness, filled with understanding and compassion. What means this thing you have declared, "Love you Brother," ??

Could it be that the Lord is forming His banner over us? Will there come a time when such things are revealed and the world itself will marvel at the unseen and hidden things that are here now and visible to a select few? I believe. I do. That includes the trust that I have placed in Him for me, for my very life --being caused to work for each brother and sister whom the Lord has and shall call.

Thank you kindly, sir. I salute the love that is found in your heart. That doesn't happen as often as it will. Ours is a love that grows into eternity and I am certainly not one to miss or to pass on that opportunity. Thanks are given this day for that simple utterance, where even strangers who have never met get to know and grow together.

In Christ,
~SparrowHawke (also called Michael)

Thank you so much Michael for those word's. A long time ago, I used to go to a Bible conference put on by Dr. Clarance Didden from Penn. He was much older than I and I was captivated by his love for all the folk who came. He would put his big arm around your shoulder and answer any question with the most compassion I'd ever seen. I believe that the Lord had me see the difference in him and me. Since then, I prayed that Jesus would cause that kind of love in me for others. It took some time, changes in my heart, killing bad thoughts and motives, and over time, flooded my heart for the love that He has for the folk that I come in contact with. I can actually feel the love that He has for you and others. So, I just have to tell you that I love you because I feel it, it is genuine!

 

[Jethro Bodine]

allenwynne, I am confused why your saying this.

Nevertheless, no, there is nothing we do to get elected. That is one of the points I was trying to make in Romans 9.

Concerning the term "free will," that is a more difficult subject, and one that I fear will detract from discussing the scriptures concerning election. Nevertheless, it seems to be such a huge issue that I guess I should make some comments. The difficulty is that people use that term in so many different ways. If I might ask you some questions to begin to define the term "free will." Do we have the free will to never ever sin in our whole lives? Do we have the free will to be sinless from birth? Let me again direct the conversation toward scripture.
1 John 110 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
Is it not obvious that we do not have such free will? There are many more scriptures that one could quote to demonstrate that men do not have the free will to remain sinless from birth. One could go to Romans 3 and find a host, but I do not intend to lengthen this issue.

Lets change the definition and make man a little less self-righteous and ask if we have the free will to choose Christ.
John 644 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Here, if you had ability to look at the greek, the word "can" speaks of ability. If I were to expand the discussion and include a discussion of the context, it would be an obvious denial that men, unaided by God, can come up with faith. To be clear, this would deny that men have the free will to come up with faith by themselves.
* Let me note that even classic Arminians would agree that men cannot come up with faith by themselves. This is a doctrine accepted universally by most Christians. In the fall of Adam, men inherited sin nature, and lost the ability to believe. Arminians have a general consensus that this lost ability to believe was restored by God in a general work of Grace. John 6:44 is opposed to this because notice that all those that "the Father that sent me draw him." All that group will be "raised up in the last day." In other words, all who are drawn, go to heaven. To postulate that there is a universal work of Grace in drawing would then be a doctrine called universalism.

Let me change the definition once more. John MacArther once said that "all men have the free will to choose whatever path of sin they desire."
This is a definition in accord with the sin nature of man. It is also in accord with the scripture that states men can "resist the Holy Spirit." One of the key parts of JMac's definition is the last two words "they desire." JMac is speaking of the nature of man (sin nature). With sin nature we desire our rebellion. This does not mean that we cannot choose Christ, but that we will never desire to choose Christ. With this "free will" we can do exactly what we went to do, but we will always want to reject Christ. It is our nature. I have no problem with this definition and would be in full agreement. I see no scriptural problem with this definition of free will. It still leaves sin nature in place, but it also allows for the claim, I can do what I want to do with my free will. Yet behind this statement is the idea that because of your sin nature, you will want rebellion against Christ. Of course this leads back to John 6:44. No man can come to me, unless the power of God draws that man through a powerful, irresistible and effectual call to salvation (commonly referred to as "Irresistible Grace" in tulip.)

Do I believe in "free will?" Well, that depends upon what you mean by the term.

What you are describing here is the proverbial rat in the rat maze.

The rat thinks he is exercising his complete and total will to go wherever he wants and do whatever he wants. But the maker of the maze has confined the rat's free will to the confines he has established. And until he changes that the rat will only be able to exercise his free will within the confines outlined for him.

This is how I understand how, both, God and man, can exercise their free will at the same time.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

allenwynne, I am confused why your saying this.

Nevertheless, no, there is nothing we do to get elected. That is one of the points I was trying to make in Romans 9.

Concerning the term "free will," that is a more difficult subject, and one that I fear will detract from discussing the scriptures concerning election. Nevertheless, it seems to be such a huge issue that I guess I should make some comments. The difficulty is that people use that term in so many different ways. If I might ask you some questions to begin to define the term "free will." Do we have the free will to never ever sin in our whole lives? Do we have the free will to be sinless from birth? Let me again direct the conversation toward scripture.
1 John 110 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
Is it not obvious that we do not have such free will? There are many more scriptures that one could quote to demonstrate that men do not have the free will to remain sinless from birth. One could go to Romans 3 and find a host, but I do not intend to lengthen this issue.

Lets change the definition and make man a little less self-righteous and ask if we have the free will to choose Christ.
John 644 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Here, if you had ability to look at the greek, the word "can" speaks of ability. If I were to expand the discussion and include a discussion of the context, it would be an obvious denial that men, unaided by God, can come up with faith. To be clear, this would deny that men have the free will to come up with faith by themselves.
* Let me note that even classic Arminians would agree that men cannot come up with faith by themselves. This is a doctrine accepted universally by most Christians. In the fall of Adam, men inherited sin nature, and lost the ability to believe. Arminians have a general consensus that this lost ability to believe was restored by God in a general work of Grace. John 6:44 is opposed to this because notice that all those that "the Father that sent me draw him." All that group will be "raised up in the last day." In other words, all who are drawn, go to heaven. To postulate that there is a universal work of Grace in drawing would then be a doctrine called universalism.

Let me change the definition once more. John MacArther once said that "all men have the free will to choose whatever path of sin they desire."
This is a definition in accord with the sin nature of man. It is also in accord with the scripture that states men can "resist the Holy Spirit." One of the key parts of JMac's definition is the last two words "they desire." JMac is speaking of the nature of man (sin nature). With sin nature we desire our rebellion. This does not mean that we cannot choose Christ, but that we will never desire to choose Christ. With this "free will" we can do exactly what we went to do, but we will always want to reject Christ. It is our nature. I have no problem with this definition and would be in full agreement. I see no scriptural problem with this definition of free will. It still leaves sin nature in place, but it also allows for the claim, I can do what I want to do with my free will. Yet behind this statement is the idea that because of your sin nature, you will want rebellion against Christ. Of course this leads back to John 6:44. No man can come to me, unless the power of God draws that man through a powerful, irresistible and effectual call to salvation (commonly referred to as "Irresistible Grace" in tulip.)

Do I believe in "free will?" Well, that depends upon what you mean by the term.

Hi Mondar, it sounds like you are saying that I had no choice but to get saved, that I was set up by God.
When I cried out to Jesus, it was a set up.
And the guy next to me, he's going to hell and there's nothing he can do about it, so why even bother witnessing to him?

 

[mondar]

Hi Mondar, it sounds like you are saying that I had no choice but to get saved, that I was set up by God.
When I cried out to Jesus, it was a set up.
And the guy next to me, he's going to hell and there's nothing he can do about it, so why even bother witnessing to him?

Witness to all men because God commanded you to do it. That is reason enough.

Nevertheless, how do you know the "guy next to" you is going to hell and there is nothing he can do about it? Do you know who is elect and who is not? I do not make that claim. If God had painted yellow strips on the backs of all the elect that would make evangelism much easier.... I would go around lifting shirt tails before evangelizing. God commanded us to witness to all men. What more do we need?

A better question would be "why does God want us to witness to men who will reject the Gospel?" (Even if we cannot know that a person will reject the gospel to the end of his life). The answer is for the glory of God.

That question is in a way so similar to Romans 9:19.
Romans 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?
Lets name this "guy next to me, he is going to hell and there is nothing he can do about it." Lets name him Pharaoh.
Romans 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth.
What chance did Pharaoh have in Romans 9? Pharaoh was not elect so that God could "show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth." There is the reason God wants some men not to believe. He wants to judge them with his power, and manifest the glory of his name. So in the preceding paragraph, I answered the question "for the glory of God." Then verse 19 raises the question is this fair. That is kind of the response you, allenwynne, are having? Is it fair that God only elects some to salvation?


Romans 9:22 repeats the same reason for evil in the world, the same reason God does not want some to be saved.
Romans 9:22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction:
Notice how the theme of God's wrath is repeated. God does not elect all mankind so that he can manifest the glory of his attribute of justice. He wants to show his wrath. Why does God have us witness to those who will reject the gospel? Because he wants to make the glory of all his attributes known. He shows his love to the elect, and his wrath to the rebels whom he does not choose. I would agree that is an uncomfortable thing to ponder because I am no different then the unbeliever except for the grace of God. But that is his right as the creator, and sovereign God of the universe, to dispose of his universe as he pleases. This is exactly what Paul is saying in verse 21.
Romans 9:21 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?


Romans 9 is not uplifting because we are mere pots in the potters hand. It is very humbling because we did nothing to get to heaven. We same lump of clay as unbelievers and none of it is about us, but its all about what is done by the potters hands.

 

[Chopper]

Witness to all men because God commanded you to do it. That is reason enough.

Nevertheless, how do you know the "guy next to" you is going to hell and there is nothing he can do about it? Do you know who is elect and who is not? I do not make that claim. If God had painted yellow strips on the backs of all the elect that would make evangelism much easier.... I would go around lifting shirt tails before evangelizing. God commanded us to witness to all men. What more do we need?

A better question would be "why does God want us to witness to men who will reject the Gospel?" (Even if we cannot know that a person will reject the gospel to the end of his life). The answer is for the glory of God.

That question is in a way so similar to Romans 9:19.
Romans 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?
Lets name this "guy next to me, he is going to hell and there is nothing he can do about it." Lets name him Pharaoh.
Romans 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth.
What chance did Pharaoh have in Romans 9? Pharaoh was not elect so that God could "show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth." There is the reason God wants some men not to believe. He wants to judge them with his power, and manifest the glory of his name. So in the preceding paragraph, I answered the question "for the glory of God." Then verse 19 raises the question is this fair. That is kind of the response you, allenwynne, are having? Is it fair that God only elects some to salvation?


Romans 9:22 repeats the same reason for evil in the world, the same reason God does not want some to be saved.
Romans 9:22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction:
Notice how the theme of God's wrath is repeated. God does not elect all mankind so that he can manifest the glory of his attribute of justice. He wants to show his wrath. Why does God have us witness to those who will reject the gospel? Because he wants to make the glory of all his attributes known. He shows his love to the elect, and his wrath to the rebels whom he does not choose. I would agree that is an uncomfortable thing to ponder because I am no different then the unbeliever except for the grace of God. But that is his right as the creator, and sovereign God of the universe, to dispose of his universe as he pleases. This is exactly what Paul is saying in verse 21.
Romans 9:21 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?


Romans 9 is not uplifting because we are mere pots in the potters hand. It is very humbling because we did nothing to get to heaven. We same lump of clay as unbelievers and none of it is about us, but its all about what is done by the potters hands.

What a great Scriptural response mondar! I find that it almost impossible for most believers to grasp the idea that God did not choose everyone to be a part of the "elect".. I see two groups of believers. One group is called "the elect". The other group comes to Salvation through, what I call a "general call of the Gospel".
There are verses like, Hebrews 2:1 "we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it." and Hebrews 3:6 "but Christ is faithful over God's house as a son. And we are his house if indeed we hold fast our confidence." and Hebrews 3:14 "if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end."

So these two groups, Elect Christians, and General Call Christians make up Christ's Church today. I know this statement is controverisal. Ultra Calvinists don't like it, and the Arminians don't like it. Well, This is what I have believed for a long time and there are verses for both positions. On one hand God says that He chooses before the foundation of the world (elect) and He is not willing that any perish (general call) Now the elect cannot loose their Salvation because God cannot fail in anything that He speaks or works. On the other hand, the general call Christians CAN loose their Salvation if they don't continue in their walk. The verses in Hebrews proves that.

In my opinion, this is the closest theology that I have ever heard, it comes to me by revelation. I have never heard anyone else teach what I believe.

 

[Deborah13]

allenwynne, I am confused why your saying this.

Nevertheless, no, there is nothing we do to get elected. That is one of the points I was trying to make in Romans 9.

Concerning the term "free will," that is a more difficult subject, and one that I fear will detract from discussing the scriptures concerning election. Nevertheless, it seems to be such a huge issue that I guess I should make some comments. The difficulty is that people use that term in so many different ways. If I might ask you some questions to begin to define the term "free will." Do we have the free will to never ever sin in our whole lives? Do we have the free will to be sinless from birth? Let me again direct the conversation toward scripture.
1 John 110 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
Is it not obvious that we do not have such free will? There are many more scriptures that one could quote to demonstrate that men do not have the free will to remain sinless from birth. One could go to Romans 3 and find a host, but I do not intend to lengthen this issue.

Lets change the definition and make man a little less self-righteous and ask if we have the free will to choose Christ.
John 644 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Here, if you had ability to look at the greek, the word "can" speaks of ability. If I were to expand the discussion and include a discussion of the context, it would be an obvious denial that men, unaided by God, can come up with faith. To be clear, this would deny that men have the free will to come up with faith by themselves.
* Let me note that even classic Arminians would agree that men cannot come up with faith by themselves. This is a doctrine accepted universally by most Christians. In the fall of Adam, men inherited sin nature, and lost the ability to believe. Arminians have a general consensus that this lost ability to believe was restored by God in a general work of Grace. John 6:44 is opposed to this because notice that all those that "the Father that sent me draw him." All that group will be "raised up in the last day." In other words, all who are drawn, go to heaven. To postulate that there is a universal work of Grace in drawing would then be a doctrine called universalism.

Let me change the definition once more. John MacArther once said that "all men have the free will to choose whatever path of sin they desire."
This is a definition in accord with the sin nature of man. It is also in accord with the scripture that states men can "resist the Holy Spirit." One of the key parts of JMac's definition is the last two words "they desire." JMac is speaking of the nature of man (sin nature). With sin nature we desire our rebellion. This does not mean that we cannot choose Christ, but that we will never desire to choose Christ. With this "free will" we can do exactly what we went to do, but we will always want to reject Christ. It is our nature. I have no problem with this definition and would be in full agreement. I see no scriptural problem with this definition of free will. It still leaves sin nature in place, but it also allows for the claim, I can do what I want to do with my free will. Yet behind this statement is the idea that because of your sin nature, you will want rebellion against Christ.

Of course this leads back to John 6:44. No man can come to me, unless the power of God draws that man through a powerful, irresistible and effectual call to salvation (commonly referred to as "Irresistible Grace" in tulip.)

Do I believe in "free will?" Well, that depends upon what you mean by the term.

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

Joh 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. NASB

This is what I believe this verse says.
Anyone who comes to Jesus, can't come without the Father drawing them.
Those that come, Jesus will raise them up on the last day.

I do not see it saying that,
All those the Father draws, Will come.

Jesus also said,
Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. NASB

The only way I have so far been able to reconcile the two scriptures is, that before Jesus is lifted up the Father is doing the drawing, but after the cross, Jesus, He will do the drawing to Himself.

I have some thoughts on why this would be so, but I don't have the scriptures found yet. And I'm not particularly sure of my understanding. Things like the Kingdom being in Jesus' hands right now?