A THIRD OPTION TO THE ELECTION DEBATE

[Joyce]

I have been looking at the subjects that are discussed on this board and was impressed with everything I read. But what stood out was the number of times the issue of election came up. As we all know, this has been a problem for centuries. Does God elect some or does everyone have free will. May I suggest a third alternative? I believe that God does indeed elect some, but not PRIMARLY for salvation, but to fulfill the purpose God had for that one to fulfill.

I believe that like many other subjects, the controvercy often leaves out the OT. If we began the search for the answer in the OT instead of in the middle of God's Word, i.e. the NT, we might be able to know how first century believers would understand election. For example, when our Lord said that He chose the twelve, would they have been surprised, or would they have had an understanding from the Old Testament of God choosing certain ones? Let us look at this question from the Old Testament point of view. Below are some examples from the Old Testament of God's choosing some for His own purposes. Note, there is no suggestion that God chose these PRIMARILY to inherit resurrection life, but only to fulfill His own purposes.

Deut. 7:6, "....The Lord your God has chosen you (Israel) out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be His people, His treasured possession". It is clear that not all of Israel were believers. We know from this that God did not choose Israel to be saved, but for service.

Deut. 18:5, "The Lord your God has chosen them (Levites-vs.1) and their descendants out of all your tribes to stand and minister in the Lord's Name always." Again, we know that not all Levites were believers. And again, we learn from this that God's choosing was not unto salvation, but unto service.

David was also chosen by God to be king over Israel (I Chron. 28:4). Of course, David was a believer and saved unto resurrection life. But that was not the purpose of his being chosen. He was chosen to be king over Israel.

Abram was chosen to be the father of many nations (Neh. 9:7). Was Abraham a believer? Of course he was. But the point of this verse is that he was not chosen to be a believer, he was chosen to be the father of many nations.

It is clear that in Old Testament times God did indeed choose a nation, a tribe, and individuals to fulfill His purposes. This would be understood by those to whom the New Testament writers addressed themselves. Let us now look to see if we find a difference in regard to God's choosing certain individuals to fulfill His purposes in the New Testament.

Luke 6:13 and John 6:70, ".....He chose twelve...". It is important to bear in mind that God did not choose the twelve disciples to be saved. Indeed, not all were saved. Judas was not a believer and therefore, was never saved. ("For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not..." John 6:64.) The twelve (including Judas) were chosen to fulfill God's plans and purposes.

I am suggesting that God does choose some in order to fulfill His purposes. It is clear that some of those purposes do indeed require that a person be a believer. In those cases, Paul for example, that person was chosen to fulfill God's purpose, but that person was also chosen to be saved because that is what God required in order for His will to be done.

Just a few thoughts.

In Christ,

Joyce

 

[Drew]

I am suggesting that God does choose some in order to fulfill His purposes. It is clear that some of those purposes do indeed require that a person be a believer. In those cases, Paul for example, that person was chosen to fulfill God's purpose, but that person was also chosen to be saved because that is what God required in order for His will to be done.

I agree with the content of your post. When we start to narrow things down to the point where we think everything is about "going to heaven when you die", one really misses the important fact that God is interested in what is going on in this present world and is indeed "electing" people and nations to fulfill his purposes.

The fact that so many insist that the Jacob and Esau account - or the Moses and Pharaoh account - of Romans 9 is about election of individuals to heaven or hell shows that we ignore the bigger picture and have narrowed God's redemptive plan to simply be about "getting us into heaven or hell".

In both of the referenced cases from Romans 9, God's "election" clearly has nothing to do with eternal fates, but have to deal with God working his purposes out in this present world. These two accounts might be leading to an argument about the ultimate destinies of indivduals, but we should not "skip ahead" of Paul's argument.

 

[Joyce]

Hi Drew,

Well put. Thank you.

In Christ,

Joyce

 

[Pogo]

Hi, Joyce -

I, too, pretty much agree with your perspective.

But, where you posted...

I am suggesting that God does choose some in order to fulfill His purposes. It is clear that some of those purposes do indeed require that a person be a believer. In those cases, Paul for example, that person was chosen to fulfill God's purpose, but that person was also chosen to be saved because that is what God required in order for His will to be done.

...I have my concerns

The mission that God assigned to Paul was one that only a believer could perform. But, Paul wasn't a believer when he was elected to the position. God took a militant non-believer, turned him into a believer, actually, servant and prisoner, were some of the labels Paul himself used, and then assigned him a task.

Plus, I don't agree that Paul was chosen to be saved. If he was then even Paul wasn't aware of it. Please see below...

Titus 1:1-2 KJV
(1) Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;
(2) In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

Here Paul tells us that he himself is still in hope of eternal life.

In Christ,

Pogo

 

[Joyce]

Hi Pogo,

Thank you for your comments. However I am not sure that I understand what your concerns are. You wrote, "Paul wasn't a believer when he was elected to the position".

Yes, that is, of course, very true. I believe Paul was elected to fulfill certain purposes of God. In order to do that Paul had to be a believer. God determined that Paul was the best man for the job so God called Paul, an unbeliever to be a believer so that he could fulfill those purposes.

So I am not suggesting that God calls those who are already believers to fulfill His purposes. I am suggesting that God calls some unbelievers to be believers so that that person may fulfill God's purposes.

I'm not sure that I understood your point. If I have not, I hope you will clarify it for me. Thank you.

And neither am I sure that I understood your next point where you wrote, " I don't agree that Paul was chosen to be saved. If he was then even Paul wasn't aware of it".

In one sense no one is saved until resurrection. We read, for example in I Cor. 15:17-18, "and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished"(contrast that Jn. 3:16, "shall not perish"-same word in the Greek). But in another sense, believers are already saved. Consider for example I Cor. 1:18, "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved, it is the power of God".

Again, I may have misunderstood your point and if I have, I would appreciate a clarification.

Thank you again for your kind response.

In Christ,

Joyce

 

[Pogo]

Joyce -

I regret that my post wasn't as clear as I intended.

Compared to Calvin's teachings on election and predestination, I agree with your 'third option' perspective.

Regarding 'believers', I was just pointing out that a person, such as Paul was, doesn't have to be a believer to become one of God's elected, though, as far as I am aware, all certainly were believers before they fulfilled the role required of them.

You stated that some are elected "...not PRIMARILY for salvation...".

I agree, partially, with this view, however, I see it that NONE are EVER elected TO salvation!

I believe that the elect are ONLY elected to 'play roles' and 'perform tasks'.

Their election definitely gives them an advantage in finding salvation, but like everyone else it is not guaranteed.

It is my understanding that you said that in addition to Paul being elected to 'play-a-role' or 'perform-a-task,' he was also 'elected to' or 'guaranteed' salvation!

If this is what you were saying, then, again, as above, I don't agree!

Mainly, because Paul, himself, did NOT seem to share this understanding as Titus 1:1-2 indicates, plus Paul confesses to us in 1 Timothy 1:15 that he sins as much, if not more, that anyone.

In Christ,

Pogo

 

[Joyce]

Hi Pogo,

I don't know what your thinking is about the word "hope". You seem to believe that "hope" is something that one does when he can not be sure of attaining that for which he hopes. In short you seem to be suggesting that salvation is a "hope" rather than a guaranteed gift from God to those who are believers. Am I to assume from this that you believe that a believer can lose his or her salvation? Am I understanding you correctly?

Assuming for the moment that I am understanding you correctly, let me address Titus 1:1-2. "Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness: in hope of eternal life, which God that cannot lie, promised before the world began". So eternal life is a promise made by God. To whom was it made? To believers. Paul was a believer and as such was promised eternal life. So I don't think Paul was only hoping for eternal life in the sense that he wasn't sure. I believe he was sure because God, who cannot lie, promised it to him.

You wrote, "It is my understanding that you said that in addition to Paul being elected to 'play-a-role' or 'perform-a-task,' he was also 'elected to' or 'guaranteed' salvation! Yes, that's pretty much what I did say. Paul is an excellent example of the reason for my saying that. I think we agree that God chose Paul to perform a certain "task". But that task (which I hope we agree included preaching the gospel of salvation) could not be performed by Paul unless he was saved. So even though Paul was not chosen primarily unto salvation, in order to fulfill the purpose for which he was called , Paul had to be saved.

You wrote that you did not agree because "Paul, himself, did NOT seem to share this understanding as Titus 1:1-2 indicates". It seems we have a problem with the word "hope", so I will wait for your explanation.

And you wrote, "plus Paul confesses to us in 1 Timothy 1:15 that he sins as much, if not more, that anyone.[/i]"

You seem to be saying that Paul was not sure of the promise of God of salvation to believers because Paul continued to sin. Are you saying that anyone who continues to sin may lose their salvation?

In Christ,

Joyce

 

[Pogo]

Joyce -

You posted...

You seem to believe that "hope" is something that one does when he can not be sure of attaining that for which he hopes.

Correct!

In short you seem to be suggesting that salvation is a "hope" rather than a guaranteed gift from God to those who are believers.

Not so fast, there, Joyce!

I see salvation as a guaranteed gift from God to everyone who is found worthy.

I realize that that there are some, perhaps you are one, who feels that, since they have made the leap of faith, and became a Christian...that they are now entitled...and definitely will be found worthy on Judgment Day.

I don’t see things that way.

I see Christians as being divided into two groups, 1) obedient Christians, and 2) disobedient Christians.

And…depending on their daily actions...sinning/repenting...pass 'back-and-forth' from one group to the other, many times during the course of a day.

Am I to assume from this that you believe that a believer can lose his or her salvation? Am I understanding you correctly?

Yes you are! And, yes you are!

In my view Paul is not questioning God’s resolve to honor His pledge.

Paul is just “hoping†that he will be found worthy of salvation on Judgment Day!

Are you saying that anyone who continues to sin may lose their salvation?

Most definitely!

I realize that there are few here that agree with my views. These issues are also being discussed, in greater detail, in other threads on this site, but for now, I would be grateful for your interpretations on the followings passages…

2 Peter 1:9 KJV
(9) But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.

Romans 3:25 KJV
(25) Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

BTW - Maybe it would be better to pursue this OSAS dialoge in one of the other already existing threads.

In Christ,

Pogo

 

[Gabe]

^ great posts, Pogo.

 

[Joyce]

Hi Pogo and Gabriel,

As you said, Pogo, the subject of OSAS is being discussed, and has been discussed, on several other threads. I do not think that I have much that is significant to add to those discussions so I will respectlfully decline your suggestion to particiapte.

In Christ,

Joyce

 

[dadof10]

I am suggesting that God does choose some in order to fulfill His purposes. It is clear that some of those purposes do indeed require that a person be a believer. In those cases, Paul for example, that person was chosen to fulfill God's purpose, but that person was also chosen to be saved because that is what God required in order for His will to be done.

Joyce,

Well thought out post. I have a question. You have made it clear that, in your opinion, once chosen (and saved) he/she cannot lose that salvation, but do you think that the chosen person can decline at the time of the calling? Is the calling irresistable?

God Bless, Mark

 

[Joyce]

Hi Mark,

Thank you for your kind message. You asked a great question, "do you think that the chosen person can decline at the time of the calling? Is the calling irresistable?".

The answer is, in opinion, found in another question, i.e. is God a sovereign God? That is to say, if God wants a person to fulfill His purpose, can man resist His will? I believe that question is answered in Rom. 9:19-20, "......For who hath resisted His will? Nay, but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus".

In other words, in my opinion, the one God chooses to fulfill His purposes can not resist.

I think it would be helpful if we are clear about the Greek word translated "will" in Rom. 9:19. That Greek word is "boulema" and as the usage will show, it means "resolve" or "determination". It is used in only two verses: Acts 27:43, "But the centurion, willing to save Paul, kept them from their purpose (to throw Paul overboard), and commanded that they which could swim, should cast themselves first into the sea, and get to land".

The second occurrence is in Rom. 9:19, "....for who hath resisted His will?".

The verb form "boulomai" is also helpful in our understanding of the noun as it is used in contrast with "thelo" which means "desire". We read in Matt. 1:19, "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing (thelo, desiring) to make her a publick example, was minded (boulomai, determined) to put her away privily". This shows the difference between "desire" and "determine".

In other words, if God desired to have Paul, for example, serve Him, I suppose Paul could have resisted. But we read in Rom. 9:19 that no one can resist God's will, i.e. determination and resolve. I believe that it was God's determination as opposed to His desire to have Paul serve Him, but I suppose like almost everything else in the Bible that is up to debate.

Thank you again for your message.

In Christ,

Joyce

 

[dadof10]

In other words, in my opinion, the one God chooses to fulfill His purposes can not resist.

Hi Joyce,

I don't understand how this is a "third option" to the Calvinist doctrine of Election. All Christians will admit there are "the elect", the only difference (that I can see) is that Calvinist's teach this election is irresistable, and non-Calvinist's teach we can resist.

It seems like all you are doing is substituting "God's purpose" for "salvation" within the same old Calvinist doctrine.

God Bless, Mark

 

[Joyce]

Hi Mark,

As I understand the "same old Calvinist doctrine" it says that some are elected to salvation and some are not. That means that those who are not elected have no chance of accepting God's gift of eternal salvation. The reationale for this thinking is that God is sovereign. God is sovereign, but my view allows everyone the free choice of accepting God's gift while at the same time it does not weaken the sovereignty of God.

I might add that I did not come to this study of election with the view of finding a third option. I came to it with a view of finding the truth of God's Word. I think the main difference is that my study begins with the OT, whereas most do not. And I think therein lies the problem.

Another view is that God elects unto salvation those who He knows will accpet Him. I am going to start another thread "Whom He Did Foreknow" that deals with that thinking.

In Christ,

Joyce

 

[dadof10]

As I understand the "same old Calvinist doctrine" it says that some are elected to salvation and some are not. That means that those who are not elected have no chance of accepting God's gift of eternal salvation. The reationale for this thinking is that God is sovereign.

This is also the way I understand it, although it is quite simplified.

God is sovereign, but my view allows everyone the free choice of accepting God's gift while at the same time it does not weaken the sovereignty of God.

Maybe I'm missing something. How can accepting/rejecting the gift be a free choice and at the same time be irresistable?

 

[Joyce]

Hi Mark,

You wrote, "How can accepting/rejecting the gift be a free choice and at the same time be irresistable?" Sorry I was not clear in my message. Let me try again.

In Calvinism no one has a choice, if they are chosen to be saved they will be saved, and if they are not chosen they will not be saved. It is 100% the soveriegnty of God, no choice either way for man.

What I am suggesting is that everyone has a choice except those for whom God has a specific task. What percentage that might be, I have no idea. But considering the relatively low number of Christians that in my experience seem anxious to serve God, my guess is a relatively low number.

Hope this clarifies things.

In Christ,

Joyce

 

[dadof10]

Hi Mark,

You wrote, "How can accepting/rejecting the gift be a free choice and at the same time be irresistable?" Sorry I was not clear in my message. Let me try again.

In Calvinism no one has a choice, if they are chosen to be saved they will be saved, and if they are not chosen they will not be saved. It is 100% the soveriegnty of God, no choice either way for man.

What I am suggesting is that everyone has a choice except those for whom God has a specific task. What percentage that might be, I have no idea. But considering the relatively low number of Christians that in my experience seem anxious to serve God, my guess is a relatively low number.

Hope this clarifies things.

In Christ,

Joyce

Huummmm... So salvation is a choice, but fulfilling our purpose is not. That begs some questions.

What if, as you said in pervious posts, salvation is part of the "task". Is that salvation irresistible also, or only the task?

Are we judged by how well we complete this task? If so, is the way the task is completed also irresistible? Suppose our "purpose" is to create a music ministry at our church. Does God "force" (for lack of a better word) us to complete the task the way He wants it done?

Isn't the greatest purpose for all people perfect happiness in Heaven (salvation)? Doesn't God want all to be saved? How can this not be God's will, and by extention, our purpose?

God Bless, Mark

 

[Joyce]

Hi Mark,

You asked several questions that I will answer the best I can.

You wrote, "What if, as you said in pervious posts, salvation is part of the "task". Is that salvation irresistible also, or only the task?"

Let's take Paul as an example of one who was chosen/elected to do God's work. Paul could not have performed those tasks for which he was chosen unless he was saved. So in his case we must conclude that Paul's salvation was "irresistible". But Israel was also chosen. Obviously not all Israel were believers and not all Israel were saved. So I would have to say that it would depend on the task as to whether the salvation was irresistable.

And you wrote, "Are we judged by how well we complete this task? If so, is the way the task is completed also irresistible? Suppose our "purpose" is to create a music ministry at our church. Does God "force" (for lack of a better word) us to complete the task the way He wants it done?"

Given that Israel was elected and King Saul was elected and both were an abject failure, I would say that God did not "force" them to complete their tasks the way He would have wanted. As for how one is judged, I would say that we are judged by our faithfulness to Christ (see II Tim. 2:11-13). How much of that is how one completes his task, I couldn't say.

And you wrote, "Isn't the greatest purpose for all people perfect happiness in Heaven (salvation)?" No, I don't think so. I believe that greatest purpose is our fellowship with God. Of course, salvation is a required first step to that fellowship, but it is not the end purpose.

Then you wrote, "Doesn't God want all to be saved? How can this not be God's will, and by extention, our purpose?".

You seem to be suggesting that to believe as I do means that one is not concerned with the salvation of others. I do not believe that is a logical conclusion because one has nothing to do with the other. But I will answer your question more directly.

As I wrote in an earlier message, God desires all to be saved. There is a difference between what God wills and what He desires.

God draws all men to Himself (see Jn. 12:32). It is up to each person (except those who are called) to either answer that drawing or not. Our responsibilites as believers are to be used of God to share the message of salvation. But ultimately, I do not believe that you will find any scriptural evidence that an unbeliever's non-acceptance of God is our responsibilty, it is theirs.

These are all good question, and I certainly do not pretend that I know all the answers. But I believe that the Word of God tells us the truths He has for us. Some of your question are not, as far as i know answered in His Word. That being the case it is only the opinion of man and should not be used in coming to a conclusion as to what God teaches in His word. In other words, a decision as to doctrine should be made on the basis of what we believe His Word says, not on the reasoning of man.

In Christ,

Joyce