Biblical Election and Predestination

[JayR]

Paul begins talking about how he wants Isreal to be saved. He then immediately talks about how salvation, which is the context, is by election. He then goes on to add that election is determined by God's mercy. He then goes on to say that God hardens those who He destroys, and He doesn't do it for the sake of destroying them, He does it to make His wrath and power known.

 

[JayR]

Even if this is talking about Isreal, it still applies to the rest of the world. True Isreal is saved in the same way Christians are, and the damned from the nation of Isreal are damned in the same way unbelievers are. ALL saved people are saved by grace, they were elected, and it was solely by God's mercy. All the damned are damned because God has hardened them, and He did so to make His wrath and power known. This text may be talking about Isreal, but it is also absolutely talking about predestination.

 

[Drew]

You didn't answer my question, you underlined the word For.

Paul answers it for you - he gives us the example of Pharoah to clarify what it means to not "receive mercy". You seem to simply assume that the issue here is Pharoah's salvation. I suggest that the issue is not being denied mercy in this respect, but rather being "used" by God to set up the great deliverance of the Jews from Israel. How does sending Pharoah to hell demonstrate God's power anymore than sending John Doe to hell?

Paul picks Pharoah for a reason - he is used by God for a very real purpose in the present world - not the next, namely to resist the freeing of the Jews.

 

[JayR]

How does sending Pharoah to hell demonstrate God's power anymore than sending John Doe to hell?

I never said that it did. You aren't understanding me. Paul is using that example of Pharoah, not as the main point, but to tie together and to parallel what He does with the "vessels fitted to destruction." Can't you see that? They are obviously tied together. God hardened Pharoah. Why? To make His wrath and His power known. Delivering Isreal isn't even mentioned here. You are tossing that in. He is talking about God's name being glorified by making His power manifest in the plagues and destruction of Pharoah, that was the power and the wrath that was made known through hardening Him. Paul, then ties this exact same thing together when He talks about the vessels fitted to destruction. Why does God harden these? For the exact same reason He hardened Pharoah, to make His wrath and His power known.

Paul isn't necessarily talking about Pharoah's salvation in particular, but as a principle he is explaining How God hardens whom He will, and he does it to make His wrath and power known.

 

[Drew]

The idea that Paul chooses the example of Pharoah as an example of pre-destining someone to hell is really implausible, given that we know how Pharaoh was used in order that God might truthfully proclaim:

I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth

Pharoah was used to resist Moses' efforts to "let the people go". God then demonstrated his power by delivering the Jews via the Red Sea crossing. Now if that is not a demonstration of power, I do not know what is. As Scripture shows, the Jews continually (later) appealed for God to "deliver them just like He delivered them from Egypt" - the rescue from Egypt was front and center in the Jewish mind.

It is the exodus from Egypt that is God's "demontration of His power" in relation to Pharoah, not sending poor old Pharoah to hell when he died.

 

[JayR]

Did you miss my last post or just completely misunderstand it?


Paul isn't necessarily talking about Pharoah's salvation in particular, but as a principle he is explaining How God hardens whom He will, and he does it to make His wrath and power known.

 

[Drew]

Did you miss my last post or just completely misunderstand it?


Paul isn't necessarily talking about Pharoah's salvation in particular, but as a principle he is explaining How God hardens whom He will, and he does it to make His wrath and power known.

I have already addressed it. There is no doubt how God demonstrated his power - by rescuing the Jews from Egypt. Of course, this is not explicitly mentioned, but the 1st century Jew (Paul) would have no doubt - when you talk about Pharoah, the great act of God was not the plagues, it was the miraculous deliverance of the Jews from their slavery.

Paul is making a very specific point - and it is not about where you go when you die. It is about God hardening Pharoah so that God can act in fidelity with his covenantal promise of Genesis 15 to deliver the Jews from Egypt. It is clear what Pharoah has been hardened for - and it is not for eternal loss. So the potter account which immediately follows should not be seen as about predestination of individuals to heaven or to hell, but rather as a metaphor for how God uses nations and even individuals like Pharaoh to perform specific acts of redemption in real world in which we live - not in the world to come.

Israel is like Pharoah - she too has been hardened so that that the Gentiles can come in. Paul repeatedly refers to this in Romans 11.

 

[JayR]

I think you're just wrong, and I'm not pursuaded in the least by what you are saying. I know you probably feel the same way, though.

Paul talks about how he desires Isreal to be what? To be saved. He then moves on to say that not all of Isreal was true Isreal, so that people won't think God's word was false. He then goes on to explain how that God saved true Isreal by election. He then goes on to vindicate God by saying that He has mercy on whom He has mercy and compassion on whom He has compassion. That is a principal. Not only is salvation by election like verse 11 teaches, but 15 teaches that the election has to do with God's mercy and compassion, not him that wills, not him that runs, but God that shows mercy, and saves the elect. Then it goes on to say that God hardened pharoah to make a demonstration of His power. God hardens whom He will. That's a principal. God hardens whom He will, including Pharoah, as an example, and God also hardens the damned. We are presented with two extremes here, God has mercy on the elect and saves them and God hardens others and they aren't saved. Paul vindicates God in His right to do what He wants with His own creation, and He even gives reasons for why God chose to prepare some as vessels of destruction. That's how it reads. The context is salvation and election and predestination.

 

[mutzrein]

I have a different perspective on election. And that is, that since God is my Father He has known me since the foundations of the earth. What does this mean?

It means that I have not chosen to be Gods son, but He has chosen me as his son. In the same way that I have chosen to have children, so He has chosen to have me as His son. It is not of my choosing but rather as the scripture says, “children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.â€Â

But then again, with our faulty concept of being born again, is it any wonder that we cannot fathom what God's grace is about.

And isn’t this the grace of God that he should give life to whomsoever He chooses. Now the assumption has always been that man is born as an ‘eternal’ being which of course leads to the conclusion that those who are not predestined to heaven, are predestined to hell.

But what if man was not born with an ‘eternal’ spirit. What if he was as Adam was – a living being - shut off from eternal life until the time of Christ. What if there were two creations – the man of the flesh and the man of the spirit. What if man was actually dead in his trespasses and sins. What if those who were not born again – who did not receive the spirit of God - actually died or perished rather than have eternal life? What if John 3:16 and many other scriptures that speak of perishing actually mean exactly what they say?

Then I believe we would begin to understand a measure of the grace of a righteous & loving God. Not that he predestines man to heaven or hell, but that He bestows the gift of life on those he has chosen as his children. These, by virtue of the gift of eternal life have been made sons and daughters of the living God and therefore have already entered into His kingdom. Then, and only then, is man able to choose what he will do with the gift of Life that God has given him.

 

[Drew]

Paul begins talking about how he wants Isreal to be saved. He then immediately talks about how salvation, which is the context, is by election.

The Romans text works better, I suggest with the following version of your statement:

Paul begins talking about how he wants Isreal to be saved. He then immediately talks about how the election of Israel to be hardened enables all peoples - Jews and Gentiles to be saved.

I get the impression that you think when "election" is being talked about, it must be "election unto salvation or damnation". You cannot simply assume this - after all, I think it is clear that Pharoah was not "elected" to damnation, he was "elected" (hardened) to resist Moses' efforts to liberate the Jews.

 

[Drew]

Paul talks about how he desires Isreal to be what? To be saved.

I agree - Paul wishes Israel to be saved.

He then moves on to say that not all of Isreal was true Isreal, so that people won't think God's word was false.

I agree

He then goes on to explain how that God saved true Isreal by election.

Here we get into a different aspect of this discussion. I think that God "predestined" or "elected" the existence of a category of people who will be saved - those who place faith in Jesus. But, I submit, and will argue (though not in this post) - that he does not elect the specific members of that category. So yes, God "elects" true Israel, but he does not "elect" its individual members.

He then goes on to vindicate God by saying that He has mercy on whom He has mercy and compassion on whom He has compassion. That is a principal. Not only is salvation by election like verse 11 teaches, but 15 teaches that the election has to do with God's mercy and compassion, not him that wills, not him that runs, but God that shows mercy, and saves the elect.

The only way that Paul is talking about salvation here is if he wildly changes topics without letting us know. And I do not think that Paul is that kind of writer. You claim that Paul is talking about election in verse 11. If so why does the block of text leading up to verse 11 so clearly address God's right to define who is in "true Israel" and who isn't. You read into the text if you go assume that this is a matter of "selection unto salvation" - and the evidence is against you as we will see shortly:

For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. 8In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring. 9For this was how the promise was stated: "At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son."[c]

10Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or badâ€â€in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who callsâ€â€she was told, "The older will serve the younger."

The "election" in question is not the election of Jacob to salvation and Esau to loss, it is the "election" of each them to different nations - and one nation will serve the other. Issues of individual salvation are nowhere in sight. Paul here is referring to this from Genesis 25:

The LORD said to her,
"Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you will be separated;
one people will be stronger than the other,
and the older will serve the younger.

This has nothing to do with life after death. It has to do with God electing nations to playing roles in the here and now.

 

[Drew]

If one sits down and reads Romans 9 through 11 in one sitting, one will see that it is all about Israel. Paul, in earlier chapters of Romans, has been "handing over the covenant blessings" from the nation of Israel to this mysterious "new" group - Jews and Gentiles who have the faith of Abraham.

So, naturally enough, this raises the question: "What is God up to with national Israel if they have not turned out to be the true covenant people after all?" And this is what Paul addresses in 9 to 11. Please, read the entire 3 chapters - it is focused on national Israel and God's use of her in redemptive history. Paul is not talking about specific individuals and their ultimate fates, he is talking about Israel and how and why she has been hardened - her hardening, like Pharoah's has set up a great redemptive action on the part of God.

Pharoah was hardened to set up the deliverance from Egypt.

Israel was hardened to allow for the salvation of the entire world:

For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world,...

If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in....

 

[JayR]

Here we get into a different aspect of this discussion. I think that God "predestined" or "elected" the existence of a category of people who will be saved - those who place faith in Jesus. But, I submit, and will argue (though not in this post) - that he does not elect the specific members of that category. So yes, God "elects" true Israel, but he does not "elect" its individual members.

How is it that God elects true Israel without also electing it's individual members which is exactly the principle that is given in verses 11-13? Which is exactly the principle that is given when God says that He hardened Pharoah for a purpose, who is an individual?

God elects individuals my friends. "All that the father gives to me will come to me, I will in no wise cast him out." "No man can come to me except the Father draw him."

Election is precisely done by God's own selection of individuals. Are you suggesting that He put names in a hat and drew His desired number? Absolutely not. He chooses His elect based on His own will and mercy and compassion, as is the principle in verse 15,16, and 18, and He gives them to the Son to be saved.

But it doesn't stop there. He also elects those who aren't going to be saved in not giving them to His Son. Once again it isn't a mass drawing from the hat of God, God in His omniscience, providence, and mercy, chooses His elect according to His will and His mercy, and He hardens the rest against Him as individuals, which is the principle in verse 18. No man can resist His hardening, as is the principle in 19-21. God can do what He pleases in election and predestination and be absolutely righteous and just in doing so.

 

[Drew]

How is it that God elects true Israel without also electing it's individual members which is exactly the principle that is given in verses 11-13?

Well, of course I do not agree with your position on Romans 11-13 but I have nothing to add to what I have already written. Here is a respost of something that I recently posted on the very question that you raise:

I suggest that the following conceptualization of the "elect" may, repeat may, be Scripturally defensible: The "elect" refers to a category of persons that has been pre-destined or "elected" to exist, yet the actual specific people who end up in that category are not "pre-destined". On this view, the term "the elect" refers to a category of persons, destined for ultimate justification, with specific "pre-determined" membership criteria. But the actual members are not pre-determined; they "enter" elect category as the result of a "free will" decision to accept the gift of grace.

This conceptualization of the "elect" preserves the critical notion of God's fore-ordainment, without which one would indeed distort the concept of "election" beyond recognition. It is for this reason that I think the view that "the elect are simply those who accept grace" is not a proper characterization of what it means to be in the elect. How, though, does God "pre-destine" or "elect" without "naming names?" How can it legtimately be said that God is pre-destining an "elect" if He does not pre-destine actual people into that group?

Well, for one thing, its seems intutitively clear to me that if God decides to pre-destine the existence of a caterory of persons who meet certain criteria (in this case, simply faith in Jesus), He is very much in the business of "fore-ordainment" - He is carving out a path to justification in His universe and fully pre-determining the "roadmap" that goes along with it - this is indeed all fore-ordained / pre-determined. I hope to fill this idea out later, but for the present, I do think one doesn't need to have God "naming names" in order to legitimately say that he is creating an "elect".

If someone builds a prestigious university by hiring the best professors, developing a great curriculum, and setting demanding admission standards, that person, I would suggest, is in a very real sense "electing" an intellectual elite into existence by providing society with access to this university. And this is done without pre-determining who will end up going there.

But I think an even stronger argument in support of my view is based on how Paul uses the word "elect" in Romans 11:

What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8as it is written:
"God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes so that they could not see
and ears so that they could not hear,
to this very day."[d] 9And David says:
"May their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
10May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
and their backs be bent forever."

Paul is contrasting the "elect" with national Israel. And by context (earlier stuff in Romans), Paul considers the "elect" to be consituted by both Jews and Gentiles. He describes the hardening of Israel and how they failed to obtain what the "elect" did.

Were all individuals in national Israel hardened so that they did not attain what the elect did? Of course not. Paul himself is both a Jew and a member of the "elect". This is relevant precisely because Paul cannot be talking Israel construed as a set of specific individuals being hardened because that would imply that he himself was hardened to loss, and he obviously was not. He must be talking about Israel at the "group" or "nation" level, not at the "Israel equals these 1, 111, 232 people" level.

I think this legitimates the argument that he conceives of the elect in a similar "non-individual-specific level". More later, perhaps

 

[Drew]

God elects individuals my friends. "All that the father gives to me will come to me, I will in no wise cast him out." "No man can come to me except the Father draw him."

I am aware of an argument that I believe refutes the standard "pre-destination" position on the John 6 material. It is not a brief argument and I am not prepared to make it in this post. I hope to deal with John 6 and the issue of election in a thread unto its own, perhaps.

No man can resist His hardening, as is the principle in 19-21. God can do what He pleases in election and predestination and be absolutely righteous and just in doing so.

You again seem to simply assume that if God is pre-destining He must be pre-destining to salvation or to loss. The reader will note that verses 19-21 do not say this. I continue to maintain that God is also very much in the business of "electing" persons and nations to perform actions in this very world. And in fact, if we read the text of Romans 9 in context, we see that this is the kind of election that Paul is talking about, even when he refers to individuals.

When he talks about Esau and Jacob, he tells us explicitly what they are being elected to - the issue is not election to heaven or to hell but rather:

11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or badâ€â€in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who callsâ€â€she was told, "The older will serve the younger."

I am not sure how Paul could be more clear. He is talking about election all right, but not election to heaven or to hell. As stated earlier, Paul here refers to Genesis 25:

The LORD said to her,
"Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you will be separated;
one people will be stronger than the other,
and the older will serve the younger."

Where is election to heaven and hell here? The election in question is an election that the "older will serve the younger", and of course Paul re-affirms this when he quotes this very passage.

I have addressed Pharoah's case earlier and I do not want to simply repeat myself (although I have done so already).

 

[JayR]

But the actual members are not pre-determined; they "enter" elect category as the result of a "free will" decision to accept the gift of grace.

This is why your entire post is wrong, and your entire conception of election. Human beings don't have a "free" will. We have a will, but it surely isn't free, and it never has been. We were born into slavery to sin. We are in bondage to it from birth. A free creature could choose to do righteousness if he pleased, but not men. Men are so totally in bondage to sin and evil, that even if they attempt by their own will to do righteousness, they fail so miserably it becomes nothing more than filthy rags in God's sight. Men sin, because men are sinners. They sin, and they do nothing but sin, and they couldn't possibly not do sin no matter how hard they tried, because they are not free. When God regenerates us and puts His Spirit within us, we become slaves of God and of obedience to righteousness. We aren't set free, we switch masters. God becomes our Master, and our wills are submitted to Him, rather than to the devil. Our will is in the hands of God, and He can cause us, and does cause us to do whatever He pleases. He can do this directly by the power of His Spirit, and He can also do it indirectly by changing our hearts and our desires according to His will. He can even allow us to fall into temptation by His providential hand for our greater good, as Christians, because , "God works all things for the good of those who love Him, who are called according to His purpose."

Man is a fallen, radically depraved, morally corrupt, sin-loving, God-hating creature. That type of creature is incapable of freely choosing to follow God, and Scripture proves the point. What is the Gospel response? "Repent, and believe the gospel." But repentance is God given my friend, and so is faith, and God gives these things according to His election, which is of individuals, and His mercy and compassion.

 

[Drew]

Hello JayR:

As you might expect, I do not agree that your most recent post reflects the Scriptural position. I am not sure if you want to try to defend your position on the free will issue with Scripture. I am happy to go down that road if you wish to. The following is a repost of something I wrote recently that is relevant to the "free will" issue. It is not directly an appeal to the scriptures although I do think it does appeal indirectly to this text:

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, ...

I am not unaware that this text describes the world before the fall.

It is also helpful to bear in mind the implications of "creature-hood". We are creatures, created in the image of God. If our actions are fully determined, directly or even indirectly, by an external agent (God), it becomes unclear if it can be legitimately said of us that we retain creature-hood. We seem to belong more in the category of objects, like the rock whose "actions" are determined by external forces. Or, it becomes unclear as to how we would be nothing more than merely extensions of God himself.

Some people do not like this kind of argument, critiquing it as "human wisdom". I think otherwise - we need to be fair to the relevant concepts. It is indeed legitimate to ask: "What characteristics are conferred on a creature?", "What is entailed in creaturehood?". I suggest that a degree of free agency is required in order for any being to legitimately be denoted as a "creature". We have to honour the relevant conceptual boundaries. I politely suggest that some who argue a "Calvinist" position on election do not properly use the concept of "accountability" - they mount an argument that one can be accountable without freedom of contrary choice. That is not a fair argument as, I would claim, the very concept of "accountability" has "freedom of contrary choice" bundled into it.

Besides, we know from the experience of everyday life that even fallen people do not always sin - we do observe good moral acts from time to time even in the unredeemed. I suspect that you will argue that such deeds are only good in appearance, and that sin underlies them all. Well, I guess I will have to cast myself on the experience of the readers: "Do you honestly believe that all actions of the non-believers you know are manifestations of sin?" If you can answer "yes" to that question, then I obviously have to assume that you really believe it.

 

[JayR]

I don't mean to be offensive, Drew, but I am really not interested in your opinions regarding biblical doctrine and truth if you don't have Scripture to back it up.

If you want to talk about free will, then do this:

Give me one verse that explicitly teaches that men have a free will, and then I'll give you several that explicitly teach that they don't.

 

[GraceBwithU]

God elects individuals my friends. "All that the father gives to me will come to me, I will in no wise cast him out." "No man can come to me except the Father draw him."

One of the single biggest mistakes the person that interprets the scripture you have referenced the way you have ... is that they ignore to whom Jesus is speaking and when. :wink:

You fail to understand even why Jesus came and what He was sent for. He was here to die on the cross...so all would be saved that believed.

John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
KJV

Please note here that He loved the "world", not just Paul and others. "whosoever believeth" means anyone!

He chose His diciples by name...He chose them....He did not chose you or me...we choose Him over the lies of Satan which all of those that believe in 100% predestined elect ignore. Satan is real.

Lk 8:12 – Here the ones by the way side heard, but the devil came along and took the word out of their hearts.
12 Those by the way side are they that HEAR; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should BELIEVE and be SAVED .
KJV
:smt067 :smt074

 

[Drew]

I don't mean to be offensive, Drew, but I am really not interested in your opinions regarding biblical doctrine and truth if you don't have Scripture to back it up.

Whose posts have contained more Scripture, yours or mine? Let the reader look at the evidence. I have repeatedly appealed to the scriptures extensively and you know that the reader will know this.

If you want to talk about free will, then do this:

Give me one verse that explicitly teaches that men have a free will, and then I'll give you several that explicitly teach that they don't.

Exodus 17:9:

Moses said to Joshua, "Choose some of our men and go out to fight the Amalekites. Tomorrow I will stand on top of the hill with the staff of God in my hands."

Deuteronomy 30:19
This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live