God's Election

[Heidi]

Unfortunately, I've found that most people don't know the bible well at all. Nevertheless they come to forums to get their names in print and speak out of their imaginations, then claim that's what God says. So I want to make clear God's election once and for all. This is not open to debate since it's strictly biblical. The only people who will argue with it are those who don't know all the scriptures.

Many people believe that God is drawing everyone. Not so. Romans 3:11, "There is no one righteous, not even one. There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God."

So how do we come to God? There is then only one way; God's election as Romans 9:11-25 explains. But many people don't like that because they don't think it's fair. What they think is fair is that MAN rule the universe and decide who goes to heaven and hell. So they deny God's sovereign choice and make up their own stories. But denying God's sovereign choice is claiming that man is saved by his good works! If man did good works by his own free will, then he wouldn't need saving! So not only is that impossible, it's unbiblical.

God doesn't need to save those who are righteous enough to choose God from their own free will because they're already righteous! But as the bible explains, those people don't exist. So since no one is righteous enough to choose God, then it is God who determines whom he will choose out of the world to be His people. And He has chosen Israel, like it or not. If God chose Jacob after the twins were born, then salvation would be by works,Jacob's good and Esau's bad, not by God's election, grace and mercy. But then Jacob wouldn't have needed salvation if he was already righteous. So the bible says the opposite. God's choice isn't based on anybody's works because none of us is righteous. It's thus based only on God's sovereign choice that he made BEFORE the creation of the world. None of us deserves salvation. So God even choosing one person is merciful.

Jesus approached the disciples, they did not approach him. God chose the prophets before they were even born. They did not choose him. God chose Paul who was persecuting Christians. He did not choose God.

But that's what happens when people don't read the whole bible. They look to their imaginations for the truth instead of God's infallible word. Then they adopt opinions that are based on what itching ears want to hear. The belief that God chooses everyone is not only not biblical, it's a works-based false teaching based on human pride; "we chose God, you didn't because you're not as good as we are." So God's election is the only fair way so that no one can boast.

But the whole key is that since only God knows his elect, then salvation is open to anyone who wants it. That reconciles ALL of scripture together and again, is the only way for God to open up salvation to the whole world yet still retain his sovereignty and keep man from boasting. It's thus the only perfect plan.

So if you don't understand the bible, then instead of trying to change the bible to fit your interpretation, you need to change your interpretation to fit the bible. It's that simple.

 

[Aero_Hudson]

If I understand what you are saying, you are claiming that only God's elect will make it to heaven and he chooses himself? I can buy that. How do you think he chooses? I can tell you how from the same book that you quote. Romans 3

21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Here's another if you like...Romans 10.

1Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. 4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.5Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them."[a] 6But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'[c]" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,"[d] that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."[e] 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentileâ€â€the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

In other words...those that believe in Christ their Savior will be saved and become God's "elect". Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[Heidi]

Put them together with the verses I quoted instead of making them contradict each other and you will have no problem. ;) Only those whom God is drawing will have the desire to seek God because since no one is righteous on his own, only the Holy Spirit can draw someone to God. But again, since only God knows who his elect are; then no one can say that God is not drawing him. That makes salvation open to anyone who wants it and at the same time reconciles all scripture together.

 

[Drew]

If God chose Jacob after the twins were born, then salvation would be by works,Jacob's good and Esau's bad, not by God's election, grace and mercy.

But the Jacob and Esau account is not even about the matter of salvation.

In Romans 9, the eternal status of Jacob and Esau is nowhere on Paul's mind. The following text does not even address the issue of eternal destinies of Jacob or Esau. Paul tells us what they are "elected to" - that one will serve the other:

Yet, 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." 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.

The word election here means "choice". And what is the choice? Well what does Paul say? It is God's choice that the nation of Edom (Esau) will be dominated by the nation of Israel. How do we know this? Paul tells us. He says that Rebekah was told the purpose of God's choice. And he quotes from Genesis:

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

And history shows that this came to pass - the Israelites did dominate the Edomites. And Paul knew this, of course.

Imagine Paul sitting there with his scribe, having just dictated "in order that God's purpose in election might stand". Where does this statement leave the reader? Obviously, it leaves the reader asking "Well, what is that purpose? What is God "choosing" or "selecting" Jacob and Esau for, exactly?"

So Paul answers this question: They were chosen / selected / elected to a state where "the older will serve the younger". Eternal destiny is nowhere in sight.

If Paul is addressing selection or election to eternal life or eternal loss in relation to Jacob and Esau, you have to believe that, after raising the topic of God’s purpose in election, Paul has suffered a sudden bout of amnesia and makes an entirely unannounced and immediate transition to a different subject altogether - the issue of something else that God selected these two for. That is, one serving the other.

What kind of a writer would do that ? First, state that God has one purpose in selection (election) for two people, and then spell out the details of an entirely different election?

 

[Heidi]

Paul tells us what they are "elected to" - that one will serve the other:

Wrong again. This is a perfect example of omitting scripture to suit one's itching ears. You omitted: "in order that God's purpose in election might stand, not by works, but by Him who calls."

So read on after that verse to see what Paul is talking about and it's not Jacob and Esau! that was merely an example of God's election. It's "God hardens whom he wants to harden and has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy.

Then read on after that to see that Paul continues talking about God's election, choosing some for common purposes and the for noble use.

But again, that's what happens when people don't like what God says; they omit, add or subtract to verses and twist the basic meaning into something totally different than what it says. Again, it isn't even subtle. So it's not a valid argument to claim that God doesn't elect.

 

[Drew]

Paul tells us what they are "elected to" - that one will serve the other:

Wrong again. This is a perfect example of omitting scripture to suit one's itching ears. You omitted: "in order that God's purpose in election might stand, not by works, but by Him who calls."

I am not wrong - it is you who are reading something into the text that is not there - and while you are at it, you over-rule Paul - he tells us what the material is about, and it is not the matter of eternal fates.

"Election" means choice - it does not have the more specific meaning of "choice unto eternal destiny". You choose to read that in, even though Paul tells us that the choice is about something else.

So read on after that verse to see what Paul is talking about and it's not Jacob and Esau! that was merely an example of God's election. It's "God hardens whom he wants to harden and has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy.

Again, you simply assume that mercy and hardening is in respect to eternal life. But that is not what Paul says. Pharaoh was not hardened unto eternal loss, but to resist the exodus.

At this point of the Romans 9 argument, Paul is merely giving examples of God's sovereign choice - but, and this is important, none of these examples are about the specific matter of God choosing to send someone to heaven or to hell.

 

[Heidi]

Paul tells us what they are "elected to" - that one will serve the other:

Wrong again. This is a perfect example of omitting scripture to suit one's itching ears. You omitted: "in order that God's purpose in election might stand, not by works, but by Him who calls."

I am not wrong - it is you who are reading something into the text that is not there - and while you are at it, you over-rule Paul - he tells us what the material is about, and it is not the matter of eternal fates.

"Election" means choice - it does not have the more specific meaning of "choice unto eternal destiny". You choose to read that in, even though Paul tells us that the choice is about something else.

So read on after that verse to see what Paul is talking about and it's not Jacob and Esau! that was merely an example of God's election. It's "God hardens whom he wants to harden and has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy.

Again, you simply assume that mercy and hardening is in respect to eternal life. But that is not what Paul says. Pharaoh was not hardened unto eternal loss, but to resist the exodus.

At this point of the Romans 9 argument, Paul is merely giving examples of God's sovereign choice - but, and this is important, none of these examples are about the specific matter of God choosing to send someone to heaven or to hell.

Whose choice? The title of chapter 9 tells us; GOD SOVEREIGN CHOICE.

So you can omit every other word in that chapter except the short sentence about Jacob and Esau if you like, but it can't take away any other words that God said. They're plain as day to those of us who can read. Sorry. ;)

but it's obvious that you don't like the fact that God is in control; you'd rather be in control. Sorry friend, I guess you're up a creek without a paddle because only God is omnipotent and omniscient and what He says, goes. And nothing you can do or say, or no amount of words you omit can change that.

 

[ofthetruth]

Drew,

Do you believe that God creates people for hell?

 

[Drew]

Whose choice? The title of chapter 9 tells us; GOD SOVEREIGN CHOICE.

Yes, but Paul is clear in the case of Esau, Jacob, and Pharoah - the choice is not about eternal destiny.

So you can omit every other word in that passage except the short sentence about Jacob and esau if you like, but it can't take away any other words that God said. They're plain s day to those of us who can read. Sorry. ;)

No. You have been shown what the election is about. If you choose to disagree with Paul, that is your right. I'll go with Paul on this one.

1. Esau and Jacob - election is about one serving the other - that is what Paul says.
2. Pharoah - election is about resisting the exodus - that is what Paul says.

On point number 2:

Given this statement from God;

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."

Which of the following hypotheses about what Pharoah has been elected to makes more sense in light of the above:

1. Pharoah has been elected to eternal loss
2. Pharoah has been elected to resist the liberation of the Jews

Clearly, number 2. Sending Pharoah to hell in no way pubically displays the power of God. But the exodus was a public event, still recognized today as an example of the display of God's liberating power.

And what text is Paul quoting here. It is this text:

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Get up early in the morning, confront Pharaoh and say to him, 'This is what the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, says: Let my people go, so that they may worship me, 14 or this time I will send the full force of my plagues against you and against your officials and your people, so you may know that there is no one like me in all the earth. 15 For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the earth. 16 But I have raised you up [a] for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. 17 You still set yourself against my people and will not let them go.

How much more clear can Paul be? He is begging the reader to draw the obvious conclusion - Pharoah's "election" is not in relation to his eternal destiny, it is in relation to his resistance to the release of the Jews.

 

[ofthetruth]

Drew,

Are you saying that God doesn't create people for hell?

 

[Heidi]

es, but Paul is clear in the case of Esau, Jacob, and Pharoah - the choice is not about eternal destiny.

Wrong again. Esau and his descendants are no more going to heaven then Ishmael and his descendants are. Do you even know what God's covenant is and with whom he made it? :o Obviously not. Do you know why the bible is about the Jews and no other nation? :o Obviously not. The whole bible tells you but I'll quote this verse:

Psalm 149:19-20, "He has revealed his word to Jacob; his laws and decrees to Israel. He has done this for no other nation." Israel are God's chosen people as the bible says all over the place.

So you are so far off the mark, you have no clue who God is, or even who Israel is since you've omitted everything in chapter 9 but part of verse 11, whom he chose and what his plan for humanity is. "You did not choose me. I chose you." the bible is about what God does for people, not about what humans can do for themselves. the latter is secular humanism.

so i have no desire to listen to your false gospel and lack of understanding. it does nothing but divide.

 

[Drew]

Wrong again. Esau and his descendants are no more going to heaven then Ishmael and his descendants are.

You, of course, have zero Biblical evidence to support this assertion.

Do you even know what God's covenant is and with whom he made it? :o Obviously not.

Well, I certainly know how to read without super-imposing my view onto the text. God made a covenant with the nation of Israel.

Do you know why the bible is about the Jews and no other nation? :o Obviously not.

This is almost a national pastime on this board - the people who cannot respond to arguments resort to name-calling.

" [/u][/b] Israel are God's chosen people as the bible says all over the place.

I have never denied this, directly or indirectly.

So you are so far off the mark, you have no clue who God is, or even who Israel is since you've omitted everything in chapter 9 but part of verse 11, whom he chose and what his plan for humanity is.

You have made no case at all that I am mistaken - you just say that I am. I, on the other hand, have shown precisely why you are incorrect in respect to your take on the examples of Esau, Jacob, and Pharoah.

"You did not choose me. I chose you." the bible is about what God does for people, not about what humans can do for themselves. the latter is secular humanism.

I agree, but that does not change the fact that, in Romans 9, the examples of Jacob, Esau, and Pharoah are not examples of election to an eternal destiny.

so i have no desire to listen to your false gospel and lack of understanding. it does nothing but divide.

Argumentative and evasive. Same as always with you....

 

[Drew]

Drew,

Are you saying that God doesn't create people for hell?

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that, in Romans 9, and specifically in the examples of Jacob, Esau, and Pharoah, the "choice" that God makes is not a choice about an eternal destiny.

And in doing so, I am simply taking Paul at his word.

 

[Drew]

Paul has also said that he "hated" Esau and loved Jacob. Does this give us license to draw the further conclusion, over and above the "Edom serving Israel", that God was also pre-destining Esau to hell and Jacob to heaven?

Again, no. Look at what Paul is quoting from in verse 13:

An oracle: The word of the LORD to Israel through Malachi.
2 "I have loved you," says the LORD.
"But you ask, 'How have you loved us?'
"Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" the LORD says. "Yet I have loved Jacob, 3 but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals."
4 Edom may say, "Though we have been crushed, we will rebuild the ruins."
But this is what the LORD Almighty says: "They may build, but I will demolish. They will be called the Wicked Land, a people always under the wrath of the LORD. 5 You will see it with your own eyes and say, 'Great is the LORD -even beyond the borders of Israel!'

A careful reading of this text shows that it in no way justifies reading "election to heaven" (for Jacob) and "election to hell" (for Esau).

Malachi is talking about the real world and how God works in history. Consistent with all we have seen thus far in respect to the Esau-Jacob matter - from Paul and from the author of Genesis - Malachi is talking about this present world - the cursing of the land of Edom.

If the issue were election to heaven or to hell, why does Malachi say:

You will see it with your own eyes and say, 'Great is the LORD -even beyond the borders of Israel

Could people be eyewitnesses to Esau going to hell and Jacob to heaven? Of course not.

Could people be eyewitnesses to Israel dominating Edom? Of course.

 

[jasoncran]

Wrong again. Esau and his descendants are no more going to heaven then Ishmael and his descendants are.

You, of course, have zero Biblical evidence to support this assertion.

Do you even know what God's covenant is and with whom he made it? :o Obviously not.

Well, I certainly know how to read without super-imposing my view onto the text. God made a covenant with the nation of Israel.

Do you know why the bible is about the Jews and no other nation? :o Obviously not.

This is almost a national pastime on this board - the people who cannot respond to arguments resort to name-calling.

" [/u][/b] Israel are God's chosen people as the bible says all over the place.

I have never denied this, directly or indirectly.

So you are so far off the mark, you have no clue who God is, or even who Israel is since you've omitted everything in chapter 9 but part of verse 11, whom he chose and what his plan for humanity is.

You have made no case at all that I am mistaken - you just say that I am. I, on the other hand, have shown precisely why you are incorrect in respect to your take on the examples of Esau, Jacob, and Pharoah.

"You did not choose me. I chose you." the bible is about what God does for people, not about what humans can do for themselves. the latter is secular humanism.

I agree, but that does not change the fact that, in Romans 9, the examples of Jacob, Esau, and Pharoah are not examples of election to an eternal destiny.

so i have no desire to listen to your false gospel and lack of understanding. it does nothing but divide.

Argumentative and evasive. Same as always with you....

did heidi say that all arabs are condemned because of the blood line whatever happened to whomsover will come?

jason

 

[ofthetruth]

Drew,

"the purpose of God according to election might stand" (Romans 9:11)

What was God's purpose? What did God choose to do apart from ANYTHING that Esau would do (Romans 9:11)? God chose to send Esau and his descendents to hell,

"the people against whom the Lord will have indignation forever." (Malachi 1:4)

Sure God chose to make "The older serve the younger", but he nonetheless also chose to send Esau to hell. It was God's sovereign choice.

 

[Drew]

did heidi say that all arabs are condemned because of the blood line whatever happened to whomsover will come?

I believe that she did:

Wrong again. Esau and his descendants are no more going to heaven then Ishmael and his descendants are

 

[Heidi]

Yup. But Esau didn't know that God didn't choose him, so he only followed his desires which made him without excuse. Again, since only God knows whom His elect are, then no one can say that God is not choosing him. So he has no excuse for following the desires of the flesh. It's the only plan that works. :yes

I've spent much time witnessing to atheists telling them they're going to hell and they could care less. So hell is indeed fair and just because people have been warned. ;)

 

[Drew]

Drew,

"the purpose of God according to election might stand" (Romans 9:11)

What was Gods purpose? What did God choose to do apart from ANYTHING that Esau would do (Romans 9:11)? God chose to send Esau and his descendents to hell,

Paul never says that God chose to send Esau to hell - you will find no such statement in Romans 9. Paul tells us what the choice was about - it was that Esau would serve Jacob. Please tell me - how do you transform that into a choice about Esau and his descendents going to hell.

I trust you realize that you will be in very thin company of you believe that a specific "race" of people have all been condemned to hell. This seems to be what you are saying.

Sure God chose to make "The older serve the younger", but he nonetheless also chose to send Esau to hell. It was God's sovereign choice.

How do you know this? Please be specific. How do you know that, in addition to making "the older serve the younger", God also decided to send Esau to hell.

Where does Paul say this? - just tell us the verse please.

 

[Heidi]

Drew,

"the purpose of God according to election might stand" (Romans 9:11)

What was Gods purpose? What did God choose to do apart from ANYTHING that Esau would do (Romans 9:11)? God chose to send Esau and his descendents to hell,

Paul never says that God chose to send Esau to hell - you will find no such statement in Romans 9. Paul tells us what the choice was about - it was that Esau would serve Jacob. Please tell me - how do you transform that into a choice about Esau and his descendents going to hell.

I trust you realize that you will be in very thin company of you believe that a specific "race" of people have all been condemned to hell. This seems to be what you are saying.

Sure God chose to make "The older serve the younger", but he nonetheless also chose to send Esau to hell. It was God's sovereign choice.

How do you know this? Please be specific. How do you know that, in addition to making "the older serve the younger", God also decided to send Esau to hell.

Where does Paul say this? - just tell us the verse please.

Sorry friend, but you have to put all scripture together. Romans 9:11 isn't the only verse in the bible. Good grief.

Again, read the whole bible to see who Israel is; it's JACOB. God renamed Jacob Israel. He did not rename Esau Israel. do you know why? or not? :gah do you know why the bible is about Jacob's descendants, not Esau's? Or not? Have you even read the OT? :o