The "Elect"

[ivdavid]

Calvinism goes further than Arminianism in that he doesn't just allow or permit things to happen, but ordained that it should come to pass.

I still am unable to see the difference. In the case of an omnipotent omniscient sovereign Being, isn't allowing/permitting something the same as ordaining it to occur? For what can take Him by surprise or what can thwart His works or whom is He obligated to or dependent upon, if not to be consistently true to His own nature in realizing His own purposes?

Let's take a specific example and clarify certain points -

Scripture quite clearly says that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked and that He desires all, each one, to be saved. Observation shows us that some will perish and that not all will be saved. How am I supposed to describe God's perspective concerning this - am I to say God permitted the inevitable perishing of a few(or many) so as to attain unto a greater purpose? How is it different from saying God ordained this inevitable perishing in order to attain unto a greater purpose?

Also, let's agree upon the objective here - it is not to grapple with the fact that God does ordain/permit the perishing of men. As I've stated earlier, if God's primary desire or purpose was to prevent the perishing of any, He could have ensured that by not even beginning to create man in the first place. The fact that God still has gone ahead with His current plan as it is shows that He has factored in the death of the wicked unto His final purposes. The objective here is to specifically show how God goes about dealing with this plan of His - does He grant all men equal opportunity and is He sincere in His offer of such opportunity - is God truly Just and Loving. That is what we're discussing in the context of the OP regarding election - I hope we're agreed upon this before continuing.

 

[ivdavid]

Redeemed humanity will be like Christ, and Adam was not created to be Holy like God. I don't think there will be any potential for another fall, due to the nature of what mankind will be.

Exactly. Now why didn't God create Adam in the spirit nature operating with the Mind of Christ instead of creating him in the flesh nature operating it-Self?

I too believe only beings with His nature can remain incorruptible - but why then was Adam created with a nature distinct from God's? Whatever the reason/purpose is for such a choice in creation, the very fact that this nature was distinct from God's necessitates an eventual fall, given such a nature's corruptibility. Do I now say this fall was permitted or do I say that it was ordained by God - for it could have been avoided by His altering His choices and yet He didn't do so, in order to fulfill His own purposes.

What is your view on the divine decrees? This is different with certain Calvinists, but I imagine you hold to the Infralapsarian view?

I had to do an online search on just that term - what a tongue twister, couldn't they have come up with easier terms to denote the same? Anyway, my understanding still stems from the above point - if the fall is necessitated, then the question arises as to its degree. Is man rendered totally depraved by the fall or not? Whether man is totally depraved or not is not purposed by God - it is decided by the extent of corruption by sin. The fall and the corruption of sin are still necessary outcomes of God deciding to create man in the flesh. If man is not totally depraved, an arminian or like position can explain the process of redemption - but if man is indeed totally depraved, then it necessitates the calvinist position.

Anyway, regarding election, what I believe is this -
- God first purposes to gather a people for Himself in Christ, who know Him as they are known by Him.
- God then has to choose between creating man in corruptible flesh or in like nature as Himself.
- God purposes to create man in the flesh in order to reveal all knowledge concerning the futility of the flesh(self-nature) against the joyful surrendering to the governing will, counsel and power of God.
- Given the simple fact that any nature apart from His is corruptible, God knows man will eventually enter corruption.
- At this point itself, even before God contemplates or foresees the extent of corruption, He, out of His love for the world, prepares Christ to be the means of redemption for all mankind through the law of faith ( If any man believes in Christ, he will be justified unto salvation).
- And at the same time, reserves for Himself a remnant through unconditional election whom He vows to preserve by His enduring mercy unto His final kingdom. Note, I do not see this as actively condemning the rest at all - for God is yet to foresee what each man will choose to do concerning the offer of salvation - but rather, I see this as a fail-safe measure to ensure the fulfilling of God's primary purpose of gathering a people for Himself in Christ. This election guards against the scenario where none choose to obey the law of faith.
- Now, God begins to see all events in every man's life. He strives with each man, elect and non-elect alike. He is grieved by all their rebellion, He holds out His arms outstretched - waiting that any might come. He prepares the Law of works in order to lead them to Christ - He follows that with the universal preaching of the Gospel of Christ to all alike. And both the elect and the non-elect reject all that God commands, coaxes and pleading. I believe this is God's equal and genuine love to all mankind.
- When all alike are now deserving of wrath, God passes over the remnant elect by His enduring mercy in order to fulfill His initial purpose.

I don't know what sarianism this is - it's simply my worldview. The only probable point of contention I expect is on why God wills to have mercy only on a remnant and not upon all - I'd respond saying that is the nature of God revealed in Exo 33:19, but more specifically, it would necessarily have to be so in order to uphold the purposes of the preceding law of faith.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

It may or may not be, but it doesn't negate what is being said as true.

You believe that the text is true even if it is an interpolation?

 

[Stan1953]

You believe that the text is true even if it is an interpolation?

It's is not proven it is, which is why it is so often inserted in translation with a not, and yes the content is consistent with the rest of the synoptic gospels.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I still am unable to see the difference. In the case of an omnipotent omniscient sovereign Being, isn't allowing/permitting something the same as ordaining it to occur? For what can take Him by surprise or what can thwart His works or whom is He obligated to or dependent upon, if not to be consistently true to His own nature in realizing His own purposes?

Unfortunately for us, God is beyond our ability to understand, and I personally think it is folly to try to deduce everything about him from logic and reasoning.

and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind— Jeremiah 19:5 (ESV)

When the children were offered as sacrifices, God responded with a two fold denial.

1) He did not command it, which in turn, we would say he did not ordain such a thing to happen.
2) It didn't even come into his mind.

Texts like these are often explained away, but by looking at the context, it seems clear that these would be valid reasoning for God's not being involved with these child sacrifices.

Let's take a specific example and clarify certain points -

Scripture quite clearly says that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked and that He desires all, each one, to be saved. Observation shows us that some will perish and that not all will be saved. How am I supposed to describe God's perspective concerning this - am I to say God permitted the inevitable perishing of a few(or many) so as to attain unto a greater purpose? How is it different from saying God ordained this inevitable perishing in order to attain unto a greater purpose?

This is rather easy to reconcile. In God's statement to Israel, where he says he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, he asks them to then turn back to him. God responds to people conditional on their choices, sometimes God speaks about a Calamity he has planned for Israel or another nation, and then says that if they repent then he will not follow through with that Calamity he had planned.

It is most important that we are faithful to Scripture, over a theological or philosophical system.

Also, let's agree upon the objective here - it is not to grapple with the fact that God does ordain/permit the perishing of men. As I've stated earlier, if God's primary desire or purpose was to prevent the perishing of any, He could have ensured that by not even beginning to create man in the first place. The fact that God still has gone ahead with His current plan as it is shows that He has factored in the death of the wicked unto His final purposes. The objective here is to specifically show how God goes about dealing with this plan of His - does He grant all men equal opportunity and is He sincere in His offer of such opportunity - is God truly Just and Loving. That is what we're discussing in the context of the OP regarding election - I hope we're agreed upon this before continuing.

From what I understand of the NT, God has planned to work in and through humanity to redeem humanity. He went about this first through the incarnation, and through that setup his church, which now has the ministry of reconciliation. Our responsibility is now to preach the gospel far and wide, till all the nations of the earth have heard it. Does this mean that there are certain individuals who never hear the gospel? Surely, this is true. Is this then a bad plan on the part of God? Well, you could say the same thing about the Old Testament. Why did God choose the smallest and most seemingly insignificant nation in the world to use for his purposes? Wouldn't a more efficient means of bringing about the restoration of creation be to just zap everything as being fixed, and end it all right now?

Hence the issue I believe with trying to rationally understand all of God's purposes, he uses the foolish things and the seemingly insignificant things to accomplish his purposes. We of course are not alone in our mission, but have been given the Holy Spirit to empower us. God is Just, because mercy is not owed, yet it is extended to everywhere the gospel is preached. God is caring, because he longs for the salvation and restoration of the whole world. God will punish and destroy evil once and for all, but now he is patiently enduring it in order that more may be saved.

 

[ivdavid]

it seems clear that these would be valid reasoning for God's not being involved with these child sacrifices.

Let us lay this point to rest - for I believe exactly the same. Our apparent differences have been over semantics - I held "ordained" to amount to God "deciding the occurrence of a certain event, either to His pleasure or by permission" while I guess you hold "ordained" to amount to "a direct order from God commanding such an event must occur". In the case of these child sacrifices, my reasoning as I've stated before, is that God could've prevented that from happening since He can and since He foreknows the wicked acts of man, and yet He permits these to happen - allowing the storing up of wrath in these transgressors. But as you say, God never commanded such a thing nor can such a counsel even arise in His nature. I do not think such a direct involvement of God in man's depravity is ever a doctrine in calvinism - why are you arguing against a belief that has.. never entered my mind.

Unfortunately for us, God is beyond our ability to understand, and I personally think it is folly to try to deduce everything about him from logic and reasoning.

I don't believe any should begin there - all must be as little children, accepting the things of God as taught to them by God Himself. And we find God leads people to a greater knowledge and understanding about who He is and how He works - which would be wholly logical and consistent. This alone is what should come across as part of the explaining of one's faith - and not vain self-reasoning. So I guess we're in agreement there too.

 

[ivdavid]

Rom 3:9-19 refers to the LAW and those that were under it in the OT, as that is what is quoted by Paul. He was bringing the good news of the new covenant which taught different. Not the bondage of the OC, under which no one could be considered righteous.
Rom 7:18 and 8:7-8 again are referring to the law and the person whose nature was under the flesh. Rom 8:9-11 explains the difference very well.

I wholly agree with the above observations. Yes, Rom 7,8 are referring to the flesh nature that is utterly sinful - which is precisely what I refer to as total depravity. What is your disagreement on that - do you hold any man in the flesh to be able to do good and please God? Or do you hold unbelievers today to not be in the flesh?

And yes, the law of works could never bring righteousness, nor was it preached in the New Covenant. But you make it seem to completely cease in existence today just because it was not preached. If there is no law of works, there are no transgressors in the flesh under the curse of the law - and there is no need for redemption by Christ's sacrifice. Paul strives till Rom 3 to bring the whole world under the law - both jew and gentile - so as to uphold their guilt and state of condemnation requiring them to fall upon Christ alone. Note again, by the law of works, I do not mean the entire set of precepts or commands contained in the OT Mosaic law - I mean it more as a principle such as the law of gravity as stated in Lev 18:5, which is how Paul refers to the law in Rom 10:5 and Gal 3:12.

Is not Paul's argument valid even today. He addresses the lawless people in the latter part of Rom 1 - stating they have no excuse. He addresses those who strive towards self-righteousness by upholding the law of works - either the law as given by God to the jews or as their intrinsic knowledge of it by the gentiles - and states they too are found short of that law. Take the current model of evangelism itself - they begin with the "do you know you're a sinner in need of forgiveness" - and why am I a sinner - because I did not do the things commanded by God and must be condemned to death for not doing so. Is this not the very law of works?

 

[ivdavid]

IVDAVID,
I'm a little lost in this debate with you and OZSPEN, can you give me a quick synopsis?
Thanks.

Haha. Don't think there is one going on now. Anyway, to summarize, we were discussing if regeneration preceded faith or not. As you'd probably know, I'm of the view it does and OzSpen is of the view it doesn't. I guess as Deborah13 observed, all these doctrines are somehow related to the OP on election and how calvinism deals with it.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Let us lay this point to rest - for I believe exactly the same. Our apparent differences have been over semantics - I held "ordained" to amount to God "deciding the occurrence of a certain event, either to His pleasure or by permission" while I guess you hold "ordained" to amount to "a direct order from God commanding such an event must occur". In the case of these child sacrifices, my reasoning as I've stated before, is that God could've prevented that from happening since He can and since He foreknows the wicked acts of man, and yet He permits these to happen - allowing the storing up of wrath in these transgressors. But as you say, God never commanded such a thing nor can such a counsel even arise in His nature. I do not think such a direct involvement of God in man's depravity is ever a doctrine in calvinism - why are you arguing against a belief that has.. never entered my mind.

Ordain is different, let me show you the definition.

or·dain (ôr-d

n

)
tr.v. or·dained, or·dain·ing, or·dains
1.
a. To invest with ministerial or priestly authority; confer holy orders on.
b. To authorize as a rabbi.
2. To order by virtue of superior authority; decree or enact.
3. To prearrange unalterably; predestine: by fate ordained. See Synonyms at dictate.

Your view more closely aligns with Arminianism than it does Calvinism.

I don't believe any should begin there - all must be as little children, accepting the things of God as taught to them by God Himself. And we find God leads people to a greater knowledge and understanding about who He is and how He works - which would be wholly logical and consistent. This alone is what should come across as part of the explaining of one's faith - and not vain self-reasoning. So I guess we're in agreement there too.

I'm just cautious about making logical deduction about God's nature, I try to see how he responds in Scripture to better understand him, which I'm sure you do as well.

 

[Stan1953]

Haha. Don't think there is one going on now. Anyway, to summarize, we were discussing if regeneration preceded faith or not. As you'd probably know, I'm of the view it does and OzSpen is of the view it doesn't. I guess as Deborah13 observed, all these doctrines are somehow related to the OP on election and how calvinism deals with it.

OK thanks. As Jesus indicated a few times that a persons faith had saved them, I will have to agree with Oz.
BTW, Oz is writing for his PhD so he may not be around for lengths of time.

 

[Stan1953]

I wholly agree with the above observations. Yes, Rom 7,8 are referring to the flesh nature that is utterly sinful - which is precisely what I refer to as total depravity. What is your disagreement on that - do you hold any man in the flesh to be able to do good and please God? Or do you hold unbelievers today to not be in the flesh?

Jesus acknowledged that evil men can do good. Matthew 7:11 NIV. Pleasing God is another matter, and it requires obedience.

And yes, the law of works could never bring righteousness, nor was it preached in the New Covenant. But you make it seem to completely cease in existence today just because it was not preached. If there is no law of works, there are no transgressors in the flesh under the curse of the law - and there is no need for redemption by Christ's sacrifice. Paul strives till Rom 3 to bring the whole world under the law - both jew and gentile - so as to uphold their guilt and state of condemnation requiring them to fall upon Christ alone. Note again, by the law of works, I do not mean the entire set of precepts or commands contained in the OT Mosaic law - I mean it more as a principle such as the law of gravity as stated in Lev 18:5, which is how Paul refers to the law in Rom 10:5 and Gal 3:12.

Hebrew 8:13 NIV. It is obsolete and has disappeared since the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. Please don't confuse this with GOOD works that James speaks about.

Is not Paul's argument valid even today. He addresses the lawless people in the latter part of Rom 1 - stating they have no excuse. He addresses those who strive towards self-righteousness by upholding the law of works - either the law as given by God to the Jews or as their intrinsic knowledge of it by the gentiles - and states they too are found short of that law. Take the current model of evangelism itself - they begin with the "do you know you're a sinner in need of forgiveness" - and why am I a sinner - because I did not do the things commanded by God and must be condemned to death for not doing so. Is this not the very law of works?

Paul is not dealing with believers under the OC/OT here, he is dealing with unbelievers of all types. Again Hebrews 8:7 NIV makes the point that the OC was lacking and needed to be replaced. We can only live under God's NEW covenant.

 

[ivdavid]

Jesus acknowledged that evil men can do good. Matthew 7:11 NIV. Pleasing God is another matter, and it requires obedience.

I guess semantics is always going to be a cause for confusion - what do you mean by 'good' in your above statement?

I've often referred to a couple of analogies on this topic -
If there was a person, similar to lazarus, begging for food at my gate and I never bothered to give him any food for many days together, have I committed 'evil'? Now say on one particular day, I take him a large bowl of food and he eats it and is filled and happy - have I done 'good' in that particular act of mine? But what if I'd been so irritated by this beggar that I'd decided to get rid of him by mixing poison in some food for him - but accidentally mixed up the bowls and gave him the bowl that wasn't poisoned - and he ate and was filled and happy - have I done 'good' in this particular act of mine?

The issue arises in "good" being used to mean "what is of benefit" - and also to mean "what is in accordance to the (moral) law". So while 'good'/benefit was done to the beggar - I myself have not been found to have done 'good'/moral right. Similarly, while most unbelievers can end up doing a lot of 'good'/benefit to others around them - they cannot, as you put it, be found obedient/morally right/'good' and pleasing to God. This condition of being disobedient towards God and consequently displeasing Him, as long as man is in the flesh, is what I refer to as total depravity - addressing not the fact that "good things" are given to loved ones, but that they may be done as "good" before God, stemming out of their love for Him.

Paul is not dealing with believers under the OC/OT here, he is dealing with unbelievers of all types. Again Hebrews 8:7 NIV makes the point that the OC was lacking and needed to be replaced. We can only live under God's NEW covenant.

Okay. Communication gap again? I've not addressed any of the points in this statement of yours - for I agree wholly with each of these. Paul did deal with unbelievers of all types - which is what I too am referring to in the context of total depravity - hence my confusion as to why you'd think I was referring to believers as being unable to effect true good.

The OC was lacking and needed to be replaced indeed - and it has been. The OC effected condemnation, the NC imputes righteousness and results in life. But many have not drunk the new wine and are still content with the old - to these unbelievers, the law of works shows forth the futility of the flesh and drives them to Christ in whom they have life as part of the NC. Are we actually even arguing over the same point - for I seem to concur with nearly all your points that are supposed to refute my position. Anyway, I suppose that's a good thing. Again, I do not hold believers to be unable to do good before God - I only hold unbelievers in the flesh to be unable to do any good before God, in accordance to His will - which is what I refer to as total depravity.

 

[phil marriner]

The elect were the OT prophets who had died and the APostles who were around the time of Christ. But the invitation is extended for all peoples tribes and nations to enter in because the original intention was for the Jews only but they did not come to the feast so the apostles were sent to invite ANYONE who calls upon the name of the Lord.There are two flocks, which are one in Christ

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The elect were the OT prophets who had died and the APostles who were around the time of Christ. But the invitation is extended for all peoples tribes and nations to enter in because the original intention was for the Jews only but they did not come to the feast so the apostles were sent to invite ANYONE who calls upon the name of the Lord.There are two flocks, which are one in Christ

From the point of view of salvation, there is no distinction whatsoever between Jew and gentile, just as there is no distinction whatsoever between male and female in salvation.

The elect is the same thing as the chosen. To this day God is calling people from among Jew and gentile alike without difference or exception, or respect of person, and electing them--choosing them--on the basis of faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[Deborah13]

But the invitation is extended for all peoples tribes and nations to enter in because the original intention was for the Jews only

Was Abel and Israelite, was Noah an Israelite, was Abraham an Israelite?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Was Abel and Israelite, was Noah an Israelite, was Abraham an Israelite?

 

[phil marriner]

God can declare anyone righteous regardless of where they were born Jesus found that the one with most faith in the whole of Israel was a roman soldier who was not a Christian

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

God can declare anyone righteous regardless of where they were born Jesus found that the one with most faith in the whole of Israel was a roman soldier who was not a Christian

True, and the best person he found was the good Samaritan.

 

[lowrab777]

Was Abel and Israelite, was Noah an Israelite, was Abraham an Israelite?

they where the sons of Adam just as all Israelite are, but they where not from Jacob/Israel. Interesting question? Israel means one who wrestles with God............
I mean...... truly, dont we all do that?
Maybee they were.

 

[Deborah13]

they where the sons of Adam just as all Israelite are, but they where not from Jacob/Israel. Interesting question? Israel means one who wrestles with God............
I mean...... truly, dont we all do that?
Maybee they were.

All people are sons of Adam. and yes I think some have wrestled with God but there probably some real goodie two shoes that wouldn't even think of doing such a thing. Wise people they are.:wink