The "Elect"

[Doulos Iesou]

Sorry but I addressed what I saw.
No the Bible teaches us we are saved because of grace and faith.

Agreed, Amen! An honest mistake, and his statement can be a little confusing if not read in a very specific context.

 

[Deborah13]

I just wonder what Paul means in 2 Tim 2:10, if the elect are in Christ, then why is he praying that THEY should obtain salvation? Sounds to me like he is praying about Israel.
In any event, yes those that are saved are called the elect, but IMO that does NOT mean especially chosen.

You may be correct in your premise that he is speaking of the Jews. I am not sure. However, there are other scriptures where Paul speaks very much the same way with out mentioning the word elect.
Col 1:24 I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and do fill up the things lacking of the tribulations of the Christ in my flesh for his body, which is the assembly,

He may be saying that you Timothy are saved and I am saved but there are others, the elect, who are not yet saved and so he endures in the trials and tribulations he faces as he continues to spread the gospel so that they will hear and be saved also.
I think Paul took his calling to the point where he took the full burden of the cross on his shoulders and ran a race to see that as many as possible would hear the his gospel message and attain salvation.

That is my point about Romans 8, that the elect are all believers through out time who do believe or in the future will be, they are all in a group called the elect. All those in Christ, the Elect One, the Chosen One.

I'm glad we can agree at least that all the Body are the elect because they are, in Christ.

 

[Deborah13]

I'm thinking that the term 'elect' generally refers to the apostolic church in contrast to Judaism in the NT, and Judaism in contrast to the gentile world in the OT. We Christians today are not the 'elect', rather we are a new creation.

Ok. I don't understand. These are my questions.

When do you see that the apostolic church ending and a new creation church beginning?
How can we be a new creation separate from the apostolic church, I think we would be without a foundation, a cornerstone, or a capstone?
And how can the apostolic church be separated from the elect of the OT when Abraham is the father of us all?

 

[Deborah13]

That would be the topic for ANOTHER thread.

I am interested because this thread is about determining who the elect are.

 

[Stan1953]

You may be correct in your premise that he is speaking of the Jews. I am not sure. However, there are other scriptures where Paul speaks very much the same way with out mentioning the word elect.
Col 1:24 I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and do fill up the things lacking of the tribulations of the Christ in my flesh for his body, which is the assembly,

He may be saying that you Timothy are saved and I am saved but there are others, the elect, who are not yet saved and so he endures in the trials and tribulations he faces as he continues to spread the gospel so that they will hear and be saved also.
I think Paul took his calling to the point where he took the full burden of the cross on his shoulders and ran a race to see that as many as possible would hear the his gospel message and attain salvation.

That is my point about Romans 8, that the elect are all believers through out time who do believe or in the future will be, they are all in a group called the elect. All those in Christ, the Elect One, the Chosen One.

I'm glad we can agree at least that all the Body are the elect because they are, in Christ.

 

[Stan1953]

I am interested because this thread is about determining who the elect are.

I mean his statement about being a new creation. There is no doubt the Bible calls Christians elect, but the actual connotations used, vary.

 

[Deborah13]

I mean his statement about being a new creation. There is no doubt the Bible calls Christians elect, but the actual connotations used, vary.

True.

 

[ivdavid]

Me too for many years, but praise the Lord I had to learned the hard way to ask Him into my heart as He has made me whom I am today.

There have been several important points discussed on this thread thus far, and I shall attempt explaining my faith on all those as and when I can - but I've identified this to be the crux of the matter, at least for myself. I do not identify myself as anything but Christian, but my doctrinal beliefs do find common ground in the reformed view - this is simply to inform where I come from with respect to doctrines.

I completely get where the person is coming from when she makes the above statement, and in truth, I too praise God for His works in you, for_his_glory. Now on to splitting hair, not taking away anything from what you've said nor making it in any way personal, why must I praise the Lord alone instead of praising you too - when it was you who had the humility to learn and accept the Lord while so many around you reject Him and while it was you who did not harden your heart to His gift while so many others harden their own stubborn hearts of stone.

Doesn't it all boil down to that - all of mankind is not going to end up in the same place, and that's a Fact. In trying to determine the causative source of this disparity or distinction, we end up either concluding that some are just that bit more good or more humble or more whatever it takes to accept the gift of salvation than the others - or that God makes this distinction apart from anything anyone has done towards this. Of course, I do not for a moment believe anyone goes about consciously paying heed to how they're intrinsically better than the unbeliever, but alas, that is the inescapable conclusion of the arminian position.

And yes, while the calvinist position solves that by declaring each and every man to be equally totally depraved dependent upon the sovereign mercy of God alone, it makes out God to be seemingly partial. I, myself, have not found God to be partial from what I see in the Bible and it doesn't at all amount to any inconsistencies with whatever else I believe. Nevertheless, we must first choose our beliefs here to proceed further - for all further doctrines will be built on what we choose to believe here.

So if someone could explain the arminian position without setting some to be relatively more righteous than others, I'd gladly begin considering adopting that worldview - but if someone here could explain the calvinist position without setting God to be partial, would that be reason enough for you to begin considering this worldview?

 

[Stan1953]

So if someone could explain the arminian position without setting some to be relatively more righteous than others, I'd gladly begin considering adopting that worldview - but if someone here could explain the calvinist position without setting God to be partial, would that be reason enough for you to begin considering this worldview?

I only know of one person who claims the Arminian label on this thread so he would have to answer you. I as well just use Christian and consequently don't see what some claim to be the truth of RT/Monergism/Calvinism. Clearly you see one drawback already in the partiality issue when indeed scripture says God is not partial, so you are well on your way to understanding scripture, which of course is the most important thing, not man made doctrines or labels.

 

[lowrab777]

The elect is just simply that....... meaning chosen. However the so called one hundred forty for thousand are a special portion of the elect. I think people often get the idea that if you are counted among the saved / Elect ... then you are part of the 144,000. I feel like people naturally because of the human condition, will lean toward associating themselves as part of the special people chosen by God and for lack of a clear understanding will want to be named among the 144,000. The thing i had to learn was that God did not call me because im special. But on the contrary he called me out of the world because I was dying.... I was broken and in danger of elimination. So many in the churches today would rather relish in the prideful thought that the elect is a type of superior group to be found in compared to the rest of the world. Yet that i feel is the wrong motive for our calling... For that is the very thing Israel did, and that is the very thing Jesus will come to remove.
Luk_18:14 I tell you, this man, rather than the other one, went down to his home justified, because everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the person who humbles himself will be exalted."
Isa_2:11 The lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down, and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day.
Isa_5:15 And the mean man shall be brought down, and the mighty man shall be humbled, and the eyes of the lofty shall be humbled:
Isa_10:33 Behold, the Lord, the LORD of hosts, shall lop the bough with terror: and the high ones of stature shall be hewn down, and the haughty shall be humbled.
Isa 66:2 All these things my hand has made, and so all these things came into being," declares the LORD. "But this is the one to whom I will look favorably: to the one who is humble and contrite in spirit, and who trembles at my message.

 

[OzSpen]

I only know of one person who claims the Arminian label on this thread so he would have to answer you. I as well just use Christian and consequently don't see what some claim to be the truth of RT/Monergism/Calvinism. Clearly you see one drawback already in the partiality issue when indeed scripture says God is not partial, so you are well on your way to understanding scripture, which of course is the most important thing, not man made doctrines or labels.

Stan,

I identify as a Reformed/Classical Arminian, i.e. my understanding of the doctrine of salvation is parallel to that taught by the founder of the Arminian view, Jacob Arminius. This is a brief summary:

Please understand that my view is that, biblically, the Scriptures are clear that God must take the initiative in regard to salvation. The results of Titus 2:11 are that the will has been freed in the matter of salvation. Titus 2:11 states, ‘For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people’ (ESV).

That the will is free in this regard is implied by God when he exhorts people to turn to God – see Prov. 1:23; Isa. 31:6; Ezek. 14:6; Joel 2:13-14; Matt. 18:3; Acts 3:19.

God’s call for people to repent implies that they are free to do that – see 1 Kings 8:47; Matt. 3:2; Mark 1:15; Luke 13:3, 5; Acts 2:38; 17:30.

The call to believe implies such freedom as well – 2 Chron. 20:20; Isa. 43:10; John 6:29; 14:1; Acts 16:31; Phil. 1:29; 1 John 3:23.

Then there’s the classic from the OT:

Joshua 24:14-16 (ESV):

"Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. [15] And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, CHOOSE THIS DAY WHOM YOU WILL SERVE, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."

[16] Then the people answered, "Far be it from us that we should forsake the Lord to serve other gods,

While he does not identify as an Arminian but as a 'moderate Calvinist', Norman Geisler's book has many points regarding salvation with which I agree: Chosen but free: A balanced view of divine election (Bethany House Publishers 1999). There is a later, revised edition.

Oz

 

[ivdavid]

Salvation in it's totality is a gift that is received, and the capacity to receive it is only possible through the grace of God, by the Holy Spirit enabling us to have faith.

This is a good starting point. We're agreed upon the fact that man does not have the inherent capacity to believe the Gospel and that God must do the enabling in such a man to believe in the Person of Christ. And we're also agreed upon the fact that such an enabling to believe is all of grace and not something any man merits or is entitled to. Great.

Where I think we differ is here - I cannot make sense of an additional stage beyond this enabling work of God and before man believing in God - to me, both amount to the same effect, the former implying the latter. Whereas I think you see this enabling of faith as only the first stage of salvation involving God's work which then needs to be completed by the second stage of man's willing to believe.

If we're on the same page still, then I'd like to know what was the inhibiting factor that caused this incapacity in man to believe in the first place, which had to be removed by God's enabling work? I hold it to be the stubborn stony heart of man itself(Eze 36:26) - which the enabling work of God regenerates into a new heart and why - so that it can no longer be stubborn and hardened against accepting the Gospel. So, once this enabling regeneration is done, what could still keep man from rejecting the Gospel after that? It would be quite futile to say that the will of man can still be disobedient and hardened against God when in the same breath we say that God's enabling work dealt with that very issue of a hardened and disobedient hearer.

Anyway, I guess you must have reconciled this differently where you hold the inhibiting factor to be something quite independently distinct from the hardened heart of the hearer - which is how you are able to hold both the enabling work of God and the hardening of the hearer's heart to happen simultaneously. What is this inhibiting factor then that you hold?

If man does not respond it is because of their wickedness, not God's unwillingness to elect and save that individual.

This indicates a misunderstanding of each other's beliefs - for I too hold the above statement as true and yet it seems you think the opposite is what my worldview must hold. While dealing with causative reasons, Man perishes because of his own wickedness - God's election has no causative role to play in that. I'm guessing you have an issue when I say that election only determines the salvation of those who've been shown mercy - not the condemnation of those who weren't shown mercy. To you, it might seem like one being the converse of the other - but i don't see it that way at all. Apply it in the context of one common murderer being pardoned by a sovereign king, while another is not - is the king to be blamed for this person being hung according to the law that he transgressed? And yet we'd attribute the life of the first person entirely to the mercy of the king, wouldn't we?

 

[ivdavid]

If God wishes and desires that all people to be saved and all to come to repentance, then it does not fit that God would not seek the salvation of all people, but rather an elect few.

If God primarily desires none to perish, it follows He must do everything within His power to result in that case scenario - which further entails He must not even create all those whom He foreknows to remain unbelievers. Why Matt 26:24 - "it is better for this man if he was not born" when it is within God's power to ensure he wasn't?

This is simply a philosophical argument - I'd rather we stick to the very essence of what we hold God to be. Both of us agree that God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked. Both of us agree that God desires all to repent and be saved. And we observe that God permits the failure of this desire in order to bring about the fulfillment of certain greater desires of His.

Christ's sacrifice was not just for us, for the sins of the whole world. This verse disproves Calvinism outright.

I'm not aware of any calvinist doctrine stating the offer of Christ's sacrifice is limited to just a few. As far as I know, only the atonement is limited, not by sufficiency but by application - atoning for the sins of only those who believe in the Son of God, therein declaring those who continue in their unbelief will die in their sins.

 

[ivdavid]

Curious what you do with these texts, which seem to indicate conditional election in the OT.

Notice, that they were chosen as a people (not individuals), because he was keeping an oath he swore to their fathers.

Yes, hence their references to Israel being the children of Promise.

But notice too, that while there is the election of a people, there is also the election of individuals within that - Isaac and not Ishmael, Jacob and not Esau, who could claim to be the children of Promise to whom the covenant promises applied, these not having done any good or evil to conditionally merit such a word of promise.

God then gives the reason for his continued keeping of the Covenant and Love for them, which is "because you listen to these rules and keep and do them." Nothing could be further from unconditional election, and if this was something that God did "before the foundation of the world," then wouldn't these people be elect before the foundation of the world too? Yet, God said that he would keep his Covenant faithfulness towards these individuals, conditional on their obedience.

How do you view these verses?

You just quoted the Old Covenant under the law - which is conditional in its very nature. And it has been found fault with since it's broken by the disobedience of the covenant people. But what does the New Covenant of grace say -

Jer 31:31 "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
Jer 31:32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

What is the conditional aspect in this new covenant that is within the scope of His people to break, when God Himself promises to be known by all His people and to not forsake anyone nor let anyone be plucked from His hand?

 

[JLB]

Through His foreknowledge, God foresaw who would be in Christ and then He chose them to be predestined to adoption as sons.

His choosing is based on them being in Christ, not before they were in Christ but after they were in Christ.

In other words, they were in Christ first, THEN He chose them.

This was done before the foundation of the world, through the foreknowledge of God.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will. Ephesians 1:3-5


Key Phrase - just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world...

This verse is key to understanding predestination.

The modern predestination doctrine teaches that God chooses certain ones to be saved...

This verse teaches an entirely different perspective.


JLB

 

[for_his_glory]

There have been several important points discussed on this thread thus far, and I shall attempt explaining my faith on all those as and when I can - but I've identified this to be the crux of the matter, at least for myself. I do not identify myself as anything but Christian, but my doctrinal beliefs do find common ground in the reformed view - this is simply to inform where I come from with respect to doctrines.

I completely get where the person is coming from when she makes the above statement, and in truth, I too praise God for His works in you, for_his_glory. Now on to splitting hair, not taking away anything from what you've said nor making it in any way personal, why must I praise the Lord alone instead of praising you too - when it was you who had the humility to learn and accept the Lord while so many around you reject Him and while it was you who did not harden your heart to His gift while so many others harden their own stubborn hearts of stone.

Doesn't it all boil down to that - all of mankind is not going to end up in the same place, and that's a Fact. In trying to determine the causative source of this disparity or distinction, we end up either concluding that some are just that bit more good or more humble or more whatever it takes to accept the gift of salvation than the others - or that God makes this distinction apart from anything anyone has done towards this. Of course, I do not for a moment believe anyone goes about consciously paying heed to how they're intrinsically better than the unbeliever, but alas, that is the inescapable conclusion of the arminian position.

And yes, while the calvinist position solves that by declaring each and every man to be equally totally depraved dependent upon the sovereign mercy of God alone, it makes out God to be seemingly partial. I, myself, have not found God to be partial from what I see in the Bible and it doesn't at all amount to any inconsistencies with whatever else I believe. Nevertheless, we must first choose our beliefs here to proceed further - for all further doctrines will be built on what we choose to believe here.

So if someone could explain the arminian position without setting some to be relatively more righteous than others, I'd gladly begin considering adopting that worldview - but if someone here could explain the calvinist position without setting God to be partial, would that be reason enough for you to begin considering this worldview?

I know nothing of the doctrines of the Calvinist or Armenian. The only doctrines I know is that of Christ Jesus alone and what was already spoken by Him. I take no praise in myself for the decision I made, but give all the praise and glory to God that within His love and patience that it was within that time of me leaving His throne of grace that allowed me to hit rock bottom to be able to truly look up and seek His face and recommit myself back to Him in all humbleness and humility as His Holy Spirit spiritually refreshed my inner man. Each one of us has a story and each one of us has a personal relationship with Christ like no one else. It's not about mans Church doctrines and traditions as it's all about the word of God and what He has already spoken to us in order to be obedient to His will.

 

[OzSpen]

ivdavid,

It seems from this post that you believe the Reformed view that regeneration precedes faith and not that it faith logically precedes faith. Do you accept the Reformed view that a person must be born again (i.e. regenerated) before he/she can have faith?

When I examine these verses, I find that faith is logically prior to salvation/regeneration/becoming born again: Luke 13:3; John 3:6-7, 16; Acts 16:31; Romans 3:24-25; 5:1; Titus 3:5-7; and 2 Peter 3:9.

Oz

This is a good starting point. We're agreed upon the fact that man does not have the inherent capacity to believe the Gospel and that God must do the enabling in such a man to believe in the Person of Christ. And we're also agreed upon the fact that such an enabling to believe is all of grace and not something any man merits or is entitled to. Great.

Where I think we differ is here - I cannot make sense of an additional stage beyond this enabling work of God and before man believing in God - to me, both amount to the same effect, the former implying the latter. Whereas I think you see this enabling of faith as only the first stage of salvation involving God's work which then needs to be completed by the second stage of man's willing to believe.

If we're on the same page still, then I'd like to know what was the inhibiting factor that caused this incapacity in man to believe in the first place, which had to be removed by God's enabling work? I hold it to be the stubborn stony heart of man itself(Eze 36:26) - which the enabling work of God regenerates into a new heart and why - so that it can no longer be stubborn and hardened against accepting the Gospel. So, once this enabling regeneration is done, what could still keep man from rejecting the Gospel after that? It would be quite futile to say that the will of man can still be disobedient and hardened against God when in the same breath we say that God's enabling work dealt with that very issue of a hardened and disobedient hearer.

Anyway, I guess you must have reconciled this differently where you hold the inhibiting factor to be something quite independently distinct from the hardened heart of the hearer - which is how you are able to hold both the enabling work of God and the hardening of the hearer's heart to happen simultaneously. What is this inhibiting factor then that you hold?


This indicates a misunderstanding of each other's beliefs - for I too hold the above statement as true and yet it seems you think the opposite is what my worldview must hold. While dealing with causative reasons, Man perishes because of his own wickedness - God's election has no causative role to play in that. I'm guessing you have an issue when I say that election only determines the salvation of those who've been shown mercy - not the condemnation of those who weren't shown mercy. To you, it might seem like one being the converse of the other - but i don't see it that way at all. Apply it in the context of one common murderer being pardoned by a sovereign king, while another is not - is the king to be blamed for this person being hung according to the law that he transgressed? And yet we'd attribute the life of the first person entirely to the mercy of the king, wouldn't we?

 

[Stan1953]

Stan,
I identify as a Reformed/Classical Arminian, i.e. my understanding of the doctrine of salvation is parallel to that taught by the founder of the Arminian view, Jacob Arminius. This is a brief summary:
Oz

Yep you were the one I was talking about.

 

[His_nee (Jeff)]

......
When I examine these verses, I find that faith is logically prior to salvation/regeneration/becoming born again: Luke 13:3; John 3:6-7, 16; Acts 16:31; Romans 3:24-25; 5:1; Titus 3:5-7; and 2 Peter 3:9.
Oz

I agree. not just logically, but simply in straight-away Truth as it is written.

..... I never saw anyone seek and come to Yhwh or Yeshua to receive salvation unless they had faith no matter how small their faith.
Since without faith it is impossible to please Yhwh, and whoever seeks Him must believe that He Is and that He Is Rewarder of those who diligently seek Him...... how or why would anyone without faith even try to find Him ?? (they're(unbelievers) busy doing something else)

 

[lowrab777]

Elect = chosen....... But for what reason?
Joh 3:16 "For this is how God loved the world: He gave his unique Son so that everyone who believes in him might not be lost but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 Because God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.
Joh 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God's unique Son.
Joh 3:19 And this is the basis for judgment: The light has come into the world, but people loved the darkness more than the light because their actions were evil.
Joh 3:20 Everyone who practices wickedness hates the light and does not come to the light, so that his actions may not be exposed.
Joh 3:21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may become evident that his actions have God's approval."