What is Election?

[Jethro Bodine]

I don't think it's regardless of what man does as Jesus states that man's actions will determine his destiny in both Mathew 28, the sheep and the goats and also in John 5.

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. (Joh 5:28-29 KJV)

I expected someone to say that. That's why I put the 'toward that end' on my statement.

Just as Paul says, our determined efforts to be justified have no bearing on justification.

But I do agree, what you do will most certainly affect your salvation.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Hi Jethro,

The passage isn't about salvation, it's about the Jews.

Romans is all about refuting the Jewish thinking that justification comes by doing the works of the law. He shows how the promise has always been secured by faith. THAT is what God has preordained. But somehow people understand Paul's message as saying God cranks out believers and unbelievers according to his choice, not theirs.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The blessing of Abraham includes the inheritance of the land and Paul argues that this blessing come on the Gentiles through faith in Christ. He says 'if you are Christ's then you are Abraham's seed and heir according to the promise.


It is this promise that Paul is addressing in Romans 9. He explains how God rejected Ishmael and chose Isaac, He rejected Esau and chose Jacob. This choosing was not choosing one to be saved and one to be lost; it was choosing those through whom God would fulfill this promise to Abraham.

But which misses the point of Paul's letter.

The choosing is on the basis of faith, not what either of them did. That's the point. That's what has been determined from the beginning: justification is by faith.

Somewhere along the line the church developed the understanding that it's impossible for even the believing a person does to inherit Christ's blessing to be a condition, a 'work' if you will, by which man is saved. Therefore, the grace of salvation must be entirely bestowed on a person without his or her consent according to God's will only, not theirs. Very misguided, unBibilcal thinking IMO.

 

[Chopper]

Isn't that the same thing?

I'm always saying something Chopper, so if you can't find anything, then save it for my future account.

OK, I've started a savings account for you.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Why does this passage have to be about one or the other (individual salvation or chosen group)? Why not both?

I agree. I see application to the individual believer as well as the nation of Israel as a whole. The point being, God has preordained from the beginning that man inherits the blessing through a promise, and faith in that promise, not by doing righteous works to somehow earn it.

Issac and Ishmael/ Esau and Jacob are illustrations of this truth, Ishmael and Esau being symbolic of works, and Issac and Jacob being symbolic of the promise. It has been preordained that the children of works do not inherit the blessing, while the children of the promise do. Nobody can change that. No will, no effort, no determination of man can change that. It's a predetermined fact.

 

[Chopper]

Hello, everyone. Here is a statement from Calvin himself. This comes from the book "Institutes of the Christian Religion" by John Calvin. Page 616. There have been questions on the subject of God seeing into the future, seeing who would accept Salvation, and thus choosing them and calling them "elect". I'll let him refute this position. His main text is Ephesians 1:4,5 (4) "according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love. (5) Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself according to the good pleasure of his will". Pay particular attention to "should be holy"

Calvin - "If election precedes that divine grace by which we are made fit to obtain immortal life, what can God find in us to induce Him to election? It is explained in Ephesians 1:4,5. In the statement that that they were elected that they might be holy, the Apostle openly refutes the error of those who deduce election from prescience (knowledge of events before they take place) since he declares that whatever virtue appears in men is the result of election. If you say that He forsaw they would be holy, and therefore elected them, you invert the order of Paul. You may, therefore, safely infer He elected us that we might be holy, He did not elect us because He forsaw that we would be holy. For when it is said that believers were elected that they might be holy, it is at the same time intimated that the holiness which was to be in them has its origin in election."

 

[chessman]

I agree. I see application to the individual believer as well as the nation of Israel as a whole.

So when you said:

Romans is all about refuting the Jewish thinking that justification comes by doing the works of the law. .

Was that meant literally as in ALL of Romans was about that subject or more like that was Paul's main point in Romans?

I mean after all, he did start out Romans with a mere greeting and end with kind of a "goodby now, ya'll come back now, ya hear" ending.

I understand about 10 major themes in Romans, not just the one you rightly point out is there.

 

[Butch5]

Why does this passage have to be about one or the other (individual salvation or chosen group)? Why not both? You might consider the other location in Scripture where Paul is on this subject he says:

Ephesians 1:11
In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,

All things!

HI Chessman,

My point is that it's not about salvation. There was individual and group choosing but it was not choosing people to save. It was choosing people to use to bring about the promises to Abraham. The end result of the promises to Abraham is salvation but the choosing was not to salvation. If we follow Paul's argument he's not arguing about anyone being chosen to be saved.

This passage from Ephesians 1:11 is speaking of the Jews not Christians. It is part of what is a called a Hebraism, it's a Hebrew praise of what God has done for the Jewish people. Notice how the verse begins, "we have obtained and inheritance", the Gentiles had not obtained an inheritance from God, however, the Jews had. Just few verses later Paul tells the Gentiles that they have received a down payment on their inheritance. Their inheritance is future not past.

 

[Butch5]

Hello, everyone. Here is a statement from Calvin himself. This comes from the book "Institutes of the Christian Religion" by John Calvin. Page 616. There have been questions on the subject of God seeing into the future, seeing who would accept Salvation, and thus choosing them and calling them "elect". I'll let him refute this position. His main text is Ephesians 1:4,5 (4) "according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love. (5) Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself according to the good pleasure of his will". Pay particular attention to "should be holy"

Calvin - "If election precedes that divine grace by which we are made fit to obtain immortal life, what can God find in us to induce Him to election? It is explained in Ephesians 1:4,5. In the statement that that they were elected that they might be holy, the Apostle openly refutes the error of those who deduce election from prescience (knowledge of events before they take place) since he declares that whatever virtue appears in men is the result of election. If you say that He forsaw they would be holy, and therefore elected them, you invert the order of Paul. You may, therefore, safely infer He elected us that we might be holy, He did not elect us because He forsaw that we would be holy. For when it is said that believers were elected that they might be holy, it is at the same time intimated that the holiness which was to be in them has its origin in election."

Calvin uses the term wrongly in applying it to himself. In Ephesians 1:3-12 Paul is speaking of past events not future. All of the verbs are past tense except one, "we have redemption". At the time Paul wrote Ephesians the Jews did have redemption in Christ. The rest of the events had taken place in the past.

 

[Butch5]

Romans is all about refuting the Jewish thinking that justification comes by doing the works of the law. He shows how the promise has always been secured by faith. THAT is what God has preordained. But somehow people understand Paul's message as saying God cranks out believers and unbelievers according to his choice, not theirs.

I agree!

 

[Jethro Bodine]

So when you said:



Was that meant literally as in ALL of Romans was about that subject or more like that was Paul's main point in Romans?

I mean after all, he did start out Romans with a mere greeting and end with kind of a "goodby now, ya'll come back now, ya hear" ending.

I understand about 10 major themes in Romans, not just the one you rightly point out is there.

Well sure, there's a lot of stuff in Romans. But the main point is justification by faith. Obviously, the last chapters are instructions for the church as a result of having received the grace of salvation through faith in Christ he's just been talking about.

 

[Butch5]

But which misses the point of Paul's letter.

The choosing is on the basis of faith, not what either of them did. That's the point. That's what has been determined from the beginning: justification is by faith.

Somewhere along the line the church developed the understanding that it's impossible for even the believing a person does to inherit Christ's blessing to be a condition, a 'work' if you will, by which man is saved. Therefore, the grace of salvation must be entirely bestowed on a person without his or her consent according to God's will only, not theirs. Very misguided, unBibilcal thinking IMO.

I agree with your conclusion but disagree that my post misses the point. The choosing was not through faith. As Paul points out God chose Jacob over Esau before they were born. However, this choosing was for the purpose of using him to fulfill the promise. It was not to choose him over Esau to be saved. This chapter is not difficult to understand if we get away from the idea that it is speaking about choosing for salvation.

 

[chessman]

Notice how the verse begins, "we have obtained and inheritance", the Gentiles had not obtained an inheritance from God, however, the Jews had. Jew few verses later Paul tells the Gentiles that they have received a down payment on their inheritance. Their inheritance is future not past.

Yes, I agree. But notice how this verse ends with "Him who works all things according to the council of His will". Which is a repeat of what Paul says in verse 5. I kind of think he meant us to notice this. How God used the Jews is a pretty good example indeed of how He uses ALL things for His purposes.

 

[Butch5]

I expected someone to say that. That's why I put the 'toward that end' on my statement.

Just as Paul says, our determined efforts to be justified have no bearing on justification.

But I do agree, what you do will most certainly affect your salvation.

But Paul's argument about one's attempt to be justified are constrained to the Mosaic Law.

 

[Sparkey]

What if what we are being given is a glimpse from eternity where those who dwell there are not bound by time as we are? What if, when God speaks in a direct manner from the Agelessness of the "Ancient of Days" who was and is and shall continue, what if we are listening to words that are given for us to ponder that speak similar manner of that of His Name, "I AM." We wonder, do we not? At the otherness of God who alone is holy, holy, holy.

What if what we see isn't a dividing point but rather a point of unity, spoken from a "place" if one may call it that, a place like nothing we may even conceive of, a place of "All-together Other" and a place so strange and foreign to us, to everything we think, know and understand, such that we are left with a wonder?

What may we say as we ponder such things except, "Great and Marvelous is our God."

Then and if this is even in part the case, so shall we now come and say, due to the mystery before us which no man may know, "See! I know this! This is that which God meant to say, here let me bring it in its' entirety for us to examine in minute detail?"

I'm not saying that we should not strive to understand and to look beyond ourselves nor do I say that God did not speak the words so often discussed for reason. He did speak for reason. Every word is life. My thought here is that care needs to be taken along with our examination so that we may truly understand that His Ways are above ours and that every word...

No. Wait. Students of the Living Word already know:
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (NIV)

 

[Butch5]

[quote="Butch5,
Notice how the verse begins, "we have obtained and inheritance", the Gentiles had not obtained an inheritance from God, however, the Jews had. Jew few verses later Paul tells the Gentiles that they have received a down payment on their inheritance. Their inheritance is future not past.

Yes, I agree. But notice how this verse ends with "Him who works all things according to the council of His will". Which is a repeat of what Paul says in verse 5. I kind of think he meant us to notice this. How God used the Jews is a pretty good example indeed of how He uses ALL things for His purposes.[/quote]

How are you understanding that passage? Does "all things" mean everything that happens or does it mean all things that God does He works according to HIs purpose? I read it as all things God does.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

There have been questions on the subject of God seeing into the future, seeing who would accept Salvation, and thus choosing them and calling them "elect". I'll let him refute this position. His main text is Ephesians 1:4,5 (4) "according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love. (5) Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself according to the good pleasure of his will".

When he says 'predestined us' he's not referring to a specific, named group of people purposely set aside from eternity as pre-programmed believers. He's referring to the general scope and range of what was to become the church--a church composed of those who have faith in Christ and who will then walk in a very predictable and expected way. God making them believers apart from their own choice is not the point being made by Paul.

The problem is trying to interpret Paul's teaching on election as meaning very specific individuals that are predestined to become believers by God without consent or the will of the person saved, instead of the plan itself being what is predestined. A plan in which named individuals will indeed fill as they have faith and enter into the preordained plan and purpose of God devised.

Even though God obviously knows who will be saved, and who will not be out of all the multitudes of people he will create, that is not what predestination is about. What he has predestined is the way to be reconciled to Him and the predictable consequence of that reconciliation that each member in that plan will walk in.

Pay particular attention to "should be holy"

Calvin - "If election precedes that divine grace by which we are made fit to obtain immortal life, what can God find in us to induce Him to election? It is explained in Ephesians 1:4,5. In the statement that that they were elected that they might be holy, the Apostle openly refutes the error of those who deduce election from prescience (knowledge of events before they take place) since he declares that whatever virtue appears in men is the result of election. If you say that He forsaw they would be holy, and therefore elected them, you invert the order of Paul. You may, therefore, safely infer He elected us that we might be holy, He did not elect us because He forsaw that we would be holy. For when it is said that believers were elected that they might be holy, it is at the same time intimated that the holiness which was to be in them has its origin in election."

This is equating 'election' with 'grace' in an inappropriate way, which I think is the very mistake that the church makes about this subject. As if election by definition means 'picking people to be believers apart from their will just because God wants to do that'. That is NOT what either grace, or election, is. But that is the distorted understanding of grace we have in the church today as a result of thinking the 'work' of believing is somehow part of the damnable works that Paul says we are to avoid (that is, if we say we had any willful input into that work of believing), and to think otherwise is nothing short of saying you were saved by your own work. That is a ridiculous conclusion to come to. But it grips the minds of the church today.

 

[mondar]

Hi Mondar,

The passage is not about God choosing who will be saved or individual election. If you follow Paul's argument he states plainly that Christ came concerning the promises made to the fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I've laid out what that promise is. The promise was not, I'm going to choose who will be saved, it was that Abraham would be the father of many nations and that through his Seed, all nations would be blessed. You make mention of the Gentiles. Am I correct in assuming that you understand the verse 24 as referring to the Christian Gentiles of Paul's day? If so. le me suggest another idea. God used Gentiles prior to Christ to fulfill the promise to Abraham. In Paul's argument he argues that the promise to Abraham is "not" to the physical seed of Abraham, but rather to Christ and those who are in Christ are Abraham's seed. To make his point he points out that God is also the God of the Gentiles and not the Jews only. Abraham was a Gentile, so was Isaac. God called both of these men and used them for his purpose.

This passage does not require the idea of individual election and I would argue that individual election is contrary to the context of what Paul is saying. Also, Keep in mind that from chapter 2 verse 17 through chapter 13 verse 11 Paul is addressing the Jewish believers at the church in Rome. It is in chapter 13 verse 11 that he turns his attention to the Gentiles. So, Romans 8 is addressed to the Jewish believers and as such should be understood from a Jewish perspective.

The passage requires the election of individuals, and that is what Paul is talking about when he mentions his giving up his own salvation for the sake of his brethren, his countrymen.
Rom 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
Then he continues talking about salvation in his list of the benefits given to those of Israel in verses 4-5. Paul mentions the "covenants" in verse 4.
Rom 9:4 who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
Of course you have already mentioned this, what you fail to realize is that the covenants do in fact relate to salvation. This is so very clear in a text like Galatians 3:8.
Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the nations be blessed.
Of course the phrase "In thee shall all the nations of the earth be blessed," is strait from Genesis 12 and the the Abrahamic Covenant. The concept of the blessing of Abraham to the Gentiles is so completely about salvation that Paul that aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant, "The Gospel" in Galatians 3:8. Paul says God "preached the gospel." So if you say the Abrahamic Covenant does not relate in any way to salvation, how then could you explain Galatians 3:8. We both would agree that it is the seed (singular---Christ) of Israel that blesses the gentiles, but that blessing certainly does include salvation.

Of course this is not to deny that the Covenants also relate to Israels national blessings also. I do not deny that the Covenants relate to Israel, and that Romans 9 also has issues concerning the national blessings for Israel in it. We both agree concerning that issue. Where we differ is that you see no salvation issues included in those covenants and national issues of Romans 9. So then, to continue pointing to the national blessings in the covenants and the context of Romans 9 is non-sequitur argumentation. For you to demonstrate that there are no salvific issues in Romans 9 or the Covenants, you must address the evidence I offered that salvation is a part of the issue of election in Romans 9.

There are other issues where I see we disagree. When you say " In Paul's argument he argues that the promise to Abraham is "not" to the physical seed of Abraham, but rather to Christ and those who are in Christ are Abraham's seed." If you are alluding to Romans 9:6, then we have disagreement. What Paul is speaking of in Romans 9:6 is not the gentiles, but he is speaking of an Israel within Israel. Elect/saved Israel (those saved national brethren of Paul's is the true Israel who receives the blessings. The rest of the unsaved Israel does not receive the blessings. Paul says it in this way... "For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel:" Those who are "of Israel" are the saved and elect Israelites, those who are "not all Israel" is the unsaved/non elect Israelites. This is apparent if you look at Pauls illustrations in verses that follow (verses 7-11). Isaac was of the elect seed of Abraham, and while Ishmael was not named in Romans 9, he would be from the unsaved, non-elect seed of Abraham. Yet both were of the seed of Abraham. They were both sons of Abraham, but one was elect, and the other individual, Ishmael was not. The other illustration is Jacob and Esau, who were both of sons of Isaac, yet while one was elect and inherited the promises, the other was not elect, but both were sons of Isaac. That is Pauls point in Romans 9:6. While some Israelites are saved, and elect, others are not. It is the elect sons that are saved and they are "true Israel" who receives the promises and covenants (vs 4-5). So then, when you say "the promise to Abraham is "not" to the physical seed of Abraham" and relate that to Romans 9:6, you are not following the context.

On the other hand, had you made that statement with reference to verse 24, then you might have a better point. While verses 1-23 could be said to be about saved/elect individual people within Israel, Pauls point in verse 24 is that this whole thing also applies to Gentiles.
Rom 9:24 even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?
Gentiles may not inherit the land promises given to Abraham and his seed. We did not inherit to be in the linage of the Messiah referred to in the covenants. The "Fathers" were not Gentiles. Neither did we inherit the Mosaic Law, or the Temple Service, but we did inherit the same salvation. We have the same process of election as those Israelites Paul spoke to in verses 1-23.

SUMMARY-----
Many readers may not understand the previous post, but can understand that for Gentiles in Galatians 3:8, the gospel is inseparably bound to the Abrahamic Covenant. That Gospel saves. Its the only Gospel that saves, there is no other. And so, when Paul put covenant concepts into Romans 9, he did not avoid subjects of salvation in election, he is speaking exactly about salvation in election.

 

[chessman]

How are you understanding that passage? Does "all things" mean everything that happens or does it mean all things that God does He works according to HIs purpose? I read it as all things God does.

Honestly, at times i wonder if God's purpose(s) can be found in the minor little things that happen to me and others around me. Was it God's purpose for me to mis-type my previous post and have to go back and edit it? Or did that just happen? I don't know.

But i do believe that i often overlook God's guiding hand in the minor things in life. Sometimes even the major things as well. I'm stupid sometimes.

Yes, i think that's part of what Paul is saying here. God, in reality, is Sovereign over all things big and small.

It's been said here that Paul was giving instructions to the Roman church in this letter. Instructions for the future. Why even bring up the past but for an example of how to live in the future?

 

[Butch5]

This is equating 'election' with 'grace' in an inappropriate way, which I think is the very mistake that the church makes about this subject. As if election by definition means 'picking people to be believers apart from their will just because God wants to do that'. That is NOT what either grace, or election, is. But that is the distorted understanding of grace we have in the church today as a result of thinking the 'work' of believing is somehow part of the damnable works that Paul says we are to avoid (that is, if we say we had any willful input into that work of believing), and to think otherwise is nothing short of saying you were saved by your own work. That is a ridiculous conclusion to come to. But it grips the minds of the church today.

Well said! One thing many don't seem to realize is that when Paul wrote, "election" was not a doctrine. It was simply the word to choose. Church leaders and theologians have given the word all kinds of baggage to the point that when a believer today hears the word he immediately associates it with the idea of God choosing who gets saved. It was the same word they would use to choose between an apple and an orange.