What is Election?

[Chopper]

What? I'm not sister. I'm male Hahahaha

In all seriousness, I'm okay with people having all sorts of different beliefs. It is my job to love, not judge.

Oh boy, are we still friends? The name had me fooled. OK Brother, Not to judge? Absolutely! We can have all kinds of conversations on that belief. God called us to be like His Son! As I search for Truth in the Gospels, I see Jesus having conversations with the unbelieving Jews, and for only a few instances where He criticizes the leadership of Israel, He teaches them and leaves it up to them to receive His teachings or not.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

OK, here we go for the second time!
T total depravity - no one is capable of saving oneself....I agree.

U unconditional election - God's choosing of the saved isn't conditioned by anything in them....I agree.

L limited atonement - Christ's atonement is adequate to save all people but it is efficient for God's elect only....I reject.

I irrestible grace - the sovereignly given gift of faith cannot be rejected by the elect....I agree

P perseverance of the saints. - those who are regenerated and justified will persevere in the faith....I agree.

Irresistible grace - are we on the same page here?
This seems to bring us back to "what is election?".
I think man can resist the wooing of the Holy Spirit no matter who they are.
Otherwise, there is no free will.

 

[Tristan]

That's what I try to get at actually. It's important because it's the same issue I have with materialism and empiricism when I debate with nonbelievers. Free will is vital.

 

[Chopper]

Irresistible grace - are we on the same page here?
This seems to bring us back to "what is election?".
I think man can resist the wooing of the Holy Spirit no matter who they are.
Otherwise, there is no free will.

Irresistible grace. That is for the ones who God new before the foundation of the world. The "remnant" or the "elect", they are the same. God, who cannot fail, in anything He speaks or desires chooses people to represent Himself. As I have explained. They are a remnant out of the mass. Whoever He choses complies. The power that God exerts toward that person is irresistible. I know for a fact that God started wooing me at least ten years before I got saved. I believe, I had no choice.

I like John 17 to help explain this grace of God....The words "whom you have given me" are in verses 2, v.6, v.9, and in v.11 is says Jesus prays "keep them in your name" Do you think, that will not happen? Of course it will. In v.12, Jesus says "I have guarded them" (ESV)

No free will? I'm glad that there was none for me.

Irresistible grace is for the remnant. Everyone else has free will.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

God knows who will be saved and God chooses who will be saved, and we must choose Christ to be saved.
How these facts work together is impossible for the finite mind to comprehend.
Romans 11:33-34;
"Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?".

 

[Chopper]

That's what I try to get at actually. It's important because it's the same issue I have with materialism and empiricism when I debate with nonbelievers. Free will is vital.

Tristan, I agree with you that free will is vital. When Jesus said that He was not willing that any should perish, He meant it! The world has free will to accept Jesus or reject Him, period! God has to have a remnant of followers. He started with Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. They could not reject His choice. In every generation, God requires a remnant of His choice to represent Him. Just look at the wickedness prior to the flood. If God does not have a remnant, even if it's one, the world would decend into wickedness. To keep that from happening, His remnant witnesses to the many of His love, mercy, and forgiveness.

 

[Chopper]

Hey folks, I have given you what was revealed to me, by what I believe, revelation. I don't presume to be anyone other than an old country preacher. I have sought God's wisdom in these matters for years. I believe that what I have presented is Truth. You have free will to believe anything you want. Your belief and mine, although different, does in no way alter our Salvation. It's a true sign of being Christ's when we can agree to disagree, and remain loving brothers and sisters. We need each other. God bless you all.

 

[Deborah13]

Tristan, I agree with you that free will is vital. When Jesus said that He was not willing that any should perish, He meant it! The world has free will to accept Jesus or reject Him, period! God has to have a remnant of followers. He started with Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. They could not reject His choice. In every generation, God requires a remnant of His choice to represent Him. Just look at the wickedness prior to the flood. If God does not have a remnant, even if it's one, the world would decend into wickedness. To keep that from happening, His remnant witnesses to the many of His love, mercy, and forgiveness.

Ok now I have another question. What scripture shows you that Abram did not have a choice in believing God?

 

[Chopper]

Ok now I have another question. What scripture shows you that Abram did not have a choice in believing God?

As I read Genesis 12 I see "Now the Lord said to Abraham, go". If I knew the voice of God, and He said go, guess what? I'd go! As a matter of fact, I do know the voice of God to my mind. He has told me to do something that involves other people. The more I think about it, the more urgent the feeling gets. I have to do it! He will not leave me alone! When I do what He says, it works every time and someone is healed or warned.

I don't think God's command is a difficult thing to understand. He is all powerful, and anything that He wants to happen, does! God cannot fail. God cannot fail! I said God cannot fail. His Word will not return to Him void. It will accomplish what He intended it to accomplish without fail!

 

[Tristan]

God's greater will cannot be thwarted, but if God tells me to do something, I can certainly say no. God doesn't force people to do things because he doesn't need to. His will comes to pass regardless of the choices we make.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Luke 19:40;
"I tell you, he replied, if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out".

 

[Chopper]

God's greater will cannot be thwarted, but if God tells me to do something, I can certainly say no. God doesn't force people to do things because he doesn't need to. His will comes to pass regardless of the choices we make.

This is true. For the most part our will is effected by a number of circumstances. I think the closer our relationship is with God, the more likely we are to jump when He says jump.

 

[Chopper]

Luke 19:40;
"I tell you, he replied, if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out".

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Very good Chopper, you are very diplomatic.

 

[mondar]

Why would people quote TULIP and then not quote reformed people? Why? It is normally to set up a straw man.

The TULIP concept was actually a response to the Remonstrants and their protest against reformed theology. The two different groups had completely different concepts of the atonement. The Remonstrants wrote from the perspective of a General Atonement. Such a one was Hugo Grotuis, and friend of Arminius. Hugo Grotius defended the "General Atonement." He said that Christ died only to satisfy the justice of God, and then God can offer salvation to the whole world. In other words, Christs death saves no one, but only makes men savable.

Opposite this was the theology of the Dutch Calvinists, and other reformed groups from around Europe (I believe the French King refused to allow the Huguenots to come). Their view of the atonement is called the "penal-substitutionary" view. TULIP is tied in with the penal-substitutionary view of the work of Christ's cross. It is an actual salvation. This view conforms to the sola's, especially sola gratia (grace alone). The cross saved people and saved them to the uttermost.

All this ties in with views of Election. The scriptures use the term election in different ways. Christ was the elect of Israel. Israel was an elect nation. Then also, the scriptures uses the term with regard to personal individual election. The question of the thread is to define election, and it seems to me the OP was asking about individual election. The big question, is individual election "conditional" or "unconditional."

I think any conditions at all would violate Romans 9:11
11 for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,
Individual election occurs long before the birth of the Children. The idea of this verse is that nothing Jacob or Esau did or could do affected God's election in any way. If faith were the basis of election, this would be the perfect verse for Paul to say that. In verse 15, the basis of election is made clear.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.
There is nothing in us which is the basis of election, the basis is in God himself. Notice how verse 16 reinforces this concept.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.
Election is not of the one doing who "willeth." Election is not of him that "runneth." The text is clear that the basis of Election solely rests in God who is the one showing mercy.
As for we humans, we are all of the same clay.
21 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?
There is no difference between us an unbelievers as far as election is concerned. If God chose us because he looked into the future and saw faith, then it would not be the "same lump" of clay. We would have been different from the start and God would have made the lump of faith into a vessel of honor. We are of the same lump.

The question is why election? Why is election so important to God? I think God reserved that decision to himself for one main reason. He is maintaining his own free will. God is the ultimate free will in the universe.

We might all have free will too. As Rebels and sinners we all use that free will to choose sin. That is because we have a sinful nature. By nature, we are dead in our sins and we all use our free will to be children of wrath. This is our nature. See Ephesians 2:1, 3
1 And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins,
3 And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins,
There was no faith in anyone's future without God giving that gift of faith. Faith is granted to the believer, not generated by the believer himself of his own righteousness. See Philippians 1:29 because to you it hath been granted in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer in his behalf:
So in unconditional election, God chooses some, gives them faith, and saves them. Then salvation is all God's grace. Grace is totally sufficient for salvation. Nothing more is needed other than God's grace. Grace is not merely just necessary, not absolutely sufficient. See ya all elsewhere.

 

[Chopper]

Why would people quote TULIP and then not quote reformed people? Why? It is normally to set up a straw man.

The TULIP concept was actually a response to the Remonstrants and their protest against reformed theology. The two different groups had completely different concepts of the atonement. The Remonstrants wrote from the perspective of a General Atonement. Such a one was Hugo Grotuis, and friend of Arminius. Hugo Grotius defended the "General Atonement." He said that Christ died only to satisfy the justice of God, and then God can offer salvation to the whole world. In other words, Christs death saves no one, but only makes men savable.

Opposite this was the theology of the Dutch Calvinists, and other reformed groups from around Europe (I believe the French King refused to allow the Huguenots to come). Their view of the atonement is called the "penal-substitutionary" view. TULIP is tied in with the penal-substitutionary view of the work of Christ's cross. It is an actual salvation. This view conforms to the sola's, especially sola gratia (grace alone). The cross saved people and saved them to the uttermost.

All this ties in with views of Election. The scriptures use the term election in different ways. Christ was the elect of Israel. Israel was an elect nation. Then also, the scriptures uses the term with regard to personal individual election. The question of the thread is to define election, and it seems to me the OP was asking about individual election. The big question, is individual election "conditional" or "unconditional."

I think any conditions at all would violate Romans 9:11
11 for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,
Individual election occurs long before the birth of the Children. The idea of this verse is that nothing Jacob or Esau did or could do affected God's election in any way. If faith were the basis of election, this would be the perfect verse for Paul to say that. In verse 15, the basis of election is made clear.
15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.
There is nothing in us which is the basis of election, the basis is in God himself. Notice how verse 16 reinforces this concept.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.
Election is not of the one doing who "willeth." Election is not of him that "runneth." The text is clear that the basis of Election solely rests in God who is the one showing mercy.
As for we humans, we are all of the same clay.
21 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?
There is no difference between us an unbelievers as far as election is concerned. If God chose us because he looked into the future and saw faith, then it would not be the "same lump" of clay. We would have been different from the start and God would have made the lump of faith into a vessel of honor. We are of the same lump.

The question is why election? Why is election so important to God? I think God reserved that decision to himself for one main reason. He is maintaining his own free will. God is the ultimate free will in the universe.

We might all have free will too. As Rebels and sinners we all use that free will to choose sin. That is because we have a sinful nature. By nature, we are dead in our sins and we all use our free will to be children of wrath. This is our nature. See Ephesians 2:1, 3
1 And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins,
3 And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins,
There was no faith in anyone's future without God giving that gift of faith. Faith is granted to the believer, not generated by the believer himself of his own righteousness. See Philippians 1:29 because to you it hath been granted in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer in his behalf:
So in unconditional election, God chooses some, gives them faith, and saves them. Then salvation is all God's grace. Grace is totally sufficient for salvation. Nothing more is needed other than God's grace. Grace is not merely just necessary, not absolutely sufficient. See ya all elsewhere.

Thank you Mondar for that very informative and true post. Obviously, you have done a lot of research on the subject of election, more than me. So I bow to you, my learned fellow, my God bless your comings and goings.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

...God knew who would respond to Salvation, but I don't believe that election is based on that. Your theory is based on man's choice not God's. I have a problem with that.

This is the interesting thing that I've noticed in the church. Some people are so afraid of acknowledging even the slightest input by man into salvation (actually, justification) because if they do that they are sure that somehow negates Paul's 'by grace through faith apart from works' teaching.

So what I see happening in the church is people not realizing that faith in Christ is indeed a 'work' that man must do to be justified and which is clearly opposed to performing righteous deeds to be justified (have your guilt removed). Did God do my trusting in the blood (aka, believing) for me? He surely gave me the faith to believe. That is without debate. That is an entirely gracious gift--the ability to even know that what I need to trust in to be saved really is true. But the 'placing my trust' in that which God has graciously shown to me to be true is mine, albeit generously helped along by God's loving kindness.

So what I see in the church is a misunderstanding of Paul's grace message that demands that we never, ever acknowledge man's input into salvation in even the slightest way. I don't see Paul teaching that. I see clearly that trusting is a required 'work' of man to be justified--a work that is diametrically opposed to the work of doing righteous deeds to be justified. The gracious part about what Paul is talking about is the giving of the gift of faith to even be able to know that forgiveness in Christ is even true. Besides the blood of Christ itself, that's the grace of salvation Paul is talking about.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Elected, appointed, chosen, predestined, conditional, unconditional, these are all words of confusion for the church in general.
Every expert I read is so sure they are right, but they don't all agree.
And their answers are often confusing.
To believe that you are chosen by God and that you have no free will to choose goes against everything I have ever learned in my 28 1/2 years of studying God's word.
Even when Paul was struck on the road to Damascus, he had a choice.
We see Judas had a choice, and he made the wrong choice.
God is not a respecter of persons.
Otherwise, his love for us all would not be the same.

 

[Chopper]

This is the interesting thing that I've noticed in the church. Some people are so afraid of acknowledging even the slightest input by man into salvation (actually, justification) because if they do that they are sure that somehow negates Paul's 'by grace through faith apart from works' teaching.

So what I see happening in the church is people not realizing that faith in Christ is indeed a 'work' that man must do to be justified and which is clearly opposed to performing righteous deeds to be justified (have your guilt removed). Did God do my trusting in the blood (aka, believing) for me? He surely gave me the faith to believe. That is without debate. That is an entirely gracious gift--the ability to even know that what I need to trust in to be saved really is true. But the 'placing my trust' in that which God has graciously shown to me to be true is mine, albeit generously helped along by God's loving kindness.

So what I see in the church is a misunderstanding of Paul's grace message that demands that we never, ever acknowledge man's input into salvation in even the slightest way. I don't see Paul teaching that. I see clearly that trusting is a required 'work' of man to be justified--a work that is diametrically opposed to the work of doing righteous deeds to be justified. The gracious part about what Paul is talking about is the giving of the gift of faith to even be able to know that forgiveness in Christ is even true. Besides the blood of Christ itself, that's the grace of salvation Paul is talking about.

I don't see anything wrong with what you say, my Brother. You are right in identifying the churches reluctance to admit to the slightest amount of work for Salvation. They miss the fact that it takes mental activity to reason, evaluate, and based on the information received, decide for themselves a proper response. Thank you for the reminder.

 

[Chopper]

Elected, appointed, chosen, predestined, conditional, unconditional, these are all words of confusion for the church in general.
Every expert I read is so sure they are right, but they don't all agree.
And their answers are often confusing.
To believe that you are chosen by God and that you have no free will to choose goes against everything I have ever learned in my 28 1/2 years of studying God's word.
Even when Paul was struck on the road to Damascus, he had a choice.
We see Judas had a choice, and he made the wrong choice.
God is not a respecter of persons.
Otherwise, his love for us all would not be the same.

Oh my Brother, for some strange reason, God allows us to retain differing opinions. It would be terrific if 1 Cor. 1:10 were true for all of us today. We come from such varied backgrounds, education, knowledge in the Word of God, at a point of a relationship with the Holy Spirit, that "revelation" could freely flow. There is so much at stake. I sometimes think that those 1st Century believers had it easier than us. Because of their knowledge of their own culture and how things were done at that time, and the lack of so many twisters of Scripture (there were a few of them). I envy them sometimes. Today? God help us learn from each other like I'm doing with you. Thank you for your post, I value anything you have to say....Love you Brother.