What is Election?

[Deborah13]

I'm starting to see election in a different light.
It is mentioned 51 times in the New Testament and "you must be born again" is only mentioned once.
It is worth studying and understanding.

Some questions still abound.
If Jesus came to save the whole world, then why did he choose to send some to hell before hand?
Now that doesn't make sense.
There seem to be conditions we have to abide by.
But if there are conditions then it doesn't seem to agree with what is being said is election.
In Acts 10:34-35 Peter says, "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but excepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right".
This sounds like the door is open for anyone and we have to do something to qualify.

In Acts 13:48 the writer says, "When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed".
What does appointed mean?
From my studies it refers to those that "endure", who live the life, who walk the walk.
But should it mean something else?

There is more.
Can someone shed light on these questions first?

Hi allenwynne, may I use Allen and you use Deb?

Acts 13:48 is a tough one isn't it. Here's the link to the Blue Letter Bible site that shows all the times that Greek word is used, not many really. http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G5021&t=KJV
Anyway, the thing is it doesn't explain How election works. If God ordains (sets, appoints) someone to be a pastor, does that mean he has no choice but to become a pastor?
Did God Make David commit adultery and premeditated murder and then take the life of David's son, to punish David for what God made him do?
I think these are valid questions to ask when we are trying to understand how and what election really means. They are all tied to together when it comes to Calvin's election theology.
Another thing is sometimes when the word elect is used, when taken in context it is talking about very specific people. But the whole body of Christ is also called the elect. I'm sure you know these scriptures.
Blessings

 

[Deborah13]

Deborah, I am not sure I understand the question. Why is it a problem for both the Father and Christ to draw men to Christ? In your mind is it permissible for only one or the other to draw? Actually, since the Holy Spirit is the agent of regeneration, I would include the Holy Spirit in this drawing also.

Sorry mondar, I shouldn't have asked you that last question, it too far off the topic. So just ignore it, please.
But please address the first question in my post to you.

"Let me see if I understand you correctly.
Because verse 20, says certain Greeks had gone to the temple, not all Greeks, that means in verse 32, Jesus doesn't mean all men, just certain men?"
I think that is a very weak argument.

 

[Deborah13]

May God bless you, my friend, with the revelation that I have received through the Scriptures. In Galatians 1:15, 16, "but when he (God) who had set me apart before I was born (election) and who called me by his grace, (16) was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the gentiles" (general call).

Allen, The argument that only those of God's choice before the foundations of the world would only be the ones to inherit eternal life, simply is not true. That is what we call "hyper Calvinism" and limits Salvation ONLY to the elect.

Chopper, I really don't want to disagree with you but.....that is not "hyper Calvinism". Calvinism says, that ONLY the elect will be saved. That man cannot choose God. Here is TULIP, which is the doctrine of Calvinists.
http://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm This is a very good site to find out what Calvinism teaches.
There are not two groups of saved people in Calvin's doctrine/theology.
Calvin admitted that all men were called, but that what he called a "general call" was Not efficacious (would not take effect) because it was not the "irresistible grace" call. Only the elect would be called with an irresistible call, that they could not refuse.
The general call people are not saved.

The big question amongst most Christians is "what about the rest of mankind who are not the "elect"? You and I both know that someone has to have "free will". The "elect" does not have free will, they are chosen by God Almighty and does not fail to produce a small group of believers to represent Him in all generations. NOW, the elect is responsible to spread the Gospel to every living soul, because Jesus is not willing that any perish, right? SO, as the elect (evangelists, if you please) spread the Gospel to everyone, and they have a free will choice to accept Jesus or not. I see this as simple theology, but people, I think, are hung up on the theology of the elect and can't see God's solution for the masses.

 

[Chopper]

Chopper, I really don't want to disagree with you but.....that is not "hyper Calvinism". Calvinism says, that ONLY the elect will be saved. That man cannot choose God. Here is TULIP, which is the doctrine of Calvinists.
http://www.calvinistcorner.com/tulip.htm This is a very good site to find out what Calvinism teaches.
There are not two groups of saved people in Calvin's doctrine/theology.
Calvin admitted that all men were called, but that what he called a "general call" was Not efficacious (would not take effect) because it was not the "irresistible grace" call. Only the elect would be called with an irresistible call, that they could not refuse.
The general call people are not saved.

I don't think that you are grasping what I'm trying to get across. I'm trying to explain a very difficult doctrine to understand. All the different posts tell the tale. I'm not sure why you think that hypercalvinism is any different than what I identified it to be. I have in my possession "Institutes of the Christian Religion" by John Calvin. I have read his works and theology. I think I know his position. You are hung up on what most folk are when they consider election. The "general call" of the Gospel goes out from the "elect" to the masses of unbelievers. It is obvious that they are not saved. These are the people who have a choice! They (unsaved) have a free will choice to become a believer in Jesus or not. Can you see two groups of people? You have the "elect" (no choice in their Salvation) then you have the rest of mankind who are not saved (they have a choice in Salvation.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

So how do we know who is elected?
Galatians 1:15 says Paul was not elected.
Read it again with an open mind and you will see it.

Why is Esau hated?
"For God so loved the world..." except for Esau.
God is love.
He is perfect love.
Yet he hated Esau before he was even created.

I think we need a better understanding still.
There are answers but I haven't seen them yet.

Men are saved when they believe Christ, not when they are elected.

Who does the Bible say is elected?
An evangelist?
I don't see it.

Keep coming at me.
My mind is open.

 

[mondar]

Sorry mondar, I shouldn't have asked you that last question, it too far off the topic. So just ignore it, please.
But please address the first question in my post to you.

"Let me see if I understand you correctly.
Because verse 20, says certain Greeks had gone to the temple, not all Greeks, that means in verse 32, Jesus doesn't mean all men, just certain men?"
I think that is a very weak argument.

Well Deborah, the word "all" is often a major hang up. Some people require any passage with the word "all" in it to refer to all men everywhere at all times. So many assume that they do not have to demonstrate the meaning of the term by the context and that they can assume that the word "all" means all men everywhere.

One correction on how you understand me... I do not think I would lay so much stress on the the word "certain Greeks" in verse 20. The issue there is not that there are "certain" kinds of men, as much as that there are different "kinds of men." These Greeks that approached Andrew were different kinds of men and as Greeks, they are introducing a Jew vs Gentiles issue into the context. In verse 21-22, Andrew and Philip approach Jesus and report that some Greeks want to speak to him. Please read that context, I am not going to post it. Notice then in verse 23 to 32 Jesus gives a speech on "the hour has come." At first reading it might seem strange that there is no answer given to the Greeks that approached Andrew. Yet, I believe that is exactly what Jesus is doing in verse 32. He is giving his answer to the Jew vs Gentile question. He says he will draw "all" or all kinds of men, both Greek and Jew. In John 12:32, I do not see the drawing as something ineffectual, but again it is powerful and saves all whom are drawn. If each and every Jew and each and every Greek (or Gentile) is drawn, then we have a doctrine called universalism. Everyone everywhere is saved.

Deborah, lets talk about the use of the term "all" a little bit. In Luke 2:1 the decree went out for "all" the word to be taxed. Of course this was not speaking of each and every person that every lived anywhere. The word "all" in Luke 2:1 speaks of taxable people in the Romans empire. Actually the Chinese did not pay any taxes to Caesar. Neither did the Mayans, or the some of the free German tribes. In Matthew and Mark, it speaks of "all" Jerusalem, Judea, and the region around the Jordan came to hear John preach. Does this mean that Jerusalem and Judea were empty? No babies, not decrepit old people? The Roman legions left their posts? I could go to many many passages and demonstrate that the term "all" regularly does not refer to all men everywhere at all times.

So then, I would not read John 12:32 as if the text identifies "certain men" for salvation, but rather it identifies "all kinds of men," both Greek (Gentile) and Jew.

There are many other passage with the word "all" in them that are a part of this issue. Passages like 1 Tim 2:4 and 6, Hebrews 2:9, and many others. Then there is also the word "world." Then there is the word "whosoever." Then there are passages like John 6, Romans 9, and many others. I used to quote 1 John 2:2 myself against Calvinists myself.

By the way, I appreciate your statement earlier in the thread on Hyper Calvinism.

 

[Chopper]

So how do we know who is elected?
Galatians 1:15 says Paul was not elected.
Read it again with an open mind and you will see it.

Why is Esau hated?
"For God so loved the world..." except for Esau.
God is love.
He is perfect love.
Yet he hated Esau before he was even created.

I think we need a better understanding still.
There are answers but I haven't seen them yet.

Men are saved when they believe Christ, not when they are elected.

Who does the Bible say is elected?
An evangelist?
I don't see it.

Keep coming at me.
My mind is open.

OK Allen, Let's take this slow and deliberate. A person is of the elect when they were chosen by God before they were born. Example: Jeremiah 1:5 "before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations"....This is a very good example of one who is "elect" or chosen. He was known, consecrated, and appointed before he was even born or conceived. That my friend is election. Do you understand this part of it?

 

[Chopper]

I don't think that you are grasping what I'm trying to get across. I'm trying to explain a very difficult doctrine to understand. All the different posts tell the tale. I'm not sure why you think that hypercalvinism is any different than what I identified it to be. I have in my possession "Institutes of the Christian Religion" by John Calvin. I have read his works and theology. I think I know his position. You are hung up on what most folk are when they consider election. The "general call" of the Gospel goes out from the "elect" to the masses of unbelievers. It is obvious that they are not saved. These are the people who have a choice! They (unsaved) have a free will choice to become a believer in Jesus or not. Can you see two groups of people? You have the "elect" (no choice in their Salvation) then you have the rest of mankind who are not saved (they have a choice in Salvation.

Also, I didn't mention why there is hyper-Calvinism. I think that name came into play when men became to believe 4 parts of Calvins famous TULIP instead of 5. The part that is a hard pill to swallow is, Limited atonement. The atonement is limited ONLY to the elect. People that believe that folk can be saved outside of the elect or the "who so ever" they are 4 point Calvinists. They consider the 5 point Calvinists to be Hyper.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Jeremiah 1:5 is very direct, easy to understand
He was chosen to do a mission.
But did that election saved him?
Where does it say that?

 

[Messenger]

So how do we know who is elected?
Galatians 1:15 says Paul was not elected. Read it again with an open mind and you will see it.

Incorrect.

Paul was definitely elected to salvation.

Gal. 1:15-16 - But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb,
and called me by His grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen

Grace is a gift of the Spirit (Eph. 2:8, 3:7); given only to the elect in the New Birth.

This "calling" is the same as "drawing" in John 6:44 -
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him:
and I will raise him up at the last day.

Also, God refers to Paul as a "chosen vessel" (Acts 9:15; Eph 1:4)

 

[Chopper]

Jeremiah 1:5 is very direct, easy to understand
He was chosen to do a mission.
But did that election saved him?
Where does it say that?

The word consecrate is used. It means to set apart. Heb. qadash, to make clean, holy, purify, sanctify.

 

[Deborah13]

I don't think that you are grasping what I'm trying to get across. I'm trying to explain a very difficult doctrine to understand.

I do understand what you are saying about your doctrine of 'two groups'. I see you are trying to reconcile scriptures that seems to disagree. I respect and admire the fact that you are studying the scriptures and that you have the right to your interpretation.
I, however do not see two groups.
Col 3:10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:
Col 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
Col 3:12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;
Col 3:13 Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.

Are these scriptures for all God's children or just for an 'elect' group. OR Are the for all God's children who are all the elect (the church)?

All the different posts tell the tale. I'm not sure why you think that hypercalvinism is any different than what I identified it to be. I have in my possession "Institutes of the Christian Religion" by John Calvin. I have read his works and theology. I think I know his position.

Because this is what Calvin said.
“Our Heavenly Father invites everyone to faith by the external, human voice; but he effectually calls by his Spirit only those he has decided to save. Now if God’s election, by which he ordains us to life, is the cause of faith and salvation, nothing remains for worthiness or merits.” (Acts: Calvin, Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.229,)

You are hung up on what most folk are when they consider election. The "general call" of the Gospel goes out from the "elect" to the masses of unbelievers. It is obvious that they are not saved. These are the people who have a choice! They (unsaved) have a free will choice to become a believer in Jesus or not. Can you see two groups of people? You have the "elect" (no choice in their Salvation) then you have the rest of mankind who are not saved (they have a choice in Salvation.

 

[Messenger]

allenwynne
He predestined this process before time began.

It's not the process that was predestined; God predestinated certain individuals to eternal
life.

allenwynne
We can turn to Jesus and be saved.
We become chosen.
This salvation was predestined for us.

God's grace is definite and discriminate. If a person is predestined to eternal life, he will have it, because God has ordained it (Acts 13:48).

The elected ones were chosen before the foundation of the world.
They don't become chosen when they turn to Jesus.

 

[Deborah13]

Well Deborah, the word "all" is often a major hang up. Some people require any passage with the word "all" in it to refer to all men everywhere at all times. So many assume that they do not have to demonstrate the meaning of the term by the context and that they can assume that the word "all" means all men everywhere.

One correction on how you understand me... I do not think I would lay so much stress on the the word "certain Greeks" in verse 20. The issue there is not that there are "certain" kinds of men, as much as that there are different "kinds of men." These Greeks that approached Andrew were different kinds of men and as Greeks, they are introducing a Jew vs Gentiles issue into the context. In verse 21-22, Andrew and Philip approach Jesus and report that some Greeks want to speak to him. Please read that context, I am not going to post it. Notice then in verse 23 to 32 Jesus gives a speech on "the hour has come." At first reading it might seem strange that there is no answer given to the Greeks that approached Andrew. Yet, I believe that is exactly what Jesus is doing in verse 32. He is giving his answer to the Jew vs Gentile question. He says he will draw "all" or all kinds of men, both Greek and Jew.

OK now I see what you are saying and even why.

In John 12:32, I do not see the drawing as something ineffectual, but again it is powerful and saves all whom are drawn. If each and every Jew and each and every Greek (or Gentile) is drawn, then we have a doctrine called universalism. Everyone everywhere is saved.

Deborah, lets talk about the use of the term "all" a little bit. In Luke 2:1 the decree went out for "all" the word to be taxed. Of course this was not speaking of each and every person that every lived anywhere. The word "all" in Luke 2:1 speaks of taxable people in the Romans empire. Actually the Chinese did not pay any taxes to Caesar. Neither did the Mayans, or the some of the free German tribes. In Matthew and Mark, it speaks of "all" Jerusalem, Judea, and the region around the Jordan came to hear John preach. Does this mean that Jerusalem and Judea were empty? No babies, not decrepit old people? The Roman legions left their posts? I could go to many many passages and demonstrate that the term "all" regularly does not refer to all men everywhere at all times.

I agree with you, each 'all' needs to be interpreted by the context.

So then, I would not read John 12:32 as if the text identifies "certain men" for salvation, but rather it identifies "all kinds of men," both Greek (Gentile) and Jew.

There are many other passage with the word "all" in them that are a part of this issue. Passages like 1 Tim 2:4 and 6, Hebrews 2:9, and many others. Then there is also the word "world." Then there is the word "whosoever." Then there are passages like John 6, Romans 9, and many others. I used to quote 1 John 2:2 myself against Calvinists myself.

By the way, I appreciate your statement earlier in the thread on Hyper Calvinism.

And I appreciate you explaining, especially in layman's terms that I can understand. :nod

 

[Messenger]

There is an important distinction between God deciding beforehand and God knowing beforehand.

I personally believe (and can back up scripturally) that God knows beforehand and leaves it to us to decide whether or not to accept the gift of salvation. It is accepted by faith and faith alone.

False religions exalt man's "freewill" to be the deciding factor in salvation;
making Sovereign God subject to the will of man. EDITED REBA

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

that I might preach him among the heathen

Hi Messenger, you see this above?
Paul was chosen, but he still tells us that he had a choice as to whether he would do it or not.
That word "might" is Mighty"!

False religions exalt man's "freewill" to be the deciding factor in salvation;
making Sovereign God subject to the will of man. [edited]

And which false religions are these?
I've never heard that before?

 

[Chopper]

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

LOL, this is what Calvin and Wesley must have felt about each other.

 

[Deborah13]

False religions exalt man's "freewill" to be the deciding factor in salvation;
making Sovereign God subject to the will of man. [edited]

Hi Messenger, I haven't seen you here in a while, welcome.
I'm not addressing your doctrine in this post but frankly, I find this post to be unproductive. What I hear you saying in this post is that, I am not saved, I am in a false religion that is blasphemous.
The issue here is not people believing they are justified by works, whether it be works of law or good works.
It's more complex than that. There are many, many born again people, do not agree on HOW salvation happens, but most would all agree, that we cannot in anyway obtain it by anything that we can do, without Gods intervention.

George Whitefield (Calvanist) and John and Charles Wesley (Arminian) were great friends, then there was a huge rife over doctrine, election. Over the years they did manage to regain much of what they had lost of their communion, but they never agreed on election. But......
"In 1770, the year of his death, Whitefield wrote to Charles as “my very dear old friend” and described John as “your honoured brother.” To each he bequeathed a mourning ring, “in token of my indissoluble union with them in heart and Christian affection, notwithstanding our difference in judgment about some particular points of doctrine.” On Whitefield’s death, Charles penned a noble elegy. And at Whitefield’s request, his funeral sermon was preached by none other than his former opponent, John Wesley." sorry I lost the site I quoted this from but there are many sites that speak of them.

May God Bless you and Keep you,

 

[chessman]

OK now I see what you are saying and even why.



I agree with you, each 'all' needs to be interpreted by the context.

Note how the ESV translators felt so comfortable that is what Jesus was saying, they went ahead and translated this passage: "
John 12:32 (ESV) And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”

I think Mondar covered this "all" pretty well and correctly. Also:

24 Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.

Which is why you see this fruit in Col 3:11 written after Gentile elect were grafted into God's chosen people via Christ's "hour".


Colossians 3:11
English Standard Version (ESV)

11 Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.