What is Election?

[Chopper]

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.

The text "might" or "should" is future. It is the goal of election. Every person who has been born, as I have explained in past posts, are in two groups. All share the position of being lost in sin, thanks to Adam. At some point in the future, all those who have been born into this world must be saved. Group # 1 is the elect. Their Salvation is guaranteed. At some point in the future they will become saved. Some even go so far as to say, that day is picked by God. I don't believe that. Many theologians say that they have a choice in whether they will respond or not. It is my opinion that they will respond in the positive because as Calvin says "Salvation is irresistable to the elect. I like that word irresistable. Group #2 This group is not made up of the elect. The words "general call of the Gospel" is the main focus for future work of the elect. They represent a holy God to the masses. Everyone in this group, outside of the elect, are just as lost as the elect and they too must make a choice for Salvation. The difference is; their Salvation is not guaranteed. No one knows who is elect or not.

 

[Chopper]

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.

The text "might" or "should" is future. It is the goal of election. Every person who has been born, as I have explained in past posts, are in two groups. All share the position of being lost in sin, thanks to Adam. At some point in the future, all those who have been born into this world must be saved. Group # 1 is the elect. Their Salvation is guaranteed. At some point in the future they will become saved. Some even go so far as to say, that day is picked by God. I don't believe that. Many theologians say that they have a choice in whether they will respond or not. It is my opinion that they will respond in the positive because as Calvin says "Salvation is irresistable to the elect. I like that word irresistable. Group #2 This group is not made up of the elect. The words "general call of the Gospel" is the main focus for future work of the elect. They represent a holy God to the masses. Everyone in this group, outside of the elect, are just as lost as the elect and they too must make a choice for Salvation. The difference is; their Salvation is not guaranteed. No one knows who is elect or not.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

But, Chopper dude, it's already been shown, Biblically, that it's impossible to separate the elect as a distinct group from all believers.

There's no reason to try to explain how and why God raises up a group of believers who are pre-programmed to believe since that's not what Paul is saying God does in his discourse in Romans.

This reminds me of the subject of dispensationalism. The church builds a whole doctrine on a misunderstanding of a word used in the Bible. Election is another example of how a doctrine is only as good as the foundational premise upon which it is built. In the case of election, the misunderstanding comes from the incorrect premise that 'election', by definition, means being pre-programmed to believe apart from the will of the person being pre-programmed'. It's a kind of circular reasoning. The incorrect definition is mistakenly derived from the context where the word is used. Then the word is used to interpret the context.

The basis for election (being chosen) is faith. Always has been, always will be. That's the point. But somehow we've come to understand election as being pre-programmed to have faith, or not have faith. A belief energized by the misunderstanding that 'having faith' is somehow a self-righteous work if you say you did it rather than God doing it for you apart from your will and consent.

 

[Butch5]

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.

HI Mondar,

I can see we agree about verse 6. When I said if you are Abraham's seed then you are heirs according to the promise, I was not referring to Romans 9:6 but rather to Galatians 3:29. However, I have to disagree that the election is to salvation, Paul nowhere says that. While the ultimate end of the promises to Abraham is salvation to the Gentiles that is not what the election in Romans 9 is addressing. Romans 9 is Paul explanation of what he stated in chapter 8.

28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.(Rom 8:28-30 KJV)

Paul said that God works all things together for good to those who love Him and are called according to His purpose. His purpose is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. Paul goes on in Romans 9 to explain how God did this. He explains that the covenants belong to Israel, that the promises belong to the fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I've already shown that from the Scriptures. He says that it was concerning the fathers that Christ came. OK, he's set the stage, he's concerned for his brethren according to the flesh, the Israelites, the promises belong to the Israelites, the promises belong to the Fathers and it was concerning them that Christ came. Paul writes this to show that God works all things together for those who love him. He goes on to say that it's not as though the promise has been of no effect and show how God fulfilled it.

6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. (Rom 9:6-7 KJV)

We're in agreement that this is addressing two groups of Israelites, however, I disagree that one group is saved and one isn't. That is nowhere in the test. It seems to me that you are presupposing that. He says "In Isaac shall thy seed be called".

18 And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!
19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.(Gen 17:18-21 KJV)

We agree that the Seed is Christ as Paul said. So the promise is that the Seed, Christ would come through Isaac, the child of promise and not Ishmael. Paul continues,

10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. (Rom 9:10-12 KJV)

This passage also come from Genesis.

21 And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.
22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD.
23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger. (Gen 25:21-23 KJV)

This is the passage that Paul quotes. Before Jacob or Esau were born God chose Jacob and not Esau to be the one He would use to bring the Seed into the world. The choosing is about who God is going to use to bring the Seed into the world. There is nothing here about Ishmael and Isaac, or Jacob and Esau, being saved or not being saved. His argument is based in Genesis in the Abrahamic covenant and God's bringing the Seed which we agree is Christ into the world. We can see this in Galatians 3.

8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. (Gal 3:8 KJV)
Romans 9 is explaining how God brought this to fruition.

Regarding "The blessing of Abraham", it is not to the physical seed alone. Paul argues that "The blessing of Abraham" come upon the Gentiles through faith and "The blessing of Abraham specifically mentions the inheritance of the land. The land inheritance is also for the Gentiles. Paul said in Romans 8,

17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. (Rom 8:17 KJV)

Joint heirs with Christ. Christ's inheritance is the Land.

6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. (Psa 2:6-9 KJV)

The ultimate inheritance of the Land includes the Gentiles.

 

[Butch5]

The text "might" or "should" is future. It is the goal of election. Every person who has been born, as I have explained in past posts, are in two groups. All share the position of being lost in sin, thanks to Adam. At some point in the future, all those who have been born into this world must be saved. Group # 1 is the elect. Their Salvation is guaranteed. At some point in the future they will become saved. Some even go so far as to say, that day is picked by God. I don't believe that. Many theologians say that they have a choice in whether they will respond or not. It is my opinion that they will respond in the positive because as Calvin says "Salvation is irresistable to the elect. I like that word irresistable. Group #2 This group is not made up of the elect. The words "general call of the Gospel" is the main focus for future work of the elect. They represent a holy God to the masses. Everyone in this group, outside of the elect, are just as lost as the elect and they too must make a choice for Salvation. The difference is; their Salvation is not guaranteed. No one knows who is elect or not.

That's not what Paul is saying in Ephesians 1. Yes should does indicate future but the passage is speaking of the Jews, not Gentiles. God chose the Jews before the foundation of the world that they should be blameless and holy before Him. It's not saying they were chosen to be saved. It's as Jethro said, this doctrine of election imposes ideas on the Biblical texts that are not there. Election "Does not" refer to God choosing individuals who will be saved. That is not found in Scripture. To be chosen to be holy and blameless does not mean chosen to be saved.

3 And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel;
4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.
5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
7 And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him.
8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD. (Exo 19:3-8 KJV)

We know not every Jew was saved so this cannot be speaking of salvation.

 

[Butch5]

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?

Hi Chessman,

I'd submit that "His Purpose" here is not the little things in life but rather a particular purpose. Here is the definition of Prothesis (Purpose)

4286 πρόθεσις prothesis {proth'-es-is}

Meaning: 1) a setting forth of a thing, placing of it in view, the shewbread 1a) twelve loaves of wheaten bread, corresponding to the number of the tribes of Israel, which loaves were offered to God every Sabbath, and separated into two rows, lay for seven days upon a table placed in the sanctuary or front portion of the tabernacle, and afterwards of the temple 2) a purpose

The word basically means to layout a plan. What God set forth was the promise made to Abraham, how his seed would inherit the land.

 

[Chopper]

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.



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.

Hi Jethro, I am beginning to believe more of what you are teaching than Calvin. I want you to know that I have been a student of Calvinism for years. The church that I have attended for the past 12 years has a pastor who is a 5 point Calvinist. I am beginning to see a big difference from Calvin to what a few of you are expressing. I'm not letting go of what I feel is revelation from God, I'm seeing how it intergrates with "choice".

The word irresistable does not quarantee Salvation, it simply means perhaps an advantage, I guess. Anyway, I'm throwing out Calvinism as a mixture of truth and error. I don't like that. I really appreciate how God is using you in this threat. Everyone has a choice! God's wisdom is so far above me, so I think I'll stick with KISS. Keep it simple Stupid, or KISSC, keep it simple stupid chopper.

 

[chessman]

The word basically means to layout a plan. What God set forth was the promise made to Abraham, how his seed would inherit the land.

I've already agreed with you about what the "purpose" was that was meant. You asked me if I thought "all things" would include well, all things. I said yes. What type of things would you suggest Paul means to exclude from that portion of the verses in question? Is salvation of any particular person excluded from all things?

 

[Butch5]

I've already agreed with you about what the "purpose" was that was meant. You asked me if I thought "all things" would include well, all things. I said yes. What type of things would you suggest Paul means to exclude from that portion of the verses in question? Is salvation of any particular person excluded from all things?

I would submit that what Paul is speaking of in verse 11 is all things that pertain to "His purpose" which in this case is the fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant. I don't think Paul is addressing anything outside of that.

 

[chessman]

I would submit that what Paul is speaking of in verse 11 is all things that pertain to "His purpose" which in this case is the fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant. I don't think Paul is addressing anything outside of that.

So why does he say "all things", "things" in heaven and "things" on Earth, if he only meant the Abrahamic Covenant thing?

 

[mondar]

HI Mondar,

I can see we agree about verse 6. When I said if you are Abraham's seed then you are heirs according to the promise, I was not referring to Romans 9:6 but rather to Galatians 3:27. However, I have to disagree that the election is to salvation, Paul nowhere says that. While the ultimate end of the promises to Abraham is salvation to the Gentiles that is not what the election in Romans 9 is addressing.

Romans 9 is Paul explanation of what he stated in chapter 8.

28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.(Rom 8:28-30 KJV)

Paul said that God works all things together for good to those who love Him and are called according to His purpose. His purpose is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. Paul goes on in Romans 9 to explain how God did this. He explains that the covenants belong to Israel, that the promises belong to the fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I've already shown that from the Scriptures. He says that it was concerning the fathers that Christ came. OK, he's set the stage, he's concerned for his brethren according to the flesh, the Israelites, the promises belong to the Israelites, the promises belong to the Fathers and it was concerning them that Christ came. Paul writes this to show that God works all things together for those who love him. He goes on to say that it's not as though the promise has been of no effect and show how God fulfilled it.

Yes, I agree that Romans 8 and Romans 9 are related, but to me, that adds support to the fact that the election theme is about redemption or salvation. The passage you quote is often called the Golden Thread of Redemption. The of purpose of God in Romans 8:29-30 is that each and everyone one in the group God foreknow, God predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son. Being "predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son" is salvation. God does not conform people to the image of his Son and then send them to hell. This predestination is to salvation.
Then the next part of the thread is that each and everyone he predestines, he "calls." This calling is not to service, it is not to be an Israelite, it is an effectual calling to salvation. All predestined, are called. Then the next part is that each and every one called, they are "justified." Of course Romans is a book about justification by faith. This again is salvation. Finally, all justified are glorified. That of course involves heaven.

Please notice the absence of the Abrahamic Covenant in the golden thread of redemption. The Abrahamic Covenant is related to the issue because the Abrahamic Covenant, because as I mentioned before, the Abrahamic Covenant has issues about Salvation also (Remember Galatians 3:8 and the Gospel).

Also, it is important to recognize that in the process of the golden chain of redemption, it is one group. The same ones foreknown, are predestined, called, justified, and glorified. There are no unbelievers anywhere in that process. And there are no believers that failed to be in each and every part of that process. It is about salvation and the saved.

Of course this theme of elective, predestined salvation continues right into Romans 9. Paul likes the concept of salvation in Romans 9:3
For I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
So then, after Paul talks about the Golden Thread of Redemption, he turns to the subject of salvation with Israel. His first major statement is that he would be willing to be separated from the source of his salvation (Christ) if his countrymen were to be linked to the source of salvation.

6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. (Rom 9:6-7 KJV)

We're in agreement that this is addressing two groups of Israelites, however, I disagree that one group is saved and one isn't. That is nowhere in the test. It seems to me that you are presupposing that. He says "In Isaac shall thy seed be called".

18 And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!
19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.(Gen 17:18-21 KJV)

We agree that the Seed is Christ as Paul said. So the promise is that the Seed, Christ would come through Isaac, the child of promise and not Ishmael. Paul continues,

10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. (Rom 9:10-12 KJV)

This passage also come from Genesis.

21 And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.
22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD.
23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger. (Gen 25:21-23 KJV)

This is the passage that Paul quotes. Before Jacob or Esau were born God chose Jacob and not Esau to be the one He would use to bring the Seed into the world. The choosing is about who God is going to use to bring the Seed into the world. There is nothing here about Ishmael and Isaac, or Jacob and Esau, being saved or not being saved. His argument is based in Genesis in the Abrahamic covenant and God's bringing the Seed which we agree is Christ into the world. We can see this in Galatians 3.

8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. (Gal 3:8 KJV)
Romans 9 is explaining how God brought this to fruition.

Butch5, I must admit some surprise here. Do you really mean to deny that the term "gospel" in Galatians 3:8 refers to salvation? There are also words like "Justify." While the term justify is broad and there are contexts where it does not refer to salvation, Galatians is not one of them. The word justify is used several times in Galatians 2 to refer to salvation, and the concept of justification by faith alone is the gospel.

Galatians 3:8 is not about a promise to the Jew that the seed would come through them, it is a promise to Gentiles. It is the gospel to the Gentiles. It says so right in the text.

Regarding "The blessing of Abraham", it is not to the physical seed alone. Paul argues that "The blessing of Abraham" come upon the Gentiles through faith and "The blessing of Abraham specifically mentions the inheritance of the land. The land inheritance is also for the Gentiles. Paul said in Romans 8,

17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. (Rom 8:17 KJV)

Joint heirs with Christ. Christ's inheritance is the Land.

6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. (Psa 2:6-9 KJV)

The ultimate inheritance of the Land includes the Gentiles.

Sorry, out of time.

 

[ivdavid]

Reconciling Election with Freewill has been the crux of this debate. But first, we'd have to agree upon what we exactly mean by each of these terms. I'm assuming that 'freewill' is commonly used to refer to the ' individual's voluntary choosing from amongst a set of available options '. I personally call this simply 'will' and not 'freewill' in order to be more specific, but the commonly used term 'freewill' should also work just fine in this particular case.

This topic also has need of us to distinguish between the "flesh" and the "spirit"(Rom 8). God created man in the flesh -> the flesh was corrupted by sin -> man is regenerated in the spirit and saved by grace through faith -> all flesh shall pass away and the children of God shall be resurrected in the spirit into His eternal Kingdom. This arc between man starting in the flesh(self-nature) to ending in the spirit(God-nature) is to teach us to "deny self" and "worship God in spirit" since the flesh profits nothing, is not pleasing to God and hence cannot glory before Him[John 6:63,Rom 8:8,1Cor 1:29].

As part of the above teaching, God gave us the Law to hold all flesh guilty before Him[Rom 3:19-20] - by revealing to us that those in the flesh[self-nature] cannot be subject to the Law of God[Rom 8:7] nor do they seek God righteously[Rom 3:10-11]. Apart from the Law, faith in Christ is revealed to be the means of salvation. Faith or believing upon Christ is a choice of an individual - and all those in the flesh continue to choose against believing in Him whom the Father has sent. Note the corollary - if those in the flesh choose to have faith in Christ, such an act would be pleasing to God, would result in life and would contradict Rom 8:8,John 6:63 etc.

This is where and why no man can enter the kingdom without being regenerated i.e. being born from above. God, as part of the new covenant, takes out his stony heart and gives him a new heart and renewed spirit[Eze 36:26] -> and man is no longer in the flesh but in the spirit[Rom 8:9] -> and as this new creature, he now voluntarily chooses(wills) to believe in Christ. Through such faith, he is justified and adopted as God's child, sealed with His Holy Spirit. He is now caused willingly to walk in God's statutes, as fore-ordained by Him [Eze 36:27,Eph 2:10] - for it is still man(the individual soul) who wills and works and yet it is not him(the flesh/self-nature) but the grace of God in him(Holy Spirit in the spirit/God-nature) who works in him to both will and do of His good pleasure [1Cor 15:10,Php 2:13].

Hence, faith is as much a work required of man as it is a gift of grace from God - in that such faith is indeed worked out of man's voluntary will but as a consequence of the regenerative work of God that gives him a new nature to will so. Note again, faith preceding regeneration would require reconciliation with the earlier mentioned contradictions raised against the futility of the flesh which is in enmity against God[Rom 8:7]. And now we come to the other horn which is election - as to how God is Just in electing/choosing some to be regenerated while not others.

This is explained by the doctrine of sovereignty - and I'll resort to the common analogy of 2 murderers brought before a sovereign king for mercy petition. If the king condemned both without mercy, he is still Just because they are indeed guilty before the law and deserve the condemnation. If the king showed mercy to both(such mercy made righteous by the propitiating sacrifice of Christ in the place of such guilty sinners), he is still Just given his entitlement to sovereignty. If the king showed mercy to only 1 while he condemned the other, he would still be Just as long as he made such a decision out of sovereignty and not partiality. The difference between Sovereignty and Partiality is that the latter seeks for some differentiating basis from the objects of consideration - the murderers in this case - while Sovereignty considers all objects exactly the same while drawing a differentiating basis from within alone. If the king favored 1 murderer over another because of what that murderer did or didn't do or because of who he is or isn't, that's partiality - but if the king viewed both the same and yet chose to pardon 1 of them because of his sovereign choice, he is Justly entitled to do so.

Such sovereignty and election of grace is described specifically in Rom 9:11 and more metaphorically in the physical foreshadow of spiritual things to come as seen in Deut 9:6-7. As to the charge against God's showing mercy upon whom He will show mercy and its purposes as seen in Rom 9:15-16,22-23 - the same charge is applicable to the opposing proponents as to why God deemed to create so many when He knew they would never "freely will" to believe in Christ. The answer, one would find, would lead to the same conclusion as long as God's omniscience is not limited.

 

[Butch5]

So why does he say "all things", "things" in heaven and "things" on Earth, if he only meant the Abrahamic Covenant thing?

I believe it's based on the context. Paul's statement is based on what he said previously.

 

[Butch5]

Yes, I agree that Romans 8 and Romans 9 are related, but to me, that adds support to the fact that the election theme is about redemption or salvation. The passage you quote is often called the Golden Thread of Redemption. The of purpose of God in Romans 8:29-30 is that each and everyone one in the group God foreknow, God predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son. Being "predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son" is salvation. God does not conform people to the image of his Son and then send them to hell. This predestination is to salvation.
Then the next part of the thread is that each and everyone he predestines, he "calls." This calling is not to service, it is not to be an Israelite, it is an effectual calling to salvation. All predestined, are called. Then the next part is that each and every one called, they are "justified." Of course Romans is a book about justification by faith. This again is salvation. Finally, all justified are glorified. That of course involves heaven.

Please notice the absence of the Abrahamic Covenant in the golden thread of redemption. The Abrahamic Covenant is related to the issue because the Abrahamic Covenant, because as I mentioned before, the Abrahamic Covenant has issues about Salvation also (Remember Galatians 3:8 and the Gospel).

Also, it is important to recognize that in the process of the golden chain of redemption, it is one group. The same ones foreknown, are predestined, called, justified, and glorified. There are no unbelievers anywhere in that process. And there are no believers that failed to be in each and every part of that process. It is about salvation and the saved.

Of course this theme of elective, predestined salvation continues right into Romans 9. Paul likes the concept of salvation in Romans 9:3
For I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
So then, after Paul talks about the Golden Thread of Redemption, he turns to the subject of salvation with Israel. His first major statement is that he would be willing to be separated from the source of his salvation (Christ) if his countrymen were to be linked to the source of salvation.

Hi Mondar,

It may be called the Golden Chain of Salvation, but that's not what it is. All of the verbs in that statement are in the past tense, including glorified. It is a past completed action of God. The word foreknow simply means to know before. Those God knew before were the Jews, men like Abraham, David, Moses, the prophets. These men loved God and God called, justified and glorified them. In verse 28 Paul uses the word "Oidamen" which comes from the word "Eido" and means to know by seeing, or to perceive. Oidamen is in the perfect tense meaning that it is a past completed action whose results continue to the present (when Paul was writing). Basically Paul says for we have seen that God works all things together for good to those who love Him. How would Paul's readers have seen or perceived this? It would be because they are Jews and would be familiar with the OT Scriptures. Paul is not saying to His readers, we have seen (in the past) some future event (Your statement about glorification and Heaven). The grammar of the passage doesn't allow for the "Golden Chain" interpretation.

So again, it's not talking about someone being saved. It's talking about men that God has used to fulfill His purpose which again is to bring to fruition the promises made to Abraham.

 

[Butch5]

Butch5, I must admit some surprise here. Do you really mean to deny that the term "gospel" in Galatians 3:8 refers to salvation? There are also words like "Justify." While the term justify is broad and there are contexts where it does not refer to salvation, Galatians is not one of them. The word justify is used several times in Galatians 2 to refer to salvation, and the concept of justification by faith alone is the gospel.

Galatians 3:8 is not about a promise to the Jew that the seed would come through them, it is a promise to Gentiles. It is the gospel to the Gentiles. It says so right in the text.


Sorry, out of time.

I wasn't talking about Galatians 3. The passages I was addressing were from Romans 9

 

[mondar]

Reconciling Election with Freewill has been the crux of this debate. But first, we'd have to agree upon what we exactly mean by each of these terms. I'm assuming that 'freewill' is commonly used to refer to the ' individual's voluntary choosing from amongst a set of available options '. I personally call this simply 'will' and not 'freewill' in order to be more specific, but the commonly used term 'freewill' should also work just fine in this particular case......

ivdavid, I agree with the post. I also agree with the need to define the term "free will." Generally, the term "free will" is a vague presupposition that people use to approach passages, such as Romans 9. Since they already assume their own concept of "free will" they refuse to allow for passages (such as Romans 9:11) to be talking about the election of people to salvation. Then they turn their presupposition of "free will" into a denial of the free will of God and proclaim the sovereignty of man in salvation. On the other hand, I have no problem saying that men have a "will." We all make choices. Our choices might be determined by our sin nature, but we do make choices. The nature of who and what we are limits those choices. No man can choose to grow blue wings and fly. That decision might be made, but there is no chance of accomplishing it because it is against our nature. So then, the a persons will functions only within the nature of a man. This brings us to the concept of "sin" nature. I believe you expressed the same thing in a slightly different way. You alluded to God creating man with flesh, but sin entered the flesh of all mankind at the fall of Adam. So then we are conceived in sin, and born in iniquity (Psalm 51). So then, by nature and because of sin in the flesh we rebel until God regenerates and changes the nature of man.

Salvation is then about the work of God, not the work of man. The presuppositions of free will are all about the work of man to get God to reward man for his free will decision with salvation. Salvation is then of works and earned in most free will theologies.

May God be with you in this thread.

 

[mondar]

So why does he say "all things", "things" in heaven and "things" on Earth, if he only meant the Abrahamic Covenant thing?

Good point, the context does not negate this, but supports it.


See ya all later.

 

[dadof10]

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.

This is because of a complete misinterpretation of "works" in the "faith vs. works" verses of Scripture."Works" in these verses, means specifically "works of the law" (as you say in your previous post), not "all deeds". This leads to the erroneous view that disobedience to the will of God can't effect salvation because obedience is a "work". This, in turn, leads to the Calvinist doctrine of "Election" (most of T.U.L.I.P, really). I have to hand it to the Reformed thinkers, though. At least they follow it to it's logical conclusion, which is lack of free will and unconditional election. I think this is where interpretation of "works" as "all deeds" logically leads.

 

[dadof10]

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.

Hi Jethro,

This is an excellent point and something I have to look into more deeply today. I did a brief search of the words "elect", "election" and "predestined" in my Bible program this morning and none of the instances of the word referred to a single individual, like "John, who was elected...", all instances were corporate. John even writes his second letter to "the elect lady and her children" an obvious reference to the Church and her members.

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.

I have only briefly looked into this, so I may be way off base, but what you seem to be saying is that the Church (the Body of Christ) is predestined for eternal life AS A WHOLE. That, by faith, we enter into the Church, which is predestined for eternal life. We can choose to exit the Church (the Body) by our own free will, but also reject our place in the Body and our "election". I don't know of any teaching in Scripture that refutes this view. Sounds solid to me.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Hi Jethro, I am beginning to believe more of what you are teaching than Calvin. I want you to know that I have been a student of Calvinism for years. The church that I have attended for the past 12 years has a pastor who is a 5 point Calvinist. I am beginning to see a big difference from Calvin to what a few of you are expressing. I'm not letting go of what I feel is revelation from God, I'm seeing how it intergrates with "choice".

The word irresistable does not quarantee Salvation, it simply means perhaps an advantage, I guess. Anyway, I'm throwing out Calvinism as a mixture of truth and error. I don't like that. I really appreciate how God is using you in this threat. Everyone has a choice! God's wisdom is so far above me, so I think I'll stick with KISS. Keep it simple Stupid, or KISSC, keep it simple stupid chopper.

I appreciate your conciliatory words. If we learn nothing else from each let us all at least learn from and imitate your gracious attitude toward other's and their differing doctrines. I mean that.

And I can't agree more with KISS. It's how I learn the most.