What is Election?

[Jethro Bodine]

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.

You just made my day! You see the necessity of coming to the conclusion that the Protestant church has come to about election because they have failed to properly understand Paul's teaching about faith and grace.

Sometimes just getting someone to understand your argument, let alone agree with it, is a victory all by itself, lol.

Thank you, sir, for articulating the argument so well.

I look forward to learning from your insights. Along with everybody else, of course. Everybody has a contribution to make that leads to the truth if we stay humble and gracious, and respectful of one another.

I've run out of time... the brain surgeries are backing up again....

 

[mondar]

......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......

dadof10, long time no see. I was not going to bother with this thread again, but then I saw your nick. You have been a decent chap in the past and I thought I would return and read what you had to say. If I might raise a methodological question here. I am always concerned about the need for careful exegetical methodologies. Your looking at the doctrine of election. You approach the subject with preset conditions or criteria to determine the outcome. You search the scriptures to see if God elects individuals and your criteria is that he must name an individual who is elect unto salvation to determine if this is true. Do you think there is a problem in the way you are approaching the issue? Doe you consider what you did to be careful exegesis of all the possible texts? You have already determined that the only possible criteria by which you can agree with individual election is that an individual must be named. What if the scriptures says speaks of individual election in a way that does not meet your criteria. What then?

To demonstrate that election does refer to individual persons, I can easily quote 2 Thes 2:13.
2 Thes 213 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
Of course it is not the term "elect" but rather a slightly different word translated "chose." The proposition of the verse is not God chose us to be in the Church. Other passages might affirm that, but not this one. The language of this passage definitely says "God chose you.... unto salvation." Now the word "you" in "God chose you" is certainly plural, but that does not mean we can assume he is speaking of the Church (universal body of Christ) as a corporate body in this context. In fact the universal church is not mentioned in the context. It is much more natural to the context to simply understand the plural "you" as referring to more then one person or individual that is chosen to salvation.

Another way the scripture speaks of individual election is in Acts 13:48.
Acts 1348 And as the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of God: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
Here it uses the term "ordained" and not chosen, or elected. God, in eternity past, ordained it that when certain individuals would hear the word of Paul and the word of God, that they should believe it. Now this text does not propose that God ordained them because they believed, but rather they believe because God ordained it. Again, the free will is all God's, not ours.


Also, if you think about it, Christ is spoken of as elect in the scriptures, Israel is the elect nation in some contexts, even if you could demonstrate that there is a context where the Church is also spoken of in scriptures as elect, it would be logically non-sequitur to assume that this proves that there is no verse on individual election unto salvation. No, it would prove that there is election for Christ to be savior and fulfill prophecy, it would prove that Israel is an elect nation, it would prove the Church is an elect body, it could even prove that individuals are chosen to prophetic or apostolic ministry, but none of that would negate individual election. To make a universal statement such as "election of individuals to salvation is not found in the bible" one must consider each and every reference. Even if all references refer to something other than salvation, and one reference refers to election or being chosen to salvation, and even though it is not in the terminology you decided it should be found in, you would still loose in your argumentation.

Nevertheless, even though we might not agree, it is good to see you. Where ever did Francisdesales get to?

 

[chessman]

To demonstrate that election does refer to individual persons, I can easily quote 2 Thes 2:13.


Also, if you think about it, Christ is spoken of as elect in the scriptures, Israel is the elect nation

.

Also, if you think about it, what does an elect nation or an elect group of Gentiles actually consist of? Individuals!

 

[ivdavid]

Concerning the reference to the "works of the law" - I personally do not hold "all works" to be "works of the law". But what does one mean by 'works of the law' and why exactly is it incapable of resulting in life?

A 'work' can be safely generalized to mean just about any 'state-changing activity' - right from the act of circumcision to even faith as is its connotation in John 6:28-29. Not all 'works' are sinful - as seen in the works borne out of us by God through what we will and do [Php 2:13] and in the reference to the fore-ordained "good works" as seen in Eph 2:10. Only the 'works' that amount to self-righteousness are sinful. So even circumcision, which is so often derided only as a "work of the law" that separates us from the grace of Christ - need not be sinful when it is not done out of self-righteousness [Acts 16:3].

Concerning the works 'of the law' - we'd have to look at what the 'law' is. And we see the Law of works states:
Lev 18:5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them

What is wrong with God requiring adherence to His statutes - nothing. And yet God does away with this Law and brings about the new covenant. Where then did this Law fail and why did God give such a Law in the first place? Rom 3:20 summarizes the answer - the Old covenant required "man in the flesh(self-nature)" to Do God's commandments to Live. This was to show man that he will not be able to do so in the flesh because of sin in the flesh. Having shown this, God proceeds with regenerating him in the spirit wherein God fulfills His new covenant :
Eze 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

Contrast this Declaration from God in the new covenant with the Conditional on man in the old covenant. Also contrast the causative root of works in both covenants - man in the flesh(self-nature) working unto his self-righteousness vs God in the spirit(God-nature) working out His righteousness in man.

So it isn't isolated works or deeds that can be categorized as sinful or not - rather such determination is made by seeing whether it is done in the flesh(self-nature) or in the spirit(God-nature). Accordingly, the reformed view does not accept as true faith that which is claimed by the flesh.

 

[Chopper]

This has certainly been an interesting and informative thread, and I compliment Allenwynne for starting it. I have decided to put behind me, Calvins theology and reach forward to a new understanding of this doctrine of election. No preconceptions.

So, I would like Jethro or someone equal to his wisdom to identify the term , in Romans 8:29 "for those He foreknew. Is this a corporate whole? Or is He speaking of an individual?

 

[mondar]

.

Also, if you think about it, what does an elect nation or an elect group of Gentiles actually consist of? Individuals!

Very true. Well said. Your right, God foreknew me, not a group. He predestined me to be conformed to the image of his son, not a group of people. He called me to salvation at a certain moment in time, not a group of people. He sent his Spirit as a seal for me, not a group of people. The body of Christ is a group of people, yes, but the benefits of being in that group of people are individual and personal. Well said.

 

[Chopper]

Very true. Well said. Your right, God foreknew me, not a group. He predestined me to be conformed to the image of his son, not a group of people. He called me to salvation at a certain moment in time, not a group of people. He sent his Spirit as a seal for me, not a group of people. The body of Christ is a group of people, yes, but the benefits of being in that group of people are individual and personal. Well said.

For my mondar, You are right! Although God's plan is a group, He calls individuals.

 

[chessman]

I would like Jethro or someone equal to his wisdom to identify the term , in Romans 8:29 "for those He foreknew. Is this a corporate whole? Or is He speaking of an individual?

As wise as JB? Hard to imagine topping that brainsurgeon and international spy genius. Who’s up to that task?

Granny, maybe? Nah, see had to ask for JB’s help in ciphering all the “oughts” and pretty much any “higher math”. Plus, she liked her “medicine” too much, to be really wise.

Elly May? Seems to me she had a way with the animals for sure, but could never figure out they belonged outside.

Mr. Drysdale? Never happy with his bank accounts. Never figured out that money can’t buy you contentment.

Ms. Jane? Certainly didn’t seem like she was the type to bust the “glass ceiling” or anything.

Uncle Jed? Yes, that’s it. Smart enough to let all the petty little troubles and disagreements in life unfold around him without a lot of hate, resentment or worries about pretty much anything. Except family, of course. Yee doggie, He could be happy and content just whittling away through a hurricane and “election” fight. I wonder what Uncle Jed thought about this?

But as for whether this text is speaking of “corporate” or “individuals”, the text should be allowed to speak for itself. And it does, in my opinion. I’ll just point out a few items here, but certainly feel under qualified to say to much given what the text itself says for anyone that cares to read chapter 8 (or more) in Romans.

I assume you are asking who the “those” are in this text, not so much what does “foreknew’ mean. “foreknew” is basically a term that means what it says. Knowledge about something or somebody (in this case) ahead of time the event (or person) itself actually occurring in our time. In this case knowledge of somebody or some individuals and/or some group of individuals, prior to whatever it is he’s speaking of actually occurring. So this question is who (or what) is the “those” in this passage speaking of, right? Not so much “foreknew”. We all pretty much agree on what “foreknew” means.

Verse 29: For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.​

Who (or what) are the “those”?

1. Just looking at this one verse (which is a mistake to do, but just for the sake of argument I’ll do it here) it says “image of his Son”. What does that term mean? Well I know one thing it doesn’t (cannot) mean. Christ’s image was that of a sinless individual, not a corporate or group image of the Christian church. Who in their right mind thinks the “image of the Son” remotely looks like the church today? Nor did the Roman church (to whom this letter is written) at that time, look like Christ’s image.

2. “among many brothers”. Sure, “many brothers” could be seen as a group. It is a group, but of what? Brothers (individuals). But again I have no idea why someone thinks that a corporate group is not actually made up of individuals (brothers in this case). Assume for a minute there are only five people on Earth. If God “foreknew” only two or three out of those five would in fact go on to “conform”, be called, be justified and thus be glorified, then He pretty much foreknew at least one or two individuals. Right? Else, you never get to a “group” in the first place.

But reading one verse (and only one verse) of Scripture right smack dab in the middle of a whole letter, right smack dab in the middle of a chapter is a terrible way to figure out anything. Plus, this very verse proves it’s a terrible thing to do. Here’s why:

1. There’s a conjunctive in the very beginning of this verse; “For” per the ESV translation but I’m sure many other translations us other words for the conjunctive “hoti”. Sometimes it is translated Therefore or Because or Since, etc. Its presence literally (or grammatically) requires the reader to understand the point(s) Paul was just making in the sentence(s) preceding this one verse/sentence. They are literally joined together in some why intended by the author.

2. So what or who does Paul mean by “those” in verse 29? You are required to look at the preceding verses to find out (not just assume what he means).

3. And what do we find when we do that?

a. Verse 28: And [another way sentences are tied together] we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. Here we see Paul means “those” = those who love God. Also “those” = those who are called. I suppose this could still be individuals or group meanings. (Again, I say both, but I’ll just ride along with the group only for a minute). But there’s also conjunctive there in verse 28. See let’s read back even further.
b. Verse 27: And [another conjunctive joiner to the previous verse right there in the text] he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. Humm, searches hearts? Does a corporate group have a “heart” a “mind”? Not really, unless you want to get all figurative all of a sudden. And it looks like Paul is talking about saints (plural). But reading on (backwards):
c. Verse 26: Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. “Likewise” is another grammatical requirement word that proves you really have to read more than one verse at a time. This whole chapter (letter even) is needed to fully understand what’s going on here. But does a corporation/group have “weaknesses”, need “prayer”, need intercession corporately not “know what to pray for”? I don’t think so. Rather obviously, Paul is talking about individuals.
d. But what does Paul mean by “likewise”? Could he be giving examples here? Sure, again the text/grammar requires it. What he’s about to say “likewise” is in some way like something else he just got through saying.
e. Verse 24: For in this hope we were saved. So tossed, right out the window is any idea that Paul’s not on the topic of salvation here. But yet another conjunctive is here. Actually, I just did a search. There’s 46 occurrences of “for” in this chapter alone. 46! I’m not going to point them all out. So I’ll just cut to the chase here:
f. 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ. This simply does not allow a corporate grouping of people. A group doesn’t have a spirit. People do.​

Oh, I almost forgot. Paul said “likewise”. What’s like what here? I’ll leave that one alone for now.

 

[Chopper]

Here is a starting point of seeing what the Scriptures say about election. I'm keeping it simple for now, so I can fully understand the process.

In the wonderful plan of Salvation provided by God, there is a link from eternity past, through the present, to eternity future. That link includes foreknowledge, predestination, calling, justification, and glorification. In some mysterious way, God knew us before we were born. His Son, Jesus the Christ, is the "first born", the highest position in a group. He is the first of many brethren who will follow. The ones God foreknew, He predetermined that they would be like the Head, Jesus Christ. Those who God foreknew, He calls to Salvation, if they respond with a yes then God justifies them, and as a result, God is glorified.

Is this a good foundation for this to start?

 

[Chopper]

As wise as JB? Hard to imagine topping that brainsurgeon and international spy genius. Who’s up to that task?

Granny, maybe? Nah, see had to ask for JB’s help in ciphering all the “oughts” and pretty much any “higher math”. Plus, she liked her “medicine” too much, to be really wise.

Elly May? Seems to me she had a way with the animals for sure, but could never figure out they belonged outside.

Mr. Drysdale? Never happy with his bank accounts. Never figured out that money can’t buy you contentment.

Ms. Jane? Certainly didn’t seem like she was the type to bust the “glass ceiling” or anything.

Uncle Jed? Yes, that’s it. Smart enough to let all the petty little troubles and disagreements in life unfold around him without a lot of hate, resentment or worries about pretty much anything. Except family, of course. Yee doggie, He could be happy and content just whittling away through a hurricane and “election” fight. I wonder what Uncle Jed thought about this?

But as for whether this text is speaking of “corporate” or “individuals”, the text should be allowed to speak for itself. And it does, in my opinion. I’ll just point out a few items here, but certainly feel under qualified to say to much given what the text itself says for anyone that cares to read chapter 8 (or more) in Romans.

I assume you are asking who the “those” are in this text, not so much what does “foreknew’ mean. “foreknew” is basically a term that means what it says. Knowledge about something or somebody (in this case) ahead of time the event (or person) itself actually occurring in our time. In this case knowledge of somebody or some individuals and/or some group of individuals, prior to whatever it is he’s speaking of actually occurring. So this question is who (or what) is the “those” in this passage speaking of, right? Not so much “foreknew”. We all pretty much agree on what “foreknew” means.

Verse 29: For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.​

Who (or what) are the “those”?

1. Just looking at this one verse (which is a mistake to do, but just for the sake of argument I’ll do it here) it says “image of his Son”. What does that term mean? Well I know one thing it doesn’t (cannot) mean. Christ’s image was that of a sinless individual, not a corporate or group image of the Christian church. Who in their right mind thinks the “image of the Son” remotely looks like the church today? Nor did the Roman church (to whom this letter is written) at that time, look like Christ’s image.

2. “among many brothers”. Sure, “many brothers” could be seen as a group. It is a group, but of what? Brothers (individuals). But again I have no idea why someone thinks that a corporate group is not actually made up of individuals (brothers in this case). Assume for a minute there are only five people on Earth. If God “foreknew” only two or three out of those five would in fact go on to “conform”, be called, be justified and thus be glorified, then He pretty much foreknew at least one or two individuals. Right? Else, you never get to a “group” in the first place.

But reading one verse (and only one verse) of Scripture right smack dab in the middle of a whole letter, right smack dab in the middle of a chapter is a terrible way to figure out anything. Plus, this very verse proves it’s a terrible thing to do. Here’s why:

1. There’s a conjunctive in the very beginning of this verse; “For” per the ESV translation but I’m sure many other translations us other words for the conjunctive “hoti”. Sometimes it is translated Therefore or Because or Since, etc. Its presence literally (or grammatically) requires the reader to understand the point(s) Paul was just making in the sentence(s) preceding this one verse/sentence. They are literally joined together in some why intended by the author.

2. So what or who does Paul mean by “those” in verse 29? You are required to look at the preceding verses to find out (not just assume what he means).

3. And what do we find when we do that?

a. Verse 28: And [another way sentences are tied together] we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. Here we see Paul means “those” = those who love God. Also “those” = those who are called. I suppose this could still be individuals or group meanings. (Again, I say both, but I’ll just ride along with the group only for a minute). But there’s also conjunctive there in verse 28. See let’s read back even further.
b. Verse 27: And [another conjunctive joiner to the previous verse right there in the text] he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. Humm, searches hearts? Does a corporate group have a “heart” a “mind”? Not really, unless you want to get all figurative all of a sudden. And it looks like Paul is talking about saints (plural). But reading on (backwards):
c. Verse 26: Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. “Likewise” is another grammatical requirement word that proves you really have to read more than one verse at a time. This whole chapter (letter even) is needed to fully understand what’s going on here. But does a corporation/group have “weaknesses”, need “prayer”, need intercession corporately not “know what to pray for”? I don’t think so. Rather obviously, Paul is talking about individuals.
d. But what does Paul mean by “likewise”? Could he be giving examples here? Sure, again the text/grammar requires it. What he’s about to say “likewise” is in some way like something else he just got through saying.
e. Verse 24: For in this hope we were saved. So tossed, right out the window is any idea that Paul’s not on the topic of salvation here. But yet another conjunctive is here. Actually, I just did a search. There’s 46 occurrences of “for” in this chapter alone. 46! I’m not going to point them all out. So I’ll just cut to the chase here:
f. 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ. This simply does not allow a corporate grouping of people. A group doesn’t have a spirit. People do.​

Oh, I almost forgot. Paul said “likewise”. What’s like what here? I’ll leave that one alone for now.

Thank you for the humor, I liked it. I do appreciate the examination of the previous verses. There has been so many posts on this thing called election, and quite frankly, mind boggling at times. I have been a 4 point Cavinist for years. In reading the many posts, I have come to the conclusion that I need to have no preconceived ideas and start from scratch, thus my question. I see from your instruction that the "those" are individuals and I agree.

 

[chessman]

Thank you for the humor,

Ever heard the saying/joke: “Whiskey Calvinist”? They only believe in one fifth. Kind of funny, I suppose.

Or that Baptists are four-pointers cause they don't like fifths?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Here is a starting point of seeing what the Scriptures say about election. I'm keeping it simple for now, so I can fully understand the process.

In the wonderful plan of Salvation provided by God, there is a link from eternity past, through the present, to eternity future. That link includes foreknowledge, predestination, calling, justification, and glorification. In some mysterious way, God knew us before we were born. His Son, Jesus the Christ, is the "first born", the highest position in a group. He is the first of many brethren who will follow. The ones God foreknew, He predetermined that they would be like the Head, Jesus Christ. Those who God foreknew, He calls to Salvation, if they respond with a yes then God justifies them, and as a result, God is glorified.

Is this a good foundation for this to start?

Hi Chopper, your statements here are pretty close to my OP, only worded differently.
I knew you were agreeing with me.:yes
But now we are going into this thing deep and it's pretty much over my head.
For the most part, I'll watch and listen as you bring this whole thing to a conclusion.:amen

 

[Chopper]

Ever heard the saying/joke: “Whiskey Calvinist”? They only believe in one fifth. Kind of funny, I suppose.

Or that Baptists are four-pointers cause they don't like fifths?

Ha Ha, very good! No I had not heard those, true, remarks. I guess I fall into the Baptist group....Thanks for sharing that.

 

[Chopper]

Hi Chopper, your statements here are pretty close to my OP, only worded differently.
I knew you were agreeing with me.:yes
But now we are going into this thing deep and it's pretty much over my head.
For the most part, I'll watch and listen as you bring this whole thing to a conclusion.:amen

Thanks Allen, That is what I intend to do. I want to start at the beginning, clarify words and make sense of the progression. I am of the opinion, now, that every person on the planet has in the past, now, and in the future, an opportunity to accept Salvation or reject it. There are no special people, all are in the same boat. the only people that I need others to instruct me in, is what about an individual like Jeremiah, who is named, does he have any kind of advantage?

 

[chessman]

Ha Ha, very good! No I had not heard those, true, remarks. I guess I fall into the Baptist group....Thanks for sharing that.

Then what about this one that the Prespryterians say:

If you invite a Baptist to go fishing with you, invite two. Cause if you invite only one, he'll drink all you beer

 

[Chopper]

Then what about this one that the Prespryterians say:

If you invite a Baptist to go fishing with you, invite two. Cause if you invite only one, he'll drink all you beer

Oh brother, probably true....

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The predetermined element of election is God's plan for the church itself, not that each person entering into that plan was predetermined to be there ahead of time apart from their own will to be there.

The overall plan for a body of believers, and how you enter into that body, and what it looks like is what is predetermined. It is not, IMO, predetermined by God who will believe and who will not believe, though it's clear God has always known who would respond to the gospel and who would not, even before we were created, and he adjusted the rat maze we're scurrying around in accordingly to accommodate that foreknowledge.

I hope this clears up the misunderstanding about individual election in a predetermined body of believers in mine and dadof10's argument. The body as a whole is what was preconceived and ordained by God, not that individuals will be pre-programmed to believe ahead of time, and some will not. The kingdom will NEVER be overcome. That is predetermined. The fight is on for who will occupy that kingdom of their own free will (with lots of God's gracious help, of course).

 

[ivdavid]

Jethro Bodine,

Could you clarify a few quick questions on your beliefs...

What according to you is 'freewill'? What is the difference between 'freewill' and just 'will', if at all any? And does our being "in the flesh" or "in the spirit" affect our 'freewill' in any way?

If 'election' simply means 'choosing' - how have you come to the conclusion that God only 'chooses' the means of salvation to be through faith in Christ(as the Church) - AND NOT also 'choose' whom to save into that Church at an individual level? What is the basis for you believing it cannot be Both?

Thanks.

 

[chessman]

The predetermined element of election is God's plan for the church itself, not that each person entering into that plan was predetermined to be there ahead of time apart from their own will to be there.


I hope this clears up the misunderstanding about individual election in a predetermined body of believers in mine and dadof10's argument.

It clarifies your opinion but not the Biblical "argument".

 

[ivdavid]

it's clear God has always known who would respond to the gospel and who would not, even before we were created,

If God knew who wouldn't respond to the Gospel before He even created them - to what purpose did He still go ahead and create them?

The kingdom will NEVER be overcome.

That speaks of an assuring promise, exuding power from only a God in control. But how could God make such a powerful promise if He anyway is not in control of who will believe into the Kingdom and who won't - what if none believed into the kingdom, out of their own 'freewill'? Then this above statement is not actually an active promised declaration of what God will do,preserve and fulfill - rather it is a passive sharing of His foreknowledge of what men would do? The statement could easily have been "The Kingdom will be a total failure, for I've foreseen that no single man shall believe of his own 'freewill'", where God couldn't have altered that outcome - or could He have?