What is Election?

[gr8grace3]

This is another scripture that points to osas, unless one thinks they can jump/run/walk, out of His hand.

Joh 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Who does the Father give to Jesus?

John 6:39 And this is the will of him that sent me, that of all that which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.
I see in this verse, that it is the Father's will that the Lord will not lose and will raise up, all those who come (they were draw by the Father)per v44.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.
I see, in this verse, that the Father must draw a man in order for him to come. If he comes, the Lord will raise him up.
I don't see that it says, that the man definitely Will come.

You know Chopper, I believe we are saved by grace alone, through faith. I don't believe we are saved by faith alone, many do. I believe that God's grace, which is completely undeserved, is the source of my salvation. Faith is the means by which I received this wonderful gift.
The word 'source' above may not be the best word to use, but it's all I can think of right now.

Spot on Deb! Good post........I also believe in eternal security. If we could ever lose eternal life in Christ, it wouldn't be eternal would it?

 

[Deborah13]

First, thank you for asking questions concerning the text. That is of course exactly what a Christian should do, we go to the text.

Concerning the text......

The first thing to address in verse 44 is the phrase "and I will raise him up on the last day." The phrase is actually found three times in the passage. The first two times are in verses 39 and 40...
Joh 6:39 And this is the will of him that sent me, that of all that which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.
Joh 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that every one that beholdeth the Son, and believeth on him, should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Verse 40 makes it clear that the phrase is not speaking of a general resurrection of everyone, but the context and phrase is speaking only of the resurrection of the saved. Please notice that the first part of the verse speaks of salvation ( "every one that beholdeth the Son, and believeth on him, should have eternal life"). When looking at this resurrection, then, it is a resurrection for only those who believeth. With that in mind, I do not think the phrase "and I will raise him up on the last day" needs to much explanation in verse 40. The word "everyone" is not speaking of the entire human race, that the whole human race are believers. That is a doctrine called universalism. So also, the ones being raised up are not all men everywhere, but they are the ones who believe, and behold the Son. So then, it is a limited group that the phrase "and I will raise him up on the last day" speaks of. It is limited to believers only.

When the same identical phrase occurs in verse 44, it has to be the same group. It again speaks of the resurrection of the saved. So then, the question is how did these people get saved, they are first drawn.
Joh 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Notice the two actions preformed by the Father and Son. The Father draws "him", and the Son raises "him." Now the pronoun "him" is speaking of the same group or person. There is no possible exegetical reason to make them two different groups. They occur in the passage right together and must speak of the same group.

With all due respect mondar, if I have understood your words correctly, I can agree with you right up until this next statement.

So then, in this passage how many of those drawn are raised up to salvation on the last day.
1- A few
2- Some
3- Most
4- Each and everyone drawn is raised.

I believe that there is a fifth answer that is available in the context of these scriptures.
5- Each and everyone drawn, who "beholdeth the Son, and believeth on him" is raised.

Now could it be that some of those drawn by the Father are not raised up by the Son? If words mean anything, and they do, the two groups are the same. Each person drawn by the Father is raised up by the Son to salvation. If the whole word is drawn, then the whole world is saved and we have universalism. All would come to faith.

The only way, one can come to the conclusion, that if everyone in the world is drawn then everyone in the world is saved, is if
everyone who is drawn, "beholdeth the Son, and believeth on him." (effectual grace, irresistible grace)

The doctrine of irresistible grace simply makes the claim that God never fails in saving those he chose. The fact that God draws, and this drawing without fail leads to eternal life is what the term "irresistible grace" is about.

Yes, Calvin taught that 'all' men would receive 'a call'. The elect (chosen) would receive an effectual grace call, so that they would "beholdeth the Son, and believeth on him".
But the rest of the 'all' men, who were not the elect (chosen), would receive a 'general call' that is an ineffectual grace call, so they cannot "beholdeth the Son, and believeth on him".

So then the question is when were the 'chosen' chosen? Most Calvinist that I have read their words say, 'before the foundation of the world'. And they are created to be chosen, honorable vessels. The others are created to be dishonorable vessels, doomed to destruction.
If all of the above is true, then there are/will be, millions upon millions of infants burning, in torment in hell, for eternity. Infants that were created to be dishonorable vessels.
I'm not OK with that.
What do you believe, is your doctrine different than I have stated about when the elect are chosen?

SEMANTICS:
If I might add that I do not consider the acrostic TULIP to be the best teaching tool. People in general seem to misunderstand the 5 points for some reason. Some Reformed people use the term "effectual grace" instead of "irresistible grace." I favor the different terminology. We can actually resist God. The scripture asks "why do you resist the Holy Spirit." Certainly men have the capacity to resist the gospel. Oh how I wish all we had to do is preach the gospel and no one would resist it. That would be great, but it just aint that way, is it! So the gospel and Gods grace is certainly resistible. Of course in saying this I am changing what Reformed people mean by the term. Reformed people agree with my statements here. This is why some reformed people use the term "effectual grace." Effectual grace always has its effect. That effect is cause by regeneration. The concept of regeneration as the cause of faith actually underlies much of the discussion. What that concept is understood, the 5 points fall into their proper place. In essence, there are no 1-4 pointers. When you understand how the doctrine of regeneration as the cause of faith, then you understand the 5 points as 1 doctrine and you understand it correctly.

John 6:44 has been a fascination to me because it involves the trinity. Those who are saved, are drawn by the Father, raised by the Son, and in Titus 3:5 we see that they are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Salvation involves all members of the trinity. It is one salvation, and one God, but all three persons are involved in different aspects of salvation.

What I am saying about the text might not be easy to grasp, but I trust you will go to the text. It might take some wrestling with the text, but again, that's what Christians do. Thanks for the question on the text.

 

[Chopper]

Oooo.....I just find this on the Blue Letter Bible site. I haven't read it all myself yet, but I think it might be helpful to both of us.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/Dictionary/viewTopic.cfm?topic=VT0000867

Very good Deb, bravo! I liked that reference very much.

 

[Chopper]

Spot on Deb! Good post........I also believe in eternal security. If we could ever lose eternal life in Christ, it wouldn't be eternal would it?

Good one gr8grace3, Plus, I don't think God can fail on anything of His desire.

 

[Chopper]

With all due respect mondar, if I have understood your words correctly, I can agree with you right up until this next statement.



I believe that there is a fifth answer that is available in the context of these scriptures.
5- Each and everyone drawn, who "beholdeth the Son, and believeth on him" is raised.



The only way, one can come to the conclusion, that if everyone in the world is drawn then everyone in the world is saved, is if
everyone who is drawn, "beholdeth the Son, and believeth on him." (effectual grace, irresistible grace)



Yes, Calvin taught that 'all' men would receive 'a call'. The elect (chosen) would receive an effectual grace call, so that they would "beholdeth the Son, and believeth on him".
But the rest of the 'all' men, who were not the elect (chosen), would receive a 'general call' that is an ineffectual grace call, so they cannot "beholdeth the Son, and believeth on him".

So then the question is when were the 'chosen' chosen? Most Calvinist that I have read their words say, 'before the foundation of the world'. And they are created to be chosen, honorable vessels. The others are created to be dishonorable vessels, doomed to destruction.
If all of the above is true, then there are/will be, millions upon millions of infants burning, in torment in hell, for eternity. Infants that were created to be dishonorable vessels.
I'm not OK with that.
What do you believe, is your doctrine different than I have stated about when the elect are chosen?

Deb, I hope I can put in my First, I reject the Calvinist "Limited Atonement" I don't believe that God has designed people to be the elect and others to be destroyed. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal live. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world." John 3:16,17 (ESV) Second, all children, under the age of accountability, if they die, go to heaven. Romans 5:12 - 21. "Where there is no law, sin is not imputed (recorded) where there is no law. That my friend is the main Scripture for children who die. You see, under the age of accountability, they don't understand what God expects, thus no law, no sin. A long time ago Mike and I posted about this and we arived at the age of 12 or 13 for the age of accountability.

 

[jasoncran]

23 plus pages of arguing and none budges. lol. man I thought I was bad when I debated evolution. oh well carry on.

 

[mondar]

With all due respect mondar, if I have understood your words correctly, I can agree with you right up until this next statement.

I believe that there is a fifth answer that is available in the context of these scriptures.
5- Each and everyone drawn, who "beholdeth the Son, and believeth on him" is raised.

The only way, one can come to the conclusion, that if everyone in the world is drawn then everyone in the world is saved, is if
everyone who is drawn, "beholdeth the Son, and believeth on him." (effectual grace, irresistible grace)

Yes, Calvin taught that 'all' men would receive 'a call'. The elect (chosen) would receive an effectual grace call, so that they would "beholdeth the Son, and believeth on him".
But the rest of the 'all' men, who were not the elect (chosen), would receive a 'general call' that is an ineffectual grace call, so they cannot "beholdeth the Son, and believeth on him".

Deborah, If I am reading you right, your saying that the ones who already behold the Son, and believeth on him, that once a person does that, God will draw them? If I am misreading you, let me know. If that is correct, how would you read verse 44 where the drawing is mentioned?
44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Specifically, I am asking how the word "except" relates the drawing to those who cannot come. The text says "No man can come to me." How would you see that statement in relation to the exception of the people drawn?

So then the question is when were the 'chosen' chosen? Most Calvinist that I have read their words say, 'before the foundation of the world'. And they are created to be chosen, honorable vessels. The others are created to be dishonorable vessels, doomed to destruction.
If all of the above is true, then there are/will be, millions upon millions of infants burning, in torment in hell, for eternity. Infants that were created to be dishonorable vessels.
I'm not OK with that.
What do you believe, is your doctrine different than I have stated about when the elect are chosen?

Well, the text of Romans 9 is not talking about infants per say. If infants are vessels of wrath or vessels of glory, either way, God is just. Infants are just as guilty as any of us, there are no innocent infants. Infants suffer the penalty of sin (death-physical and spiritual) just like adults do. On the other hand, if infants are saved, it is the same way, by Gods grace. They do not have the capacity for faith, but God can still be graceful and still be just. The substitution atonement can still be made on an infants behalf.

This whole discussion is non-sequitur. It has little to do with the topic. Maybe you do have a problem with even one infant ever going to hell. What does that have to do with irresistible grace or election?

 

[Deborah13]

Also qualify whether we believe while in the flesh(self-nature) or in the spirit(God-nature)? That would lead you to "irresistible grace".

Let's break it into steps -
Step 1:
God creates man in the flesh ie with a self nature - and this creation is good and without corruption, though it is corruptible. The flesh(self-nature) generates from the self, the desires, counsel and power for any act - while the individual soul chooses the best counselled desire to be acted upon, accordingly having his beliefs and emotions influenced in his heart.
Sin corrupts this flesh and enters the world.

Step 2:
God gives His commandments and the Law of Works (Lev 18:5) and commands man in the flesh to keep it. With sin in the flesh, the self-nature does not obey God's Law and is in enmity with Him. God still holds man accountable to His ideal perfect standards which are not to be changed to suit fallen man's inabilities - and finds him guilty under the Law. In addition, He also gave the Law to bring out the operation of sin, which otherwise lies dormant - thereby revealing its existence.

Step 3:
God sends forth His Son with the Gospel. He now commands man to believe in Christ to be redeemed from the aforementioned curse of the Law. Alas, man in sinful flesh is still not pleasing to God and chooses not to believe.

When is this man choosing not to believe? After hearing the gospel?

Step 4:

Man can now Righteously and Justly be condemned. As Sovereign King though, God could still choose to have mercy upon this condemned man - which if He does bestow by His grace, He also wills to transform this man - for what use is it to again permit a man in sinful flesh to live. Hence, God regenerates this man - wherein He takes away the hardened heart and gives him a new heart - renews his spirit and sets his soul in it, newly creating an inner man within the outer flesh.

If the man above chose before he knew what he was choosing?? God is still giving salvation to certain 'men' without offering it to 'all' men. Is this what you are saying?
What is your definition of 'regenerates'? He is saved at this point of what you call regeneration, before he actually believes?
Sorry, I'm confused.

Step 5:
The spirit(God-nature) generates godly desires, counsel by the Mind of Christ and power by the Holy Spirit - while the individual soul, now in the inner man, chooses the best counselled desire to be acted upon, accordingly having his beliefs and emotions influenced in his heart. Now, man in the uncorrupted(and incorruptible) spirit, chooses to repent, believe and receive forgiveness and adoption. God then continues to sanctify man with His preserving Grace unto good works, giving worthless man the privilege of participating in His Kingdom work.

Was he saved in Step 4?

Step 6:
In the final resurrection, man's outer flesh passes away - and a new spiritual body is given to house the inner man. God has shown forth His complete glory in imparting the knowledge of how the flesh profits nothing and that God alone is Good, Wise, Righteous, Just, Merciful, Gracious etc.

In this system, man finds the Glorious God as He ought to be found - irresistible. The only ones who find God resistible are the ones who can't see God in all His glory, blinded by sin.

Did God do anything to help him see, hear, learn?

 

[Deborah13]

23 plus pages of arguing and none budges. lol. man I thought I was bad when I debated evolution. oh well carry on.

LOL
It's nice to have other brothers and sisters, in Christ who have truly studied the word, to discuss our doctrines and understandings with.

 

[jasoncran]

theres a point to walk way and yall hit that. these things are new here nor will go away. as I predicted eternal security would come into play.been involved in this stuff myself thus why I asked my chaplain about Calvinism and did so with a smirk.lol.

 

[Deborah13]

Deborah, If I am reading you right, your saying that the ones who already behold the Son, and believeth on him, that once a person does that, God will draw them? If I am misreading you, let me know. If that is correct, how would you read verse 44 where the drawing is mentioned?
44 No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day.
Specifically, I am asking how the word "except" relates the drawing to those who cannot come. The text says "No man can come to me." How would you see that statement in relation to the exception of the people drawn?


Well, the text of Romans 9 is not talking about infants per say. If infants are vessels of wrath or vessels of glory, either way, God is just. Infants are just as guilty as any of us, there are no innocent infants. Infants suffer the penalty of sin (death-physical and spiritual) just like adults do. On the other hand, if infants are saved, it is the same way, by Gods grace. They do not have the capacity for faith, but God can still be graceful and still be just. The substitution atonement can still be made on an infants behalf.

This whole discussion is non-sequitur. It has little to do with the topic. Maybe you do have a problem with even one infant ever going to hell. What does that have to do with irresistible grace or election?

Because the Calvinist doctrine of election says.....
1. the elect were chosen before the foundation of the world.
2. God made each person either as a vessel for dishonor (destruction) OR a vessel of honor (elect)

I think it's an important piece of the doctrine and so did Spurgeon, he wrote a whole sermon on it. http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0411.htm
So what happens to infants who die is a very serious question. It's certainly important to the one's who love that child.

 

[Deborah13]

theres a point to walk way and yall hit that. these things are new here nor will go away. as I predicted eternal security would come into play.been involved in this stuff myself thus why I asked my chaplain about Calvinism and did so with a smirk.lol.

This isn't about OSAS, just election. As far as I know there have only been three posts where it is briefly mentioned.
Election is interesting. Synthesis, I think nailed it.

Who is chosen? How chosen?
It will never be solved until we are face to face.
I suspect, by grace, through faith......

 

[jasoncran]

that is why I don't bother much anymore. just like debating the trinity. we see it in the bible but debating in depth? not anymore. I speak as I came from a non Trinitarian background. well I could go into and post the that YHWH contrary to the church teaching isn't the father but the son and all images seen in the tanach and revalation are all of jesus. the father nor the hs have any about them.

 

[mondar]

Because the Calvinist doctrine of election says.....
1. the elect were chosen before the foundation of the world.
2. God made each person either as a vessel for dishonor (destruction) OR a vessel of honor (elect)

I think it's an important piece of the doctrine and so did Spurgeon, he wrote a whole sermon on it. http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0411.htm
So what happens to infants who die is a very serious question. It's certainly important to the one's who love that child.

I read the sermon and must ask how Spurgeon is saying Calvinists think infants are going to hell. Here is a quote from the sermon you posted.
"Before I enter upon that I would make one observation. It has been wickedly, lyingly, and slanderously said of Calvinists, that we believe that some little children perish. Those who make the accusation know that their charge is false."
He is referring to the same Calvinist who believe Romans 9 teaches some are made vessels of wrath and some vessels of honor. God can make all infants who die in their infancy vessels of honor, elect from the foundations of the earth. I still do not see this as related to the issues. How would that prove anything about election or irresistible grace?

 

[Deborah13]

Deb, I hope I can put in my First, I reject the Calvinist "Limited Atonement" I don't believe that God has designed people to be the elect and others to be destroyed. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal live. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world." John 3:16,17 (ESV) Second, all children, under the age of accountability, if they die, go to heaven. Romans 5:12 - 21. "Where there is no law, sin is not imputed (recorded) where there is no law. That my friend is the main Scripture for children who die. You see, under the age of accountability, they don't understand what God expects, thus no law, no sin. A long time ago Mike and I posted about this and we arived at the age of 12 or 13 for the age of accountability.

I agree, Chopper. God gives everyone a chance to repent.
I also agree about children and all those born who may never be able to understand, through no fault of their own.

 

[Deborah13]

I read the sermon and must ask how Spurgeon is saying Calvinists think infants are going to hell. Here is a quote from the sermon you posted.
"Before I enter upon that I would make one observation. It has been wickedly, lyingly, and slanderously said of Calvinists, that we believe that some little children perish. Those who make the accusation know that their charge is false."
He is referring to the same Calvinist who believe Romans 9 teaches some are made vessels of wrath and some vessels of honor. God can make all infants who die in their infancy vessels of honor, elect from the foundations of the earth. I still do not see this as related to the issues. How would that prove anything about election or irresistible grace?

I didn't say anything about what Spurgeon said, just that he wrote a whole sermon on it because he thought it was important.
The reason I posted that, was because you wanted to know how infants eternal life had anything to do with election.
Because of the doctrine of election the same problems that Spurgeon was preaching against is what we see in some of the chosen ones.
I specifically asked about infants months ago in another discussion about election. They said elect infants go to heaven.
Spurgeon would have been spitting mad, as you can see from his sermon.

So if all infants go to heaven, then the chosen are chosen for reasons, by God's foreknowledge of their life. He knew those babies would not live, so they are in the Lambs Book of Life. Election (chosen) for a reason.

 

[ivdavid]

When is this man choosing not to believe? After hearing the gospel?

Yes. But I hope you agree that most believers did not believe the Gospel the very first time they heard it.

Step 4:
If the man above chose before he knew what he was choosing?? God is still giving salvation to certain 'men' without offering it to 'all' men. Is this what you are saying?

It is man's(in the flesh) choice all the way until the previous Step 3 - where it was man who chose to sin, it was man who chose to rebel in enmity against God and His law, and man who rejected the offer of salvation and chose not to believe in Christ when the Gospel was preached to him. At this point, such a man deserves to be judged guilty and be condemned. Would you agree?

Step 4 is about the Sovereign King's mercy - and we know mercy is not up to the "choice" of the condemned - it is up to the "choice" of the Sovereign King. If the Sovereign King does not show mercy, the guilty man's condemnation is still Just - for the sins and choices that found him guilty in the first place. On the other hand, if the Sovereign King does show mercy, it is not owing to anything that the guilty man deserved or merited - it is simply the King having pity/compassion out of His grace. We have enough material on the concept of kingship and mercy pardoning in parables and other contemporary material too, don't we? Is there any concept in this that you're not familiar with?

As to whether the Sovereign King shows mercy to each and every one condemned before Him, I'll let Rom 9:14-15 answer that.

What is your definition of 'regenerates'?

I wrote it immediately following the term - "wherein He[God] takes away the hardened heart and gives him[man] a new heart - renews his spirit and sets his soul in it, newly creating an inner man within the outer flesh". Eze 36:26, Rom 8:9, Eph 3:16.

He is saved at this point of what you call regeneration, before he actually believes?

God's work of salvation begins at this point, yes - but by no means is it close to over here. Of course, one step necessarily leads to another, just as we say godly repentance does lead to faith in Christ [ministry of John the Baptist preceding the ministry of Christ]. Put John 3:5-7 and John 6:63-65 together and you have the association between regeneration(being born again), flesh/spirit, and believing.

Anyway, this regenerated new inner man is now enabled to have ears to hear and eyes to see the truth of the Gospel Call, which earlier he only chose to reject by his hardened heart in the flesh. Being convicted by the truth of sin[nature] in him, he confesses his sins[transgressions] and repents - this necessarily leading to faith in Christ - which leads to him being forgiven, justified and adopted by God - onto His preserving sanctification.

Was he saved in Step 4?

Depends on how you're referring to the term "saved" here? Technically, God wouldn't declare a man saved here - A man is "saved" only after God justifies such a man - for until such time, such a man is still held condemned for his sins. And God justifies only after a person believes in Christ - so again technically, you cannot call a man "saved" the instant he believes. But we all know that man's faith necessarily leads to justification - and hence we simply use both steps synonymously as "being saved". In that same vein, regeneration[work of God] does necessarily lead to repentance and faith[choices of man in the spirit] - and could be non-technically called "saved". But man is technically saved in Step 5 only - after being justified by God. I hope I haven't been unclear on this.

Did God do anything to help him see, hear, learn?

This question follows a comment of mine, which seems too passive an observation. Allow me to restate it more actively as - "The only ones who find God resistible are the ones who continually choose to remain in enmity with God, operating out of their sinful flesh." Is God required to do anything more than Steps 2 and 3 - or put another way, is such a man entitled or deserving of anything more? But let us not forget, we were no better than them(Eph 2:3) [failing Steps 2 and 3] - but it is God's mercy (Eph 2:4) that made us alive(Eph 2:5) [Step 4].

 

[ivdavid]

So if all infants go to heaven, then the chosen are chosen for reasons, by God's foreknowledge of their life. He knew those babies would not live, so they are in the Lambs Book of Life. Election (chosen) for a reason.

I am yet to read this entire line of discussion - so pardon me if I'm not contextual. I merely wanted to point out an alternative conclusion here -

You see this as God electing those whom He knew would not live long. I see this as God decreeing some of His elect not to live long. Are you able to see the difference?

 

[Deborah13]

I am yet to read this entire line of discussion - so pardon me if I'm not contextual. I merely wanted to point out an alternative conclusion here -

You see this as God electing those whom He knew would not live long. I see this as God decreeing some of His elect not to live long. Are you able to see the difference?

So you are saying that all babies that have ever died were elect that He decreed to die. Hmm...
That's at least makes sense in the context of the doctrine, that the elect are chosen before the foundation of the world.

 

[Deborah13]

Yes. But I hope you agree that most believers did not believe the Gospel the very first time they heard it.

I really have no idea about this.

It is man's(in the flesh) choice all the way until the previous Step 3 - where it was man who chose to sin, it was man who chose to rebel in enmity against God and His law, and man who rejected the offer of salvation and chose not to believe in Christ when the Gospel was preached to him. At this point, such a man deserves to be judged guilty and be condemned. Would you agree?

No, I believe at whatever point in time God determines that person is accountable,and they are committing sin, with malice of forethought, they deserve to be judged. In other words they know what they are doing is wrong. God gave man a conscious. I didn't hear the gospel message until I was in my twenties. Some are much older. But I knew there was a God and I knew I did things I shouldn't. I deserved to be judged then before I heard the gospel. Read Romans 1

Step 4 is about the Sovereign King's mercy - and we know mercy is not up to the "choice" of the condemned - it is up to the "choice" of the Sovereign King. If the Sovereign King does not show mercy, the guilty man's condemnation is still Just - for the sins and choices that found him guilty in the first place. On the other hand, if the Sovereign King does show mercy, it is not owing to anything that the guilty man deserved or merited - it is simply the King having pity/compassion out of His grace. We have enough material on the concept of kingship and mercy pardoning in parables and other contemporary material too, don't we? Is there any concept in this that you're not familiar with?

Saved by grace alone.....God's undeserved, unmerited favor towards us.

As to whether the Sovereign King shows mercy to each and every one condemned before Him, I'll let Rom 9:14-15 answer that.

Two verses does not answer is question, especially when taken out of context from a teaching that is not about individuals peoples election. To understand this teaching one must understand what's going on in the OT.

I wrote it immediately following the term - "wherein He[God] takes away the hardened heart and gives him[man] a new heart - renews his spirit and sets his soul in it, newly creating an inner man within the outer flesh". Eze 36:26, Rom 8:9, Eph 3:16.


God's work of salvation begins at this point, yes - but by no means is it close to over here. Of course, one step necessarily leads to another, just as we say godly repentance does lead to faith in Christ [ministry of John the Baptist preceding the ministry of Christ]. Put John 3:5-7 and John 6:63-65 together and you have the association between regeneration(being born again), flesh/spirit, and believing.

Anyway, this regenerated new inner man is now enabled to have ears to hear and eyes to see the truth of the Gospel Call, which earlier he only chose to reject by his hardened heart in the flesh. Being convicted by the truth of sin[nature] in him, he confesses his sins[transgressions] and repents - this necessarily leading to faith in Christ - which leads to him being forgiven, justified and adopted by God - onto His preserving sanctification.

Depends on how you're referring to the term "saved" here? Technically, God wouldn't declare a man saved here - A man is "saved" only after God justifies such a man - for until such time, such a man is still held condemned for his sins. And God justifies only after a person believes in Christ - so again technically, you cannot call a man "saved" the instant he believes. But we all know that man's faith necessarily leads to justification - and hence we simply use both steps synonymously as "being saved". In that same vein, regeneration[work of God] does necessarily lead to repentance and faith[choices of man in the spirit] - and could be non-technically called "saved". But man is technically saved in Step 5 only - after being justified by God. I hope I haven't been unclear on this.

This question follows a comment of mine, which seems too passive an observation. Allow me to restate it more actively as - "The only ones who find God resistible are the ones who continually choose to remain in enmity with God, operating out of their sinful flesh." Is God required to do anything more than Steps 2 and 3 - or put another way, is such a man entitled or deserving of anything more? But let us not forget, we were no better than them(Eph 2:3) [failing Steps 2 and 3] - but it is God's mercy (Eph 2:4) that made us alive(Eph 2:5) [Step 4].

This is not about election and I can't address it in a couple of sentences. I shouldn't have asked any questions about this.
Blessings