What is Election?

[Butch5]

If you trying to prove that the context of Romans 9 is not about salvation do you realize you might have to deal with the context of Romans 9. Is it a difficult concept that Romans 9 is about the context of Romans 9? I am not protesting you going to other contexts, but do you understand the process of exegesis? Do you realize that to demonstrate what the context is in Romans 9 that you will have to deal with the words, phrases and grammar of Romans 9? Nevertheless, feel free to include any portion of scripture, apocryphal texts, the bhagavad gita, the Quran, or the Enuma Elish, or anything else you wish. Of course that will not demonstrate very much about the coherence of the internal content and the context of Romans 9. To demonstrate what Romans 9 is about you have to go verse by verse, even phrase by phrase in that context. You should be relating the development of Pauls argument and relating all portions of the context to the common theme you are proposing. Only then have you demonstrated your proposed theme.

LOL, shoot, Butch, you have not even made a concrete proposition of what you think the theme of Romans 9 actually is yet. The only thing you have done is denied that it is about salvation or individual election. That is not even proposing a common theme in Romans 9, it is just a statement about what it is not about. Then to prove your point you go all over the bible talking about the Arbahamic Covenant. When I say that the Abrahamic Covenant has soteriological issues in it, do you demonstrate that these issues are not in the text by showing the common theme of Romans 9? No. You just continue going all over the scriptrues talking about the Abrahamic Covenant. Also, I have already said that there are Jewish issues, covenant issues, and things like that in Romans 9. I have been long aware of the Covenants and promises to Israel in verses 3-5. In fact, I would go further then you and mention the issues concerning Israel in Romans 9:6 and the illustrative material in verses 7-13. But even though I would go further then you in relating the text to Israel does not prove that the text has no issues concerning soteriology. That would be to join you in your non-sequitur thinking. Please show who the covenant issues in Romans 9 do not relate to the salvation and election of Israel. If you wish to continue harping and harping on the Abrahamic Covenant, feel free, but it definitely does not prove anything about the internal theme of the material in Romans 9. All that does is show a relationship between the concepts of Covenant between different contexts. It does not one thing to demonstrate the internal message of Romans 9. Somehow, I do not think you understand the internal exegesis of a passage. Am I right? Do you do contextualization by relating the internal parts to one another? I was looking to discuss the context of Romans 9. Do you discuss the internal message of Romans 9 by discussion of 24 other texts? Do you establish the context of Romans 9 by a discussion of Malachi, Genesis, and other texts but only quote 3 verses in Romans 9? I honestly must admit that your method of discussing the context totally escapes me. The offer of my previous post is still valid. If you honestly admit you cannot relate the parts of Romans 9 internally, I will be happy to do it for you.

Seriously, Mondar? I really want to believe that you're just not understanding what it is I'm saying. However as I read you posts I'm not so sure anymore. So far all I've seen is an outright dismissal of everything, I've not seen any attempt to address anything I've said. That suggests to me that I have made my case and that you see what it is I'm saying. I suspect that you don't want to accept what I've said. I think it's pretty clear. If you want to address what I've said and show me where it's wrong feel from but to simply deny I've made any attempt I think is bogus.

 

[mondar]

Seriously, Mondar? I really want to believe that you're just not understanding what it is I'm saying. However as I read you posts I'm not so sure anymore. So far all I've seen is an outright dismissal of everything, I've not seen any attempt to address anything I've said. That suggests to me that I have made my case and that you see what it is I'm saying. I suspect that you don't want to accept what I've said. I think it's pretty clear. If you want to address what I've said and show me where it's wrong feel from but to simply deny I've made any attempt I think is bogus.

Butch, I really have no problem understanding what your saying. It is boringly simple. Your trying to establish that Romans 9 is about the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant to the exclusion of any soteriological issues. I have agreed that the material is related to the Abrahamic, but not to the exclusion of soteriological issues. So to demonstrate your point, you continually go about trying to prove that there are Abrahamic Covenant issues in Romans 9. That is why I have been saying your reasoning is "non-sequitur." It is like your trying to prove there is a worm in an apple by continually showing me the apple over and over. Would you not ask to see the worm? Thats all I have done and you continue to show me the apple. I continue to respond, yes, its an apple, where is the worm, and we go around again with you trying to demonstrate that there is a worm in the apple by showing me that apple. Is this dismissing everything you said so far? Absolutely. There are two reasons for the dismissal. First, you point that Romans 9 has material in it about the Abrahamic Covenant was accepted by me. But there is a huge difference between what your saying, and what you want me to agree too.
Your saying-------- "There is a relationship between the Abrahamic Covenant and Romans 9." ----- IE This is an apple with a worm in it.
I reply ------ I agree that Romans 9 has issues pertaining to the Abrahamic Covenant, but that does not demonstrate the lack of soteriological implications in Romans 9. ---- IE I see the apple, where is the worm.
And you will once again show me the apple.

The bottom line is that the only way to show the worm is to go to the context of Romans 9 and go through the verses 1-24 line by line, precept by precept. I am prepared to do that, I just ask that you first admit you cannot do it.

 

[mondar]

Butch, I apologize for one thing. When I asked you to admit you cannot put Romans 9 together and then offered to put it together if you admit it, I was wrong in doing that. I think the next step should be for me to go line by line in Romans 9 myself and demonstrate how the context is related to the soteriological aspects of the Abrahamic Covenant. That will take some writing, and it is Thanksgiving day and I will soon be with family. I will have to work on that another day. See you later.

 

[Butch5]

Butch, I really have no problem understanding what your saying. It is boringly simple. Your trying to establish that Romans 9 is about the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant to the exclusion of any soteriological issues. I have agreed that the material is related to the Abrahamic, but not to the exclusion of soteriological issues. So to demonstrate your point, you continually go about trying to prove that there are Abrahamic Covenant issues in Romans 9. That is why I have been saying your reasoning is "non-sequitur." It is like your trying to prove there is a worm in an apple by continually showing me the apple over and over. Would you not ask to see the worm? Thats all I have done and you continue to show me the apple. I continue to respond, yes, its an apple, where is the worm, and we go around again with you trying to demonstrate that there is a worm in the apple by showing me that apple. Is this dismissing everything you said so far? Absolutely. There are two reasons for the dismissal. First, you point that Romans 9 has material in it about the Abrahamic Covenant was accepted by me. But there is a huge difference between what your saying, and what you want me to agree too.
Your saying-------- "There is a relationship between the Abrahamic Covenant and Romans 9." ----- IE This is an apple with a worm in it.
I reply ------ I agree that Romans 9 has issues pertaining to the Abrahamic Covenant, but that does not demonstrate the lack of soteriological implications in Romans 9. ---- IE I see the apple, where is the worm.
And you will once again show me the apple.

The bottom line is that the only way to show the worm is to go to the context of Romans 9 and go through the verses 1-24 line by line, precept by precept. I am prepared to do that, I just ask that you first admit you cannot do it.

First of all this is a straw man. I agreed early on that there were salvation issues in the overall argument but that the choosing was not about choosing who would and would not be saved. You can read the post here.

If you reread my posts I've gone through the chapter verse by verse. However, again, you've not addressed any of that. It seems to me that you want me to write it just so. I even asked you what passages you think I missed and you didn't present any yet you continue to claim I've not addressed the context.

 

[Butch5]

Butch, I apologize for one thing. When I asked you to admit you cannot put Romans 9 together and then offered to put it together if you admit it, I was wrong in doing that. I think the next step should be for me to go line by line in Romans 9 myself and demonstrate how the context is related to the soteriological aspects of the Abrahamic Covenant. That will take some writing, and it is Thanksgiving day and I will soon be with family. I will have to work on that another day. See you later.

You can do that but as I said, it's a straw man. My statement is and was that it didn't pertain to salvation in the sense that it usually applied that is that God chooses who will be saved and who will not, basically the reformed teaching on election. The passage is simply not saying that. If that is what you're going to try to establish good luck.

 

[Chopper]

There has been some post's about election of children who die young. I really don't have an answer for this idea. I do have something to say about the theology of their death according to Scripture. It's funny that when ever pastors were faced with questions from grieving parents, the classic answer was always "suffer the children to come unto Me". I discovered Romans 5:12 - 21 speaks to the issue. "For sin indeed was in the world before the Law was given, but sin is not counted (recorded) where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, (1,500 years).

The teaching here is; for 1,500 years, people were comitting sin, God had not laid down the commandments yet, so, during that time, no sin was being recorded against them, just death.

This sets up the doctrine about a child's death, from birth to the age of accountability (age 12 or 13) no sin is being recorded. Since the child know no law against what he/she is doing, if they die, they are heaven bound. Once they reach the age of 12 or 13, they must receive the Savior.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

There has been some post's about election of children who die young. I really don't have an answer for this idea. I do have something to say about the theology of their death according to Scripture. It's funny that when ever pastors were faced with questions from grieving parents, the classic answer was always "suffer the children to come unto Me". I discovered Romans 5:12 - 21 speaks to the issue. "For sin indeed was in the world before the Law was given, but sin is not counted (recorded) where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, (1,500 years).

The teaching here is; for 1,500 years, people were comitting sin, God had not laid down the commandments yet, so, during that time, no sin was being recorded against them, just death.

This sets up the doctrine about a child's death, from birth to the age of accountability (age 12 or 13) no sin is being recorded. Since the child know no law against what he/she is doing, if they die, they are heaven bound. Once they reach the age of 12 or 13, they must receive the Savior.

I think we can be a little bit more specific.
Jews and Christians use this age as an age of accountability.
But each child's learning ability varies.
Each person will be able to make moral decisions at a different time in their lives.
We can go a bit further.
What about people who are "slow" or fully retarded?
I find that if you tell both groups about Jesus, they will love Jesus (I'm sure there are exceptions).
But basically, they will all be saved.

 

[jasoncran]

There has been some post's about election of children who die young. I really don't have an answer for this idea. I do have something to say about the theology of their death according to Scripture. It's funny that when ever pastors were faced with questions from grieving parents, the classic answer was always "suffer the children to come unto Me". I discovered Romans 5:12 - 21 speaks to the issue. "For sin indeed was in the world before the Law was given, but sin is not counted (recorded) where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, (1,500 years).

The teaching here is; for 1,500 years, people were comitting sin, God had not laid down the commandments yet, so, during that time, no sin was being recorded against them, just death.

This sets up the doctrine about a child's death, from birth to the age of accountability (age 12 or 13) no sin is being recorded. Since the child know no law against what he/she is doing, if they die, they are heaven bound. Once they reach the age of 12 or 13, they must receive the Savior.

one cant be dogmatic about an Talmudic tradition of bar and batmitzvah . while those were done in Christ's day they weren't commanded in the torah. its from the midrash.a child who is younger may be aware of what sin is and need to repent. my pastor came to Christ at age 3. sometimes those who are over 13 aren't mentally at that age.

 

[Chopper]

one cant be dogmatic about an Talmudic tradition of bar and batmitzvah . while those were done in Christ's day they weren't commanded in the torah. its from the midrash.a child who is younger may be aware of what sin is and need to repent. my pastor came to Christ at age 3. sometimes those who are over 13 aren't mentally at that age.

I agree. A while ago, Mike and I were exploring this text and he had Scripture about those under 20 would go into the promised land. I don't remember what he said, but it sounded right at that time.

 

[jasoncran]

I do lean towards the jewish idea of bar and bat mitzvah age of adult. why? jews have their fault but they don't get out there like that like Christians. they have their nuts but they tend to correct themselves. I wish they would correct themselves on the torah and see Christ, but when they debate on their theology its more of how do you do the torah, not like what we do."what doctrine do you believe?"

 

[Chopper]

I do lean towards the jewish idea of bar and bat mitzvah age of adult. why? jews have their fault but they don't get out there like that like Christians. they have their nuts but they tend to correct themselves. I wish they would correct themselves on the torah and see Christ, but when they debate on their theology its more of how do you do the torah, not like what we do."what doctrine do you believe?"

How different from our Old Testament is the Torah? Does the Torah have Isaiah's prophesy about Christ's birth?

 

[jasoncran]

How different from our Old Testament is the Torah? Does the Torah have Isaiah's prophesy about Christ's birth?

when I say torah in the context, its how do you serve god, ie do you give, love thy neighbor ,enemies.etc. the torah isn't the tanach. the torah is first five books of the bible

 

[Chopper]

when I say torah in the context, its how do you serve god, ie do you give, love thy neighbor ,enemies.etc. the torah isn't the tanach. the torah is first five books of the bible

Understood, thank you.

 

[jasoncran]

sorry, I assume Christians know that about jews.

 

[Chopper]

sorry, I assume Christians know that about jews.

I wish I had 1/2 your knowledge about the apple of God's eye!

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You're now shifting the goalpost. Earlier you asked me if I believed that God pre-programs men differently in creating them - I said No. Now you're asking me if I believe that God predetermines who will end up believing - I'd say Yes. The two are very different - the former scenario is a result of God creating men differently while the latter scenario is a result of God willing to show mercy.

Okay, good. So let's get to the point I'm driving at.

When Jesus said only a few would be saved, is that because...

1) ...he's only willing to show mercy to a few, but won't because of his own choice without consideration of their will?

or

2) ...he wants to show mercy to all, but can't because they have chosen of their own will to not believe the gospel?

God creates all men exactly the same concerning morality/salvation...

In regard to all ending up in sin, no question about it.

The difference I see is the potential in any one of us to love righteousness, or not. The point is we may be created by God, but God does not create our thoughts and our desires. He can influence them, but our fundamental love, or hatred, of righeousness is of ourselves, not created in us by God. If it were created in us by God, then God is a liar to say he wants all men saved, knowing he only created a few with an inherent desire to love righteousness and choose it when offered it.

...gives all men exactly the same law to justify themselves...

This is one of those misunderstandings about the law that we would have to untangle, but that's the stuff of another thread. Man is the one who made the mistake to think God gave the law to justify ourselves. God gave it to show us how utterly sinful we are. The law as a way to justification is only a stumbling block to those who want it to be that (Romans 9:30-32).

...offers all men the same Gospel of salvation and commands them to believe - and all men choose to disobey the Gospel.

Just so there is no confusion on your POV.......is this choice man's own choice, or did God give them that choice? If you say God gave them a built in choice then you contradict God's own words that he wants all men to choose the gospel and be saved. This is the very central issue of election.

At this point, God is justified if He were to condemn all men - and as Sovereign King, He is entitled to show mercy upon whom He wills too. The subset of all these condemned, that God now wills to have mercy upon - are the 'elect'.

IOW, the elect are all those who believe.

But as I'm pointing out, the central issue in all of this is whether or not God makes you a believer, or an unbeliever, and whether we humans have no input into the matter at all. I say we HAVE to have input into it, or else God is a liar when he says he wants all men to be saved, knowing he's only going to give the choice to a few of his choosing apart from their will or input into the matter.

And given God's operation out of time(though in sequence) - He purposed this 'election' before the foundation of the world.

Okay, this is moving in line with what I'm saying, that what is predetermined is the plan and the outcome for building a kingdom through election on the basis of righteousness by faith in Christ, not on the basis of the inherent righteousness of any one person.

But as I say, this is impossible to do if God simply gives this righteousness by faith to people according to who he wants to without any consideration of the person themselves.

Again, in sequence, having shown mercy, God regenerates the object of mercy - who then inevitably Chooses to repent and believe in Christ.

Why does being subject to the power of the Spirit have to automatically mean 'regeneration' and being born again? Paul was bowled over by the power of the Spirit before he was born again. The Ethiopian was moved by the power of the Spirit before he was born again, too.

Your worldview and theology leads you to your above conclusions, as do mine to my conclusions - but how are you establishing Biblical evidence to support only this? I too hold that man needs to be enabled against sin to believe - and that's what I hold happens in regeneration - but you hold them separate. So where are you seeing this "enablement of faith, apart from regeneration" being described in the Bible - or even implied in the Bible, to support only your view?

James talks about people (and demons) who have faith, but are not saved by that faith. Obviously, simply knowing Jesus is the Christ is not enough to be saved. This is that semantic difference I've been pointing out. These people and demons James talks about have faith, yet obviously demons aren't regenerated. Or do you think they are?

You did the same with 1John - why are you refuting your own position with these passages? James is referring to the demons' "believing" and not "faith" - I hope you're using a literal translation.

I've been saying over and over it's a semantic difference. The Bible uses the word 'faith' for both knowing, and believing, but obviously knowing and believing mean two very different things in regard to salvation. James proves this beyond any argument. But the church has been taught that any and all 'faith' (simply knowing Jesus is the Christ) equals salvation. Which is probably why they don't believe what he says that faith without the evidence of works accompanying it can not save a person. But the church is sure James is wrong because that would be a works gospel (that is not a works gospel).

That's a given. But since neither of us are in disagreement over that, we move to the specific point over which we might find ourselves in disagreement - is man 'in the flesh(self-nature)' or is he 'in the spirit(God-nature)' while choosing to believe - where the 'spirit' here does not refer to the Holy Spirit but to the new nature in the 'inner man' (distinction seen in Rom 8:16). Hence, my question still holds.

Man is under the influence of the power of the Holy Spirit when he chooses the gospel. But the church has been taight to only understand the power of the Holy Spirit as either you have it as a born again person, or you do not have it as a lost person. But we see in the scriptures people coming under the power of the Spirit and being led to a decision for righteousness that then saves them.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The bottom line of all this is the church is afraid to say man has his own choice in believing or not because they have been taught that any and all that man does is the work that Paul says can not justify. The church has erroneously included the very faith, the very believing, that Paul says does justify with the works that he says can't justify.

That's why I say this, and other erroneous doctrines in the church, stem from this one misunderstanding of Paul's faith vs. works teaching. Somehow faith (believing in Christ for the forgiveness of sins) got moved over to the side of the works that man is not allowed to do in order to be justified, and which gave rise to many distorted doctrines that presently indoctrinate the church. And I mean 'indoctrinate' in every negative sense and connotation of the word.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

'Works' don't justify just because man did them. Works don't justify because that is not how sin guilt is removed. The only way for sin guilt to be removed is through the blood of Jesus--applied to us, and accessed, by faith.

So we don't have to be afraid to attribute believing in Christ to the 'work' of man, and somehow that mean we're doing work that can't justify. The Bible says that is in fact the thing that does justify.

And because we don't have to be afraid to attribute believing as the work of man, we don't have to distort Paul's teaching about election in order to rip the work of believing out of the willful hands of men in order to preserve a misunderstanding about the work of man and justification that we shouldn't have in the first place.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I wish I had 1/2 your knowledge about the apple of God's eye!

You and I have the early church (after the disciples) to thank for the present day ignorance about the Jews, and the role of the law in this New Covenant.

As I'm pointing out, this ignorance we have is a big reason why we're even having this discussion about election. If we understood Paul's argument for faith/ works properly nobody would be forced to see election as having to mean 'no choice of the elect to be elected' in order to preserve a doctrine about faith/works that is not even true in the first place.

I know you think the elect is only an appointed group of ministers within the body of Christ, but even what I just said applies to that view of who the elect are, too.

 

[Chopper]

JB, I like what you are saying. Am I being to simple in saying faith without works is useless? Faith by itself is useless, Works by themselves is useless, so real conversion, immediately upon receiving Christ as Savior produces works. So faith with works is Biblical salvation.