Who are the Elect

[Drew]

I am interested in soliciting people's understanding of the term "the elect".

Who are the elect?

What are the consequences of being part of the elect?

What conditions need to be fulfilled in order to be a member of the elect?

Of course, any scriptural support is helpful. Obviously (I think), the matter of the elect relates to the doctrines of "unconditional election" and "limited atonement", if not others. Please feel free to express any response by making reference to these doctrines.

I would ask that, if possible, responses be as precise as possible (choosing the exact right words is important). Of course, if people want to make long posts or posts that are expressed in arcane language, they can do so. I would personally prefer that this question be addressed in as precise and yet as concise a manner as possible in your own words, and therefore without lengthy quotes from people from the 13th century. However, as always, please respond as you see fit.

 

[samuel]

If you are referring to the use of "elect" in scripture. This usually refers to the Hebrews/Jews. Whereas the Church is referred to as the "Saints"

However there seems to be at least one place where this is a blanket statement, Mark 13: 22 & 27

Short enough?.

 

[Drew]

Thanks Samuel. Do you have anything to say regarding the consequences of being a member of the elect?

 

[samuel]

Excuse me for being so long in this response, but I got tied up in a rather long telephone conversation. I have never look at being elect from a point of "consequence", if you could elaborate on this statement a little more, I would have a better idea of the question you are asking.

 

[RJS]

The elect are all those who God, before the foundation of the world, chose unto salvation.

 

[Drew]

Hi Samuel:

What I mean is this: does being a member of the elect confer any "benefit" or "anti-benefit" of any kind? If someone is a member of the elect, do any different "rules" apply in respect to, for example, their eternal destiny?

My attempt to clarify may be vague - let me give an example. Some, I believe, will claim that being a member of the elect has the result that you will most certainly be given eternal life in heaven. There is no way for you to avoid such a "fate".

 

[Jon-Marc]

I certainly don't think of having eternal life as a "fate". That sounds as though you think that it's something terrible like going to hell.

 

[Drew]

I certainly don't think of having eternal life as a "fate". That sounds as though you think that it's something terrible like going to hell.

Hence my use of quotes.... :D

 

[Drew]

The elect are all those who God, before the foundation of the world, chose unto salvation.

Can you, at your convenience, please provide arguments to support this view. In particular, I am interested in arguments that rule out (or at least weigh against) competing interpretations as to who the elect are and what is their "fate". The principle here is that I am asking for arguments that are not only consistent with your view of the elect, but are also demonstrably at odds with competing views. The same text can support competing interpretations. I hope that I am being clear.

 

[samuel]

I am not absolutely certain that this is the point you are trying to refer to but!. But being a member of Gods elect people (Israel), using the term as it usually appears in scripture, ( not using the blanket statement of elect). Does not mean all those will be saved, as they were blinded in part, though not all. As Paul stated their blindness is a blessing to us of the “wild olive treeâ€Â, but not to make this a point of boasting, as God can un-graft us as quickly as we were grafted in. But in the end all the promises to his chosen people will be kept, as a gift of grace, as their blindness has given us the gift of grace, all Israel will be restored.

 

[JM]

Can you, at your convenience, please provide arguments to support this view. In particular, I am interested in arguments that rule out (or at least weigh against) competing interpretations as to who the elect are and what is their "fate". The principle here is that I am asking for arguments that are not only consistent with your view of the elect, but are also demonstrably at odds with competing views. The same text can support competing interpretations. I hope that I am being clear.

Does the text you claim supports competing interpretations do so in an explicit manner or is it a matter of exegesis? Is it a primary text or secondary text? [ex. infant baptists claim texts where Jesus is speaking of allowing children to come to Him proves infant baptism but this is a secondary text because baptism is not explicit in the passage and can be shown to have little or nothing to do with baptism.]

Do you have a view on this topic, if so, would you share it?

 

[Drew]

Does the text you claim supports competing interpretations do so in an explicit manner or is it a matter of exegesis? Is it a primary text or secondary text? [ex. infant baptists claim texts where Jesus is speaking of allowing children to come to Him proves infant baptism but this is a secondary text because baptism is not explicit in the passage and can be shown to have little or nothing to do with baptism.]

Do you have a view on this topic, if so, would you share it?

At this point, I am not claiming that any particular text supports a particular competing interpretation - I am merely pointing out a general principle. And this is a principle that is simple to understand and generalizes beyond matters of Biblical interpretation. I will illustrate with an admittedly fanciful example.

Observational Evidence: "The creature was 7 feet tall, weighed over 400 pounds, and was covered in thick black hair"

This statement supports, or at least is consistent with, the following competing assertions:

1. The creature is the Sasquatch
2. The creature is a former girl-friend of mine from Jersey (no offence, Vic).

All I am really asking for is that people show not simply that their interpretation is plausible, but that it is in some sense superior to other intepretations. In my example, we need more information to resolve whether the creature is the Sasquatch or the girl-friend, since the stated observation really does not help in picking the right answer.

And, no, I have no opinion on who the elect are. I am here to listen to what others have say and hopefully learn something.

 

[RJS]

Can you, at your convenience, please provide arguments to support this view. In particular, I am interested in arguments that rule out (or at least weigh against) competing interpretations as to who the elect are and what is their "fate". The principle here is that I am asking for arguments that are not only consistent with your view of the elect, but are also demonstrably at odds with competing views. The same text can support competing interpretations. I hope that I am being clear.

Acts 13:48 "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."

2 Thess 2:13 'But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:"

1 Peter 1:2-5 "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. "

Romans 8:29-30 "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. 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. "

 

[Oscar3]

I certainly don't think of having eternal life as a "fate". That sounds as though you think that it's something terrible like going to hell.

jON
He does not believe in the fires of hell. Its not there. Its only a methaphore.

 

[Oscar3]

Can you, at your convenience, please provide arguments to support this view. In particular, I am interested in arguments that rule out (or at least weigh against) competing interpretations as to who the elect are and what is their "fate". The principle here is that I am asking for arguments that are not only consistent with your view of the elect, but are also demonstrably at odds with competing views. The same text can support competing interpretations. I hope that I am being clear.

Drew spoken Like a true Open theist

Open theism, also called free will theism and openness theology, is the belief that God does not exercise meticulous control of the universe but leaves it "open" for humans to make significant choices (free will) that impact their relationships with God and others. A corollary of this is that God has not predetermined the future. Open Theists further believe that this would imply that God does not know the future exhaustively. Proponents affirm that God is omniscient, but deny that this means that God knows everything that will happen.
Yep. this is you. :o

 

[lovely]

I am interested in soliciting people's understanding of the term "the elect".

Who are the elect?

God's children, who are adopted, and given a share in Christ's inheritance. The redeemed. Those who choose God, who believe, for whom atonement was made. Those who are ultimately chosen, and elected, by the Father to be given to the Son, and are kept to mature unto good fruit...to persevere.

What are the consequences of being part of the elect?

I think there are two different ways to answer this question. Some of the direct consequences here, and in the here after, are...

Consequences here on earth may include...

A servant is not greater than his Master. So, persecution may be one consequence. Ridicule, because we are told to spread the Gospel...the foolishness of preaching. Rejection, because the Christ was also rejected and scorned. And many other things along those lines in accordance with being ambassadors for Christ...death, spiritual attack, trials, tribulation, etc.

Consequences before God may include...

A Responsiblity before God to do His work in the fields. Accountability before God, and the church, to be a disciple that bears good fruit according to the knowledge, gifts, and ability that God has given to us as one called to practice the true religion of love in Spirit and in Truth. Obedience to His commandments. Discipline from God. Good works in Christ. These things may cause us to reap rewards, or not, based on what we do for Christ...they also play a part in our identification as sheep or goats.


What conditions need to be fulfilled in order to be a member of the elect?

Deuteronomy 7

We must be unconditionally chosen, and yet there are consequential conditions (the second way to answer the previous question) that stem from that choosing...

As men, we must be sinners, because Christ came to save the sinner.
We must be in covenant with God.
We must be obedient to God.
We must believe God's Word.
We must be born again.
We must endure in our love towards God, and not grow cold.
We must not be deceived.
We must be in good soil.
We must bear fruit.
We must walk by faith.
We must be spiritual minded.
We must be filled with the Holy Spirit.
We must be repentant.
We must be recipients of grace.
We must be those for whom Christ made atonement.
We must love God above all.
We must love others before ourselves.
We must forgive.
We must have a circumcision of the heart.
We must have the law written on our heart.

I think the list is very long.

Just my thoughts.

The Lord bless you.

 

[JM]

I believe in double predestination, no I won't defend the position this thread was started to learn the views of others and not debate.

The Reformed View of Predestination

In sharp contrast to the caricature of double predestination seen in the positive-positive schema is the classic position of Reformed theology on predestination. In this view predestination is double in that it involves both election and reprobation but is not symmetrical with respect to the mode of divine activity. A strict parallelism of operation is denied. Rather we view predestination in terms of a positive-negative relationship.
In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives. Even in the case of the "hardening" of the sinners' already recalcitrant hearts, God does not, as Luther stated, "work evil in us (for hardening is working evil) by creating fresh evil in us."2

Luther continued:

[quote:a5991]When men hear us say that God works both good and evil in us, and that we are subject to God's working by mere passive necessity, they seem to imagine a man who is in himself good, and not evil, having an evil work wrought in him by God; for they do not sufficiently bear in mind how incessantly active God is in all His creatures, allowing none of them to keep holiday. He who would understand these matters, however, should think thus: God works evil in us (that is, by means of us) not through God's own fault, but by reason of our own defect. We being evil by nature, and God being good, when He impels us to act by His own acting upon us according to the nature of His omnipotence, good though He is in Himself, He cannot but do evil by our evil instrumentality; although, according to His wisdom, He makes good use of this evil for His own glory and for our salvation.2

Thus, the mode of operation in the lives of the elect is not parallel with that operation in the lives of the reprobate. God works regeneration monergistically but never sin. Sin falls within the category of providential concurrence.

Another significant difference between the activity of God with respect to the elect and the reprobate concerns God's justice. The decree and fulfillment of election provide mercy for the elect while the efficacy of reprobation provides justice for the reprobate. God shows mercy sovereignly and unconditionally to some, and gives justice to those passed over in election. That is to say, God grants the mercy of election to some and justice to others. No one is the victim of injustice. To fail to receive mercy is not to be treated unjustly. God is under no obligation to grant mercy to all  in fact He is under no obligation to grant mercy to any. He says, "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy" (Rom. 9). The divine prerogative to grant mercy voluntarily cannot be faulted. If God is required by some cosmic law apart from Himself to be merciful to all men, then we would have to conclude that justice demands mercy. If that is so, then mercy is no longer voluntary, but required. If mercy is required, it is no longer mercy, but justice. What God does not do is sin by visiting injustice upon the reprobate. Only by considering election and reprobation as being asymmetrical in terms of a positive-negative schema can God be exonerated from injustice.
Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will (Westwood: Fleming H. Revell, 1957), p. 206
[/quote:a5991] http://www.the-highway.com/DoublePredes ... proul.html

 

[mutzrein]

I am interested in soliciting people's understanding of the term "the elect".

Who are the elect?

Those whose names are written in the book of life.

What are the consequences of being part of the elect?

They are given eternal life.

What conditions need to be fulfilled in order to be a member of the elect?

None on man's part. Only God's grace.

Of course, any scriptural support is helpful. Obviously (I think), the matter of the elect relates to the doctrines of "unconditional election" and "limited atonement", if not others. Please feel free to express any response by making reference to these doctrines.

I would ask that, if possible, responses be as precise as possible (choosing the exact right words is important). Of course, if people want to make long posts or posts that are expressed in arcane language, they can do so. I would personally prefer that this question be addressed in as precise and yet as concise a manner as possible in your own words, and therefore without lengthy quotes from people from the 13th century. However, as always, please respond as you see fit.

 

[unred typo]

‘Elect’ does not mean ‘chosen unconditionally to receive eternal life.’

God ordained that those who believed and then continued in a life of following Christ would inherit eternal life:
Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
should be understood in the context of Romans 2:6-8:
God will give to each person according to what he has done. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.(NIV)

Some of the elect were chosen before Jesus died to be called after his resurrection:
God chose those believers who were sealed during Christ’s ministry to be eventually brought to a knowledge of the full gospel truth through the witness of the Holy Spirit who set apart this elect group to hear the message of forgiveness and reconciliation (that was later proven by the resurrection) :
2 Thess 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

As we repent and confess our sin, we are sanctified by the Holy Spirit who washes away those sins, and sets us apart as believers in the gospel (Commands of Christ) that by our obedience to it, and the washing by the blood, it will enable us to be kept in a perfect undefiled state to be revealed in the end judgment of our works. This plan of salvation through the blood was foreordained by God who planned that those who qualified as believers would be elected to eternal life. This election is not a ‘done deal’ but subject to continuance in obedience through faith in the hope of the gospel preached by Jesus Christ:

1 Peter 1:2-5 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.



Those who were known by God to be believers when Jesus preached (the common people who received his word gladly and those who had died whose spirits Jesus took out of death’s prison house) were predestinated to be ‘washed in his blood’ and born again after he had risen from the dead:

Romans 8:29-30 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. 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.

 

[JM]

Romans 8:29-30 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. 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.