Understanding God’s election

[Mem]

Knows Scripture better than Rufus (like an Indian name)

How about, "Puns with Wolves", hmm
I've always wanted an Indian name. A dear friend dubbed me an honorary Blackfoot, but it just occurred to me that she never gave me an Indian name!

Being given may mean to be to be delegated to do something, to be granted to do it, or to be permitted to do it, or to be enabled to do it.
Salvation and reconciliation with God comes by putting one's faith in Jesus, i.e. believing on him. This believing on Him is enabled by hearing the gospel, believing which saves one. If God allows people to hear the gospel and does not prevent them for understanding it, but grants to each to decide whether they will believe it, then God has given, granted or allowed them to believe. If God then allows enemies of the gospel to persecute believers, he has also given, granted, or allowed them to suffer on behalf of Christ. Nothing here shouts or whispers that the faith of a believer is given in the same way as one gives someone a watch or a hat.

What, exactly, is so complicated about the idea that salvation through faith is by grace? As opposed to salvation through works, which would be by what, ...justice mebbe?

 

[PaulThomson]

[Jhn 6:29 KJV] 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Jesus said "This [Touto] is the work of God [the work God requires], so that [hina] you may believe on Him whom He [God] has sent.

In context "This" refers back to "Labour not for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to aeonous life".

Since faith comes by hearing, it makes sense that working to get into a position to hear the gospel, so that (hina) we can believe in Jesus through hearing the word of God that identifies Him as Saviour and Lord, must be the kind of labour that God requires humans to do.

This makes perfect sense of the text, without assuming that faith in Jesus is work that God does upon us without our prior consent.

 

[PaulThomson]

[1Co 2:14 KJV] 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

We are told that we have two "men" in us, the natural/carnal man and the spiritual man, and Christians have both an old man and a new man, or the natural/carnal man and the regenerated spiritual man. Paul rebukes Christians who are yet carnal, or are living according to the flesh, or are thinking according to the flesh (carnally-minded). If a person is living according to the carnal/natural man, and is not putting him to death by living according to the spiritual man, that man in that present state will find the things of the Spirit foolish. But if that man changes his focus from self-centredness to Christ-centredness, He will be able to grasp spiritual things being revealed to him by the Holy Spirit.

 

[PaulThomson]

How about, "Puns with Wolves", hmm
I've always wanted an Indian name. A dear friend dubbed me an honorary Blackfoot, but it just occurred to me that she never gave me an Indian name!

What, exactly, is so complicated about the idea that salvation through faith is by grace? As opposed to salvation through works, which would be by what, ...justice mebbe?

Nothing complicated about the biblical idea of salvation by grace through faith with works commensurate with faith.
The Bible doesn't present an idea of salvation by grace through faith without works commensurate with faith.

Rom 4:6
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Jas 2:18
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Jas 2:20
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Jas 2:26
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

The word translated as "without" is choris, it means "apart from".
Mat 14:21
And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside G5565 (choris) women and children.
This is not denying that there were any women or children, but that Matthew is counting only the men there were there.
When David calls the man blessed to whom God imputes/reckons righteousness apart from works, he is not denying that there are any righteous works reckoned to the man, but he is focussing on the faith itself that God also reckons as righteousness. Isn't it great that God adds our ongoing faith onto the credit side of the ledger, moment by moment, even when we are not putting any effort into "doing works" for God.

 

[Mem]

Nothing complicated about the biblical idea of salvation by grace through faith with works commensurate with faith.
The Bible doesn't present an idea of salvation by grace through faith without works commensurate with faith.

Rom 4:6
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Jas 2:18
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Jas 2:20
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Jas 2:26
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

The word translated as "without" is choris, it means "apart from".
Mat 14:21
And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside G5565 (choris) women and children.
This is not denying that there were any women or children, but that Matthew is counting only the men there were there.
When David calls the man blessed to whom God imputes/reckons righteousness apart from works, he is not denying that there are any righteous works reckoned to the man, but he is focussing on the faith itself that God also reckons as righteousness. Isn't it great that God adds our ongoing faith onto the credit side of the ledger, moment by moment, even when we are not putting any effort into "doing works" for God.

This looks to me like the gift of salvation, neatly packaged.
We do many things because we believe God, such as Abraham leaving everything he knew as "home," going only the word of God, taking it as promised that He was able to keep... without regard to his body or Sarah's womb nor thought toward the respective nature thereof as dead and barren. And if anyone exercises their faith in like manner, (s)he is, indeed, of the seed of Abraham!

 

[GWH]

God told Hezekiah to set his house in order because he was going to die. Hezekiah prayed and God answered his prayer, allowed Hezekiah to live and added 15 more years to his life.

Shall I give more examples? Pray matters.

If my wife has cancer, I’m asking God to heal her.

Praying in accordance with GW matters, so praying that healing accords with God's will is good, because Father knows best.

Desiring prolonged earthly life is okay, but realization of eternal life will be heavenly. (PHP 1:21-23, 2TM 4:6-8)

 

[John146]

Praying in accordance with GW matters, so praying that healing accords with God's will is good, because Father knows best.

Desiring prolonged earthly life is okay, but realization of eternal life will be heavenly. (PHP 1:21-23, 2TM 4:6-8)

Absolutely, but God’s will is found in his word. I pray according to his word. His word states to come to him with all prayers and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.

 

[GWH]

Absolutely, but God’s will is found in his word. I pray according to his word. His word states to come to him with all prayers and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.

Yes, GW means God's Word = God's will, and GW includes PHP 4:6.

 

[PaulThomson]

Wow! More pearls of wisdom from our wanna-be guru, as though most of us don't know that God has always "reserved" a remnant for himself BY HIS GRACE! Heck...anyone with a 1/2 a pea brain can see God did that very thing with Eve in Gen 3.

Even Rom 11:2 QUALIFIES his grace, for the text says that God has not cast away HIS people whom he [fore]knew in eternity. On the last day, Jesus will only cast away those whom he never knew (Mat 7:23). (And methinks there's a pretty decent chance that none of those condemned were ever "His people" either.)

Lastly, your sloppy exegesis 1Ki 19 doesn't allow you to see that the text says that God RESERVED 7,000 for himself. The text doesn't say that 7,000 in Israel reserved God for themselves! If you could only quit blindly adding things to God's Word with your eisegesis, you might one day actually see what passages are truly saying. But you obviously are powerless to remove your own blinders, so you might want to seek the Lord for real healing.

Rom. 11:2 does not say "God has not cast away HIS people whom he [fore]knew in eternity." God foreknew Israel, as in knew Israel before the new covenant was ratified. Paul does NOT say "in eternity".
Also, why did you put [fore] in square brackets as if you are adding it to the original text for clarity, when proegnO, knew beforehand/earlier is in the original text; but you did not put "in eternity" in square brackets, which you did add to the text to make it sound more Calvinist?

The verse seems relatively straight-forward. God is not excluding Jews. whom He knew before under the Old Covenant, from salvation in Christ now in the new covenant. Today there is a remnant of Israel who believe, as there has always been a remnant in every generation.

 

[studier]

Also, your "future tense" argument for 1Ki 19:18 is lame. Let's add some context:

1 Kings 19:14-18
14 He said, "I have been very jealous for the Lord, the God of hosts. For the people of Israel have forsaken your covenant, thrown down your altars, and killed your prophets with the sword, and I, even I only, am left, and they seek my life, to take it away." 15 And the Lord said to him, "Go, return on your way to the wilderness of Damascus. And when you arrive, you shall anoint Hazael to be king over Syria. 16 And Jehu the son of Nimshi you shall anoint to be king over Israel, and Elisha the son of Shaphat of Abel-meholah you shall anoint to be prophet in your place. 17 And the one who escapes from the sword of Hazael shall Jehu put to death, and the one who escapes from the sword of Jehu shall Elisha put to death. 18 Yet I will leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him."
ESV

Verse 18 is in the future tense (if the LXX is accurate) because the apostates had not yet been punished. So, all God is saying is that the 7,000 of the faithful who were contemporary with Elijah, He will leave in the land. The rest, though, would perish by the sword through God's righteous judgment by either one of the two kings mentioned in the text or by Elijah's successor Elisha!

So, again, according to Paul's commentary, the 7,000 faithful were faithful because God graciously chose them, just like He has chosen a remnant of Jews by the same sovereign grace in Paul's day.

Will start here and discuss Romans in a separate post.

This is a very clear example of your TULIP overgrowth being inserted everywhere.

I'd have to do some work, but at quick glance the Hebrew looks to be causative - I will cause to be left... So, the NAS and the ESV as I see it are good, and the Greek future tense makes sense since God is saying what He will do when the judgment of the sword takes place.

The flow is very clear:

• Some men had not bowed to Baal
• A judgment will take place
• God will leave [alive] those who had not bowed to Baal
  • They were not faithful because God chose them
  • God chose them because they were faithful
    • This is the basis for election in Paul

 

[studier]

How about, "Puns with Wolves", hmm
I've always wanted an Indian name. A dear friend dubbed me an honorary Blackfoot, but it just occurred to me that she never gave me an Indian name!

Don't want to take away from the Costner movie. But their naming has always interested me. As does the Hebrews'
Reading @Rufus does make me think of 'One Trick Pony'

 

[rogerg]

Good. And which part/s are grace? Is there a exact correspondence between the parts that are gifts and the parts that are grace? Or is there merely some overlap? Is grace, therefore, same as a gift? Or somewhat different? And how does the distinction, if any, affect the way we understand passages in which these two words are used in scripture? Are we sometimes imposing a false understanding of gift and grace to massage the text into conformity to beloved ideological presuppositions ?

Which parts of Noah's salvation from the flood were grace? Which parts were gifts?And Did Noah's salvation from the flood not require any work on his part?

Our grace and works cannot co-mingle - are they NOT mutually supporting of each other in any sense regarding salvation. The remnant below was by the election of grace. For those God places under it, grace is free. It is free because it is not and cannot be by works.
So, since I provide the below, and since you are so adamant against grace being free and all-encompassing, show us with scripture that it has to be earned, purchased, or added to, for salvation.

[Rom 3:24 KJV]
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

[Rom 5:17 KJV]
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

[Rom 11:5-7 KJV]
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6 And if by grace, then [is it] no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if [it be] of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded

[Zec 12:10 KJV]
10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for [his] only [son], and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for [his] firstborn.

[Rom 4:4, 16 KJV]
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. ...
16 Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

[Rom 5:1, 2, 21 KJV]
1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. ...
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

[Eph 1:6 KJV]
6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

[Heb 9:28 KJV]
28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

[Eph 2:5, 8 KJV]
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) ...
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

[2Th 2:16 KJV]
16 Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given [us] everlasting consolation and good hope through grace,

[2Ti 1:9 KJV]
9 Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

[Tit 3:7 KJV]
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Noah was saved and warned in advance by God of the upcoming flood. And as with all who become saved, his actions were the result of God's actions.

 

[rogerg]

We are told that we have two "men" in us, the natural/carnal man and the spiritual man, and Christians have both an old man and a new man, or the natural/carnal man and the regenerated spiritual man. Paul rebukes Christians who are yet carnal, or are living according to the flesh, or are thinking according to the flesh (carnally-minded). If a person is living according to the carnal/natural man, and is not putting him to death by living according to the spiritual man, that man in that present state will find the things of the Spirit foolish. But if that man changes his focus from self-centredness to Christ-centredness, He will be able to grasp spiritual things being revealed to him by the Holy Spirit.

No, carnal man and natural man do not represent the same thing. The natural man represents the unsaved - not indwelt by the Holy Spirit; the carnal man represents acting in an earthly manner but not necessarily unsaved

[1Co 2:14 KJV] 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

 

[rogerg]

Jesus said "This [Touto] is the work of God [the work God requires], so that [hina] you may believe on Him whom He [God] has sent.

In context "This" refers back to "Labour not for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to aeonous life".

Since faith comes by hearing, it makes sense that working to get into a position to hear the gospel, so that (hina) we can believe in Jesus through hearing the word of God that identifies Him as Saviour and Lord, must be the kind of labour that God requires humans to do.

This makes perfect sense of the text, without assuming that faith in Jesus is work that God does upon us without our prior consent.

No, the "in order that" is for which is to come later in the verse after it- that the work of God was in order that they believe.

 

[rogerg]

Being given may mean to be to be delegated to do something, to be granted to do it, or to be permitted to do it, or to be enabled to do it.
Salvation and reconciliation with God comes by putting one's faith in Jesus, i.e. believing on him. This believing on Him is enabled by hearing the gospel, believing which saves one. If God allows people to hear the gospel and does not prevent them for understanding it, but grants to each to decide whether they will believe it, then God has given, granted or allowed them to believe. If God then allows enemies of the gospel to persecute believers, he has also given, granted, or allowed them to suffer on behalf of Christ. Nothing here shouts or whispers that the faith of a believer is given in the same way as one gives someone a watch or a hat.

The intent of the verse is clear.

[Phl 1:29 KJV] 29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

 

[Jimbone]

Those not in Christ cannot hear, and this is explicitly stated in the Bible, and yet I was told recently that what Jesus said about people not being able to hear only applied to the Jews of his Day & Age, which is quite false given what else is said of the Natural man, right up to and including the fact that Jesus came to open the eyes of the blind and unstop the ears of the deaf. I am on my phone at work so I cannot navigate away to find the verse but I did post it within the last week and I believe I even made a panel displaying it...

People claiming that everybody can hear is just simply wrong given that hearing must encompass comprehension. We are also explicitly told that the gospel message is foolishness to those who are perishing. The natural man can neither receive nor comprehend the spiritual things of God. People do not make a moral decision to decide to believe that which is foolishness to them. Saying such things is foolishness itself.

I agree whole heartedly, with scripture as you just laid it out. That's what His word says. The catch 22 is that you can not KNOW this in truth unless you've been born again, or made spiritually alive. So if you're deceived then you can not know that, and will fight for your position to the bitter end feeling you are on the side of God doing so.

For those who have been made alive and can see the truth, only can because of His grace, mercy, and sacrifice. There is no taking credit for ANY part of it, let alone making "our choice" the center of salvation. When you've been gifted the truth, in truth, you know your position when it comes to salvation, it's on your face in awe, KNOWING your true guilt like never before and understanding His righteousness in truth, seeing, in truth, the real price that was paid on the cross so God could reconcile Himself to us again as we were created to be. We always praise Jesus for taking that punishment for us, taking the full force of Gods wrath towards sin on Himself, but the Father was pouring out that wrath on His Son as well, I don't often hear that part preached on too much. That God the Father was willing to pour out the just punishment on His own Son so that we might be forgiven. It's just SO deep on SO many levels it's inexhaustible as He says.

Bottom line is it's natural in a "me" centered culture to get these kinds of thoughts and leanings, never mind our natural tendency to center ourselves in everything anyway. To our minds we have to feel like we have some kind of power and control over our destinies, but we don't. We don't earn hell after we are born sometime, we are born heading that way in need of rescue. This is where I see the biggest misunderstanding of this debate starts. People act as if we are born in neutral and have the power to "choose" up or down. That is false. We are born heading to hell, God doesn't have to choose anyone for hell, that's where we're going without His help.

 

[rogerg]

If I have 100 dollars and use a business coach so that 100 dollars to make 10,000 dollars, the fruit of my business coaches input is more capital. It is not logical to argue that because the 500 was made with the help of the coach, the coach must have given me the seed 100 dollars, and must have just given me the 500 dollars. It just does not follow.

Nor does it follow that, if the fruit of the Holy Spirit, as I follow His lead, is greater works of faith, that the seed faith must been given to me by the Holy Spirit and the greater faith was simply given to me by Him too.The language does not require that conclusion.

You are reading into the verse an assumption neither stated nor inferred therein. When someone is saved/born-again, they
are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. When that occurs, the faith of Christ, through the Holy Spirit, is imputed to them.

[Rom 4:9 KJV] 9 [Cometh] this blessedness then upon the circumcision [only], or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
[Rom 5:1 KJV] 1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
[2Co 4:13 KJV] 13 We having the same spirit of faith,according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;
[Gal 2:16 KJV] 16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
[Gal 3:5 KJV] 5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, [doeth he it] by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

 

[Jimbone]

Good Lord it blows my mind how hard some fight to take glory from God. They fight SO HARD to declare that God does not deserve glory for "this, that, and the other". It honestly just does not make sense in my born again head, that they strive this hard to declare the glory that God doesn't deserve. Almost seems counter productive, or anti-Gods glory. The longer they drag it out and harder they fight against Gods glory, the more sick it makes me. Why do they feel these are "good" arguments, or glorifying to Jesus name at all? Oh, never mind, they're only worried about subtracting from His glory, not adding to it.

 

[rogerg]

Good Lord it blows my mind how hard some fight to take glory from God. They fight SO HARD to declare that God does not deserve glory for "this, that, and the other". It honestly just does not make sense in my born again head, that they strive this hard to declare the glory that God doesn't deserve. Almost seems counter productive, or anti-Gods glory. The longer they drag it out and harder they fight against Gods glory, the more sick it makes me. Why do they feel these are "good" arguments, or glorifying to Jesus name at all? Oh, never mind, they're only worried about subtracting from His glory, not adding to it.

I see it exactly the same way, Jimbone. I think it comes down to that they believe it is not God who saves but man, and they want
to be the ones in charge of it - when they aren't.

 

[studier]

Paul did more than than. He made an analogy between the two periods of time! Why did you omit v. 5 from the above passage!? How dishonest of you!

Rom 11:5
5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.
NIV

The Gr. term (Strong's 3779) rendered "so too" in the NIV is referring back to the preceding verse! It means, "likewise", or "in this way", or "in this fashion", or "in this manner", or "after this manner", or "even so". Paul is not only applying the OT passage to his day, but he is actually making a commentary on the 1Ki 19 text. He actually shed light on the OT passage! Even the very literal Darby translation picks this idea up:

Rom 11:5
5 Thus, then, in the present time also there has been a remnant according to election of grace.
Darby

Ditto for the YLT:

Rom 11:5
5 So then also in the present time a remnant according to the choice of grace there hath been;
YLT

And ditto for the KJV:

Rom 11:5


5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
KJV

And the NASB reads:

Rom 11:5
5 In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice.
NASB

Therefore, since God during Paul's day, had a remnant of believing Jews according to His sovereign choice -- not according to the remnant's choice -- then logically this must have been true back in Elijah's day. And I will most certainly take Paul's word for this over yours!

God chose men who had chosen to remain loyal to God after God made Himself known to them.

Firstly, Rufus, it's good to see some work in the Text. Secondly, I agree that Paul is making an analogy. See how agreement can come from actually working in the Text?

Next, I posted the 1K19 and Rom11 counterpart in response to your slanted view of all mankind (“T”) not to deal with election (“U”). Now that you want to get into election, we’ll look at that.

We can start with the 1K19:14-18 summary we just dealt with. Your eiegesis is so well developed that none of this will likely get through that veil in your heart, but here it is again. Paul is drawing from this in Romans so it’s important:

The flow [of 1K19:14-18] is very clear:

• Some men had not bowed to Baal
• A judgment will take place
• God will leave [alive] those who had not bowed to Baal
  • They were not faithful because God chose them
  • God chose them because they were faithful
    • This is the basis for election in Paul

Since Paul will draw on this in Rom11 and he will also draw from language in Rom8 where he lays out God’s Plan, we can begin in Rom8. You used the ESV so I’ll do likewise and will mainly just draw on the English for now but will bring out some lexical definition:

ESV Rom 8:28-30:
28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.

• “purpose” = prothesis = that which is planned in advance (BDAG)
• Those who love God and those who are called are parallel
  • Those who are called according to God’s Plan are those who love God
  • At this point we can be thinking about the Remnant – the 7,000 who had not bowed to Baal, and we should begin thinking about faith in and love for the one true God
    • Paul will connect this in Rom11

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. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

• “For” which begins 8:29 means 8:28 at minimum will now be explained, so what follows will be God’s Plan for those who love God
• God proginōskō those who love Him
  • BDAG 1. to know beforehand or in advance, have foreknowledge (of) τί something
  • BDAG 2. choose beforehand τινά someone
    • BDAG places Ro 8:29 under this definition
  • God knew beforehand who would love Him or God chose beforehand those who love Him or possibly both. But Paul will soon bring in election, so I’d go with BDAG’s #2 as it does.
    • Going back to the Remnant; 7,000 did not bow to Baal > so God chose them to leave them alive
• Those who love God
  • God chose those who love God
    • Pursuant to the Remnant lesson – chosen because they love God – not chosen to love God. Paul will interplay this in Rom11 where it becomes more clear.
  • God predestined/predetermined those who love God to be similar in form to His Son so His Son would be the firstborn of many brothers
  • God called those who love God
  • God justified those who love God
  • God glorified those who love God
  • Those who love God are God’s Elect (eklogē) – God’s Chosen

Continued in next post.