Why Election based on foreseen faith isn't scriptural

AndOne said:

So the elect mentioned in Matthew 24:24 aren't saved? Seriously?

Click to expand...

Seems you missed my point. God doesn't elect anyone to salvation, because there are no verses that say so. Yes, many of those that God has elected are saved, but clearly it would be ridiculous to argue that the entire nation of Israel in the OT were all saved, yet the entire nation was elected. And ol' Judas, elected by Jesus, and called by Him a devil (Jn 6:70).

So, let's just get over the notion that election is about being chosen for salvation.

Jesus Christ Himself was elected. Was that to salvation? Of course not.

And angels. Where do we learn that any angels were "saved"?

cygnusx1 said:

1 Thess 5

[9] For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ

Click to expand...

Here's the word for "appointed"
tithēmi

1) to set, put, place
1a) to place or lay
1b) to put down, lay down
1b1) to bend down
1b2) to lay off or aside, to wear or carry no longer
1b3) to lay by, lay aside money
1c) to set on (serve) something to eat or drink
1d) to set forth, something to be explained by discourse
2) to make
2a) to make (or set) for one’s self or for one’s use
3) to set, fix establish
3a) to set forth
3b) to establish, ordain

If Paul had used eklegomai, you would have a point. This verse doesn't support your view.

1 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

Click to expand...

The word here is "haireomai", not eklegomai. Yes, God chooses who He will save, no doubt. And 1 Cor 1:21 tells us clearly WHO He chooses to save: believers.

Romans 8
[30] 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.
[31] What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
[32] He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
[33] Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

Click to expand...

The Greek word for "called" is kletos, and means to call or invite. Not election.

In v.33 Paul identifies a group as "God's elect", but that is just an adjective, with nothing said to indicate that God elected them to salvation.

Again, election is NOT about being chosen for salvation. There are NO verses that say so.

God DOES choose who He will save. And that is ONLY those who believe.

The emphasis in Scripture is ALWAYS on believing, for salvation, and NEVER on election for salvation.

AndOne said:

Where is the verse in the OT that says all of Israel is elected?

Click to expand...

Happy to oblige.

Election of Israel: Deut 7:6 Acts 13:17

Amos 3:1
Hear this word which the LORD has spoken against you, sons of Israel, against the entire family which He brought up from the land of Egypt:
Amos 3:2
“You only have I chosen among all the families of the earth;
Therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.”

Deuteronomy 7:6
“For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.

Acts 13:17
“The God of this people Israel chose our fathers and made the people great during their stay in the land of Egypt, and with an uplifted arm He led them out from it.

Where is the verse that says Judas was elected? Judas specifically that is.

Click to expand...

John 6:70
Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose (eklegomai) you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?”

I'm hoping you don't want to argue that Jesus was referring to another of the 12.

No - I'd rather not.

Click to expand...

Well, you should, since there is no support for your notion in Scripture.

What do you do with the election of Jesus Christ?

Isaiah 42:1
“Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold;
My chosen one in whom My soul delights.
I have put My Spirit upon Him;
He will bring forth justice to the nations.
Luke 9:35
Then a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him!”

Luke 23:35
And the people stood by, looking on. And even the rulers were sneering at Him, saying, “He saved others; let Him save Himself if this is the Christ of God, His Chosen One.”

1 Peter 2:6
For this is contained in Scripture:
“Behold, I lay in Zion a choice (eklektos - elect) stone, a precious corner stone,[bless and do not curse]And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.”

You see, I provide verses that support my claims.

Election is NOT about being chosen for salvation. Though God DOES choose who He will save, it is NOT an election.

FreeGrace2 said:

Here's the word for "appointed"
tithēmi

1) to set, put, place
1a) to place or lay
1b) to put down, lay down
1b1) to bend down
1b2) to lay off or aside, to wear or carry no longer
1b3) to lay by, lay aside money
1c) to set on (serve) something to eat or drink
1d) to set forth, something to be explained by discourse
2) to make
2a) to make (or set) for one’s self or for one’s use
3) to set, fix establish
3a) to set forth
3b) to establish, ordain

If Paul had used eklegomai, you would have a point. This verse doesn't support your view.


The word here is "haireomai", not eklegomai. Yes, God chooses who He will save, no doubt. And 1 Cor 1:21 tells us clearly WHO He chooses to save: believers.


The Greek word for "called" is kletos, and means to call or invite. Not election.

In v.33 Paul identifies a group as "God's elect", but that is just an adjective, with nothing said to indicate that God elected them to salvation.

Again, election is NOT about being chosen for salvation. There are NO verses that say so.

God DOES choose who He will save. And that is ONLY those who believe.

The emphasis in Scripture is ALWAYS on believing, for salvation, and NEVER on election for salvation.

Click to expand...

i reject your view


scripture is clear enough , chosen to salvation

1 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

as it is written ,


“All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.” (John 6:37-39).


“All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son, except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father, except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.” (Matthew 11:27).


calling and election go together ;

For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28 and the base things of the world and the despised, God has chosen, the things that are not, that He might nullify the things that are, 29 that no man should boast before God. 30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, 31 that, just as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 1:26-31).

AndOne said:

Sorry - the word "elect"'was in none of the verses you cited. So I'll ask again. Where does it say in the OT that all of Israel is elected?

And where does it say Judas is one of the elect?

You will not be able to prove either from scripture - using the distinct word of "elect."

Click to expand...

Oh, so you demand a specific word in order to satisfy your question? Well, the reformed uses "chosen" and "elect" interchangeably, so what is the problem?

If you simply close your eyes to what Scriptures say, then I can't help you.

Acts 13:17 has the word "eklogemai", the verb form for 'elect'. And the words "chose" and "elect" are used by the reformed interchangeably, so Deut 7:6 also answers your question.

And Jn 6:70 is clear enough that Jesus was referring to Judas. And the Greek word for chosen was used by Jesus.

cygnusx1 said:

i reject your view


scripture is clear enough , chosen to salvation

Click to expand...

I've ALREADY SAID that God chooses who He will save, and 1 Thess 2:13 SAYS so. But the word for "chosen" is NOT any of the Greek words translated "elect". That's the different.

And 1 Cor 1:21 clearly identifies WHO He chooses to save; believers.

Elections and choosings are not equivalent. They are similar. The concept of election includes being chosen for "special privilege and service", and "choosings" do NOT have that context. For example, you don't "elect" which socks you put on in the morning. You simply choose which ones to wear.

FreeGrace2 said:

I've ALREADY SAID that God chooses who He will save, and 1 Thess 2:13 SAYS so. But the word for "chosen" is NOT any of the Greek words translated "elect". That's the different.

And 1 Cor 1:21 clearly identifies WHO He chooses to save; believers.

Elections and choosings are not equivalent. They are similar. The concept of election includes being chosen for "special privilege and service", and "choosings" do NOT have that context. For example, you don't "elect" which socks you put on in the morning. You simply choose which ones to wear.

Click to expand...

I have already said I reject your view as do even Arminians such as OZ.

The choosing is unto salvation , election and choosing , yes the same thing.

Besides the fact remains according to your quirky view God cannot choose personally whom he will save if the Choice is mans . The result is nothing more than ratification not election.

cygnusx1 said:

The choosing is unto salvation , election and choosing , yes the same thing.

Click to expand...

Here is the reality:
All elections involve a choice. But not all choices involve an election.

If this is not understood, one will simply fail to understand Biblical election.

Besides the fact remains according to your quirky view God cannot choose personally whom he will save if the Choice is mans . The result is nothing more than ratification not election.

Click to expand...

You have perpetuated a FALSE view of my position. It is clear from 1 Cor 1:21 that God is pleased to save those who believe. That is a choice, clear and simple. So we know that God does choose who to save. And that choice is those who believe. Period.

So your conclusion is false as well. God chooses to save, or is pleased to save those who believe. That is what the Bible SAYS. No argument.

But there are NO verses that use any of the 3 Greek words involved in election for salvation.

This is clearly proven by the FACT that Jesus Christ was The Elect One. And Judas was chosen (elected along with the other 11: Jn 6:70).

I've supported my position with Scripture. No one else.

AndOne said:

Like I said - you can't answer my questions from scripture.

Click to expand...

I have, repeatedly.

Funny how you apply such a strict standard of scripture saying "exactly what you believe" until it doesn't quite do so.

Click to expand...

Since you reject that the Greek word "eklogemai", a verb, is translated both elect and choose, the problem is yours. You've set up an impossible question, by rejecting that elect and chose are the same word in the Greek. And I've shown you the verses that answer your question.

How about this, I'll give you every occurrence of the 3 Greek words for elect and election. You review all of them and cite which one(s) link election to salvation.

There are 3 Greek words associated with divine election:
eklegomai, a verb occurring 21 times
Mk 13:20 Lk 6:13 Luke 10:42 Luke 14:7 Jn 6:70 John 13:18 John 15:16 Acts 1:2 Acts 1:24
Acts 6:5 Acts 13:17 Acts 15:7 Acts 15:22 Acts 15:25 1 Cor 1:27-28 Eph 1:4 James 2:5

eklektos, an adjective occurring 23 times
Mark 13:20 Matt 20:16 Matt 24:22 Matt 24:24 Matt 24:31 Mark 13:22 Mark 13:27 Luke 18:7 Rom 8:33 Rom 16:13 Col 3:12 1 Tim 5:21 2 Tim 2:10-11 Titus 1:1 1 Peter 1:1 1 Peter 2:6 1 Peter 2:9 2 John 1 2 John 13 Rev 17:14

ekloge, a noun, meaning “a choice”, occurring 7 times
Acts 9:15 Rom 9:11 (election) Rom 11:5 Rom 11:7 Rom 11:28 2 Peter 1:10

There they are. Which one(s) link election to salvation?

AndOne said:

The reason that election cannot be based on unforeseen faith is found in Romans 9:8-13.

In this passage Paul is explaining why the promises of God were still effectual in spite of the fact that many Jews were rejecting the gospel and gentiles were accepting it in great numbers.

In verses 8-9 Paul explains that not all of the descendants of Abraham are Jews but that the children of the promise are - which is why Ishmael was rejected and Isaac wasn't.

But why didn't Paul stop there? Why doesn't the illustration of Isaac and Ishmael suffice for him to make this point? Why move on to Esau and Jacob?

The reason is because Paul had been explaining in Romans 1-8 the details on things like faith, justification, and grace. To drive the point home that salvation is not based in any way whatsoever on works Paul uses the illustration of Jacob and Esau - who had the same mother and could in no way be differentiated the way Isaac and Ismael could be.

In regards to Isaac and Ishmael the argument could be made that God looked down through the corridors of time and saw the faith of Isaac verses the faith of Ishmael and saw that Isaac had it and Ishmael didn't - or that one was good person and the other wasn't.

No such argument could be made in regards to Esau and Jacob however - and Paul explicitly states so in vs 11: "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—"

Clearly Paul is driving home the point that God chooses His own people - and that he does so on the basis of His grace alone. If God were going to base his choice of election of Jacob over Esau on foreseen faith then the question must be asked why it is not mentioned in the text - and in fact the exact opposite is specifically stated in verse 11. It's not based on foreseen faith - it's based on election - which is at the root of grace. God decides whom He will save - not man.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Amen.

AndOne said:

The verse on Judas doesn't use the word "elect." The word elect is never used in the case of the reprobate in scripture. Your forcing an issue here to make it match you presupposition. You need to open your eyes to it.

Click to expand...

See Luke 6:13. It uses eklegomai, the usual Greek word for elected. I'm afraid you need to look at context, and not just the specific Greek word.

On the main issue of this discussion: looking carefully at Rom 8 - 11, I think AndOne is mostly right. Jacob and Esau are chosen without any reason. And Jacob is chosen for salvation. However there are some complexities:

• As Paul’s argument proceeds, Jacob and Esau seem to represent roles, not fixed sets of people. 9:30-10:21 say that anyone with faith can be part of God’s people, and that there is a responsibility to preach to everyone.
• There seems to be some element of responsibility for us in whether we’re part of Jacob or Esau. 11:17-24.
• His hope is that those rejected will be saved in the end 11:28-32.

You have to look at what Paul was trying to say here to his readers. I don’t think he was participating in a 16th Cent presentation of predestination. He was speaking to his Gentile readers. The point of Jacob and Esau was: you were called out of a group that was not God’s people, through no particular merit of your own. You are the children of promise like Jacob, not Israel’s natural descendants as one would have expected Jacob to be. You are God’s people even as some of the natural children have proven not to be part of the promise through their disobedience. Live up to your calling, for just as some of the natural children were rejected due to a lack of faith, so you could be too if you don’t maintain your faith.

That is, Paul definitely speaks of election without merit. But he also speaks of a requirement of faith.

While Esau's rejection could be used to show a predestination to reprobation, as far as I can tell he doesn't use it that way. He speaks of people being rejected due to lack of faith. You could argue that the Gentiles who didn't benefit from being called by Paul and others are non-elect and thus reprobate. But I don't believe Paul actually makes such an argument. It is at best a logical inference, in an area where I'm not so sure that kind of reasoning is safe.

Verses are pulled out of Romans 9 to support the idea God makes people a particular way so He will save them and makes others a particular way so they will be eternally lost. That is not what is being conveyed by these particular verses.

To best interpret any verse good hermeneutics would have you first understand the context, context, context and context. Who is writing, to whom is he writing, why, where, when is he writing. The questions for Romans 9 would include:


Paul uses two teaching methods taught in secular philosophy classes and Romans is used even in secular classes as the best example of these methods. Paul does an excellent job of building one premise on the previous premises to develop his final conclusions. Paul uses an ancient form of rhetoric known as diatribe (imaginary debate) asking questions and giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.

The main question in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9:14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!
Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with being considered the special group with a special purpose from their birth or would it be the Gentile Christians that saw themselves like Esau and Ismael?

That is what is at issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.

Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”

Who is the “one of you” is this Jewish Christian (elect) or Gentile Christian (elect) or is this “non-elect” individual (this “letter” is not being written to non-Christians)?

Can Jews say they cannot be blamed for failing in their honored position or would it be the Gentiles that would say they cannot be blamed since they were not in the honored position?

Is it really significant in what really counts, if you are born a gentile or Jew in the first century in Rome?
The Gentiles might have felt like second class children of God compared to the “chosen” Jews, but Paul spends lots of words in Ro. 9-11 saying that even though the Jews were made for a special purpose, lots of them remain lost, so it is really no better being a Jew prior to conversion.
The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison.

How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.

Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God the Gentiles had an advantage over the born Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.

We could get into a long discussion of “ honorable and dishonorable vessels” which some equate the dishonorable as being like “clay pigeons” made for destruction, but that is not the best translation of these words. Paul uses the same words conveying the same idea in 2 Tim. 2: 20 In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for special purposes and some for common use. 21 Those who cleanse themselves from the latter will be instruments for special purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work.

In Tim. Paul talks about these same “dishonorable vessels” in a rich person’s house (definitely not clay pigeons) and these dishonorable vessels (common vessels) can be made “holy” (which fits the Gentiles being made holy).
All clay vessels become damaged over time and fit for destruction, but that is not the way the potter made them.
The Potter has to remake the honorable (special purpose) or dishonorable (common objective) vessels that have become damaged as only God the Potter can.
Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!

The common vessels (gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Jews) are equal individually in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.

If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Rms. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

AndOne said:

The reason that election cannot be based on unforeseen faith is found in Romans 9:8-13.

In this passage Paul is explaining why the promises of God were still effectual in spite of the fact that many Jews were rejecting the gospel and gentiles were accepting it in great numbers.

In verses 8-9 Paul explains that not all of the descendants of Abraham are Jews but that the children of the promise are - which is why Ishmael was rejected and Isaac wasn't.

But why didn't Paul stop there? Why doesn't the illustration of Isaac and Ishmael suffice for him to make this point? Why move on to Esau and Jacob?

The reason is because Paul had been explaining in Romans 1-8 the details on things like faith, justification, and grace. To drive the point home that salvation is not based in any way whatsoever on works Paul uses the illustration of Jacob and Esau - who had the same mother and could in no way be differentiated the way Isaac and Ismael could be.

In regards to Isaac and Ishmael the argument could be made that God looked down through the corridors of time and saw the faith of Isaac verses the faith of Ishmael and saw that Isaac had it and Ishmael didn't - or that one was good person and the other wasn't.

No such argument could be made in regards to Esau and Jacob however - and Paul explicitly states so in vs 11: "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—"

Clearly Paul is driving home the point that God chooses His own people - and that he does so on the basis of His grace alone. If God were going to base his choice of election of Jacob over Esau on foreseen faith then the question must be asked why it is not mentioned in the text - and in fact the exact opposite is specifically stated in verse 11. It's not based on foreseen faith - it's based on election - which is at the root of grace. God decides whom He will save - not man.

Click to expand...

AndOne said:

The reason that election cannot be based on unforeseen faith is found in Romans 9:8-13.

In this passage Paul is explaining why the promises of God were still effectual in spite of the fact that many Jews were rejecting the gospel and gentiles were accepting it in great numbers.

In verses 8-9 Paul explains that not all of the descendants of Abraham are Jews but that the children of the promise are - which is why Ishmael was rejected and Isaac wasn't.

But why didn't Paul stop there? Why doesn't the illustration of Isaac and Ishmael suffice for him to make this point? Why move on to Esau and Jacob?

The reason is because Paul had been explaining in Romans 1-8 the details on things like faith, justification, and grace. To drive the point home that salvation is not based in any way whatsoever on works Paul uses the illustration of Jacob and Esau - who had the same mother and could in no way be differentiated the way Isaac and Ismael could be.

In regards to Isaac and Ishmael the argument could be made that God looked down through the corridors of time and saw the faith of Isaac verses the faith of Ishmael and saw that Isaac had it and Ishmael didn't - or that one was good person and the other wasn't.

No such argument could be made in regards to Esau and Jacob however - and Paul explicitly states so in vs 11: "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—"

Clearly Paul is driving home the point that God chooses His own people - and that he does so on the basis of His grace alone. If God were going to base his choice of election of Jacob over Esau on foreseen faith then the question must be asked why it is not mentioned in the text - and in fact the exact opposite is specifically stated in verse 11. It's not based on foreseen faith - it's based on election - which is at the root of grace. God decides whom He will save - not man.

Click to expand...

The way I see it with the little I've read is that God's seed [Jesus]will come by/and through His word[promise] The elect Is life in His Son. So anybody in Christ are His elect. But I may be wrong...but that's how I see it for now

Grace is more of a description of how God relates to us rather than how God relates to himself. Saying that God chooses just based on God's grace alone doesn't really explain why God chooses based on his grace alone in the first place. So it's really a non-explanation.

At any rate, Lutherans have no definitive dogma about this issue, it's simply not relevant to us. Those who are baptized and believe are elected in Christ, that is what we have always taught and proclaim. Anything beyond that is engaging in speculation that is generally unhelpful in our estimation.

Also, it is my understanding of classical Arminianism, that they also can acknowledge that faith is a gift. It's been a while since I parsed out these things in Reformed categories, however, but I do know that Roger Olsen has an excellent work defending Arminianism and explaining what it is, and isn't. It's a good read because he is honest about the difficulties that all Reformed systems have in reconciling omniscience and omnibenevolence.

Skala said:

Also, because the Bible doesn't say any such thing, not even a single time. In fact, it doesn't even imply it.

Click to expand...

Watch out now.. They will tell you 1 Peter 1:2 says election is by foreknowledge..