The Elect

[sawdust]

The nation of Israel could never be the elect of God; for that entity has always contained unbelievers.

Just read further in that chapter; to see without doubt; that 'the nation of Israel' cannot be the context.

Isaiah 45:25 "In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory."

Either this is talking about Christ (the seed) and His followers by faith; or it is as you say, talking about 'the nation of Israel'...but in this context then, Judas Iscariot, Caiphus, Herod, Ahab, Roaboam, and all of the wicked and evil members of 'the nation of Israel' down through the ages are justified.

Nope, that can't be; therefore the context of Isaiah 45's Israel cannot be 'the nation of Israel'...and that be anything that contains unbelievers and rejectant, disobedient sinners.[/size][/color][/font]

Well, this is my understanding. God formed the nation of Israel. He gave to them certain promises. One is that they would be the ruling nation on this earth. That has yet to happen. It will happen during the Millenium.
It is because the nation was formed by God, and therefore belongs to God, He would refer to it as His "elect". What He does for Israel, He does so that He might be glorified.

The context of chapter 45 is the discipline the Lord is about to bring down upon the Nation for their disobedience. Essentially God is telling them they are are bunch of donkey's because who else is there that can save? And not only them but the whole world. (v.22)

I do not see that v.25 justifies the likes of those you mentioned as being saved for it says "In the Lord..". I believe it speaks of the time to come when all the Nation will in fact be "in the Lord" because the tribulation would have killed off all those who would have refused to believe Christ when He returns.

Another reason I believe it is a reference to the nation is because it says for "the sake of my servant Jacob". Jacob was the one whom God called Israel.

And the LORD said to her:
“Two nations are in your womb,
Two peoples shall be separated from your body;
One people shall be stronger than the other,
And the older shall serve the younger.” Gen.25:23

This was said to Rebekah, Jacob's mother.

peace

 

[LukeBritt]

Ah, dispensational pretribber in the house?

 

[sawdust]

Ah, dispensational pretribber in the house?

Hope you're not resorting to name calling.

I'm just one who reads the scriptures believing they will make perfect sense. I came to the above conclusion before I ever heard of the doctrines.

peace

 

[LukeBritt]

Scripture makes perfect sense in the light of Christ...

 

[Van]

There are many, many "elections" or choices of God spoken of in Scripture. Not three or four. Therefore, as I have said, we should restrict use of the term election, to election unto salvation. That way we avoid mixing things up and creating confusion rather than clarity.

Now with this usage in mind, then who are we step apart from, becomes "who are we set apart from unto salvation?" Answer, those not saved. See John 3:16-18.

Understanding Isaiah 45:4.

"For the sake of Jacob My Servant, and Israel My Chosen, I have also called you [King Cyrus] by your name; I have given you a title of honor [Anointed One]though you have not know Me."

Now the first question is Isaiah refering to Jacob and Israel as historical figures, individuals who lived in the past? Nope. If we look back at Isaiah 44:21, we see both are used to refer to an existent entity, folks in OT times that believe in God. Paul explains that the OT election was not based on genes, being in the blood line, either actual or legal, but being a believer. And if not a believer, then they were cut off from the promises.

With this in mind, Isaiah is saying for the sake of OT believers, children of the promises, but not individually saved because this is the Old Covenant, I have chosen King Cyrus to be my anointed, my instrument for my purpose even though Cyrus is not a believer and has not "known" Yahweh. See Isaiah 44:28 for the purpose of Cyrus. King Cyrus the II, hundreds of years after the prophecy of Isaiah took Babylon and authorized rebuilding the temple.

 

[cygnusx1]

There are many, many "elections" or choices of God spoken of in Scripture. Not three or four. Therefore, as I have said, we should restrict use of the term election, to election unto salvation. That way we avoid mixing things up and creating confusion rather than clarity.

Now with this usage in mind, then who are we step apart from, becomes "who are we set apart from unto salvation?" Answer, those not saved. See John 3:16-18.

Understanding Isaiah 45:4.

"For the sake of Jacob My Servant, and Israel My Chosen, I have also called you [King Cyrus] by your name; I have given you a title of honor [Anointed One]though you have not know Me."

Now the first question is Isaiah refering to Jacob and Israel as historical figures, individuals who lived in the past? Nope. If we look back at Isaiah 44:21, we see both are used to refer to an existent entity, folks in OT times that believe in God. Paul explains that the OT election was not based on genes, being in the blood line, either actual or legal, but being a believer. And if not a believer, then they were cut off from the promises.

With this in mind, Isaiah is saying for the sake of OT believers, children of the promises, but not individually saved because this is the Old Covenant, I have chosen King Cyrus to be my anointed, my instrument for my purpose even though Cyrus is not a believer and has not "known" Yahweh. See Isaiah 44:28 for the purpose of Cyrus. King Cyrus the II, hundreds of years after the prophecy of Isaiah took Babylon and authorized rebuilding the temple.

election isn't based upon a bloodline correct , it is based upon a SPIRIT-Line.

children of "the Promise" ......... those born of the Holy Spirit are the true children of God .... and Abraham .

The flesh profits nothing ...

 

[Van]

Folks, nobody in the OT was ever born of the Holy Spirit. That only happens under the New Covenant. Did anybody enter the Kingdom of God under the Old Covenant? Nope. Jesus says no one. Christ's sacrifice did not only offer the opportunity of receiving reconciliation to those who physically died after the cross, but also to those who died believing and trusting in God before the cross.

The OT children of the promises are believers, not folks born again.

 

[sawdust]

Folks, nobody in the OT was ever born of the Holy Spirit. That only happens under the New Covenant. Did anybody enter the Kingdom of God under the Old Covenant? Nope. Jesus says no one. Christ's sacrifice did not only offer the opportunity of receiving reconciliation to those who physically died after the cross, but also to those who died believing and trusting in God before the cross.

The OT children of the promises are believers, not folks born again.

Very true. The privelege and opportunity to which the Church is elected is not the same as to what Israel was elected. Both are elected for salvation but one for an "earthly" salvation, the other for a "heavenly" salvation.

peace

 

[Van]

Sawdust, yes that is the well supported view of the traditional dispensationalists. I happen to be a progressive dispensationalist based on Galatians 3, but your view is certainly as well supported as mine.

peace

 

[cygnusx1]

Sawdust, yes that is the well supported view of the traditional dispensationalists. I happen to be a progressive dispensationalist based on Galatians 3, but your view is certainly as well supported as mine.

peace

that helps explain quite a bit ............ most Calvinists are anti-dispensational .... we don't see any difference between a person saved and regenerated into the Kingdom of God in either Testament , regardless of differences with the shadows and substances

 

[LukeBritt]

Yes, it does help...

 

[sawdust]

that helps explain quite a bit ............ most Calvinists are anti-dispensational .... we don't see any difference between a person saved and regenerated into the Kingdom of God in either Testament , regardless of differences with the shadows and substances

You know Cygnus, I have always found it most interesting because I had no idea what a dispensationalist was but when I found out? I realised I was one. Don't ask me which sort, I don't have a clue.
Van mentioned being "progressive based on Galatians 3". I have no idea what that means.

I have never studied the subject in detail, I just saw obvious differences between the OT saint and the NT saint that made me realise something was going on here.

peace

 

[Van]

How can some Calvinists be anti dispensationist and others dispensationist?

Sawdust, read Galatians 3. You will find that the New Covenant dispensation, or God's method of dealing with those covered by the New Covenant, those born again, become part of God's Children even though not a physcial decentant of Abraham. See Galations 3:6-8. Traditional dispensationists keep the church folks separate from the OT children of the promise, but progressives graft the two together.

I think there is a whole forum that deals with Dispensationalism, no matter what terms are used to describe it. One thing is for sure, everyone who is saved is saved through faith in Christ for there is no other way...

 

[sawdust]

How can some Calvinists be anti dispensationist and others dispensationist?

Sawdust, read Galatians 3. You will find that the New Covenant dispensation, or God's method of dealing with those covered by the New Covenant, those born again, become part of God's Children even though not a physcial decentant of Abraham. See Galations 3:6-8. Traditional dispensationists keep the church folks separate from the OT children of the promise, but progressives graft the two together.

Thanks for the clarification.

One thing is for sure, everyone who is saved is saved through faith in Christ for there is no other way.

peace

 

[cygnusx1]

How can some Calvinists be anti dispensationist and others dispensationist?

because not everyone agrees on dispensationism ............. how many dispos' do you hold to ... 7 .... maybe more ?

 

[Van]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the number of varying dispensations of God toward His creation has nothing to do with being anti-dispensationalist. It has to do with being an amillennialist or a dispensationalist, someone who thinks the promises of the kingdom of God are being fulfilled right now in heaven (amillenialism), or someone who think we will have a thousand year period with Christ ruling from an earthly throne (dispensationalism). Reformed theology is amillennialist.

Here is a website that discusses the topic for your edification.
http://www.rsglh.org/a_defense_of.reformed.amillennialism.htm

 

[LukeBritt]

Not to get too off track, but the promises fulfilled are fulfille in Christ, and now he is reigning in a non-literal 1000 years. That's the premise of Amillenialism. We interpret the OT by the new found light of the NT and find that the promises made to Israel are fulfilled in Jesus.

 

[cygnusx1]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the number of varying dispensations of God toward His creation has nothing to do with being anti-dispensationalist. It has to do with being an amillennialist or a dispensationalist, someone who thinks the promises of the kingdom of God are being fulfilled right now in heaven (amillenialism), or someone who think we will have a thousand year period with Christ ruling from an earthly throne (dispensationalism). Reformed theology is amillennialist.

Here is a website that discusses the topic for your edification.
http://www.rsglh.org/a_defense_of.reformed.amillennialism.htm

van your stating the obvious ........ what I was refering to was the utter man made rigours of dispensationalism ......... there are as many dispensations for core dispensationalists as days in the week !

I know I am Amillenialist , have been for years ........... the utter complexity and confusion of the dispensationalist movement put me right off years ago

as far as I am concerned there are TWO dispensations , Covenants .

Old and New .Testaments.
The Regenerate are in both (there is but one bride of Christ , his body) even if types and metaphors were being used , it is not beyond the scriptures to see Spiritual realities were present under the types.

 

[Van]

That is right LukeBritt, so perhaps you can answer by question, who are these Calvinists that are dispensationalists? I think you guys are trying to have it both ways, but the amillennialist view, interpreting scripture in light of doctrine is consistent with Calvinism.

 

[Van]

Still waiting for an answer, tell me about the Calvinists who are not anti-dispensationalists.