The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

For many the understanding and definition of Election is akin to the idea that God predestined who would be save and who would not be and those who would be saved are called the elect. Is it possible that perhaps the term Elect is a contextual response to the ridicule/persecution that Christians endured ever since the time of the Apostolic Age? Meaning that the term Elect does not directly correlate to God's predestination of single electees but rather the Apostles used the term to encourage their followers by using language that would give them a sense of a higher standing in the world since they were followers of Christ? By calling them the Elect perhaps it was to identify them as good worthy slaves/servants (doulos) of Christ, rather than slaves to sin and the devil and to men...

A definition of English phrase"the elect" says 'to be chosen or to be worthy of being chosen'....

Instead of being chosen as the Elect (without merit), could the Elect be those who are worthy of being called Christians (not by purely works or purely faith but of genuine response to Gospel, and letting it transform their minds and actions but unconscious and conscious), could it be a response to the ridicule of being called Christian ( 'Christaoni' which is a parody of the greco-roman word Kaiseraoni or 'of Caesar')?

So in summary, is it possible that the Elect refers not to those who are chosen to receive salvation but those who are worthy, in the eyes of God? Those who wholeheartedly and genuinely 'come and deny himself and take up his cross and follow me (Jesus)' (Matthew 16:24)?

God sent Jesus to die for the entire world, to provide a way for salvation to be offered to all, not just the Israelite, Jesus died to make able to possibility of freeing the world from being slaves to sin, and calling them to serve God, to be slaves and servants of God and Christ. The Apostles I believe referred to the their followers and themselves as elect because in some way God (in only a way that is His) deemed them and their genuine response to the Gospel (to die to themselves) as being worthy of a higher position in this world. (not of the world but His Lights in it)

Just wondering your thoughts?

_________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.
~ C. S. Lewis

- Rmiksch

I think that the idea that we have done anything to merit God's grace is unsupportable in Scripture. Here are a couple of the many verses in Scripture that I find difficult to reconcile with the idea you have presented.

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! (Rom 5:8-10 NIV)

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- not by works, so that no one can boast. (Eph 2:8-9 NIV)

That being said, I do not believe that simply responding to God's gift of Grace should be considered a "work" as most Calvinists claim. It reminds me of the kind of legalistic definition of "work" that the Jewish people hold i.e. it is "work" to push an elevator button, it is "work" if a light is turned on when opening the refrigerator but opening the same door does not constitute work if the light was already on when the door was closed or remains off after the door is open, etc... So while I do believe that we are free to choose to accept God's invitation to follow him (an invitation that I believe has been given to everyone), I do not believe that there is anything we can do to merit God's gift of salvation.

To clarify, I agree in a sense that we cannot on our own choose God, or being worthy of God, without knowing him, we only can respond by knowing Him and what Christ died on the cross for, and believing it, and being justified because of our faith.

But my conflict here is the term the Elect, meaning that God has personally chosen who will and who will not. I have seen it rather as the idea that the Apostles used the term to encourage their followers as since they are justified that they have a higher standing and a higher calling to be a slave not of sin but of Christ, and they would have taught on the idea of what being a slave of Christ would have meant, being humble, submissive to God etc.

_________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.
~ C. S. Lewis

- Rmiksch

God's Ways are not our ways -- hence, sometimes this is troublesome & confusing

I think that our response demonstrates the life of Christ in us (i.e. the gift of Grace that we accepted). It is not a source of merit for that gift of Grace. In Scripture, there is a tension between the idea of God's election and our freedom to choose him. Sometimes verses in Scripture seem almost contradictory when describing these ideas. For me the answer is found by recognizing that God, an atemporal, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being, has always known (from an atemporal perspective) every human heart and has chosen those whom he knew would respond to his gift of Grace. The difficulty is in trying to explain the actions of an infinite, atemporal being using a langauge that assumes a finite and temporal understanding of reality.

I agree with you here, it is definitely hard to comprehend God, in his majesty and infinite understanding and limitlessness, as a finite being.

_________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.
~ C. S. Lewis

- Rmiksch

I don't think we can see predestination apart from God's own nature. When we see that God knows "the end" of everything "from the beginning," then of course those who are saved can be seen to be predestined. It is God's perspective.

_________________
Blessed Assurance, Jesus is mine

Oh what a foretaste of glory divine!

There is another problem, in addition to the ones that have been raised. When we get into discussing the infinite, we run into problems with first order logic itself. First order logic can result in paradoxes when self referentail assertions are made in it, and one attempts to prove these assertions true or false.

As an example of "self referential", consider the following. It's a question posed by a ten year old, and repeated dozens of times.



A ot of people struggle with this one for a long time. Some people try to reframe the question by redefining what "lift" means or even what "can't" means. Some people eventually discard the notion of omnipotence becasue it's "illogical". As if logic were superior to God.
Some people dismiss the ten year old as a smart alec who asks too many questions.

Few people recognize the question as illustrating a problem with first order logic itself. The problem is that the stone is defined by a circular reference, and thus the assertion ends up being self referential. There are things that can be said, and that are true, but that make no sense when reduced to first order logic.

A problem with systems of logic that are beyond first order is that most of us have inadequate training in how to think in such logic in a disciplined manner. I certainly include myself here.

_________________
Not all those who wander are lost.

How's this for logic? Why would God make a rock bigger than he could carry since it would in no way bring him Honor or Glory?

_________________
"I have been driven many times to my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had no where else to go. My own wisdom, and that of all about me, seemed insufficient for the day." ~Abraham Lincoln

I think the issue has lass to do with "first order logic" and more to do with our inability to understand things about God's existence which are not in common with our own existence. There are many axioms which pose issues with "first order logic" that describe ideas that are understandable because they are intuitively known to us, but issues about God's existence are often difficult to understand because they are not in common with our own existence.

For example, just as we recognize that Scripture passages that describe the hand and arm of God are using anthropomorphic language to convey ideas about God's strength and not giving us a literal description of God's physical features, the the ideas of predestination and foreknowledge also represent anthropomorphic langauge when describing God's knowledge and actions. By definition, an existence outside of time means that there is no "before" or "after;" these are ideas that only exist only in an a temporal world. From our perspective God FOREknows and PREdestines (a temporal perspective), but we need to recognize these terms express ideas that do not exist in God's atemporal existence.

My 2 cents:


This makes the "end" the determiner of the flow of events and not the result of those events. This seems to be the argument which says,"'foreknown'/ προεγνωσμενου (proegnosmenou) means that God knew those who would choose Him and, therefore, elected them." However this is not at all what Scripture says.

I would argue elsewhere that Jesus was foreknown / προεγνωσμενου (proegnosmenou) 1 Peter 1:20 because of the choice which was made before the foundation of the world and not the choice He (the God-man) would later make. Therefore He was "chosen" before the foundation of the world. The Triune God had already set His heart upon the plan in which God the Son had a clearly chosen part. If, IMHO, God has put His knowledge of the choices of men in play in the processes of His plan, then the choices of men are at play in the sovereignty of God. However, Ephesians says it was the singular or "one" purpose of God which was at play before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:3-14 esp. verse 11). Again, IMHO Peter's use of forknown/προεγνωσμενου (proegnosmenou) is exegetically identical to that of Paul in Romans 8. God's foreknowledge was not according to God's knowledge of their (mankind's) choice but rather according to God's choice to know them (the elect) intimately before the foundation of the world. The whole reason for Romans 9 is this argument in Romans 8. Part of Romans 9 states clearly,

Romans 9:16-18 16 So then, it does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy. 17 For the scripture says to Pharaoh: “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may demonstrate my power in you, and that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then, God has mercy on whom he chooses to have mercy, and he hardens whom he chooses to harden. Context (NET)

It seems to me that Scripture reveals that God's purpose is quite exclusive over His knowledge of the choices of mankind. This is a question which is part of a series of questions which leads to a (false) conclusion. They frankly are designed to take one's eye off the ball. Those questions and their conclusion being:
1) If God were all powerful, then He could do anything.
2) If He could do anything, then He could make a rock so big that He can't move it.
3) But if God could not move this rock, then He could not do everything.
4) Hence, an Omnipotent God cannot exist.
God cannot literally do anything. He can only do what is possible to do consistent with His being as God. He cannot do what is logically or actually impossible. God cannot cease being God. God cannot contradict his own nature (Heb. 6:18). He cannot do what is logically impossible (like make a square circle). God cannot make a rock so big that He cannot lift it for the reason that anything He makes is finite. Anything finite He can move (or remove) because of His infinite power.
I would argue that logic is not superior to God but that being perfectly logical is part of the infinite nature of God. God cannot sin because of the nature of His being. This is not something that limits His power but rather something that is part of the definition of how He exerts His power.

_________________
Blessings,
Randy
Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The Net Bible Online

Read John 6.

I don't think the same thing. I think the fundamental problem with the "stone so big He can't lift it" is a limitation in first order logic. In order to deal more completely with the concept of omnipotence, it's necessary to get beyonf first order logic.

This doesn't necessarily apply to the other cases you mentioned.

_________________
Not all those who wander are lost.

The type of Election that you originally described would by Hyper calvinism, in that God actively determines to elect saved and to determine to elect rest to hell...

most calvinists hold to more moderate view, in that God did indeed elect the saved to be enabled to receive jesus by faith in order to prove and confirm their election from God, but that He by passes the unsaved, and they freely would be deciding to reject jesus and the Cross and stay loss!

Calvin's unconditional election is not Scriptural. Those who are the elect are those who have chosen to believe and follow Christi as you've stated here. Jesus told the apostles to "Strive" to enter in at the straight gate. He also said, if you love me keep my commands. It is only those who keep His commands that are his sheep.