Featured What Are main Differences between Arms and Non cals?

If you study up on our perspective you will quickly find that we do not deny individual election or God's ability to 'foresee.' Our debate however is regarding the intent of the author and that is all about perspective.

 

Again, this reveals you do not yet understand the distinction being made.

 

So, it is your view that every individual Jewish person, on the basis that they are JEWISH, will be eternally saved even if they never confess Christ, repent or believe in this life? Or are you saying that the term "Israel" is being used as representative of "the elect ones" from all nations?

Just getting clarity on your position before I respond.

 

Alright, then plainly state the relationship between election and gospel coversion in regard to cause and effect. Tell us plainly whether election in your view is the cause of gospel conversion or the effect of gospel conversion or unrelated wholly to gospel conversion.

 

The answer to both questions is no! Israel is a chosen people in regard to nations to be used by God as His servant with special benefits that does not make every Jew saved. However, in regard to salvation Israel is personified as God's elect which does mean at the appointed time in history salvation as a nation and salvation as individual Jews will be simeltaneously obtained at one moment in time at the coming of Christ (Rom. 11:25-28).

In regard to typology, Israel personified as an individual does represent all the elect in all ages. God deals with the sin of his elect and at an appointed time, and appointed place will be brought to salvation.

 

Ok, so in this manner you do acknowledge a type of national election by which God sets a people aside for a redemptive cause and not individualistic salvation, right?

Can you explain further what you mean by "Israel is personified as God's elect."

I really have no idea what you are saying in this paragraph? Go step by step as if you were explaining it to a child. Talk about what you believe will happen to individual Jewish people at this 'moment in time.'

 

Just as you seemingly believe, there are different aspects of 'election.' Election, as I'm sure you know, simply refers to God's choices. He chose Israel through which to bring the scriptures, prophets, priests, kings, apostolic revelation and ultimately the Messiah. Within Israel there were individuals who were actually set apart for these noble tasks (i.e. Elijah the prophet, Paul the apostle).

God also chose who to invite to come (i.e. the wedding banquet parable). He invited the Jew first and then the Gentile and he chose the individuals by which this invitation would be sent out. Many are called, or invited, as God's appeal to reconciliation is sent to "every creature." He ELECTED or CHOSE that.

Likewise, He chose who, of those who responded to the invitation, would enter the banquet..."few are chosen." He chose them based upon their attire. If they were clothed in righteousness through faith in Christ they could enter, otherwise they could not.

All of these are examples of God's choices in and through redemptive history. Not one of them necessitates the Calvinistic presumption of God determining who will or won't respond to his gracious appeals for reconciliation. We are held response-able because that is what we are....able to respond.

 

God chose Israel above all other nations to reveal his plan of salvation through and to use to spread the gospel to all other nations. However, this choice had nothing to do with individual salvation but only the choice means to reveal salvation through.

In the Old Testament God treats the nation of Israel as an individual person that is elected to salvation at a given point in history yet to come. Israel is personified as an individual person as God calls Israel "Jacob" and "mine elect" and this election is in relationship to the covenant of salvation. In regard to her sin prior to his salvation he deals with his sins through his unregenerate rebellious history. At a specific appointed time in his history through the appointed means he (Jacob) will be saved (Rom. 11:25-28). This salvation in her personified character is inclusive of individual Jews who are all saved at one time thus "all Israel" shall be saved according to God's purpose of election (Rom. 11:28).

Throughout his personified history prior to this appointed time of salvation, individual Jewish salvation is referred to as the "remnant" not as the nation (Rom. 11:1-7) and they too obtain salvation by election (Rom. 11:5-7).

At the precise moment when Jacob (personified Israel) is saved, it is salvation of individual Jews that make up the nation as a whole in exact reverse of the personified rejection of Christ as a nation in the book of Acts where individual Jews that make the nation as a whole rejected Christ.

I hope you understood what I said. I tried to make it as simple as possible.

 

That is all fine and good, but what I asked was about election "to salvation" in connection with gospel conversion?

Technically, salvation was sent to the Gentiles first from Adam to Abraham (Abraham was a gentile). Secondarily, God chose Israel to reveal salvation through them to the rest of the world. Several of the prophets make it clear that Israel was God's vessel to bring light to the Gentiles. Jesus makes it clear in Mt. 23 that the Jews did "traverse land and sea to make one proselyte."

Look, you are saying exactly what I claimed you believed in even though you claimed I did not understand your view. You base election "upon their attire" which you ultimately claim is obtained "through faith" and thus you believe faith is the cause of election rather than election the cause of faith just as I said.

However, that position can be easily disproven if you have an objective mind toward the Biblical evidence. I can show it is clearly unbiblical by simply using two scriptures that are not parabolic but didactic in nature. Those two scriptures are Ephesians 4:18 and 2 Cor. 4:6. If you are interested in knowing how I can demonstrate that I would be happy to provide you the details.

 

And I address OUR PERSPECTIVE of that throughout the rest of my post...

Abraham was the Father of the nation of Israel and the Father of the Jews – so I guess 'technically' that is correct as those designations came later (by Jacob and Judah). But that doesn't change the point being addressed in the NT context of God cutting off Israel and grafting in the Gentiles...so I'm not sure the value in making this particular point. Scripture clearly says the gospel is sent first to the Jew and then to the Gentile. The parable of the wedding banquet likewise illustrates this point. That is a form of 'election' as God CHOOSES to send the revelation to a people. Sending the revelation enables a response....'faith comes by hearing.' So, when God CHOOSES (elects) to send His revelation (His appeal to be reconciled) to a people he is enabling them to come. He is calling them. Those who respond in faith are dressed in the appropriate attire and chosen to enter.

I agree. That too is a part of Election, as God CHOSE Israel to bring the message of redemption to the world.

No, not me. Jesus.

"But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12 ‘Friend,’ he asked, ‘how did you get in here without wedding clothes?’ The man was speechless. 13 Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ 14 "For many are invited, but few are chosen."

Clearly the king chose to throw out the man not properly attired and chose to allow those with proper attire to enter. Don't give me credit for that, it is Jesus' story, not mine. The choice of the king was OBVIOUSLY and UNMISTAKABLY condition upon their attire.

As I attempted to explain, there are different aspects of election...the national election of Israel, as discussed, the election of individual messengers from Israel, as discussed, the election of peoples to hear the revelation (first the Jew then the Gentile), as discussed. So, in those regards God's choices are prior to faith, but yes, Jesus does appear to clearly be teaching that the choice of God to allow entrance into his banquet is condition upon one's attire. You can ignore that or explain it away, but that is clearly what is said.

Two things:

1. Yes, I would love to engage you over those two texts.
2. Pointing to one text while ignoring another on the bases that is parabolic doesn't negate the FACT that the parable itself still stands as a support for our interpretation of the matter, not yours.

 

The value is that your point is not valid from the whole Biblical perspective but only from a post-cross perspective. Second, in regard to election "to salvaton" it is totally invalid because the only thing that has changed is shift of emphasis. Election to salvation only included Gentiles from the garden of Eden and included Gentiles from the promise to Abraham to the present with only a shift of emphasis on the Gentiles since the cross. From Abraham to Christ God called out the promised seed primarily from the Jewish race but from Christ to the present God has been calling out His promised seed primarily from the Gentiles - however, the promise to Abraham of the promised seed "IN CHRIST" (Gal. 3:17) was to be obtained through both. Remember, I am speaking of one type of election "to salvation" not to service, or special privileges, or special uses.

You are reading more into this parable then it plainly states. It says nothing about all have ability to believe - nothing! You are making inferences that are not clearly stated or necessarily implied by this parable. For example, I could make equal inferences and claim it teaches a general and effectual calling. I could claim this is inferred by the distinction "invite" and "compel" and between "called" and "chosen." You are reading other texts with your own interpretative system back into this parable. That is precisely why parables should not be used as the primary basis for doctrine and yet it is obvious that is precisely what you are doing.

No, you are adding your intepretation to his words. I certainly agree that none but those dressed in the righteousness of Christ received by imputation thorugh justificaiton by faith alone will be saved but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the relationship between election "to salvation" and gospel conversion. You have interpreted his words your way without anything in the text demanding that interpetation except mere inferences. Let me illustrate why parables cannot be used as primary texts to teach doctrine as you are attempting to do.

This parable clearly teaches the GENERAL call that has no power to bring in anyone as all who were bidden rejected it.

3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.
5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
6 And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.

Luke provides another insight that infers the effectual call which followed

Lu 14:23 And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.

It could be argued that between the general call that is wholly ineffective and the effectual call that is totally effective that two types of professors are the results. Those who heed the general call for whatever reasons and those who are effectually called are the "many who are called" but only those effectually called are the "few" who are chosen.

The man without the wedding garment would be result of the general call and the many false professors who heed it like those in John 6:64 and 1 Jn. 2:19.

However, do you get my point why parables cannot be used as the basis for doctrine as they can be easily interpeted to be used many ways.

However, there is but one kind of election "to salvation" and no one denies God's purpose and choices are behind all other kinds of Divine choice.

Why should I explain it away? Why should I ignore it? There is nothing in this parable to contradict my position. I believe those chosen by Christ are only those dressed in his righteousness and believers in the gospel, however, those necessary elements do not provide a precise cause and effect relationship of their occurrence. This parable does prove that "called" is not equal to being "chosen" and that supports my position especially in lieu of a clear distinction between an uneffectual general call first presented in the parable followed by an effectual call that actually did bring in guests.

This parable does not prove your point in any way shape or form in regard to the precise cause and consequence relationship between election and gospel conversion. It only proves that Christ will not recognize professors (and the one without the garment must be regarded as a professor who heeded the call and came to the wedding) without true saving faith. This parable does not contradict anything I believe at all. What contradicts my poisiton is only the INFERENCES you read into this parable.

 

I have no idea what that means. Sorry.

But you do understand that we don't believe in a 'individual election to salvation,' right? That doesn't mean we don't believe in election and even in 'election to salvation.' It just means that we reject your view of 'unconditioned/effectual individual election to salvation.' You seem to think I don't affirm election simply because I've rejected this particular view of election. This portion of the conversation started with you asking MY PERSPECTIVE of gospel election. I've answered that.

Actually I referenced Romans 10 (faith comes by hearing) to support that point. Plus, why would you deny man's responsibility to believe? They are held responsible by God for unbelief so why would you presume they are not responsible to believe?

The parable was referenced in regard to the choice of God being conditioned upon the attire. Conditional election...remember?

 

"He came to HIS OWN and HIS OWN received Him not" John 1.

Not all that complicated - to see the contrast between the selection of God - and the result in His own sovereignly chosen system of "whosoever will".

in Christ,

Bob

 

It means your corporate election "to salvation" for the Jews first and then the Gentiles has NEVER been true since Eden and never will be true as there was no corporate election prior to Abraham, after Abraham or now.

Of course I understand that, but that does not make any difference in regard to our dispute over the cause and consequence relationship between election to salvation in eternity past and gospel faith in time. You plainly believe that corporate election in eternity past was based upon faith in future time or election based upon, conditional to faith in time.

Wrong! You do not believe in "election to salvation" but "faith to election."

Romans 10:17 does not support your point at all. The term translated "word" is "rhema" and means a "word of command" as in 2 Cor. 4:6 where it is spelled out by Paul so clear by his analogous comparison to Genesis 1:2-3. The word spoken in Genesis 1:3 is a vehicle of creative power and thus a word of creative command. Faith is the creative work of God WHEN the gospel does not come in "word only" but IN POWER and IN THE SPIRIT - 1 Thes. 1:4-5.

 

Whoa wait a second...mine? I was referring to Paul's actual quote: "first for the Jew, then for the Gentile" (Rom 1:16) in reference to the powerful gospel being sent by God.

I believe, as Paul clearly stated, that God ELECTED to send the message appealing for reconciliation (the gospel) first to the Jew and then to the Gentile. What were you thinking I was talking about?

Sorry, I read that no less than 4 times, but I still have no clue what you are trying to say. Again, sorry....

Perspective, brother, perspective. Corporate election is still God's choice to save....i.e. 'election to salvation.' Just because its not 'individual effectual election to faith which results in salvation' doesn't mean it's not 'election to salvation.' We affirm God's choice to save whosoever believes and whether you like that or not, it is still 'election to salvation.'

So, when Christ rebukes men for not having faith He should have been rebuking God for not creating faith in them? Why would God hold men responsible for having faith if they are not responsible for having faith?

 

In the "Jew first and then to the gentile" language of Romans -2

"There is NO Partiality with God" Romans 2:11.

The lost and the saved are reviewed in vs 5-16 and the difference is never "whoever is arbitrarily selected".

in Christ,

Bob