Election And Predestination In Complete Harmony

The Future Glory of Zion
"Sing, barren woman, you who never bore a child; burst into song, shout for joy, you who were never in labor; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband,” says the Lord. “Enlarge the place of your tent, stretch your tent curtains wide, do not hold back; lengthen your cords, strengthen your stakes. For you will spread out to the right and to the left; your descendants will dispossess nations and settle in their desolate cities. “Do not be afraid; you will not be put to shame. Do not fear disgrace; you will not be humiliated. You will forget the shame of your youth and remember no more the reproach of your widowhood. For your Maker is your husband— the Lord Almighty is his name—the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer; he is called the God of all the earth. The Lord will call you back as if you were a wife deserted and distressed in spirit—a wife who married young, only to be rejected,” says your God. “For a brief moment I abandoned you, but with deep compassion I will bring you back. In a surge of anger I hid my face from you for a moment, but with everlasting kindness I will have compassion on you,” says the Lord your Redeemer.[Isaiah 54:1-8]


I like how the NIV uses the header "The future glory of Zion." Zion on earth typified the heavenly Zion. The only glory Zion has is from the glory of the Christ.

When God had forsaken the Christ, He had forsaken Zion. When He received Him back after He(the Christ) had satisfied God's wrath by propitiating our(the church) sins, He now receives all that come to Him in faith alone.

 

Brother, your desire to understand the Scriptures is commendable. But I believe there is a way we can impose meaning into a text that was never meant to be there. I'm not sure what I want to phrase it, but for now we will call it hyper-christocentricism. When we force some facet of Christ's work into a text that may not really be there, we are bordering on bad hermeneutic.

I really appreciate Abraham Kuruvilla's principles of "Christ-iconic" approach to the Scriptures (for preaching).

Here is a blurb about his book...

Abraham Kuruvilla’s book, Privilege the Text, offers a theological hermeneutic for preaching. I have surveyed the book here and offered some review here. Today I would like to nudge our thinking in respect to AK’s suggestion that we replace a Christocentric approach with a Christiconic approach. That is, rather than trying to see Christ in every text of Scripture, we should see a facet of Christ’s perfect morality in every text, and as we present that theologically derived “divine demand,” the hope is that our listeners will be moved to align themselves with it and thus become progressively sanctified into the image of Christ (hence, “christ-iconic”). (not my blurb)

Ok, now, understandably so, when we see a shadow or a prophetic occurrence of Christ or His Work, we should take that Literally, no doubt. But we mustn't let the Scriptures speak of something that isn't quite there. This Isaiah Passage, a pre-exilic Prophet, Has future prophecies of Israel, the Church, the Messiah, the Kingdom and the Heavenlies. Differentiating between a near fulfillment (exilic) or far fulfillment (Is. 53--Christ's Death and Resurrection) can be foggy and can be clear. But the reconciliation language must be applied to the context and Jesus does not always equal Israel in the sense that God is simply talking about the Nation at times. Also, once again, we must not smash "Jesus" into passages that may not really be talking about Him.

On the Road to Emmaus, Jesus Spoke to the two disciples and Expounded on the Scriptures that were speaking about Him. It is implied that there are some Scriptures that are not directly talking about Him. Some people do not like that thought, but it's the truth.

Hope this helps, blessings my friend!

 

But the thing is is that when Christ was living, He was living life in my stead. When He stood condemned before His Father, He was standing there for me, and taking His Father's wrath in my stead. When He died, He died in my place. When He rose from the dead, He rose from the stead for me. Everything He died whilst living as the God-man, He did for me in my stead.

Now, this goes for all those who believe to the saving of their soul and not just me. Any righteousness I have, is the imputed righteousness of the Christ. Even those who under the OT economy, even He died in their stead years before He came in the flesh, He lived, stood condemned before His Father as a guilty sinner, died, and rose from the dead for them.

And that is, imo, the thrust of the meaning of Isaiah 54:1-8. The 'future glory of Zion' is the glory that only comes from the Christ.

 

Right...I agree with your first paragraph. But who is Isaiah's audience and how would have they understood the passage?

 

Hallelujah...an accord...

God's ppl.

Now, who would they have though the book of Jonah was concerning in OT days? Jonah and the Ninevahites. Yet, it typified the death, burial & resurrection of the Christ.

I think Isaiah 54 was what they call 'dual prophecy' passages.

 

But that is not the whole story.

God elected that those who would believe would be given the power (right) to become the sons of God. (John 1:12)

Again John 1:12

It is way off from your errant view I will agree.

No, I never said such a thing nor can anything I have said be taken that way. What I have said is that God predestined, elected, chose all who believe to have the power, the right, the privilege, the capacity, the freedom to become the sons of God. John 1:12 Nothing about that statement says people are predestining themselves. Not even close.

 

The difficulty with discussing election and foreknowledge is that both are directed at believers corporately but not clearly individually. The individual election is imposed and or assumed by some but never explicitly mentioned. Can God sovereignly decide that salvation would come after He draws men and then are left to make a choice? You bet he can. Does doing so reduce His sovereignty? Nope not in the least. He who has the power and authority to give salvation gets the credit regardless of what response He requires from us.

 

It should be noted that God is not bound in time. Therefore, all things happen simultaneously with God. Before the foundation of the world happens simultaneously with our being made alive in Christ.
The closest analogy I might give is the blimp floating over the Rose Bowl Parade viewing the beginning and end of the parade simultaneously because the blimp is existing outside of the parade.

 

Yes well I would like to see the scripture that explains that in detail.

 

John 8, Romans 8, Revelation 22 and Exodus 3 all attest to this.

"Before Abraham was...I Am."

 

Please break it down how you see those passages of scripture saying exactly what you posted earlier.

 

What does "I Am" mean?

When Yahweh tells Moses "Tell them I Am has sent you" what does that signify about Yahweh?

When Jesus says that "Before Abraham was, I am" what does that signify about Yeshua?

When Romans says that Yahweh knew His people in advance what does that signify about God's existence outside of time?

When Jesus says he is the first and the last, the beginning and the end, what does that signify about God's function outside of time itself?

Rev...is God bound by time?

 

jesus died for individual sinners, and not for the corporate Body, so why the election not be on an individual basis?

 

Jesus stated here that he was the OT Yahweh, so the answer is no!

 

"I am" does not tell us all of what you originally posted. It tells us God is eternal. We need to not try to speak for God where He has not spoken.

 

Is God bound in time, Rev?

 

Only while he was here on earth!

 

You tell me. Please provide scripture and a clear explanation of how you see that scripture speaking to that issue.