Individual Election and Corporate Election

[AustinC]

You have not addressed Adam's response to God's call in the garden while "dead in trespasses and sins."

I very much did address this.
Adam responded only after God directed Adam to come out. Adam, in his sinful flesh, hid himself in fear and shame. God called Adam out of that fear and shame.
I suggest to you that Adam could not go against God's will. Adam and Eve responded and believed God's word precisely because God addressed them. Had God left them to their own way, they would have his and avoided God for their entire time.

 

[atpollard]

Romans 8:33 says a charge cannot be brought against the elect, thus the elect must be forgiven, otherwise they stand condemned. You cannot get around truth.

And you can not use Romans 8:29-30 because God's foreknown plan is to redeem through faith in the truth. And the plan to predestine those called (placed into Christ) obviously did not include predestination before being placed in Christ.

And once again we cannot be saved before we are chosen for salvation individually, and 1 Peter 2:9-10 precludes our individual election before we were once not a chosen people. Again it is a lock.

Was that a "taint so"?

 

[Van]

Was that a "taint so"?

Romans 8:33 says a charge cannot be brought against the elect, thus the elect must be forgiven, otherwise they stand condemned. You cannot get around truth.

And you can not use Romans 8:29-30 because God's foreknown plan is to redeem through faith in the truth. And the plan to predestine those called (placed into Christ) obviously did not include predestination before being placed in Christ.

And once again we cannot be saved before we are chosen for salvation individually, and 1 Peter 2:9-10 precludes our individual election before we were once not a chosen people.

Thus election for salvation and being placed into Christ occur together, otherwise the unforgiven would be condemned.
"And individual election for salvation cannot have occurred before creation, otherwise we would not have lived not as a chosen people.

 

[MB]

[Romans 2:25-29 NASB]
25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter [of the Law] and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

I suspose you believe you are a inward Jew then/
MB

 

[AustinC]

I suspose you believe you are a inward Jew then/
MB

Do you mean an adopted and chosen child of the King of Kings? That's what God tells me I am?
If an "inward Jew" means that, then I am in. Not sure what atpollard will say. I do think you struggle with recognizing symbolic language.

 

[Dave G]

Thanks Dave. I am fully aware of the context. As noted in #75, God's dealings with Israel were a picture for all nations: their physical life and death, prosperity and judgment, based on their choice for faith and obedience or the alternative.

Scripture tells us that faith is a gift ( Ephesians 2:8-9 ), authored and finished by His Son ( Hebrews 12:2 ) and functions as the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen ( Hebrews 11:1 ).

In addition, it is not something that all men have ( 2 Thessalonians 3:2 )…
Therefore, unless God gives it to us to believe on Christ ( John 6:65, Philippians 1:29 ), we cannot "exercise" something we do not possess.

Also...
If it were a matter of God relying on our decision, that brings us right back around to merited versus unmerited grace.
Grace is not grace if merit is involved.

With respect to it being a picture for all nations, I agree...
but not in the sense that you might think, which I will develop later. **

I invite you to point out any other means of evangelism by God's people in the Old Testament.

I'm not aware of any methods of evangelism done in the Old Testament times ( similar to what God has revealed in the book of Acts ),
but I am aware of God sending His prophets to plead with His covenant people of Israel to listen to Him and to obey what they promised to obey...

The Law of Moses and the Lord's every command.

I'm also aware of God sending prophets to select Gentile cities and individuals, but never to whole nations other than Israel.
If you're ware of some, I would appreciate you bringing them to my attention.

As I see it, He had Israel destroy the entire population of most of the cities they conquered without sparing a soul, and all without sending in missionaries.

 

[Dave G]

If the basis of God's dealings with them do not represent His dealings with all, then what good is their example to the Gentiles?

** God's dealings with them, in a sense, do represent His dealings with all...

Just as God chose a single physical nation of people who were "nobodies " ( Deuteronomy 7:6-11 ) to manifest Himself to,
He also chose a spiritual nation of people who are "nobodies" ( 1 Corinthians 1:18-31 ) to manifest Himself to ( 1 Peter 2:9 ).

Israel serves as an example in the physical sense in that, apart from the new birth, we as believers would do just as they did with God's covenant.

Their failures, and by extension, our ability to recognize that we would have failed in their place, points the way to Christ as our Saviour from ourselves... and from the wrath that would otherwise be directed at us for our sins and refusing to repent of them.

Simply put, but for being born again, no one would have desired to do any different than to make promises and to continually go back on them, as Israel did.

The Bible clearly shows that a perfect creature can freely choose to sin; we have three individuals and a third of the angels as examples of this.

I agree.
But with regard to mankind... after the fall of Adam and Eve, along comes Romans 1 and we see that as a race, we spiraled down into hating God and loving sin ( Romans 1:18-32 ), and that has not changed.

I think there is a message here about the existence of free will.

Based on my studies of the Scripture, I clearly see that man's will is biased against God ( Romans 3:10-18, John 3:19-20 as just two examples ).
So, to me, it isn't "free", it is in bondage to sin and our love for it.

Because of the love of sin, we freely choose to serve it ( John 8:34 ).

If sin does not originate in choice there is only one other place it can come from, and that is God Himself.

Sin did originate with choice, and continues to be committed, each and every day, by willful choice.
Mankind as a whole, but for the grace of God, continues on in our willful sin and love for it.

I'm not sure why you arrive at the conclusion above, but Scripture does not teach that we as men are robots.
Rather, we, as a whole, are a rebellious people who hate God ( Romans 1:30 ) and love sin ( Romans 1:32 ) apart from being born again.
God was and is never responsible for sin ( James 1:13-15 ), despite our refusal to repent.


In other words, free will is not truly free if all it wants to do is sin and go its own way...
Despite our best efforts, we are completely unable to free ourselves from the pervasiveness and lure of sin ( Jeremiah 13:23 ).

 

[Tsalagi]

I very much did address this.
Adam responded only after God directed Adam to come out.

Not in my Bible.

Adam, in his sinful flesh, hid himself in fear and shame. God called Adam out of that fear and shame.

God called TO Adam in his fear and shame, and Adam responded. There is no "out of" in the passage.

I suggest to you that Adam could not go against God's will. Adam and Eve responded and believed God's word precisely because God addressed them. Had God left them to their own way, they would have his and avoided God for their entire time.

If Adam could not go against God's will, how did he ever sin in the first place? Read Genesis 2:16-17 - that's the will of God for Adam.

Your final statement is a conjecture that does not comport with passages like Acts 17:26-27.

 

[Tsalagi]

Scripture tells us that faith is a gift ( Ephesians 2:8-9 ),

Sorry, no. This is manifestly NOT what Ephesians 2:8 says. The feminine noun pistis (faith) in that verse prohibits your conclusion. The gift spoken of is neuter, not feminine. Neuter is used to refer to abstract concepts, in this case the entirety of salvation by grace through faith, not saving faith alone. If faith were the gift, "gift" would have to be feminine to match its antecedent "faith." It's not.

authored and finished by His Son ( Hebrews 12:2 ) and functions as the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen ( Hebrews 11:1 ).

Hebrews 11 and 12 are not talking about saving faith, they teach about a life of faith and obedience after salvation.

In addition, it is not something that all men have ( 2 Thessalonians 3:2 )…

Again, no. 2 Thessalonians 3:2 says not all men are "of the faith," i.e. not all are part of the church. It does not say anything about men not being given faith or anyone lacking the ability to exercise it.

Therefore, unless God gives it to us to believe on Christ ( John 6:65, Philippians 1:29 ), we cannot "exercise" something we do not possess.

Again, no. John 6 is widely misinterpreted, particularly verse 65: "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him ...". The verb translated "draw" here is an aorist subjunctive; the subjunctive is not an indicative. The indicative mood is used to declare a thing to be so; the subjunctive is the mood of potential or possibility, regularly translated with "may" or "might." No one can come "unless the Father who sent Me may draw him" is an accurate translation. Similarly Jesus, having been lifted up, draws all men to Himself (John 12:32) - that's "draw" in the indicative mood. All men are drawn, but obviously not all men come. Nothing in Scripture says "drawing" is effectual or irresistible.

 

[Dave G]

. John 6 is widely misinterpreted, particularly verse 65: "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him ...".

"Misinterpreted"?
I think that it's hard to do that with this:

" And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father." ( John 6:65 ).

No man comes to Christ unless it is given to that person to do so by the Father ( as we see above ),
and in the behalf of Christ:

" For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake; " ( Philippians 1:29 ).

I'm not sure how much plainer the words could be, sir.

All men are drawn, but obviously not all men come. Nothing in Scripture says "drawing" is effectual or irresistible.

Respectfully, according to John 6:44, it is indeed "effectual", in that God's drawing always results in the person drawn, being raised up:
" No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."

Here I clearly see that all that come to Christ do so because they were drawn by the Father...
And all that are drawn by the Father will be raised up at the last day.
If all men were drawn to Him in the "saving sense", as John 12:32 seems to say, then according to John 6:44, they would all be saved and raised up at the last day.

That is what the language of John 6:44 lays out... a sure and completed ( "effectual" ) drawing and resurrection of those who come to Christ.
In addition, if the drawing in John 6:44 is the same as that found in John 12:32, then Christ is lying when He said that in order for a person to come to Him, the Father must do the drawing.

Also, Scripture does indeed answer the question of why some people come to Christ when others do not;
Those that come to Him do so because it was given to them by the Father as John 6:65 states...
While others do not come to Him ( believe on Him, from the heart ) because they are not "of" Christ's sheep:

" But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: ( John 10:26-27 ).

His sheep ( those that are "of God" ) hear His voice, while others do not ( John 8:43-47 ).


With that, I take my leave of this thread and I wish you well.
May God bless you greatly as you consider His words.

 

[AustinC]

Not in my Bible.

God called TO Adam in his fear and shame, and Adam responded. There is no "out of" in the passage.

If Adam could not go against God's will, how did he ever sin in the first place? Read Genesis 2:16-17 - that's the will of God for Adam.

Your final statement is a conjecture that does not comport with passages like Acts 17:26-27.

God is quite clear. I am not sure why it's muddy to you.

Genesis 3:8-10
And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” And he said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.”

Adam never sought out God in his sin. Adam never chose God. God chose Adam.

Acts 17:23-31
For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for “‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said, “‘For we are indeed his offspring.’ Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

Seems to me that God does the work in Acts 17. Why do you emphasize man's work when Paul emphasizes God?

 

[Tsalagi]

"Misinterpreted"?
I think that it's hard to do that with this:

" And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father." ( John 6:65 ).

No man comes to Christ unless it is given to that person to do so by the Father ( as we see above ),
and in the behalf of Christ:

" For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake; " ( Philippians 1:29 ).

I'm not sure how much plainer the words could be, sir.

Respectfully, according to John 6:44, it is indeed "effectual", in that God's drawing always results in the person drawn, being raised up:
" No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."

Here I clearly see that all that come to Christ do so because they were drawn by the Father...
And all that are drawn by the Father will be raised up at the last day.
If all men were drawn to Him in the "saving sense", as John 12:32 seems to say, then according to John 6:44, they would all be saved and raised up at the last day.

That is what the language of John 6:44 lays out... a sure and completed ( "effectual" ) drawing and resurrection of those who come to Christ.
In addition, if the drawing in John 6:44 is the same as that found in John 12:32, then Christ is lying when He said that in order for a person to come to Him, the Father must do the drawing.

Also, Scripture does indeed answer the question of why some people come to Christ when others do not;
Those that come to Him do so because it was given to them by the Father as John 6:65 states...
While others do not come to Him ( believe on Him, from the heart ) because they are not "of" Christ's sheep:

" But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: ( John 10:26-27 ).

His sheep ( those that are "of God" ) hear His voice, while others do not ( John 8:43-47 ).


With that, I take my leave of this thread and I wish you well.
May God bless you greatly as you consider His words.

I appreciate your reasonable and scriptural response. Sorry you're leaving the discussion, but perhaps I can offer a few parting thoughts from a different perspective.

There is no question that only those to whom it was given were able to come to Christ. This invites a scriptural study of what things God is said to give, to whom He gives them, and why. In particular, those who originally heard Jesus' words in John 6 (Israelites) would be expected to understand what He said in the light of the Old Testament witness (e.g., His remarks about bread). A long list could be given, but here are a few quick and familiar examples:

Righteousness was given to Abraham because he believed God's promises. Manna was given to those who came out of Egypt by faith under the blood of the Passover lamb. God gave Hannah a son because of her prayers in faith. God gave military victories and the throne of Israel to David because he was a man of faith. God gave wisdom and great understanding to Solomon because he asked for it in faith. He gave the widow of Zarephath oil, flour, and her son's life because of her faith. He gave renewed strength and endurance to those who waited on Him (Isaiah 40:31). God gave the Holy Spirit and a special promise to Simeon, to see the Lord's Christ before his death, because he was "righteous and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel." Hebrews 11 ... etc.

The entire Old Testament witness reflects God "giving" to those who were already looking to Him in faith. It is consistent with that pattern that those who were looking to the Father in faith would have it "given" to them to recognize Jesus as the true messiah of Israel, to be drawn to Him, and to heed His voice as their shepherd. This gift in John 6 is specifically given to people in Israel (John 6:31), and the sheep Jesus speaks of in John 10 are the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Jeremiah 50:6, Ezekiel 34:4, Matthew 10:6, Matthew 15:24). As Jesus says in verse 35, "Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto Me." Matthew 13:12: "For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath."

Others were not Jesus' sheep, because they were ignorant of the righteousness of the Father and were substituting their own (Romans 10:3). Isaiah 65:2-3: "All day long I have held out My hands to an obstinate people who walk in the wrong path, who follow their own imaginations, to a people who continually provoke Me to My face, sacrificing in the gardens and burning incense on altars of brick,…"

The paradigm in Israel during Jesus' ministry was unique in that His audience already had their heritage and the Scriptures as a witness (Romans 9:4). For the Gentiles, prior hearing and belief was generally not available (Romans 10:14), so those who were interested in God (Acts 13:42-44) were "set in place" - arranged to be in the right place at the right time - to hear the apostolic message and believe in Christ (Acts 13:48, Romans 10:14).

Blessings in Christ.

 

[Tsalagi]

God is quite clear. I am not sure why it's muddy to you.

Genesis 3:8-10
And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” And he said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.”

Adam never sought out God in his sin. Adam never chose God. God chose Adam.

Acts 17:23-31
For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, ‘To the unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for “‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said, “‘For we are indeed his offspring.’ Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

Seems to me that God does the work in Acts 17. Why do you emphasize man's work when Paul emphasizes God?

It's not muddy, and there is no "man's work" to emphasize. God initiates, man responds. Response is not work. Accepting life in the face of death is not meritorious. Salvation by grace through faith is all of God, no credit to man. So why do you mischaracterize faith as works, in direct contradiction of Scripture? If the sovereign God "commands all men everywhere to repent," how is it that all men everywhere do not do so?

 

[AustinC]

It's not muddy, and there is no "man's work" to emphasize. God initiates, man responds. Response is not work. Accepting life in the face of death is not meritorious. Salvation by grace through faith is all of God, no credit to man. So why do you mischaracterize faith as works, in direct contradiction of Scripture? If the sovereign God "commands all men everywhere to repent," how is it that all men everywhere do not do so?

Of course response is not a work. Response is an effect of God's work in us. This is why God must make a person alive with Christ before we can respond in faith, belief and repentance.
God works. We respond. (Just like Lazarus did in the tomb.)

 

[Tsalagi]

Of course response is not a work. Response is an effect of God's work in us. This is why God must make a person alive with Christ before we can respond in faith, belief and repentance.
God works. We respond. (Just like Lazarus did in the tomb.)

Adam's response to God in the garden is nowhere said to be "an effect of God's work" in him. Reading that idea into Adam and into salvation isn't biblical. Think about Passover; a clear picture of salvation (1 Corinthians 5:7). Who put the blood on the doorposts? If God were a Calvinist the answer would be different.

Lazarus is not an unbeliever; he is what Jesus says he is: "he that believeth in Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live" (John 11:25). Scripture nowhere suggests we look at Lazarus any other way.

 

[AustinC]

Adam's response to God in the garden is nowhere said to be "an effect of God's work" in him. Reading that idea into Adam and into salvation isn't biblical. Think about Passover; a clear picture of salvation (1 Corinthians 5:7). Who put the blood on the doorposts? If God were a Calvinist the answer would be different.

Lazarus is not an unbeliever; he is what Jesus says he is: "he that believeth in Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live" (John 11:25). Scripture nowhere suggests we look at Lazarus any other way.

We can read it in Ephesians 2:1-9. Can you not see what God tells you in this passage?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Here we have yet another "taint so and Van is rotten for saying so post." This is all they have folks, denial and hurl false charges.

It's simply a fact.
Neither Arminianism nor all brands of Calvinism require a belief that election occurs prior to creation.
Many Calvinist models do, but not all.
Arminianism rarely requires that view.
It's simply false to claim that is so.
You are wrong about that assertion and most Theologically informed persons know that.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Respectfully,
I see the Scriptures declaring the analogy to be somewhat like this:
A quadriplegic man whose accident was a result of his own foolish and willful actions,

Not possible even in your own Theological system, according to your own avowed system, he was quadriplegic before he was born, it couldn't be because of an accident in which he was the cause.

is sitting in his chair...completely unable to see, hear, talk or lift even a finger in response to God and doesn't even know He's in the same room with him.

Yes, because God wanted it that way.

God speaks a word, heals him completely,

It's stupid for God to bother once he laughingly admits that he, as God, was perfectly capable of creating him heathy in the first place.

and the formerly quadriplegic man begins to notice the Lord, recognizes that He healed him, gets up out of his chair, falls on his face before Him, and worships Him in gratitude for giving him something that he was never expecting;

And then he realizes that God was the one who put him in that chair in the first place, and then he thinks.....
Why the blazes, then, did he randomly torment me for years only to fix his own stupid foul-up later on?
Does he want me to thank him for this?
Why?

It was the total opposite of what he deserved,

He deserved to not be created a quadriplegic and then punished for being created a quadriplegic actually.

and he didn't have any control over it to begin with.

Right, God creates a quadriplegic, and then wants glory for later fixing him.....it's a stupid idea.

I remember when I as a younger believer, I thought that basically what you've quoted above was the way it worked as well;
Now I no longer do.

You were wiser then.

But that took many years for me to understand from my studies, and it didn't come to me overnight.

It takes many years to poison a mind so completely that it abandons all common sense and calls it a blessing.

 

[Tsalagi]

We can read it in Ephesians 2:1-9. Can you not see what God tells you in this passage?

I certainly can, since I read chapter 1 first, especially verses 12-15. Chapter 2 happens after chapter 1.

 

[AustinC]

I certainly can, since I read chapter 1 first, especially verses 12-15. Chapter 2 happens after chapter 1.

Isn't chapter 1 great! It perfectly establishes my point.
Knowing that God chose to adopt his children before the foundation of the world and that he predestined us to sit with Christ in the throne room is an awesome gift that truly expresses amazing grace to us who are so very wretched.
The whole Bible makes the point that God chooses his sheep and then separates from the goats. He chooses his wheat and separates the chaff.
God causes. We respond as the effect of God's grace. We see it from Adam onward.
Thanks for bringing up Ephesians 1.