Individual Election

These words are not "very different." They are different words that describe the same thing in the context. The meaning of words is always determined by context. A word may have several dictionary meanings, but the context tells us which one to choose. In this case, it is clear that "coming" is "believing." Giving means that the Father gives them to the Son, meaning that he causes them to come. That is the result of election.

Scripture does not teach that this happens in teh same instance. Election is in eternity past; giving/drawing takes place in time and results in coming.

John 6 is a very clear passage. Sit down and spend some time with it. All that the Father gives will come; no one can come unless the Father gives; all that come will be raised up at the last day. That is very clear teaching.

 

Huh? You just indicated that you think that this passage might be restricted to Jews. All over this board you have said "world," and "any" and other words refer to all persons with reference to the atonement in particular. It seems to me you are now moving away from "all means all" to "all" means "Jews." How is this not equivocation on your part, Mike?

Exactly how is your opinion not because of your particular view?

I exegeted John 6 for you in the thread in which you posted incorrect information that said the Greek word helkuo was inserted into the text by Westcott and Hort, the same thread in which you exegeted the chapter exactly in reverse; the same thread in which you said I was posting second hand information and two bit words'; the same thread in which I pointed out that information I posted about the Greek text refuting this absurd notion about this "addition' directly from the writer of the morphology for the W-H NT; the same thread where you said, "helkuo" is better translated as "motivate" or "entice," not "drag" or "draw," contrary to all classical and koine Greek lexicons, like BDAG, Thayers, and Louws.

2 Thess. 2:13 “…God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation…”

Ephesians 1:4 - 5...He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. This passage goes on to tell us that God predestined us to be His children through adoption as sons through Jesus Christ.

This entire passage is about election to salvation, because adoption is part and parcel of salvation.

How can a group be chosen without each and every individual in it being chosen? That simply does not make sense. If the plural "us" or "those" is just two people, are you saying that both of them are chosen as a pair without them being chosen as individuals? That is illogical.

From Kofchur:

He begins by saying that God “chose us in him before the foundation of the world” (1:4). The object of the verb exelexato, chose, is hmas, us. Klein takes the use of pronouns like “us” as indicating a “corporate understanding of election” (The New Chosen People: A Corporate View of Election, 265). Now it can not be denied that “us” is a more specific term than “the church”, or “nation”. Yes it has a collectivism about it, in so far as it denotes more than one person, because it is in the plural, but so what? Statements like Klein’s leave one wondering just what language expressions would be required to denote any kind of particularism. Is Klein and others like him demanding a sort of salvific roll call? Would Paul have to recite every name, surname, nomen, cognomen and praenomen of his audience to get the point across that God’s choice does include individuals? This is madness; and who are you Mr. Klein to demand or imply such standards in language too convey truth? And why is it that if Paul uses a plural term ergo he does not have individuals in mind? Remember a plural term denotes two or more individuals.

Thus Paul says that many individuals, specifically his audience with him included, were chosen. Now when did this choosing take place? The text says, pro katabolhs kosmou, before the foundation of the word. I take the prepositional phrases, en Cristw, in Christ and pro katabolhs, as modifying the verb exelexato, chosen. It can be diagramed as thus:



He chose

us

in Christ

before the foundation of the word



“Us” is the direct object of “chose”; “before the foundation of the world” indicates the time when this choice took place

In Romans 9, Paul's use of the phrases "children of promise" and "children of God" in verse 8 make it absolutely clear that he has salvation in view--not just historical roles. "Children of God" (v. 8) in Paul's writings is always used in regards to salvation (see Romans 8:16, 17, 21; Eph. 5:1; Phil. 2:15). Further, the only other place where Paul uses the phrase "children of promise" (also in v. 8) is in Galatians 4:28, where he clearly uses it salvifically. In fact, Isaac is used as an example of all saved people in this text: "And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise." Furthermore, in the Galatians text (4:21-31) Paul also applies an OT story to the topic of individual salvation, even though in their OT context the passages do not specifically deal with salvation. So Romans 9 is not the only instance where Paul uses OT texts salvifically, even if in their OT context they do not directly deal with salvation. Paul's use of individuals chosen for a purpose is given to illustrate individual election with regard to salvation, because this is his concern in vs. 1-5.

This of course, leads directly to Open Theism. The verse simply tells us that the Lord was grieved and had sorrow in His heart for making man. Why? Because mankind had fallen into great sin and this grieved the Lord. Does it mean that God didn't know that mankind would fall and become sinful? Of course not. Cannot God know that they would become sinners and also be grieved when it happens? Of course. Let me illustrate.

I have children. I love them and provide for them. But, they have grieved me in their various sins -- as any child will do to his parents. I knew they would grieve me when they were born because I know they are sinners by nature. This doesn't mean I was surprised and didn't know they would rebel when it happened. Quite the contrary, and knowing they would sin doesn't mean I won't be grieved when their rebellion and sin is finally manifested.

See above. How can two individuals be chosen as a pair without them being chosen individually to FORM the pair?

I might ask, of you...in Rom. 3:11b “There is none, who seeks for God”
Rom. 3:11a "There is none who understands” Rom. 3:12b R12b “There is none who does good” What do these mean? If "none" is plural would that necessitate that individuals are not in mind as well and that individuals within the plurality are acting contrary to the statements in the text? Are the individuals within the plurality of "all" that turn away not in mind as well as the plurality? In other words are do "all" turn away as a group without the individuals in it turning away individually?

So you agree then that there is a destiny to be fulfilled? Sorry, I'm not clear, can you elaborate?

Do you understand what election is? It is not calling, nor is it justification. Election is simply in God's mind from eternity past. Those that are foreknown are predestined. Scripture says this is from eternity past. You say, I recall, that election is just "making salvation available." However, election is itself defined as "choosing."

Of course, you present no exegetical proof of this.

No, we do not. Irresistible grace means that God overcomes any resistance we offer, it simply means that saving grace is effectual. It does not mean that man does not have the ability to resist it.

No, because we do not teach this.

Lydia is a clear example of an individual being elected for salvation. Who opened her heart? Act. 16:14 “the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.”

 

BUT Gene, you left out the most important part, "in Christ", as in "faith in Christ", "belief in Christ", "trust in Christ".

Yes, God established before the foundation of the world, that those who are "in Christ" are the elect that HE chose to save!

Now, what IS NOT SAID is that Gene, Ray, Wes, Southern, Larry, etc, and all the others on this Forum, WERE CHOSEN before the foundation of the world. That is not said!

What IS SAID IS God determined before the foundation of the world, to save those who are "in Christ", all who believe in, Trust in, have FAITH in HIS Son, the Christ, are the Elect! No two ways about it!

 

No, Wes, the text does not say this. That is an extrapolation on your part. The text does not say that He chose us on the basis of faith in Christ and makes no linguistic reference to faith in Christ. I prefer to stick to the text without adding words to it.

Yes, that is correct. However, the text does not say that He chose the group without also choosing each and every one of them. The text does not say that He chose us on the basis of foreseen faith.

This contradicts the text. It says God chose "us" (Ray, Wes, Southern, Larry, Gene)" before the foundation of the world. How can we be chosen as a group without being chosen as individuals. This is illogical.

No, there is no reference to foreseen faith at all in this passage. What is said is what the text says. God chose us in Christ from before the foundation of the world for adoption as sons, et.al. It does not say that God determined to save...It says God chose us.

To say what you say, you'd have to linguistically have Christ as the direct object of chose. That is not in the text. The direct object of chose in "us" not Christ.

Nobody denies he chose us in Christ. However, He can not choose US as a group in Christ, without us being chosen as individuals in that group. That's the entire point as it relates to the topic of this thread.

 

Wes,
Gene did a good job at refuting your eisegetical attempt to get around Ephesians 1, but I would like to comment on a statement that you made:

You seemed to imply in your last post that our belief is what makes us one of the elect. This is turns the Biblical witness on it's head. The Bible in contrast to your view says that we believe because we are the "elect".

John 6:37 says that those given to Jesus by the Father are the ones that "come" (believe) on Him. Acts 13:48 says that all those appointed to eternal life "believed".
Rom. 8:28- says that those who are "predestined" are the ones who are justified.
John 10:27 says that the sheep (elect) are the ones that "hear" His voice and follow Him.

Conclusion- Just to show the unbiblical nature of your belief that our Faith makes us one of the elect notice the following:

But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. (John 10:26)

Why did these listening to Jesus not believe?

Answer: Because they were not His "sheep". You would say they were not His sheep because they did not believe, Jesus says that they do not believe because they are not His sheep. You have to be "given to the Son" (John 6:37), "appointed to eternal life" (Acts 13:48), "predestined" (Rom. 8:28), and a "sheep" to hear Christ and follow Him (repentance, belief, etc.). These are the ones who make up the elect. God did not design a plan and leave it up to the whims of man but instead "elected" individuals to salvation.

 

(Eph. 1:11) Let's try the whole context to see if it means the same thing.

 

Pardon me? In that thread you gave a citation from a copy of W-H dated 1885. That is about 120 years old. I [already] know part of the citation. What I would like from you, since you apparently have the book handy and gave a bibliographical note, is, at the very least the page number that says that Westcott and Hort added "helkuo" to the text for grammar and syntax reasons. Preferably, you could give the exact quote. That way, we can put this dispute to rest, so that he and I can go and look it up ourselves. Since you are the one making the claim, it is up to you to footnote it.

I doubt Dr. Robinson is incorrect, Mike...The funny thing is he isthe person who wrote the morphology for the W-H New Testament,. He has also written: The New Testament in the Original Greek: According to the Byzantine-Majority Textform (aka Robinson-Pierpont Majority Text NT). He has also written, Indexes to All Editions of Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon and Thayer's Greek Lexicon. Check ANY critcal apparatus, Mike, Nestle, UBS, von Soden, Tischendorf, Legg, Souter, Tregelles, etc.). I use Nestle, and it does not have such a citation. There are NO MSS variants that do not include "helkuo" in them. He himself with Pierpont looked at the Byzantine textype MSS and produced their own version. Basically, what you're telling me is that a man that has used the actual MSS of an entire textype is mistaken, whereas you, who admit to not being a Greek scholar are correct. I find that difficult to believe. Either you are mistaken about something you read or you made it up. I don't know. I prefer to think the former, not the latter. However, honestly, the tone of your above post makes me wonder if it might be the latter. I sincerely hope not. Thus, in the spirit of putting this issue to rest, could you please give a proper footnote and not just a reference to a book. What edition is it from? What page? Type out the quote for us to look at; something would be helpful other than the above remark that I am right "out of (my) mind."

I also found a website that hosts NT variants MSS by MSS, and did a search for variants of John 6:44, and could find nothing. Variation in the Johnanine MSS do not occur until after John 6:44 itself. That means there is agreement in the MSS regarding that verse. Westcott-Hort comes from 1881. The KJV dates from 1611. Now, if W-H simply "added it," then why does the KJV prior to 1881 have this reading as well?

Now, according to this: http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/GNT/John.html

The text is the Westcott-Hort with NA26/27 variants.

Text in red indicates readings, where the UBS editorial committee had great difficulty in deciding which variant to place in the text. Please refer to "A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament" by Bruce M. Metzger, 2nd ed.,1994, for the details. The difficult readings are indicated by the letters C and D. To find these positions easy, they are labeled with an asterisk, *.

If you will note, the text there is black and not red,and there is no asterix for John 6:44, indicating there is no MSS variant.

The text reads: oudeis dunatai elqein pros me ean mh o pathr o pemyas me elkush auton kagw anasthsw auton en th escath hmera

Just in case you're still not a believer, here's a quote from the Textus Receptus from 1550/1894 (Byzantine texttype) ...Note the W-H is not based on the TR:

oudeiV dunatai elqein proV me ean mh o pathr o pemyaV me elkush auton kai egw anasthsw auton th escath hmera

If the AV1611 has "draw" in John 6:44, then you have a huge problem with what you are saying...and, according to this site:

http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=1325


It does. Please note that this is an authentic 1611.

If it was just "added" then why is it in the TR without variation when the W-H has nothing to do with the TR? In other words, using the TR, which is its own apparatus, and it predates W-H by about 300 years, the MSS has this word already in it. It is not an editorial edition, and it occurs in a completely different texttype.

The other strange thing is that you made the allegation but did not tell us, if the quote is genuine, why they chose to "add" "helkuo" for "grammar" and "syntax?" Surely, if there was a note that this was the case, (and I know there would be since Westcott published notes on the reasons choices were made in their rendering), there would a reason for this given, and a morphology is available as well.

Let us use correct definitions. Slander is spoken. Libel is written. Which leads me to another question...exactly what lexicon do you have the says that "helkuo" is best translated "entice" or "persuade" and not "drag" or draw?" I have looked it up in no less than 3 standard classical and koine lexicons, including Thayers, BDAG, and Louws, and have yet to find that rendering.

 

Gene,
The thought conveyed my very well be slander in intent, even though it's form is libel.

Slander and Libel are merely "legal labels" as you you define them.

 

So, let me see if I understand this correctly. I call you on a claim that you made about an entire word being added to the New Testament manuscript by two men in 1881, present evidence to substantiate this, including quotes from the Textus Receptus and an AV1611 that very clearly show you are wrong, get information confirming this from the very person that wrote the morphology for the Westcott-Hort New Testament, and call you out on redefining that word contrary to every known classical and koine lexicon and that is slander? Not only that, when I ask for the direct quote and/or page number so that he and I can go back and look it up, you refuse to provide it, when all you have to do is provide it to show that the citation is valid so that you can vindicate yourself, and you call me "right out my mind," for asking for the information, and that is slander, and I am somehow breaking the rules?

I exegete that same text in that thread, and you never rebutt it, and then you ask me to exegete the text in this thread, and then I reply that I exegeted correctly and contrarily to your exegesis, which is very clearly in reverse to the text itself, and I am slandering you?

Mike, what you are doing is saying that two men in 1881 changed God's Word for the purposes of syntax and grammar. You need to show that is true, because those two men are dead and can't defend themselves, and, if Dr. Robinson is incorrect, you can actually help him be correct. I will ask you, once more, please, to give me the correct citation, page number, proper footnote, and/or the direct quote. I can not find what you are saying in any critical apparatus that draws from the W-H, like Nestle-Aland.

What's the deal?

 

Double standard. You wrote elsewhere that "helkuo" (e.g drag or draw in Greek)in John 6:44 should be defined as "entice" or "persuade," not "drag" or "draw."

The lexical reading from the Louws, BDAG, et.al. is to determine beforehand, to predetermine, pre-ordain.

No, *justification* is conditional on faith. To say this, since justification is by faith, you would have to say what is being foreknown and predestined by God is faith, but the text never, ever says this.

In Romans 8:30, calling and justifying follow along as aorist tense, indicative mood, active voice as a result of having been foreknown and predestined, because there is a grammatical construction that involves a calling being a result of being predestined, and being justified is a direct result of calling. Predestination is thus one of the causes of being justified, not the other way around. This is the syntactical construction of the text. In short, "these he justified" is in aorist indicative active in a causal structure and part of a dependent clause of a conditional sentence (protasis). This means, justification depends on calling. Calling depends on predestination. Predestination depends of foreknowing. Faith is never mentioned as a condition. "These" is mentioned, and "these" are people. Thus justification of people is dependent not on foreknown faith, but the person doing the foreknowing and predestining. Calling proceeds from the cause of predestination, and then justification IN THAT ORDER, because of the order and dependent relationship of each clause. therefore predestination can not be conditional on faith. Justification is by faith, and comes as a result of calling, paralleling John 6 exactly.

Read 8:30. and these whom He predestined (the same ones referred to in 8:29), He also called and these whom He called, He also justified, and these whom He justified, He also glorified. Predestination PRECEDES justification, not vice versa. Your version is "postdestination." See above for the Greek syntax. Justification *depends on* calling and calling *depends on* predestination.

Read John 6 again.

6:37 Action: Given by Father Result: All come to Christ
6:39 Action: Given by Father Result: None lost, all raised up
6:44 Action: Drawn by the Father Result: Come to Christ, raised up
6:45 Action: Hear from and Taught by Father: Result: Come to Christ

Notice the relationships. The ones that come do so because they are given by God to Christ and drawn by the Father to Him. All that are given will not ever be lost, none of them, and all of them will be raised up. All that come to Christ will be raised up, and all that are taught by the Father come to Christ.

Now, if this is only general, then why do some *not* come to Christ and believe, when the text clearly says that EVERYONE who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me, and in the previous text, we clearly find Jesus saying that all that come to Him *will* believe and *will* be raised on the Last Day? If election works the way you have it working, then Jesus is mistaken here, because there are plenty of people that hear and learn the gospel and do not believe and are not raised up. He clearly says that ALL that come WILL believe and ALL of them WILL be raised up and NONE of them will be lost.

No, the text does not say that...there is a list of dependent clauses that refer to "these." Who are the ones foreknown?...Verse 28, those that love God. Verse 33, "God's elect" Who are they?...they are those that are justified. All persons everywhere *cannot* be in view here, because that would mean universalism is true. All persons everywhere are not justified and glorified in a list of dependent aorist indicative active clauses. The persons here have one thing in common: justification. ONLY Christians are here, not all persons everywhere. The ones foreknown..predestined...called...and justified...and subsequently glorified are all Christians and only Christians, e.g. only saved people. Orthodox Christianity denies universalism. These people are *not* predestined contingent on faith, again because this is contrary to the construction of the text.

This isn't what the text says, though, Mike. The text refers to Gentiles here, NOT Jews. If Jews were present, so what? This text is about why these Gentiles believed.


The Gentiles were Glad because Salvation had come to the Gentiles as a whole and that meant they could be saved as well.

Of course the text does not in any way say this. There is also a *much* bigger problem. The problem here with your exegesis is that the construction is a pluperfect, so that the action of the construction PRECEDED the act of believing and was the cause of it. Your interpretation would have the Gentiles being appointed as a result of something other than being appointed (ordained) to eternal life, by inference, because they were glad at this news, they were saved. However, the text does not say that. It says they were glad and believed, because they were appointed. This is the function of the pluperfect construction.

Why? How can you separate the individuals from the group? Also, it does not say they were *all* saved, it says as many as were appointed to eternal life were saved. The "many" that believed are not all Gentiles everywhere. This text is specific to the many Gentiles that day that believed. The pluperfect construction means that they believed because they were appointed/ordained to do so.

"Many" in the next clause delimits which of those Gentiles believed. Why? Because they, each and every single one, were ordained to eternal life.

Once again, I will point you to Romans 3: 19 - 18. All of those terms are ALSO plural. Now, if we apply your logic here, Mike, you have to say that all of them as a group, without all of them individually in the group, turn their own way, fail to seek God, turn aside, etc. You *cannot* separate the individuals from the group in a causal construction.

The whole is not greater than the sum of the parts. A group in which "many" are ordained to eternal life can not be so ordained without them also being ordained as individuals.

 

You make the false claim that words aren't added to scripture but then you don't have a clue what Italics are do you.

I refer you to the AV1611, the word is NOT in italics. I refer you to Nestle Aland. The word is NOT in italics. I refer you to the KJV, the word is NOT in italics. I refer you to the NASB, the word is NOT in italics.

I DID prove you wrong. Now I have given you the change to disprove me. You alleged. I replied from an email from the man that wrote the morphology for the Westcott-Hort! I went WAAAAY past the extra mile on that. I didn't *have* to go to a library, not when that person is a personal friend. You got upset. I gave you a chance to help yourself. Now you have refused. I am NOT going to go find a copy of an 1885 book when the nearest theological library is a hundred miles from me at Wake Forest, NC at SEBTS. On the other hand, if you give me the FULL citation, (all you have to do is add the page number and/or type out the sentence that tells you this), since you already have the citation.

The funny thing is, you have not once addressed the big problem here. The AV1611 is a Byzantine texttype. NAS is drawn from a variety of text-types. You noted W-Hort particularly. However, Westcott-Hort lived *over 200 years* from the AV1611, and the text on which the AV1611 is based has "helkuo" across all MSS, and W-Hort is drawn from the Alexandrian, NOT the Byzantine texttype. It could *not* be an addition to the text, *because it was already in the MSS in a different family of NT MSS.*

You're dodging the issue. You can even PM me or email me if you want.

 

Italics means the word or phrase has more than one understanding! OR is understood differently by different schools of theology.

 

Wes, you are incorrect. Italics, in all versions that I am aware of, means that the words were added in English to clarify something. It has nothing to do with having more than one understanding.

Let's keep this on topic and off of personalities.

 

Is that last sentence intended for me Larry? If so, to what post are you referring?