The Apostle James on Particular Election of the Apostles

Nope. Those who are elect receive Christ. Election is entirely of God, not at all of man's effort or striving.

 

What?!?

Your responses are getting weaker and weaker Larry. I know you are probably tired of dealing with all of this but your not even making sense here. I'm not talking about inventing salvation or naming the party. I'm talking about understanding statements in more than one way.

If I invite everyone to a party and say to those who come, "I have called you here." Does that mean that they are the only ones I called? NO. I'm simply pointing out that I am the one who called them.

You consider this in the light of the fact that God is calling the Gentiles for the first time historically and most people of that day don't recognize that God would call the filthy Gentiles at all. That was unheard of which is why Paul makes mention of it so often.

 

We are back to this unsupported statement that you continually make. Are you prepared this time to defend it from Scripture? So far you have shown yourself either unwilling or unable. I hope it is different.

 

Very much. Very tired of dealing with it. But my arguemnts are not getting weaker. You are just unable to answer them.

And I am pointing out exactly that, that when you throw a party, you call them. But you didn't invent salvation. Therefore, what you would do and what results you might obtain are not what God has said he has done. When we talk about your parties, we will use your language. When we talk about what God does, we need to talk about it in terms of him.

That wasn't that hard to understand, now was it?

I totally disagree. God called Gentiles in the OT. This "calling the Gentiles" doesn't stand. You have said that "all are called" then you turn around and say that only Jews were called for a while. Paul puts both Jews and Gentiles in teh rejection camp and both Jews and Gentiles in the called camp.

The point remains that in 1 Cor 1, whether you like it or not, "the called" are distinguished from everyone else by virtue of their acceptance. It is a simple point that is readily evident to those who are not having to defend a position at all costs.

 

I would have to disagree with you here Ray. You don't get chosen by God because you choose him, that wouldn't make much sense. God chose Israel to hear the message first, later God revealed that the Gentiles were also chosen to hear the message (Acts 28:28).

This was revealed in history but was apart of God's plan from the beginning. This is why Paul makes mention of the fact that "they were chosen from the foundation of the world." This is showing that God's plan was always to call the Gentiles to repentance and its not some new decision of God. Eph. 1 speaks to this as well showing God's choice to predestine the Gentiles who believe to the same adoption as were the Israelites.

Calvinists take these passages to be support texts for individual election of people from the Gentiles and Israel. But that is not supported. Election is spoken of in terms of national or as groups in scripture, not in terms of one individual over another. The only time individuals are refered to is in regard to whom God chooses to work through in accomplishing a purpose. For example, he chose Jacob and not Esau to carry out his purpose of redemption for the world. Its not about God choosing them for salvation.

 

That is simply not true, Bill.

From www.graceonlinelibrary.org/calvinism/full.asp?ID=423:

Objections

Assuredly, not everyone reads Romans 9 in this way. However, the other views cannot endure more than casual scrutiny. Two popular anti-predestinarian interpretations are:

Paul is simply addressing the historical destiny of Israel in its redemptive role in Romans 9, not the eternal destinies of individuals; and

Paul is pointing to corporate election of the Church, not to God's choice of individuals.

The remarkable thing about both these positions is their similarity with notions that Paul here refutes. While he acknowledges the privileges of corporate election, Paul says that this election and its benefits (Rom. 3:2, 9:4-5) do not guarantee citizenship in Israel, i.e., elect Israel who holds inheritance to the eternal promises (Rom. 9:6-9). And both Israel and Jacob are individuals illustrating individual election, not corporate. Paul drives at this deeper level throughout Romans 9-11, and refuses to stop at the level of the corporate or of the redemptive role. And, again, for Paul to put his eternal destiny on the line for the redemptive role of a group as he does in 9:1-3 trivializes the great issues at stake in his Gospel.

Another attempt to modify Paul's teaching on predestination in Romans 9 is a little more subtle. In a handbook on principles of biblical interpretation (of all places!) while discussing the potential value of rhetorical criticism, Grant Osborne rather cautiously advances this line of interpretation:

"[If] the predestinarian passages of Romans 9 are part of a diatribe against Jewish-Christian misunderstandings regarding the nature of God (due to the divine judgment against Israel), this may mean that the statements regarding divine election there do not comprise dogmatic assertions regarding the process by which God saves people (the traditional Calvinist interpretation) but may instead comprise metaphors describing one aspect of the process (that is, God's sovereign choice [the emphasis in Romans 9] working with the individual's decision [the emphasis elsewhere]). Paul would be stressing one aspect of a larger whole to make his point."

It may not be quite clear from this quote, but the position is pretty well known from other places. Paul is thought to be using the ancient rhetorical mode known as a "diatribe" to advance his case in Romans 9 (and throughout Romans and other of his works). This method is known particularly by its use of an opponent (called an "interlocutor") in a sort of dialogue to head off potential objections to one's position.What is curious about Osborne's argument is that he says, in effect, Paul's use of the diatribe style forces him to present his position in an unbalanced fashion. Paul emphasizes God's sovereign choice at the expense of absolute human freedom - "the emphasis elsewhere" according to Osborne, though he does not say where.

Osborne's argument is curious because he evaluates the effect of the diatribe style in just the opposite direction of how it should logically be understood. Osborne thinks that Paul's use of this form boxes him into a theological corner and thereby skews his teaching a little. However, just the opposite is true. By using this imaginary interlocutor to address potential objections (such as the anti-predestinarian notion of "free will" - see Rom. 9:19 again!), Paul produces a balanced view of his position, which takes into consideration potential objections. Rather than narrowing Paul's position, his "diatribe" guarantees he has considered and addressed the key qualifications for his detailed teaching on predestination.

 

Ken, this "scholar" makes the same error that the other ones you quote make. He assumes that Paul's anticipated objections (diatribe) are in regard to objections to Total Depravity and individual election. They are not. He is anticipating the objection of a Jew who would be asking, "Hasn't God broken his promise since the Jews are not believing in the Christ and being saved?"

He answers this objection by showing that God can have mercy on whom ever he pleases, yes even dirty old Gentiles. This was unheard of in those day.

"Therefore it doesn't depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy," is not a response to the Arminian who believes that faith is man's response. It instead a response to the Jew who desires to be saved by effort in the works of the law.

Verse 19 diatribe objection of, "Who resists his will." Is not in anticipation of the Arminian who objects to Total Depravity and individual election, instead its an anticipation of the Jew who thinks its unjust of God to harden them.