The Nature of "called" in 1 Cor. 1:26-31

[The Biblicist]

26 For you see your calling, brothers, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, has God chosen, yes, and things which are not, to bring to nothing things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30 But of him are you in Christ Jesus, who of God is made to us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31 That, according as it is written, He that glories, let him glory in the Lord.

I know there are some on this forum that deny that the above passage refers to election to salvation through the effectual call. I want to understand why you do from a contextual perspective.

Let me provide how I see the immediate context unfolding and then if you are among those who repudiate this passage refers to elective calling to salvation then please point out by the IMMEDIATE contextual analysis why you believe my analysis is incorrect.

I believe Paul is dealing with primary issues of division within the Corinthian congregation throughout out this epistle. However, the immediate issue of division is over the administrator of water baptism (1 Cor.1:13-17). Paul's response to this particular issue covers chapters 1:13-4:7. His response goes as follows:

1. The gospel is superior to baptism because the gospel is the power of salvation - vv. 17-31

2. Salvation is not due to the charisma or power of the preacher but to the Holy Spirit - 2:1-19

3. Preachers all work together as "one" under the leadership of the Spirit of God in building the congregation at Corinth therefore glory not in men or in their gifts - 3:1-4:7

Now the immediate breakdown of the first section (1:17-31) goes as follows:

1. The gospel is the wisdom and power of God
2. The world thinks the gospel is foolish and the jews seek signs
3. God purposely chose and called to salvation what the world regards as foolish, weak and beggerly so as to confound the world and its wisdom so that nothing robs God of His glory.
4. God's reason for choosing and calling is that none will be able to glory in his presence, because God's choice, calling and power are responsible for you being "in him".

Now, please respond as requested and let us do this in a manner that is charitable to all.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Good post! As I am not one of those invited to respond I will not do so except to remark that Romans 8:28-30 speaks the same way.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Kudos to the OP.

 

[Iconoclast]

This verse is clear and supports the OP;
1 Corinthians 1:2
Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's:

 

[JamesL]

26 For you see your calling, brothers, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, has God chosen, yes, and things which are not, to bring to nothing things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30 But of him are you in Christ Jesus, who of God is made to us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31 That, according as it is written, He that glories, let him glory in the Lord.

I know there are some on this forum that deny that the above passage refers to election to salvation through the effectual call. I want to understand why you do from a contextual perspective.

Let me provide how I see the immediate context unfolding and then if you are among those who repudiate this passage refers to elective calling to salvation then please point out by the IMMEDIATE contextual analysis why you believe my analysis is incorrect.

I believe Paul is dealing with primary issues of division within the Corinthian congregation throughout out this epistle. However, the immediate issue of division is over the administrator of water baptism (1 Cor.1:13-17). Paul's response to this particular issue covers chapters 1:13-4:7. His response goes as follows:

1. The gospel is superior to baptism because the gospel is the power of salvation - vv. 17-31

2. Salvation is not due to the charisma or power of the preacher but to the Holy Spirit - 2:1-19

3. Preachers all work together as "one" under the leadership of the Spirit of God in building the congregation at Corinth therefore glory not in men or in their gifts - 3:1-4:7

Now the immediate breakdown of the first section (1:17-31) goes as follows:

1. The gospel is the wisdom and power of God
2. The world thinks the gospel is foolish and the jews seek signs
3. God purposely chose and called to salvation what the world regards as foolish, weak and beggerly so as to confound the world and its wisdom so that nothing robs God of His glory.
4. God's reason for choosing and calling is that none will be able to glory in his presence, because God's choice, calling and power are responsible for you being "in him".

Now, please respond as requested and let us do this in a manner that is charitable to all.

I think it would be nearly impossible to dispute your claims from the immediate context, but not necessarily because you're right.

I believe an accurate assessment of this passage will hang on the definitions and applications of several words: Elect, Called, Chosen, Gospel, Salvation.

If you believe that the gospel is a message of how to be saved from hell, then it is only reasonable to assume that people are elect and chosen to be called to hear the gospel, believe it, and be saved from hell.

But if you believe (as I do) that Election is an eschatological hope, that Salvation refers not only what we are saved from but also what we are saved to (or toward - inheritance), that it is possible to be cut off from the Inheritance without being excluded from the presence of God in eternity, then it is easy to see something entirely different in that passage.

See right after Jesus had the conversation with the Rich Young Ruler, Mark 10:

28Peter began to say to Him, “Behold, we have left everything and followed You.” 29Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospel’s sake, 30but that he will receive a hundred times as much now in the present age, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age to come, eternal life. 31“But many who are first will be last, and the last, first.”

In answering Peters question, Jesus posits eternal life as a blessing in the age to come. Any mentions first and last, positions of honor or dishonor.

Interestingly, when we keep reading, James and John inquire further. Mk 10:

35James and John, the two sons of Zebedee, came up to Jesus, saying, “Teacher, we want You to do for us whatever we ask of You.” 36And He said to them, “What do you want Me to do for you?” 37They said to Him, “Grant that we may sit, one on Your right and one on Your left, in Your glory.” 38But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”39They said to Him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized. 40“But to sit on My right or on My left, this is not Mine to give; but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.”

41Hearing this, the ten began to feel indignant with James and John.42Calling them to Himself, Jesus said to them, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. 43“But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; 44and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. 45“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

James and John ask to sit at his left and right in his glory - that's an eschatological event. And Jesus answered them by saying it is not his to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.

that's predestination and election, and that is the call. However, many are called but few are chosen. Because only those who endure to the end are those who were predestined for it.

but you don't get all of that in 1st Corinthians chapter 1. So who can answer the OP from the immediate context only? No one, I fear.

 

[The Biblicist]

I think it would be nearly impossible to dispute your claims from the immediate context, but not necessarily because you're right. I believe an accurate assessment of this passage will hang on the definitions and applications of several words: Elect, Called, Chosen, Gospel, Salvation

If you could fit your definitions into this context you would have but obviously you can't. They simply will not fit as the context will not allow it. The issue in this context is not distinctions in the new heavens and earth but distinctions made by calling and election NOW with the unbelieving world and Jews. The issue is not distinction after being "in Christ" as you attempt to argue but entrance in Christ - "but of God are ye in Christ"

The examples you give are seriously misfits for this text and context.

 

[JamesL]

If you could fit your definitions into this context you would have but obviously you can't. They simply will not fit as the context will not allow it. The issue in this context is not distinctions in the new heavens and earth but distinctions made by calling and election NOW with the unbelieving world and Jews. The issue is not distinction after being "in Christ" as you attempt to argue but entrance in Christ - "but of God are ye in Christ"

The examples you give are seriously misfits for this text and context.

Like I alluded to already... If you load all of your parameters into the context, and leave no room for differing applications of those words, then you'll end up thinking the case is closed and there's no point in having a discussion

I don't think it's a matter of fitting definitions into the context. Quite the opposite, I believe not only definition, but application of those definitions, will affect a simple reading of the text- thereby affecting how one views the context. So to try to define a word by the context will only work if you bring the correct view of all the related words. You simply cannot have a context without proper word meanings already in place

And I'm not making a case for an "in Christ" notion. I can't see that view working with foreknowledge and predestination.

I see the Exodus and the Promised Land as a type - Romans 11:1-2 makes it clear that God foreknew them. Isaiah 45:4 says that Israel is God's chosen one.

in Exodus 16:3, the Israelites asked if God brought them out of Egypt just to starve them to death in the wilderness. In Exodus 17:3, the Israelites asked if God brought them out of Egypt to make them die of thirst in the wilderness.

It's abundantly clear in the Old Testament that saving them "from Egypt" was not the entirety of their salvation. But they were in fact saved "from"

But not all of them made it "to" what God had predestined them to. In Deuteronomy 29 and 30, God told them I set before you life and death, blessing and cursing - in the land. That's what they were saved to. That's what they were predestined for. That's what they were chosen for. And that's what they kept getting thrown out of.

And that's why they had (have) an eschatological hope. to enjoy the blessing of God with the Anointed One.

Now, while the entire nation was predestined for this greatness (in other words, corporate election), individuals could be cut off from the land, the people, and the inheritance.

and brother, if you don't have this kind of a backdrop coming into your new testament understanding of predestination, election, and salvation, you have missed the mark. And it will greatly affect your view of 1st Corinthians 1

 

[The Biblicist]

Like I alluded to already... If you load all of your parameters into the context, and leave no room for differing applications of those words, then you'll end up thinking the case is closed and there's no point in having a discussion

You have first got to recognize what the context is about before you attempt to load it with your interpretative definitions. The context is not about eschatalogical hope but it is about initial "in Christ" entrance due to the power of God in the gospel rather than in baptism or in human wisdom or in preacher attributes. It is talking about their initial salvation addition to the congregation and how the Holy Spirit is responsible for building the congregation at Corinth because it is His power and it is His leadership that is responsible for their response to the gospel and baptism and for the instruments he used in composing that congregation. He is not talking about any eschatalogical hope in the next life.

In specific, he is denying that their salvation is due to baptism or due to the wisdom of men or due to particular distinctions in them versus others but wholly due to God's election and calling and that is precisely how they are "in Christ" initially as it is wholly "of God are ye in Christ."

I don't think it's a matter of fitting definitions into the context. Quite the opposite, I believe not only definition, but application of those definitions, will affect a simple reading of the text- thereby affecting how one views the context. So to try to define a word by the context will only work if you bring the correct view of all the related words. You simply cannot have a context without proper word meanings already in place

You missed my point. It is not a matter of fitting definitions into the context, it is a matter of the context fitting the definitions you are trying to attach to the words. The context will not harmonize with the definitions you are trying to attach to the words.

And I'm not making a case for an "in Christ" notion. I can't see that view working with foreknowledge and predestination.

What can I say? Paul does see foreknowledge and predestination working with how one becomes "in Christ" as Ephesians 1:4-11 and Romans 8:28-33 make very clear to any unbiased reader.

I see the Exodus and the Promised Land as a type - Romans 11:1-2 makes it clear that God foreknew them. Isaiah 45:4 says that Israel is God's chosen one.

You know very well you can't interpret precepts by typology and that is precisely what you are doing here. 1 Corinthians 1:18-4:7 provides precepts or doctrinal teachings. Israel can very easily be personified as an elect person (indeed Israel is many times personified as such) and thus its covenant with law is the personification of the elect in a lost religious condition attempting to be saved by works when God has predestinated that at his appointed time (Rom. 11:25-32) she will be saved according to the election of grace (Rom. 11:5-6) through the gospel in a single day.

So your old testament view of Israel is fatally flawed if you can't see she is personified as an elect person which in fact will be saved yet in the future at the predetermined time.

However, your view if read into the terms "chosen" and "called" in 1 Corinthians 1 makes no sense at all. The idea of corporate election makes no sense at all. The idea of eschatalogical hope makes no sense at all because these are all flawed ideas based on misinterpretation of both Old and New Testament scriptures.

Now, this OP challenges you to attempt to use the immediate context to show why my analysis is incorrect. You have not even attempted to do that. What you are attempting to do is to move the goal posts or move the readers out of this context to a context of your choosing. You have acknolwedge that you are unable to do that and you think no one else will be able to do that. You need to ask yourself why is that so, because I did not pen the context.

 

[The Biblicist]

I see the Exodus and the Promised Land as a type - Romans 11:1-2 makes it clear that God foreknew them. Isaiah 45:4 says that Israel is God's chosen one.

in Exodus 16:3, the Israelites asked if God brought them out of Egypt just to starve them to death in the wilderness. In Exodus 17:3, the Israelites asked if God brought them out of Egypt to make them die of thirst in the wilderness.

It's abundantly clear in the Old Testament that saving them "from Egypt" was not the entirety of their salvation. But they were in fact saved "from"

But not all of them made it "to" what God had predestined them to. In Deuteronomy 29 and 30, God told them I set before you life and death, blessing and cursing - in the land. That's what they were saved to. That's what they were predestined for. That's what they were chosen for. And that's what they kept getting thrown out of.

And that's why they had (have) an eschatological hope. to enjoy the blessing of God with the Anointed One.

Now, while the entire nation was predestined for this greatness (in other words, corporate election), individuals could be cut off from the land, the people, and the inheritance.

It seems that threads always get derailed when posters cannot deal with the OP. Without derailing this thread, let me comment on your comments which have nothing to do with the OP.

Egypt is a type of this world. The wilderness is a type of of the Christian life in its struggle with the flesh. The promised land is a double type. It is a type of victory over the flesh in our current life. It is also a type of the new heaven and earth.

Deliverance into the promised land is based entirely upon a covenant made before Israel existed (Deut. 7:7-9; 9:6-9). It was made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who are types of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and the "everlasting covenant" of redemption. Their total redemption was based on that covenant before they were born, before Israel existed.

God makes it very clear that the deliverance from Egypt and bringing them into the promise land was completely unmerited by anything that Israel did, in fact, in spite of what they did.

Israel is personified as a singular "elect" who has indeed been predestinated according to God's eternal purpose of redemption to be saved at Gods appointed time yet in the future (Rom. 11:28-32) according to the new covenant (Ezek. 36:26-27; Jer. 31:33-34; Heb. 8:10-13). As a type she illustrates each and every elect person chosen "in Christ" before the foundation of the world whom God has foreknown "according to His purpose" and thus predestinated unto salvation "according to His Purpose" or according to "the blood of the everlasting covenant."

In Romans 8 the everlasting covenant is spelled out in clear langauge and the word "called" is placed prior to "justified" demonstrating it is an aspect of salvation that precedes justification by faith. That is effectual calling or regeneration of the elect (Rom.8:33). Romans 9 denies that the promised salvation to Israel AS A NATION is due to natural birth through a blood line but is due to God's elective purpose of grace by supernatural birth as illustrated in Isaac and Jacob. This salvation would be in connection with faith in the gospel (Rom. 10) and not works and that at God's appointed time "all Israel shall be saved" even as promised according to God's everlasting covenant of redemption (Rom.11:25-32). Continuing evidence of this future covenant promise is the salvation of a "elect" remnant in every generation although the nation has never been saved in any generation as of yet, but will after all the gentile elect have been brought in, and then at the second coming of Christ "all Israel" will be saved as promised according to God's eternal covenant of election.

Israel as a nation is the personification of every elect God saves. They begin as lost (worldly or religious) for an unknown period of their existence, but at God's appointed time the gospel comes to them in power and in the Spirit and they will be saved. Moreover, they struggle with the flesh during their earthly existence but may experience a life of victory by crucifying the flesh and ultimately will be brought into the promised land (which is not heaven, but the new earth with New Jerusalem).

So, election, predestination and effectually calling can harmonize perfectly with 1 Corinthians 1-4 or Romans 8-11 or any other New Testament passages on salvation as much as it can with Israel personified as "the elect" and her ultimate salvation.

Now, with this said, let us please get back to the OP and the challenge in the OP and that is can you the reader demonstrate from the immediate context why my interpretation of it is wrong.

 

[JamesL]

You have first got to recognize what the context is about before you attempt to load it with your interpretative definitions.

Wrong.
If I tell you that a monkey rode a sheep up the side of a mountain, the only way you're going to understand the context is if you already know what a monkey looks like, if you already know what a sheep looks like, and if you already know what a mountain is.

If you think a monkey is a four-legged animal with a long neck which stands 16 ft tall, and you think of sheep is an insect that's a half inch long and 1/4 inch tall, and you think a mountain is a wave of water out in the ocean, where does that leave your context?

The context is not about eschatalogical hope but it is about initial "in Christ" ....It is talking about their initial salvation.....He is not talking about any eschatalogical hope in the next life.

Never mind that 1Cor 1:7-8 says:
so that you are not lacking in any gift, awaiting eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ

let's start there, and see if we can keep from writing a book

 

[The Biblicist]

Wrong.
If I tell you that a monkey rode a sheep up the side of a mountain, the only way you're going to understand the context is if you already know what a monkey looks like, if you already know what a sheep looks like, and if you already know what a mountain is.

If you think a monkey is a four-legged animal with a long neck which stands 16 ft tall, and you think of sheep is an insect that's a half inch long and 1/4 inch tall, and you think a mountain is a wave of water out in the ocean, where does that leave your context?t


Never mind that 1Cor 1:7-8 says:
so that you are not lacking in any gift, awaiting eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ

let's start there, and see if we can keep from writing a book

Are you serious?!? This is a joke! I have given the full context for this subject. Why not start at verse 1 if this is the way you are going to handle this matter?!? You can't do what the OP asks, you try to move the goal lines, you try to insert your own definitions in a context that will not allow for those definitions, and then you pick a previous context so you can insert your definitions. The problem is that 1 Cor. 1:18-4:7 will not allow for your definitions of the terms elect, called because it is not dealing with any eschatalogical hope beyond the resurrection but it is dealing specifically with entry level "in Christ" at the beginning of the Christian experience. Whats next? You can't do what the OP asks so lets move on!

 

[The Biblicist]

It seems that threads always get derailed when posters cannot deal with the OP. Without derailing this thread, let me comment on your comments which have nothing to do with the OP.

Egypt is a type of this world. The wilderness is a type of of the Christian life in its struggle with the flesh. The promised land is a double type. It is a type of victory over the flesh in our current life. It is also a type of the new heaven and earth.

Deliverance into the promised land is based entirely upon a covenant made before Israel existed (Deut. 7:7-9; 9:6-9). It was made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who are types of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and the "everlasting covenant" of redemption. Their total redemption was based on that covenant before they were born, before Israel existed.

God makes it very clear that the deliverance from Egypt and bringing them into the promise land was completely unmerited by anything that Israel did, in fact, in spite of what they did.

Israel is personified as a singular "elect" who has indeed been predestinated according to God's eternal purpose of redemption to be saved at Gods appointed time yet in the future (Rom. 11:28-32) according to the new covenant (Ezek. 36:26-27; Jer. 31:33-34; Heb. 8:10-13). As a type she illustrates each and every elect person chosen "in Christ" before the foundation of the world whom God has foreknown "according to His purpose" and thus predestinated unto salvation "according to His Purpose" or according to "the blood of the everlasting covenant."

In Romans 8 the everlasting covenant is spelled out in clear langauge and the word "called" is placed prior to "justified" demonstrating it is an aspect of salvation that precedes justification by faith. That is effectual calling or regeneration of the elect (Rom.8:33). Romans 9 denies that the promised salvation to Israel AS A NATION is due to natural birth through a blood line but is due to God's elective purpose of grace by supernatural birth as illustrated in Isaac and Jacob. This salvation would be in connection with faith in the gospel (Rom. 10) and not works and that at God's appointed time "all Israel shall be saved" even as promised according to God's everlasting covenant of redemption (Rom.11:25-32). Continuing evidence of this future covenant promise is the salvation of a "elect" remnant in every generation although the nation has never been saved in any generation as of yet, but will after all the gentile elect have been brought in, and then at the second coming of Christ "all Israel" will be saved as promised according to God's eternal covenant of election.

Israel as a nation is the personification of every elect God saves. They begin as lost (worldly or religious) for an unknown period of their existence, but at God's appointed time the gospel comes to them in power and in the Spirit and they will be saved. Moreover, they struggle with the flesh during their earthly existence but may experience a life of victory by crucifying the flesh and ultimately will be brought into the promised land (which is not heaven, but the new earth with New Jerusalem).

So, election, predestination and effectually calling can harmonize perfectly with 1 Corinthians 1-4 or Romans 8-11 or any other New Testament passages on salvation as much as it can with Israel personified as "the elect" and her ultimate salvation.

Now, with this said, let us please get back to the OP and the challenge in the OP and that is can you the reader demonstrate from the immediate context why my interpretation of it is wrong.

 

[The Biblicist]

I am reposting the OP because it got derailed for a while.


26 For you see your calling, brothers, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, has God chosen, yes, and things which are not, to bring to nothing things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30 But of him are you in Christ Jesus, who of God is made to us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31 That, according as it is written, He that glories, let him glory in the Lord.

I know there are some on this forum that deny that the above passage refers to election to salvation through the effectual call. I want to understand why you do from a contextual perspective.

Let me provide how I see the immediate context unfolding and then if you are among those who repudiate this passage refers to elective calling to salvation then please point out by the IMMEDIATE contextual analysis why you believe my analysis is incorrect.

I believe Paul is dealing with primary issues of division within the Corinthian congregation throughout out this epistle. However, the immediate issue of division is over the administrator of water baptism (1 Cor.1:13-17). Paul's response to this particular issue covers chapters 1:13-4:7. His response goes as follows:

1. The gospel is superior to baptism because the gospel is the power of salvation - vv. 17-31

2. Salvation is not due to the charisma or power of the preacher but to the Holy Spirit - 2:1-19

3. Preachers all work together as "one" under the leadership of the Spirit of God in building the congregation at Corinth therefore glory not in men or in their gifts - 3:1-4:7

Now the immediate breakdown of the first section (1:17-31) goes as follows:

1. The gospel is the wisdom and power of God
2. The world thinks the gospel is foolish and the jews seek signs
3. God purposely chose and called to salvation what the world regards as foolish, weak and beggerly so as to confound the world and its wisdom so that nothing robs God of His glory.
4. God's reason for choosing and calling is that none will be able to glory in his presence, because God's choice, calling and power are responsible for you being "in him".

Now, please respond as requested and let us do this in a manner that is charitable to all.

 

[JamesL]

I know there are some on this forum that deny that the above passage refers to election to salvation through the effectual call. I want to understand why you do from a contextual perspective....

Right there is where your misunderstanding lies. I don't deny that election is unto salvation.

What I deny is your application of the word salvation. And since the context does not use the word salvation, much less define it or give a proper paradigm for application, on what grounds with in this immediate context are you finding your understanding of salvation?

And where are you finding your understanding that election is unto your understanding of salvation?

 

[JamesL]

It seems that threads always get derailed when posters cannot deal with the OP. Without derailing this thread, let me comment on your comments which have nothing to do with the OP.

it has nothing to do with "cannot deal with the OP"

You have set parameters that you are not abiding by, either. You have imported presuppositions into the text. You have imported your misunderstanding of various terms, and then you insist that everyone abide by those misunderstandings.

This is reminiscent of the thread on conditional immortality, where the initial assertion was made that eternal life simply means live forever and then was equated with existing forever. And you went to Great Lengths to argue against that presupposition. Yet you're doing the same thing here

Egypt is a type of this world. The wilderness is a type of of the Christian life in its struggle with the flesh. The promised land is a double type. It is a type of victory over the flesh in our current life. It is also a type of the new heaven and earth.

maybe. Maybe not.

Deliverance into the promised land is based entirely upon a covenant made before Israel existed (Deut. 7:7-9; 9:6-9). It was made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who are types of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and the "everlasting covenant" of redemption. Their total redemption was based on that covenant before they were born, before Israel existed.

God makes it very clear that the deliverance from Egypt and bringing them into the promise land was completely unmerited by anything that Israel did, in fact, in spite of what they did.

I agree. And salvation wasn't simply a matter of Deliverance. It was a matter of reward and inheritance. That's what God first promised to Abraham in Genesis 15 - great is your reward. And Abraham wondered what God would give him seeing how he had no son.

In other words, he had no one to pass an inheritance to. That's when God told him to look at the stars. See, the promise to Abraham and the Covenant with him related to an inheritance for his posterity.

They were chosen for it ahead of time. The whole nation was elect by virtue of being Abraham's descendants. And Paul says it is not the Jew who is one outwardly, but it's the Jew who is one in relief - according to the faith of Abraham

And there is an eternal inheritance that Believers have been called too. Not just call to saving faith and being redeemed and being delivered from the consequences of our sin.

See, every bit of that pertains to your original post. You may not like it because it doesn't fit your narrative and it doesn't fit your demand. But it's a plain fact. You simply will not understand that passage if the only thing you look at is that passage

 

[The Biblicist]

Right there is where your misunderstanding lies. I don't deny that election is unto salvation.

What I deny is your application of the word salvation. And since the context does not use the word salvation, much less define it or give a proper paradigm for application, on what grounds with in this immediate context are you finding your understanding of salvation?

And where are you finding your understanding that election is unto your understanding of salvation?

Wrong! The context has been provided 1 Cor. 1:17-4;7 and it most certainly does use the past tense form of "salvation"

1. 1:18 "saved" - found in the immediate context of initial salvation at the time of baptism.
2. 3:15 "saved"- found in the immediate context of future judgement after Christ returns.

The context also uses the words "God has chosen" and "called" in the context of initial salvation in connection with baptism and being put in Christ (1:26-30).

 

[The Biblicist]

it has nothing to do with "cannot deal with the OP"

You have set parameters that you are not abiding by, either. You have imported presuppositions into the text. You have imported your misunderstanding of various terms, and then you insist that everyone abide by those misunderstandings.

The context is extremely clear that Paul is referring to the initial aspect of salvation when the preachers came and preached the gospel and baptized them with reference to the assembly at Corinth. The context is crystal clear about this as chapter 3:5-10 is a summary of that initial work of God through his ministers which laid the "foundation" for that assembly.

He is not talking about our inheritance in the future. He is not talking about our future hope. He is talking about the power being in the gospel rather than in baptism and how that power came to them by God's choice and calling so that they were placed "in Christ" so that none could boast about anything they did to achieve "in Christ" salvation.

You are trying to make the context fit your theories, your definitions which will not fit in this context except by pure eisegesis.

Again, you are trying to move the goal posts and derail the thread because you definitions of these terms make no sense in the passage under discussion.

This is reminiscent of the thread on conditional immortality, where the initial assertion was made that eternal life simply means live forever and then was equated with existing forever. And you went to Great Lengths to argue against that presupposition. Yet you're doing the same thing here

I am doing no such thing. I am taking the words "chosen" and "called" in keeping with the obvious and clear context of initial salvation preceding church membership. Your definitions simply cannot fit.

And salvation wasn't simply a matter of Deliverance.

Totally absurd! This was deliverance from Egypt "by the blood of the lamb" a clear type of initial salvation. Your failing to see all three tenses of salvation played out in (1) Egypt -saved; (2) Wilderness - being saved; (3) Promised land - shall be saved.

The wilderness and promised land also typify the believer who is struggling with the flesh (wilderness) and the believer having put to death the flesh under Joshua (Jesus) - promised land.

It was a matter of reward and inheritance. That's what God first promised to Abraham in Genesis 15 - great is your reward. And Abraham wondered what God would give him seeing how he had no son.

You are garbling everything together in one lump. All three tenses of salvation are clearly seen in Abraham from God's elective choice and calling in Genesis 11. His progressive sanctification in Genesis 13-29 and his future hope of a heavenly inheritance.

In other words, he had no one to pass an inheritance to. That's when God told him to look at the stars. See, the promise to Abraham and the Covenant with him related to an inheritance for his posterity.

They were chosen for it ahead of time. The whole nation was elect by virtue of being Abraham's descendants.

Yes, Abraham was a type of the Father, Isaac atype of the Son, and Jacob a type of the Holy Spirit and the covenant a type of the everlasting covenant of salvation. Their children of Jacob are types of the elect chosen in Issac before the nation of Israel ever existed. The nation is PERSONIFIED as "the elect" SINGULAR as a type of every elect "in Christ" and Israel will be saved yet in the future according to the everlasting covenant just as each elect will be saved the very same way.

And Paul says it is not the Jew who is one outwardly, but it's the Jew who is one in relief - according to the faith of Abraham

Personified Israel as a nation and individual Gentile elect are saved the very same way according to the covenant of redemption. Paul is addressing Jews and denying that natural birth obtains any aspect of covenant salvation but they must be supernatural born as in Isaac and must be chosen in Christ before they are born as in Jacob(Rom. 9) and they must be brought to faith in the Gospel (Rom.10) as do all elect, and they will be saved as promised and as provided "in Christ" (Rom.11).

 

[The Biblicist]

it has nothing to do with "cannot deal with the OP"

It most certainly does and any unbiased reader can easily see that you don't even deal with the context provided in the OP simply because you can't do it because the context is dealing with initial salvation and baptism prior to membership in the congregation at Corinth.

Your definitions simply won't make any contextual sense! Think I am wrong? Try to make you definitions fit with the contextual line of argument without perverting the obvious pre-church membership context. That is the challenge of the OP is it not? If you don't think my definitions are correct demonstrate why they are not ACCORDING TO THE CONTEXTUAL LINE OF ARGUMENT and demonstrate how yours are correct BY THE CONTEXTUAL LINE OF ARGUMENT. I am not going to jump all over Bible with you. The true meaning will fit the context and the false one will not and it is just that simple.

 

[The Biblicist]

With regard to my position, one is "chosen in him before the world began" (Eph. 1:4) with the objective to be holy and without blame before him (Eph. 1:4b) and that preceding "holy" or set apart condition is first "to salvation through the sanctification or setting apart by the Spirit and belief of the truth of the gospel (2 Thes. 2:13-14b). Paul places "called" prior to "justified" in his list in Romans 8:28-33 with regard to the "elect" (Rom. 8:33), just as he places "sanctification of the Spirit" prior to "belief of the truth" of the gospel in 2 Thes. 2:13-14 with regard to the elect ("chosen"). Hence, "called" in Romans 8:29 occurs prior to justification by faith. Paul gives the analogy of Genesis 1:3 and the effectually calling of light into darkness as the creative work of God which is what Paul describes the quickening work of the Spirit in Ephesians 2:1,5,10 as being "created in Christ Jesus".

 

[Martin Marprelate]

With regard to my position, one is "chosen in him before the world began" (Eph. 1:4) with the objective to be holy and without blame before him (Eph. 1:4b) and that preceding "holy" or set apart condition is first "to salvation through the sanctification or setting apart by the Spirit and belief of the truth of the gospel (2 Thes. 2:13-14b).

On a point of clarification, do you believe that the elect are 'holy and without blame before Him' before they believe? Your post seems to indicate that you do.