Who are the ELECT?

Who believes that the elect are saved without regard to their faith? The elect are saved by faith. The elect choose to follow Christ.

What doesn't happen is that the elect are elected because of their faith. Instead, they are chosen by God "from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth." (2 Thessalonians 2:13)

In other words, the elect (in this particular way the word is used) are chosen for salvation, and the means by which this is brought about is the setting apart by the Spirit and faith in the gospel.

These "elect", you will notice, were elected "from the beginning for salvation", but they were "called... to this salvation through [Paul's preaching of the] gospel." (2:14)

They were saved in time and in response to their faith; they were elected for salvation from the beginning--elect to be brought to faith rather than elect because of faith.

 

Well, if you can't find it then it must not be there. The scriptures have been posted, and the exposition has been posted, but you cling to your self-made system, so there's nothing more to say.

 

There are at least two possible reasons that I might have said nothing:

1) If you were correct then I would have said nothing.
2) If I thought it would have been ignored or distorted then I would have said nothing.

So, I wanted you to know why I said nothing. If you would really like to discuss this then I will, but it looked like flame bait to me.

 

What are they chosen for?
Gina

 

OK, sorry about that. It's just what it looked like to me. I was wrong, and I apologize.

From the OP:

You won't find that in scripture, but that is not what we believe, anyway. The elect are saved by grace through faith. No one is saved apart from faith. Also, the elect can resist God, but God will ultimately win.

Concerning the Book of Life - the Bible is ambiguous, so while I think your interpretation is wrong I won't argue about it.

As for this:

Salvation is through faith, because of the prior selection by God. I think it is clear from the context that 2 Peter 3:9 is discussing believers, and the point is that God is delaying final judgment until all of God's elect have come to repentance. It seems clear to me that those with whom He is patient with are the same ones who He doesn't want to perish, the same ones who He wants to come to repentance.

Now, let's look at 2 Thess. 2:13-14.

I see these truths:

1) God chose those Thessalonian believers;
2) He chose them from the beginning;
3) He chose them to be saved;
4) He saved them by means of the Spirit and faith;
5) He called them to salvation by means of Paul's preaching the gospel; and
6) The goal is for believers to partake of the glory of Christ.

What I don't see is any discussion of why God chose the Thessalonian believers. You seem to be saying that he chose them because of foreseen faith. I'm sure you will correct me if I am wrong about that. The main problem I have with that theory is that the scripture never says it. This text doesn't say that because God foresaw their response to Paul's preaching He chose them from the beginning. You are reading this into the passage. It simply says that He chose them, and He called them, but it doesn't say why He chose them.

As for this:

these for whom Jesus is praying were not set apart from the foundation of the world, but did, through the teachings of the Apostles, "tradition's that we taught you", come to believe in Jesus.</font>[/QUOTE]Again, you are reading too much into this verse. Jesus speaks of the means of our salvation, but here he neither affirms nor denies whether we were set apart from the foundation of the world. It is clear from the Thessalonian passage that the choice and the means are separate issues. We know that we were set apart from the foundation of the world because of other passages. This passage simply isn't relevant to that topic.

 

The "elect" and "whosoever believeth" are the same people. All of the elect will repent and believe, and then judgment will come. That's Peter's point.

When Paul says "God chose you" he is identifying them with "the elect". And he doesn't say that they were elect through faith. He says they were chosen from the beginning, and that they were saved through faith, but he does not say that they were chosen from the beginning because they would someday believe. That just isn't there.

 

An excellent example of the above is Jacob and Esau.

Romans 9:11-16 NIV
11. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad - in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12. not by works but by him who calls - she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13. Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. (Before they were born)
14. What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15. For he says to Moses,

"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion"

16. It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

 

The N.T. and Wycliffe Bible Commentary in the portion on Romans written by Dr. A. Berkeley Mickelsen, B.D. & Ph.D., Professor of Bible and Theology, Graduate School, Wheaton College, says,

‘The historical situation of both individuals and peoples certainly affects their eternal destiny. But election in Romans 9:10-13 is not electionfor eternal salvation or damnation. Rather, it is selection for the roles God has called individuals and nations to play in their earthly life.’

And I will add that Jacob was chosen because of the purity of the stock which led to our Lord’s birth as the Son of the Promise. Esau was elected to fill a less significant function and, to my knowledge, none of his children ever became one of the Twelve Tribes of Israel.

Augustinian Calvinism thinks in another erring way leading to a conclusion in Romans nine. Once you start down that road you will tend to make more errors. These archaic concepts are hardly a reasonable response to a careful study of His Word. The Cross points to His unthinkable sacrifice, His love, justice and mercy. God’s attributes just stated do not suggest Jesus as being an Autocratic Monarch in His Kingdom.

 

Ray,

If this is true, how do you explain Pauls train of thought that begins with Pauls concern starting in verses 1-3? As one writer noted:

"Paul in Romans 9-11 is not merely that Israel has lost temporal blesings, or that its historical destiny has not evolved the way he anticipated. Paul agonizes over the place of Israel in Romans 9-11 because too many in his nation were not saved."

"The particular question in his mind in verses 1-5 relates to the salvation of Israel, and thus the claim that God's word has not failed (9:6) must be interpreted in relationship to the issue that is at the forfront of Paul's mind-- namely, the salvation of Israel." -Thomas R. Schreiner

Question- If Romans 9 deals with corporate groups then why does Paul use the "singular" consistantly throughout the chapter? This seems to clearly point towards salvation and not just corporate blessings on groups.

 

Wes,

Your interpretation does not do justice to the text.There are many problems I see with this interpretation. I will briefly note just a few:

1.)You would have to say that Paul departs the very issue that he raised in verses 1-6. That is clearly dealing with salvation. That is discussed throughout this chapter (9:32), Not to mention chapter 10(10:1) and 11(11:1,26ff) also.

2.)How could Paul be speaking of Israel as a whole when He makes a distinction of particular individuals "within" national Israel(vs.6). The selection of a remnant implies that these individuals were chosen out of the larger grouping (national Israel)(9:6;11:1).

Conclusion-Much more could be said, but these two alone make your interpretation questionable.

 

Wes,