ELECTION: DID GOD CHOOSE ME, OR DID I CHOOSE HIM?

[Jack]

Did God elect me before the foundation of the world, based upon His fore-knowledge of my faith and/or works, Or upon His good pleasure, without consideration of my faith or works? Have at it!

[Jack]

Gina and Nicole; I have a different take on Hebrews 12:17. To wit: When Esau saw (too late) What he had lost, to his brother Jacob, He begged his father with many tears
to withdraw his promise to Jacob, But the father had given his word, to Jacob, and would not repent. Esau sought his father's repentance, not his own.
Our Father won't go back on His word, no matter how much begging we do!
Does it fit the context?
Pretty far out? Never heard that before? Neither have I! But, Look at it again, might it not, be correct? Far out Jack

[Rayner Markley]

Slaves have free will like everyone else; they can choose to obey the master or not. They can choose to seek a new master or a new life. The inability to succeed in those endeavors does not negate the free will. Their free will comes from Adam; it is not controlled by their master nor is it supplied by the Holy Spirit in order for a person to repent.

[Rey Reynoso]

Christ is not an empty box: Christ is the culmination of everything. Determinists tend to put the cross in the overarching shadow of the arbitrary election of a random smattering of individuals decided upon before the foundation of the World. What was seen before the foundation of the world is unknown save this: (1) a slain lamb (2) a blood covered group.

We're told to make our election sure--I don't know how to deal with that. Test your election? Make sure you're elect? I can make some sense of it with the tests of 1 John to see that my life is indeed hidden in Christ's Light and Walk but I can't make sense of it with a theological construction that we can't ask or explore without being part of the Godhead.

Using common sense we would assume that God's election (under the deterministic model) would be despite race, nationality and even religion. God, say determinists, elects individuals to come to faith. And yet the historical record shows individuals trusting God within the sphere of the Gospel Message of a crucified Man. The elect didn't pop up out of Northern Russia blinking in their regenerated light but in Jerusalm, in the shadow of a cross. As the message spread around the world it was what folk believed and are justified by God.

Determinists would argue then that the revelation of the Elect was predetermined to be done by the foolishness of preaching of the cross and I would say "why is it dependent on that? Why, if their salvation is secure by God's choice do they need to hear a message at all? Why, if their salvation is secure, did Christ even have to die? Will there be people in the New Heavens and New Earth sitting there wondering what the heck they're doing there since they never had faith and never worked?

I know, I know: these arguments don't make sense. Maybe I'm attacking a straw man--after all, people spent a long time trying to come to terms with the text where it speaks of election. But so have I--maybe not 2000 years but I have seen that my reading of the text is found in many places, even within Reformed circles although these same folk maintain the status quo by quickly adding "Surely this means individuals but..."

Yet the oft-realized point that is blurred is that historically speaking, the Jews viewed election of the nation, of the covenant community and then within that covenant community they would openly acknowledge that breaking the Law puled a person from that community and those Outside of the community could be incorporated in by adhering to the God mandated things that delineated the community.

That was under Law.

But under the new community of God we're told that once within that community God will ensure its ultimate end--unlike that previous community which there was active participation in maintaining conformity to the community dictates.

This is then God's salvation by grace: made effective via faith.

So, going back to the main question: Did God elect me upon my works or upon His pleasure? Neither: He elected Christ to die, that sacrifice was going to cover, and those that would identify with God's mandate to trust in Him would be underneath that Cover. The Slain Lamb.

wow did I ramble.

[Nicole]

"Pharaoh hardened his own heart, then God hardened it. Ahab wanted to believe a lie, so God sent him a lie. People are to en masse reject the truth so God lets them believe the Lie.

I don't think hardening individuals to show mercy to others has anything to do with election to salvation but everything to do with God reserving His sovereign right to do that to individuals who reject the Truth or even partially harden them because He has big plans.

Also, I don't think anyone ever said that we can save ourselves: that's a canard that Calvinists specifically like to raise. Just because someone believes doesn't mean they freed themselves or saved themselves or anything themselves. We're saved solely on by the means of God's grace, on the grounds of His mercy, by the power of Christ's death through the stupidity of faith in the God who sent the message of the foolish cross by the absurdity of preaching.

And Esau sought repentance from what? Rejecting the Gospel because he had no will to believe it before the foundation of the world? Of course not: he rejected the inheritance of the firstborn and it was given to another. This has nothing to do with election to justification but everything to do with the example of a person who came short of promise by believing it and still rejecting it for current, present-day, satisfaction. It's a sobering example but it has nothing to do with election."

1. I think you are putting up an order to who hardened Pharaoh's heart first that I do not see in Scripture.... I'm going to have to do some rereading.

2. You may say it regarded the inheritance - and that is the context BUT the author of Hebrews (whoever that is) - used it in a much broader (is that a word?) sense - which is why I suggest you read the whole chapter.

3. I am not saying anyone said we COULD save ourselves. The point is, there is nothing in us that compels us to come to Him. There is a whole lot of free will talk, but I think Scripture teaches that apart from the regenerating work of God in us, we are free to choose sin. Every time, sin wins. A weak summary of Edwards. Man, you guys have me reading in so many different directions right now...

And, tone is still somewhat irrelevant to me Rey, so long as I understand what you are saying.

[Rey Reynoso]

Nicole said:

1. I think you are putting up an order to who hardened Pharaoh's heart first that I do not see in Scripture.... I'm going to have to do some rereading.

2. You may say it regarded the inheritance - and that is the context BUT the author of Hebrews (whoever that is) - used it in a much broader (is that a word?) sense - which is why I suggest you read the whole chapter.

3. I am not saying anyone said we COULD save ourselves. The point is, there is nothing in us that compels us to come to Him. There is a whole lot of free will talk, but I think Scripture teaches that apart from the regenerating work of God in us, we are free to choose sin. Every time, sin wins. A weak summary of Edwards. Man, you guys have me reading in so many different directions right now...

And, tone is still somewhat irrelevant to me Rey, so long as I understand what you are saying.

I actually read all of Hebrews yesterday afternoon while preparing Psalm 40 for the Bible Study and Prayer meeting. Even in light of the entire book the point of the illustration is that Esau fell short of the promised inheritance because he knowingly spurned it and proved himself unworthy of attaining it. After which, it was impossible for him to get that inheritance again since it was given away. The same point is made in Chapters 6 (and the chapter that these verses are in) with the overall message of the book: People, don't come this close to repentance with all of God's illumination and turn back now. Doing so can be eternally disastrous.

Who is talking about free will? The fact that someone can hear God's message and trust the One who has proved Himself over (Creation) and over (the Exodus) and over (the Cross) again as Trustworthy doesn't mean that we have ability to go to Him apart from Him--it proves that God has worked and some stupid, weak, pitiful creature has given up and trusted Him to work. That has absolutely nothing to do with what's is or isn't inside a person to compel them but everything to do with a life stopping Spirit illuminating process of being convicted of sin, righteousness and judgment (as I defined earlier from John 16). And even in light of that, people still reject the message (so argues the writer to Hebrews, so argues Paul in Romans 9 - 11).

Regeneration has the most tenuous, you can even say incidental, connection to election. Even a deterministic model would say that regeneration is only the in time execution of God's eternal declarative choosing of the individual. In other words: it is not God choosing, it's God in-time doing. It's the work that occurs of transforming one to be born again, say determinists, before belief.

I think that's baloney and it grows out from some folk thinking that faith is actually a work: but that's probably a whole different thread.

[ModBot2000]

This topic has a history of sparking intense emotions and the thread is going long so I wanted to remind you of Rules of Engagement. Here’s Theologica’s position on debate. Here’s a good post about proper debating.

In thought with moderation, in words with grace and in action with love.

[James Gibbons]

Sounds holier than thou, don't it?

Yep, Jack. But maybe you are. Have a good one, brother.

[James Gibbons]

Wow! This is an epic battle, y’all. It’s been raging for 2000 years or so. And here it continues. And it will probably continue to rage until the Lord comes and settles it—and our side is shown to be right (kidding)

Love to you all.

[Gina]

The point is, there is nothing in us that compels us to come to Him.

The only way that this can seem significant is if you see God operating largely externally and distant from His creation, in dualistic fashion. That's not how Romans 1 shows us God operates. It is, to use Dallas Willard's term, a God-bathed world. He is everywhere, so even if you wanted to and tried really hard, you could not set aside a "this is just me" Pelagian foundation. From the moment we are born and even before that, according to the Psalms, God is calling to us.

[James Gibbons]

Gina Mosko said:

The point is, there is nothing in us that compels us to come to Him.

The only way that this can seem significant is if you see God operating largely externally and distant from His creation, in dualistic fashion. That's not how Romans 1 shows us God operates. It is, to use Dallas Willard's term, a God-bathed world. He is everywhere, so even if you wanted to and tried really hard, you could not set aside a "this is just me" Pelagian foundation. From the moment we are born and even before that, according to the Psalms, God is calling to us.

Yes, Gina. I was reading just this morning how your argument is supported at Mars Hill:


Acts 17:27-28 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

[Chen Yew Lin]

We love Him because He first love us.

[Chen Yew Lin]

Hi Jack, In response to your Q, I think God decreed according to His love and wisdom; and all things proceeded in that direction. Fore-knowledge does not come before God's will because there was nothing; He created everything there was.