Election
Thanks to Amillennialist for his reply to my question.
This is my response. My thoughts on the topic are neither complete nor unwilling to be changed. I am trying to understand the truth of God revealed through his word without imposing what I think it should say. So discussion and reforming of ideas is essential.
Surely if you want to use John 15:6 in a discussion about election it would show that Jesus (God) does choose people, they don’t choose him — as you have highlighted in that verse?
I’ve heard quite a bit of teaching that says that Ephesians 2:8-9 is saying,
“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this [that you are saved by grace through faith] is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”
Therefore, not only grace, but also faith, is the gift by which we are saved. This would be supported by 1 Corinthians 12:3,
“… no one can say Jesus is Lord except in the Holy Spirit.”
Having faith is essentially confessing that Jesus is Lord (and able to save), which cannot be done apart from the Holy Spirit. So, God must have a very significant, if not essential role in us having faith at all.
Paul’s point here is not that God hates (or rejects) people just because He chooses to do so (Calvinism’s Double Predestination), it is that God’s blessings depend on His mercy and are received by faith, not by works.
I have no doubt that many of God’s chosen people and heroes of faith, so to speak, were sinful. “No one is good except God alone”. However, I don’t think Romans 9-11 is talking about undeserved salvation through faith, as much as it is talking about God’s sovereignty. God power and method is shown through Jesus Christ, so it’s necessary to show that we are saved by faith, not by our works, to show God’s sovereignty. Otherwise we would have some kind of control over our destiny, but we don’t.
The reason I think Romans is about that is because of the repetition:
6But it is not as though the word of God has failed.
14Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means!
21Has the potter no right over the clay…
He also, calls people “elect”? What do you think that means if we choose to believe in him?
Paul does not state that the hardening God did was His “sovereign choice” (that subtitle in the ESV and NIV is human commentary, not Divine revelation) to condemn someone; rather, he declares that its purpose was to show His power to the entire world.
I never read the subheadings, so none of the impressions I get about the text are from them (and believe me, I have been trying and praying that I would come to these passages without bias).
Verse 22 does say “desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power”. I’m sure he doesn’t find punishment pleasurable, but it does seem to be saying that he chooses to act among humans to make known his power, not only in saving, but punishing too. Not only to the extent that he is completely just and merciful to mankind through Jesus Christ, but that it’s necessary for some hearts to be hardened, which Exodus, Habakuk and Romans make clear is God’s doing as well as men’s responsibility.
Does God’s patience with “objects of wrath prepared for destruction” (Romans 9:22) mean that He created people for Hell? No, since we believers are by nature, “objects of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3).
I’ve heard it said before that Romans 9 only says he “endured with much patience vessels of wrath” and so we can’t conclude with certainty that God created people not to be saved. However, it then goes on to say that they are “prepared for destruction” and then contrasts them with “vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory”. If the contrast was not there, I think it could certainly be describing us all who at some point were objects of wrath, but the analogy fails for me if it’s not talking about two distinct groups of people.
Most importantly, Paul shows us that the reason Israel is rejected is not because of “God’s sovereign choice,” because of its unbelief, through which they reject Christ
Yes, they pursued a righteousness based on works, but then Paul also says that when Christ came he was a stumbling block to them because (Romans 11)
8God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that would not see
and ears that would not hear,
down to this very day.
I very much appreciate that there is a tension here because it is obvious that we are saved by faith, but the bible also seems clear that faith is impossible apart from the Spirit. You say that Calvinism denies God’s kindness, forbearance, and patience to many. I think a Calvinist would say that it is God who does that, which is why Paul says,
33Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!


{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Hello Kristarella,
Not trying to move in on your topic with Amillennialist, frankly, it’s a bit above me or too in-depth. I am not one who can quote the Bible. But I did read your words on Amillenialist’s site.
I see logic in your view but if I may argue with you a bit. You can be sure it’s not in malice. Also I may be in the realm of ‘hypocracy’ in Church traditions for I have not been a Church member and all that myself. Not a great writer either, ha. As far as being an American today with a hundred or so denominations I think I would find more truth in those older documents the closer going back to the original source of the Bible. The difficulty being I do not have the same mindset as the people of the time.
It was not my intentions to put weight on the ‘Bible’ vs. ‘tradition’. But rather ‘man-made’ traditions derrived from the oral teachings of Jesus and God’s making of the Bible go together. Would not Jesus had known what ‘man’ would have to do to spread the ‘word’. Organize. Institutionalize. And call it a ‘Church’. I have read words where they say Jesus never meant for there to be a ‘Church’ but I don’t believe that line. ‘Man’ has to have institutions otherwise we would never advance and would just be a ‘mob’.
Today I have seen babtist that go to Church and are working very hard at making it a time for entertainment rather then teaching. I have also noticed that these same people practice nothing of the wisdom in the Bible. There individual Church has no tradition to itself as a religion. They are not rejoicing in the wisdom of God but rejoicing in being entertained yet another day in the week. These places are the same places where the podium becomes a propoganda pulpit for many other things.
Well, that’s kind of the direction I was meaning without getting into the nitty gritty observations in travels. I also Thank You for the book authors. This last year I have started reading some Catholic books but I am not yet Catholic. Nor am I an ‘elitest’, ha.
Be good!
Hi ArloRay,
Sorry it took me so long to respond!
I completely agree. There is a whole lot of issues that arise in all kinds of churches. The importance of being close to God through music and being blessed financially because of your faith or because of your giving to the church are some particularly insidious ones that are popular today.
When you were talking about the Roman Catholic church I thought you meant the church as it comes under the Pope, which puts as much weight in the teachings as they are made up by the Pope (even if they have no real biblical basis) as they do on the bible, which I don’t agree with. I certainly wouldn’t advocate many ‘protestant’ churches as being any better. ;)
:zzz: Oh, sorry, I must have fallen alseep while waiting. Ha, no apalogies necessary. Surprised though. Not sure what you don’t agree on with the pope having teaching authority ? I understand he can’t use ‘infalubility’ on everything he speaks or writes. Hey, guess what…since the time I stopped to comment on your space here I have begun RCIA class’ . Getting more details about the purpose of Vatican II and much more. I think being a Catholic is going to very satisfying and educational.
Your site is nice. Spent a little time wandering. Copied some of your links in reference to webpage design stuff.
Not in the mood to debate at the moment. So, until next month, perhaps…
Be Good!
Heh, you’re funny ;)
I guess infallibility is the word hey? It seems to me that the church says he can’t be wrong, and even after he’s died and another Pope says something that logically contradicts him, they say both are correct and find some work-around. Teaching authority is cool though, I quite like the Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen, who teaches with authority and grace.
Good for you man, hope you enjoy your classes. You know what, as long as you believe (Eph 2:8-9) then all other debates are merely for clarity and academy.
I’m never looking for debate, merely understanding through discussion. ;)
Cheers for the thoughts and for the comments on the site! I’m currently redoing it. It’ll pretty much be the same; just some tweaks and I’ll be using the Thesis theme from DIYthemes. I have heaps of refs for all kind of design stuff, if you can’t find something feel free give me a holler. :D
Ha, I was getting ready for a long nap. You set me up.
o.k., for the sake of ‘clarity’ “Comment only for the purpose of discussion.” (women, always got to debate over words) :bust:
Leaving the computer now to go home. Bye!