Featured Foresight Faith View versus the Corporate View of Election in Baptist life?

Some Lessons About Election for Salvation

1. Election is based on God's foreknowledge (1 Peter 1:2).

2. Election means God planned man's salvation before the creation (Ephesians 1:5,11). It means God, by his foreknowledge, has predestinated the Christian to a glorious future (1 Peter 1:2-4; Romans 8:29-30). It is not who is predestinated, but to what we are predestinated.

3. Election does not mean God arbitrarily chooses who will be saved and who will not be. He has revealed that He wants all men to be saved (2 Peter 3:9).

“The elect are the ‘whosoever wills’; the non-elect are the ‘whosoever wont's.’”...D. L. Moody

 

I think understanding God as atemporal helps in reconciling this issue. It isn't that God is isolated to understanding our existence along our lines, but sees all things outside of linearity.

Applying this with a reasonable dose of molinism then helps squares up how we can have free moral agency without necessitating determinism.

 

Adam Clarke on Election, I rather like his position of corporate election.


http://evangelicalarminians.org/?q=node/257

 

I try to stay away from these discussions, but let me drive by and throw a couple of things into the mix.

First, about corporate election: In Romans 9, Paul writes of both corporate and individual election. With regard to national Israel, it is an election to position and advantage.

Then, Paul writes of a remnant of Israel according to the election of grace. (Chap 11)

Otherwise, It is personal and it is discriminatory. In Romans 9:18, Paul writes that God will have mercy on whom he wants to, and will harden whom he wants to. This can only speak of individuals.

Further, God saves individuals. This involves his purpose to save them. Since God is immutable, he has always purposed to save them. From eternity. Another word for this purpose is election. Of individuals.

 

Both depend upon libertarian or contra-causal freedom. That is something I have not been convinced actually exists.

 

Skan, what is the material difference between the two views? Both depend on man's choice in order for God to elect them. I don't see the difference.

 

As I posted in another thread, there was this man who viewed election as follows:
"God votes for you.
Satan votes against you, and
Then I get to cast the deciding vote!!"

Problems with that view:
1) Satan isn't a registered voter, and
2) You were too young to be eligible to vote when the election took place!!!

:thumbs:

 

Here is Mr. Clarkes reasoning, I think very compelling for me.

Verse 12. The elder shall serve the younger These words, with those of Malachi, Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated, are cited by the apostle to prove, according to their typical signification, that the purpose of God, according to election, does and will stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; that is, that the purpose of God, which is the ground of that election which he makes among men, unto the honor of being Abrahams seed, might appear to remain unchangeable in him; and to be even the same which he had declared unto Abraham. That these words are used in a national and not in a personal sense, is evident from this: that, taken in the latter sense they are not true, for Jacob never did exercise any power over Esau, nor was Esau ever subject to him. Jacob, on the contrary, was rather subject to Esau, and was sorely afraid of him; and, first, by his messengers, and afterwards personally, acknowledged his brother to be his lord, and himself to be his servant; see Genesis 32:4; 33:8, 13. And hence it appears that neither Esau nor Jacob, nor even their posterities, are brought here by the apostle as instances of any personal reprobation from eternity: for, it is very certain that very many, if not the far greatest part, of Jacobs posterity were wicked, and rejected by God; and it is not less certain that some of Esaus posterity were partakers of the faith of their father Abraham.

From these premises the true sense of the words immediately following, Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated, Malachi 1:2, 3, fully appears; that is, that what he had already cited from Moses concerning the two nations, styled by the names of their respective heads, Jacob and Esau, was but the same in substance with what was spoken many years after by the Prophet Malachi. The unthankful Jews had, in Malachis time, either in words or in their heart, expostulated with God, and demanded of him wherein he had loved them? I have loved you, saith the Lord: yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Malachi 1:2-5. To this the Lord answers: Was not Esau Jacobs brother? Yet I loved Jacob and hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the Lord of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the Lord hath indignation for ever. And your eyes shall see, and ye shall say, The Lord will be magnified from the border of Israel.

It incontestably appears from these passages that the prophet does not speak at all of the person of Jacob or Esau, but of their respective posterities. For it was not Esau in person that said, We are impoverished; neither were his mountains nor heritage laid waste. Now, if the prophet speaks neither of the person of the one nor of the person of the other, but of their posterity only, then it is evident that the apostle speaks of them in the same way.

If neither the prophet nor the apostle speaks of the persons of Jacob or Esau, but of their posterity, then it is evident that neither the love of God to Jacob, nor the hatred of God to Esau, were such, according to which the eternal states of men, either in happiness or misery, are to be determined; nor is there here any Scriptural or rational ground for the decree of unconditional personal election and reprobation, which, comparatively, modern times have endeavored to build on these scriptures.

For, It is here proved that Esau is not mentioned under any personal consideration, but only as the head of his posterity.

The testimony of Scripture amply proves that all Esaus posterity were not, even in this sense, reprobated; nor all Jacobs posterity elected.

Neither does that service, or subjugation to Jacob, which the Divine oracle imposed on Esau, import any such reprobation as some contend for; as the servant may be elected, while the master himself is in a state of reprobation.

Were it even granted that servitude did import such a reprobation, yet it is certain that Esau, in person, never did serve Jacob.

Nor does the hatred of God against Esau import any such reprobation of the person of Esau, because it is demonstrable that it related, not to Esau personally, but to his posterity.

The scope of the apostles reasoning is to show that God is the sovereign of his own ways, has a right to dispense his blessings as he chooses, and to give salvation to mankind, not in the ways of their devising, but in that way that is most suitable to his infinite wisdom and goodness.

Therefore, He chose the Jewish people from all others, and revealed himself to them. Thus they were the elect, and all the nations of mankind reprobate.

When the fullness of the time came he revealed himself also to the Gentiles, who gladly received the Gospel: and the Jews rejecting it, were cast off. Thus the elect became reprobate, and the reprobate, elect.

He published to all mankind that the pardon of sin could and should be obtained ONLY by faith in his Son Jesus, and not by any obedience to any law. And the Jews, the descendants of Jacob, who rejected this way of salvation, became precisely like the Edomites, the descendants of Esau; they builded, but God pulled down; their mountains and heritage are NOW laid waste for the dragons of the wilderness; and they properly may now be called the border of wickedness, a people against whom the Lord hath indignation for ever: they have rejected the Lord that bought them, and so have brought upon themselves swift destruction.

That no personal, absolute, eternal reprobation of Esau can have been intended, we learn from this; that he was most amply reconciled to his brother, who had so deeply wronged and offended him, by depriving him of his birthright and his blessing: and his having forgiven his brother his trespasses, was no mean proof that God had forgiven him. See our Lords words, Matthew 6:14. Therefore there can be assigned no competent ground of his damnation, much less of his personal reprobation from all eternity.

And were such a personal reprobation intended, is it not shocking to suppose that the God of endless mercy, in whose sight his pious parents had found favor, should inform them, even before their child was born, that he had absolutely consigned him, by an irrevocable decree to eternal damnation? A message of such horrid import coming immediately from the mouth of God, to a tender, weak, and delicate woman, whose hour of travail with two children was just at hand, could not have failed to produce abortion, and destroy her life. But the parents perfectly understood their God, and saw no decree of reprobation in his message; two manner of nations are in thy womb-and the elder shall serve the younger.

There is no reason, worthy the most wise and gracious God, why he should make known to the world such a thing concerning Esau, who was yet unborn, that he had reprobated him from all eternity. Such a revelation could be of no spiritual advantage or edification to mankind, but rather of a malignant influence, as directly occasioning men to judge hardly of their Maker, and to conceive of him as no faithful Creator; as having no care, no love, no bowels of compassion towards the workmanship of his own hands. See Goodwins Exposition: and see my notes on Gen. 27.

 

Nope. That was not Pauls conclusion. More later....still working.

 

romans 11 does explain it;
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

an ELECT REMNANT of Israel.....and formerly non covenant people[elect gentiles]


30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:

31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.

32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

 

Actually, the 'whosoever wills' groups ARE the elect of God, as He chose them to get saved Himself, NOT them choosing Him first! As the Lord has to grant them the wills to actually come to jesus to be saved!

 

Don't both camps within Arminians still though have SAME basis for their election, as its by their 'free will response" to the Lord jesus?

 

Still have SAME basic problem 'classic' Arminians have though...

Sinners cannot receive jesus and be saved in their current 'natural" states!

Free will option not available!