2 Timothy 2:10

It is true that the Jewish nation is sometimes referred to as the elect. But this is not the only use of the word elect in the scriptures.

As has been pointed out, in the passage Paul is merely saying that he is working hard so that the elect may get the gospel. Even though God chose them, this does not negate the fact that someone must bring the gospel, and the elect must receive it.

God is eternal, which is non-temporal, so everything he does is based in eternity. We are based in time, so all our actions are in time.

 

There is no possibility that the elect will not hear the gospel, nor is there any possibility that the elect will not be saved.

It matters not which view of election you take.

If you take the 5-point Calvinist view, which is that God has chosen out of the human race those whom he will save and will take all steps to bring them to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. Romans 8:28 "Those he calls, he justifies..."

If you take the non-Calvinist view, that election is based on God's foreknowledge of who will hear the gospel, repent and believe and be saved, the result is the same. The elect are those who hear the gospel and are saved.

 

No. They will all hear and respond in faith.

 

God is pleased to use whatever means He chooses, including men (like Paul) and women, to win the lost. He is dependent on no one.

 

Is it like God depending on there being stones? Matt 3:9 And do not think you can say to yourselves, `We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.

john.

 

You're grasping for straws for here, Helen.
As Humblesmith neatly and accurately pointed out:

 

LOL, that was an apt reply.

 

Does God work "hard"?
Please prove from Scripture where the Gospel message is only for the "elect"...

Again, please show where the "elect" are chosen FOR salvation from Scripture. It seems you are putting limits on God's sovereignty by telling Him what He "must" do to meet your standards. This is normally what the non cal's are accused of.

This really makes no sense. You have basically said God is not in our time, and can make no decision within man's "time"...He's non temporal. If this is true, He's not God.
God is atemporal and omnitemporal. He exists everywhere, both inside and outside of time, at the same time.

 

I don't know...who? Helen seems to be the only one to get the context of who the "elect" are from my viewpoint

 

Helen didn't get the meaning of "TOO" or "ALSO" right in this verse. I find her meaning of "elect" to be equally dubious.

 

God ordains the ends as well as the means. In your position, it seems that God has rendered himself helpless and dependent on the obedience of man. In our position, God has not.

 

Webdog, you are correct about most of this, and I think I agree with most of your positions (I think). But just consider the strict logic.....just because in this verse Paul is saying he's working to get the gospel to the elect, does not mean that the gospel is only for the elect. For example, in another place I think Paul mentions himself being saved.....this does not mean that others are not. So you are correct. It's just that in this particular verse, he's talking about getting the gospel to the elect.

I think 1 Peter 1:1-2 shows fairly solidly that some are chosen for salvation. But that doesn't automatically prove limited atonement.......again, that Paul can say "Christ died for me" does not mean that he died for no one else.

But I think that one of the keys to understanding the whole election/free will debate is in understanding that God is eternal, and eternity is not endless time, it's non-temporal. God is not limited by time. Now, he does works which are in time, but being eternal, he can ordain works which are in time without being limited by it. The ancients gave the analogy of a doctor that ordains medicine to be prepared and given at particular times when he knows the patient will need it. But let's leave the time thing out, since it'll hijack the thread.

 

I agree it's not only for the elect. It's for everyone. This is another reason why Paul (a believing jew) had a special place in his heart for his own people. If anything, this would show that the jews are being referred to as the elect, as it would have been extremely hard to bring the Gospel to the same people that rejected Christ in person, in the same manner it's hard to bring the Gospel to Jewish people today.

 

Then please show this. I have never intentionally misstated your position (or anyone else's). So if you can show where I misstated your position, then I will rectify it. Of course, I have been accused of this before, and every time I ask for evidence, I am refused.

I have never pretended to have all the answers. Where I don't know something, or don't have an explanation, I say that. I have never squirreled around any problem. If you have a place in mind, please state it and I will deal with it. I may do so by linking you to a former post, since I think I have taken the time to deal with most questions on this topic. I may just restate an answer rather than look up where I dealt with it before.

But please do more than make accusations. I cannot respond to these nebulous things. When I object to your posts, I state reasons, giving quotes so as to properly use your words. I would appreciate the same from you so that I can deal with the issues you have questions about.

 

So where is the misrepresentation of your position? You will notice by reading closely (or even not so closely) that I said nothing about what you believe, but rather what "it seems" that your position entails.

I realize you do not believe that God rendered himself helpless. I don't know how you avoid it though, based on what you have said. That is why I said "it seems." I think perhaps your objection is based on the fact that you focused on the word "helpless" rather than "it seems" (indicating a inference drawn) and "rendered himself" indicating that God has chosen not to help people beyond this universal enabling.

So when God allows man to have a choice regarding his own salvation (something I don't deny, BTW), what does God then do? Does he do something in the individual to bring belief about? Does he sit back and let him live his life and see what happens?

Here is where, if I understand your position correctly, God enables every man and then sits back and lets life play out. He does not intervene in the life of one person more than another. He gives them all an equal chance to accept or reject.

As I have pointed out before, your analogies don't work. They are flawed. But this one not so bad as most. When the child makes a bad choice (i.e., for my birthday party I want beer, ice cream, and strippers), the parent overrules.

Yet, if I understand your position correctly, you say that when the unbeliever makes a bad choice (i.e., I don't want to believe and get saved), God will not step into overrule.

So if you read my original statement, I did not say that God was helpless. I said that it seems he has rendered himself helpless because, if I understand your position correctly, God will not step in to overrule a bad decision.

Then please show how. You made this statement previously, and when I asked for an example, all you did was point out that you missed the words "it seems" which indicated I was attempting to draw a conclusion based on what you said; I was not in any way defining your beliefs.

As was ably and simply demonstrated, your opening post was flawed. I dealt with the words of Paul in their context, and showed that you were incorrect. In other words, it is you who has squirreled around the text.

 

I would argue that eternal justification is proven from 2 Timothy 1:9, 10 but any way;

On 2 Timothy 2:10 Gill notes:

Therefore I endure all things for the elects' sakes,.... There is a certain number of persons whom God has chosen in Christ from everlasting unto salvation, who shall certainly be saved; for these Jesus Christ suffered and died; and on their account is the Gospel sent, preached, and published to the world; for their sakes are ministers fitted and qualified for their work, and have their mission and commission to perform it, and suffer what they do in the execution of it; and since it was for the sake of such, whom God had loved and chosen, that the apostle endured all his reproaches, afflictions, and persecutions, he was the more cheerful under them; and the consideration of it was a support unto him:

that they may also obtain; as well as himself, and other chosen vessels of salvation, who were called by grace already; for the apostle is speaking of such of the elect, who were, as yet, in a state of nature:

the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory; salvation is only by Christ Jesus, and in him; and this is only for the elect of God; and it is published in the Gospel, that they might obtain it; and in all ages they do obtain it, or enjoy it: the thing itself is obtained by Christ for them, through his obedience, sufferings, and death; and it is published in the everlasting Gospel, that they might come to the knowledge of it; and in the effectual calling it is brought near by the Spirit of God, and applied unto them; and they have now both a meetness for it, and a right unto it, and shall fully enjoy it in heaven; for it has "eternal glory", or "heavenly glory", as the Vulgate Latin and Ethiopic versions read, "annexed to it"; or rather the full enjoyment of it will consist in an eternal and heavenly glory, which will be put upon the saints, both in soul and body, and remain to all eternity.

 

So God wants to save people who are not elect?