The Elect

I hardly thinm that looking up words and checking out context is a waste of time. Doing that is my life and I love it. But what you have done is not sufficient. That's all.

If you think I said this then we on diametrically opposite sides of plain English. I said nothing of the sort. I prefer studying the Bible itself. I wish that you would have done more of it in this study. I wish you would have given more thought to the various contexts. Helen, it is no secret that you were not about the change your position by doing this study. You entered it with a predetermined conclusion that Cavlinism was wrong and was not supported by the text. Out of all the options of your study, finding out that Calvinism was true was not one of them. That is problemmatic.

So I maintain that eight hours could have been put to better use than this, IMO. I have read briefly through and see numerous examples of unsupported argumentation. You assert things wiht no suppport from the text.

For instance, you say about the Matthew passage, But they are chosen because they are His servants, and that is stated plainly. Yet it appears that there is no place in the text where this is stated. Why would you say it without supporting it? Why not tell us where the text says these were chosen because they are his servants? I am not saying the case can't be made. I am saying you didn't make it. You just made an assertion without any attempt to prove it. In fact, the word "serve" or "servant" does not even seem to be in that context, much less with a relationship drawn to their "election." The point we are dealing with is not whether the elect are his servants or not. The point is, "What relationship does election have to service, or to salvation?" This the point you never seem to address, at least that I have read.

On 2 Timothy 2:8-10 you say, ...he has not referred to the elect as anyone other than Jewish people. The truth is that while there are serious reservations about your conclusion in the "above" passages, there is absolutely no basis for your conclusion here. Paul is writing to Timothy about Gentiles churches and is arguing why imprisonment is worth. Paul made his life about Gentile churches. While he loved his fellow Israelites, virtually every single mission he went on was a Gentile mission. He was in prison for preaching to the Gentiles and he is saying he is willing to put up with that so that the elect might be saved. There is no reason to think that he is limiting elect to Jews. There is every reason to think he is not. But even at that you miss the clear and obvious. Whatever nationality these people are, their "election" precedes their salvation and in fact leads to their salvation. Why did you miss that clear point? You want to say that it doesn't remotely resemble predestination, but in fact there is a clear connection here between election and salvation. You say that at the end That He chooses those who have responded to Him is made quite clear. Yet this verse makes clear that God chose them before they chose him. These folks are not yet even saved.

This statement of yours (That He chooses those who have responded to Him is made quite clear) has no argumentation with it. You simply assert it; you don't show it to be true. That is a major weakness. In your eight hours, you should have devoted a few minutes to looking at passages where both the idea of election and salvation both occur so that you could address the relationship between them. You did not. That means you failed to adequately consider all aspects of hte discussion.

On Rom 8:33 and Col 3:12 you say Here the chosen, or elected, are clearly all Christians, and Paul is giving us reassurance regarding our standing with God. My response is "No kidding." None of us here dispute that. What you have not done is shown the relationship between being a Christian and being "chosen." And that is at the core of the issue. Failure to interact on this relationship is a major problem with your work. That is indeed the issue at hand and it is the issue you didn't make much of an attempt to deal with.

At the end you list a number of passages that use the word "kletos." You say it means "invitation." Yet the passages you list don't say that at all. In fact, most of them refer to people in whom that "call" was effectual. Paul was not invited to be an apostle. He was made one but the choice of God. 1 Cor 1:22-24 contrast the "called" with everyone else. For everyone else, Christ is a stumblingblock; for the "called" he is wisdom and power. This means that the "called" and the rest are two mutually exclusive groups since the "called" have one view and everyone else has another. Admittedly, many of these things are easily missed by surface consideration and by failing to note the context and the argument of the passages under consideration.

On James 2 you say James 2:5
Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised to those who love him?

In his warnings against showing favoritism, James is here showing how God chooses to use certain believers, not that He chose them to believe. This is roughly parallel to Paul in 1 Corinthians 12. The note is here made, though, that those who inherit the kingdom will be those who love Him. It does not say, ‘those whom He chooses to have love Him.’ And there is a big difference.

Yet when we look at the text we see nothing of the sort. There is no word "certain" here. He did not "choose to use certain believers" for anything. The "chosen poor" are the one who will inherit the kingdom he has promised to those who love him. Consider the teaching.

God has promised a kingdom to those who love him. Who will get it? Let's look carefully at the verse so there is no misunderstanding. Let's especially point out the kernel of the sentence and then add in the modifiers.

That seems clear enough does it not? Notice how God did not choose those with faith. The verb "to be" is supplied for the English and it clarifies the sentence. But it points out a very important factor in this sentence that you ignored. The "choosing" precedes the "rich in faith." "Rich in faith" is clearly a term for saving faith since it results in inheriting the kingdom. Therefore, the "choosing" is not in response to faith but rather the cause of faith.

I could spend literally hours going through this post and showing exegetical problems and fallacious arguments but I don't have the time. Simply put, just this little interaction I have given shows how badly you missed the target by not dealing with the actual words of the text. You seem to approached it too glibly without really noting the words and their relationship to one another.

You didn't even deal with 2 Thess 2:13, Acts 13:48, both having to do with election. Simply put, Helen, this is not good work. IT would not pass muster in any academic or theological forum. It simply does not have the argumentation necessary. You can't just make assertions and expect them to be accepted. You have to tell us why we shoudl believe what you say, using the argumentation of the text. You did not do that.

One last piece of advice: Don't forget that words do not always mean the same thing in different contexts. A word only has one meaning in a given context (univocal nature of language) and the context determines what the word means. But that context does not necessarily determine what the same word might mean in another context. It may help contribute; it may not.

 

But you did not show that the "elect" of Matt 22 are coextensive with 144,000. Can you not see that that is weak argumentation. I say they are not the same. Will you accept that as authoritative?

But they are clear passages on election. Any study of election that omits them is inadequate.

Why shouldn't we check that passages?? There is no "poor in faith" mentioned in Scripture among the saved. "Rich is faith" is a synonym for saved as the reference to "inheriting the kingdom" shows. In professing to look at the context, you ignored the words. In addition, you failed to address the kernel of the sentence that i pointed out, namely that election precedes faith.

ARe you serious??? I don't know what other words you want me to deal with. If you have specific questions about a word, ask me. For the most part, the quibble here is not with your definition of words, but with how you apply them in various context. You take legitimate definitions and but apply them to passages where that definition doesn't fit. To show that I did deal with context and words, shall I quote from my post??? Sure, I will.


ON 2 Tim 2, I said Paul is writing to Timothy about Gentiles churches and is arguing why imprisonment is worth. Paul made his life about Gentile churches. While he loved his fellow Israelites, virtually every single mission he went on was a Gentile mission. He was in prison for preaching to the Gentiles and he is saying he is willing to put up with that so that the elect might be saved. ...Whatever nationality these people are, their "election" precedes their salvation and in fact leads to their salvation. Why did you miss that clear point? You want to say that it doesn't remotely resemble predestination, but in fact there is a clear connection here between election and salvation. You say that at the end That He chooses those who have responded to Him is made quite clear. Yet this verse makes clear that God chose them before they chose him. These folks are not yet even saved. Clearly, that is dealing with the context (to whom he is writing) and dealing with the words (election and salvation) and their relationship to each other.

ON 1 Cor 1, I said 1 Cor 1:22-24 contrast the "called" with everyone else. For everyone else, Christ is a stumblingblock; for the "called" he is wisdom and power. This means that the "called" and the rest are two mutually exclusive groups since the "called" have one view and everyone else has another. Admittedly, many of these things are easily missed by surface consideration and by failing to note the context and the argument of the passages under consideration. Clearly, once again, I did deal with teh context and the meaning of the words in the context.

On James 2 I said Yet when we look at the text we see nothing of the sort. There is no word "certain" here. He did not "choose to use certain believers" for anything. The "chosen poor" are the one who will inherit the kingdom he has promised to those who love him. Consider the teaching.

God has promised a kingdom to those who love him. Who will get it? Let's look carefully at the verse so there is no misunderstanding. Let's especially point out the kernel of the sentence and then add in the modifiers.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God has chosen the poor ... to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That seems clear enough does it not? Notice how God did not choose those with faith. The verb "to be" is supplied for the English and it clarifies the sentence. But it points out a very important factor in this sentence that you ignored. The "choosing" precedes the "rich in faith." "Rich in faith" is clearly a term for saving faith since it results in inheriting the kingdom. Therefore, the "choosing" is not in response to faith but rather the cause of faith. Clearly I did deal with the context and the meaning of hte words and their relationship to each other.

You are deceiving yourself if you think I didn't deal with context and word meaning. You are deceiving others if you know that I did and you said this anyway.

I honestly do not understand how you can make this charge. It is ludicrous.

[qb]Where is "invited" in the Scriptures you reference??? It is not there. The word is kletos and as I showed you, it does not always mean the same thing. I gave specific evidence that refutes your claim on several different passages that you brought up.

Let's try it out, shall we??

Romans 8:28– And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who have been called according to his purpose. -- The call here results inevitably in glorification if you look at the context. Does everyone invited to to the gospel get glorified, or only some of them? Of course, only some of them do. So the "call" is not merely an invitation but a guarantee of glorification.

1 Corinthians 1:22-24 – Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. -- Is Christ the wisdom and power of God to all who have been invited? Of course not. To many who have been invited, Christ is a stumblingblock or foolishness (to use the words that Paul used). But to "the called" (note that it is not some of hte called; it implies the totality of the called) he is the wisdom and power of God. In this text there is no room to be "called" while still viewing Christ as foolishness or a stumblingblock. As I pointed out in teh previous post (that you accused of not dealing with context), Paul is contrasting two groups of people: The called and the rest; in so doing, he is showing what distinguishes them. There is no option but to consider as "not called" those who view Christ as a stumblingblock or as foolishness.

I don't mind the word choice at all.

Not at alol. I am fighting to preserve the integrity of the revelation of God.

THen God said some things he didn't mean. I am not worried in the least about this. The Scripture, when taken for what it says, is abundantly clear on the major points of this debate. IT is only when a particular viewpoint has to supported that it becomes confusing. There really is not much of an issue here. I realize that is hard for you to grasp. But you and both know that you are not open to any evidence that contradicts your position. That is why you reject it and then claim I didn't deal with Scripture. That seems only to show that you didn't read my post and consider it. I gave clear objective reasons for my view. I gave clear objective objections to your views. You didn't deal with any of those. You simply accused me of not dealing with Scripture. I did deal with fewer Scripture than you did, but my post has the added value of actually dealing with the text in a manner that does justice to God's revelation. I did not use it to support my viewpoint. I simply said what the text said.

[ January 28, 2004, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Perhaps Helen, having done all that work, would care to comment on this verse which she conveniently missed:

since it says expressly that the readers were chosen for salvation by God, and I rather doubt she could make the case that they were all Jews.

 

Helen,

You stated at the conclusion of your study - "the term ‘elect’, especially as in “God’s elect,” is consistently and clearly used for the Jewish people and them only, in terms of humans. Only once is it used another way, and that refers to a class of angels.

You are referring to the Greek words 'eklegome, eklektos, and ekloge' are you not?

If so then Col 3:12 begs your commentary. (Col 3:12 KJV) Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;

Paul is writing to a Church largely made up of Gentiles and he calls them the elect of God. Now while the Colossian Church surely included Jews it is obvious from studying the book of Collosians that Gentiles made up a very large percentage of the membership.

When you add to that discovery the reference Peter makes in (1 Pet 5:13 KJV) It seems to me that the Elect of God as mentioned in the NT then obviously of a grammatical and theological necessity has to include all who are in the Church regardless of their ethnicity. c. also Gal 3:28.

 

helen dont be mad, i hope you are a good sport. your work was extensive and i am sure well meant.i do believe that pastor larry has a point in that you took on this feat with a bias in mind. after seeing some good rebuttal i do have to conclude that you built your lesson on sand. i will give you an E for effort though. it seemed that you took the word elect and made it into more of a description and not a definition. you also took the word call and chosen to mean only to invite. to you does the word draw mean woo?

anyway have a good day and take a rest from your hard work.

 

Ransom, Massdak,

Who would Paul call a brother? ONLY believers! He does not know from among all the people who is or is not "ELECT" So he is speaking to all the believers of Thessalonica and telling them, the believers, that since they believed the Gospel, they are chosen from the beginning to be saved! And that is what the scriptures are saying when they refer to Jesus as the Lamb of God, Slain from the foundation of the world (the beginning). All who believe in Jesus are chosen to be saved! So it is that ALL believers are the elect, and not All the Elect are believers.

 

you are starting to worry me, i need some scripture for this quote of yours.

 

PSALMS 14:2&3....The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
So much for the theory of God looking into the future and seeing who would "accept Jesus", and then He would choose them. I'm so thankful God chose me because I would have NEVER come to Him. 8 minutes

 

you are starting to worry me, i need some scripture for this quote of yours. </font>[/QUOTE]That's from Yelsew 5:16!

Just look at what Paul is saying in its context you you have the scripture! If you don't understand or believe the scripture, there is nothing I can give you to make you see the truth.

 

We all agree that man is sinful and filthy. Where we disagree on is fallen sinful man's ability to respond to the powerful message of the gospel. No scripture ever says that man is unable to respond positively to the Holy Spirit wrought message of the cross. That is assumed by Calvinists based upon misapplications of a few proof texts.

 

Don't stop there EPH, there's more to the story!

If you are applying verses 2 and 3 to "ALL PEOPLE", then who is the "they" and the "evil-doers" who are devouring God's people?

If there are no "upright" for God to take sides with, that is really a foolish statement for David to make wouldn't you agree? Whose "refuge is God"?

You are wrong to take those two verses out of their context and apply them as you did!

 

Yelsew, thanks for quoting a little more of 2 Thessalonians and making my point for me:

To what did God call the Thessalonians to through the Gospel? Salvation. For what purpose? So that they would claim Christ as theirs.

In other words, God's call to the Thessalonians was based on a choice he made from the beginning, and resulted in them turning from pagans into believers, whom Paul could call "brethren."

 

here are some further thoughts on Election:

ELECTION. The act of choice whereby God picks an individual or group out of a larger company for a purpose or destiny of his own appointment. The main OT word for this is the verb baµh\ar, which expresses the idea of deliberately selecting someone or something after carefully considering the alternatives (e.g. sling-stones, 1 Sa. 17:40; a place of refuge, Dt. 23:16; a wife, Gn. 6:2; good rather than evil, Is. 7:15f.; life rather than death, Dt. 30:19f.; the service of God rather than of idols, Jos. 24:22). The word implies a decided preference for, sometimes positive pleasure in, the object chosen (cf., e.g., Is. 1:29). In lxx and the NT the corresponding verb is eklegomai. eklegoµ is commonly active in classical Gk., but the biblical writers always use it in the middle voice, with reflexive overtones: it thus means ‘choose out for oneself’. haireomai is used synonymously of God’s choice in 2 Thes. 2:13, as in Dt. 26:18, lxx. The cognate adjectives are Heb. baµh\éÆr and Gk. eklektos, translated ‘elect’ or ‘chosen’; the NT also uses the noun eklogeµ, ‘election’. The Heb. verb yaµd_aÔ, know, which is used of various acts of knowing that, in idea at least, imply and express affection (e.g. relations between the sexes, and the believer’s acknowledgment of God), is used to denote God’s election (i.e. his taking cognizance of persons in love) in Gn. 18:19 (see rv); Am. 3:2; Ho. 13:5. The Gk. proginoµskoµ, ‘foreknow’, is similarly used in Rom. 8:29; 11:2 to mean ‘forelove’ (cf. also the use of ginoµskoµ in 1 Cor. 8:3 and Gal. 4:9).

I. Old Testament usage

Israelite faith was founded on the belief that Israel was God’s chosen people. His choice of her had been made by means of two connected and complementary acts. (a) He chose Abraham and his seed, by taking Abraham out of Ur and bringing him to the promised land of Canaan, making there an everlasting covenant with him and his descendants, and promising him that his seed should be a blessing to all the earth (Gn. 11:31-12:7; 15; 17; 22:15-18; Ne. 9:7; Is. 41:8). (b) He chose Abraham’s seed by redeeming them from slavery in Egypt, bringing them out of bondage under Moses, renewing the Abrahamic covenant with them in an amplified form at Sinai and setting them in the promised land as their national home (Ex. 3:6-10; Dt. 6:21-23; Ps. 105). Each of these acts of choice is also described as God’s call, i.e. a sovereign utterance of words and disposal of events by which God summoned, in the one case, Abraham, and in the other, Abraham’s seed, to acknowledge him as their God and live to him as his people (Is. 51:2; Ho. 11:1; *Call). Israelite faith looked back to these two acts as having created the nation (cf. Is. 43:1; Acts 13:17).
The meaning of Israel’s election appears from the following facts:
a. Its source was God’s free omnipotent love. Moses’ speeches in Deuteronomy stress this. When he chose Israel, God ‘set his love on’ Israel (Dt. 7:7; 23:5): why? Not because Israel first chose him, nor because Israel deserved his favour. Israel was in fact the reverse of attractive, being neither numerous nor righteous, but feeble, small and rebellious (Dt. 7:7; 9:4-6). God’s love to Israel was spontaneous and free, exercised in defiance of demerit, having no cause save his own good pleasure. He made it his delight and satisfaction to do Israel good (Dt. 28:63; cf. 30:9) simply because he resolved to do so. It was true that in delivering Israel from Egypt he was keeping a promise made to the Patriarchs (Dt. 7:8), and there was a necessity of the divine character in that, for it is God’s nature always to be faithful to his promises (cf. Nu. 23:19; 2 Tim. 2:13); but the making of this promise had itself been an act of free unmerited love, for the Patriarchs were themselves sinners (as Gn. is at pains to show), and God chose Abraham, the first recipient of the promise, out of idolatry (Jos. 24:2f.). Here too, therefore, the cause of election must be sought, not in man, but in God.
God is King in his world, and his love is omnipotent. Accordingly, he implemented his choice of Israel by means of a miraculous deliverance (by ‘a mighty hand’, Dt. 7:8, etc.) out of a state of helpless captivity. Ezk. 16:3-6 dwells on Israel’s pitiable condition when God chose her; Ps. 135:4-12 extols his display of sovereignty in bringing his chosen people out of bondage into the promised land.
b. The goal of Israel’s election was, proximately, the blessing and salvation of the people through God’s separating them for himself (Ps. 33:12), and, ultimately, God’s own glory through Israel’s showing forth his praise to the world (Is. 43:20f.; cf. Pss. 79:13; 96:1-10), and bearing witness of the great things he had done (Is. 43:10-12; 44:8). Israel’s election involved separation. By it, God made Israel a holy people, i.e. one set apart for himself (Dt. 7:6; Lv. 20:26b). He took them as his inheritance (Dt. 4:20; 32:9-12) and treasure (Ex. 19:5; Ps. 135:4), promising to protect and prosper them (Dt. 28:1-14), and to dwell with them (Lv. 26:11f.). Election made them his people, and him their God, in covenant together. It had in view living communion between them and him. Their destiny, as his chosen people, was to enjoy his manifested presence in their midst and to receive the multitude of good gifts which he promised to shower upon them. Their election was thus an act of blessing which was the fount of all other blessings. Hence the prophets express the hope that God would restore his people and presence to Jerusalem after the Exile, and reestablish conditions of blessing there, by saying that God will again ‘choose’ Israel and Jerusalem (Is. 14:1; Zc. 1:17; 2:12; cf. 3:2).
c. The religious and ethical obligations created by Israel’s election were far-reaching. Election, and the covenant relationship based on it, which distinguished Israel from all other nations, was a motive to grateful praise (Ps. 147:19f.), loyal keeping of God’s law (Lv. 18:4f.) and resolute non-conformity to the idolatry and wrongdoing of the unelected world (Lv. 18:2f.; 20:22f.; Dt. 14:1f.; Ezk. 20:5-7, etc.). Also, it gave Israel grounds for unfaltering hope and trust in God in times of distress and discouragement (cf. Is. 41:8-14; 44:1f.; Hg. 2:23; Ps. 106:4f.). Irreligious Israelites, however, were betrayed by the thought of the national election into complacently despising other nations, and assuming that they could always rely on God for protection and preferential treatment, no matter what their own lives were like (cf. Mi. 3:11; Je. 5:12). It was this delusion, and in particular the idea that Jerusalem, as the city of God, was inviolable, that the false prophets fostered in the days before the Exile (Je. 7:1-15; 23:9f.; Ezk. 13). In fact, however, as God had made plain from the first (Lv. 26:14ff.; Dt. 28:15ff.), national election implied a strict judgment of national sins (Am. 3:2). The Exile proved that God’s threats had not been idle.
d. Within the chosen people, God chose individuals for specific tasks designed to further the purpose of the national election—i.e. Israel’s own enjoyment of God’s blessing, and, ultimately, the blessing of the world. God chose Moses (Ps. 106:23), Aaron (Ps. 105:26), the priests (Dt. 18:5), the prophets (cf. Je. 1:5), the kings (1 Sa. 10:24; 2 Sa. 6:21; 1 Ch. 28:5), and the Servant-Saviour of Isaiah’s prophecy (‘my elect’, Is. 42:1; cf. 49:1, 5), who suffers persecution (Is. 50:5ff.), dies for sins (Is. 53) and brings the Gentiles light (Is. 42:1-7; 49:6). God’s use of Assyria and ‘my servant’ Nebuchadrezzar as his scourges (Is. 7:18ff.; 10:5ff.; Je. 25:9; 27:6; 43:10), and of Cyrus, a man ignorant of God, as a benefactor to the chosen people (Is. 45:4), is termed by H. H. Rowley ‘election without covenant’ (The Biblical Doctrine of Election, 1950, ch. 5), but the phrase is improper; the Bible always reserves the vocabulary of election for the covenant people and covenant functionaries drawn from Israel’s own ranks.
e. The promised blessings of election were forfeited through unbelief and disobedience. The prophets, facing widespread hypocrisy, insisted that God would reject the ungodly among his people (Je. 6:30; 7:29). Isaiah foretold that only a faithful remnant would live to enjoy the golden age that was to follow the inevitable judgment on Israel’s sins (Is. 10:20-22; 4:3; 27:6; 37:31f.). Jeremiah and Ezekiel, living in the time of that judgment, looked for a day when God, as part of his work of restoration, would regenerate such of his people as he had spared, and ensure their covenant faithfulness for the future by giving each of them a new heart (Je. 31:31ff.; 32:39f.; Ezk. 11:19f.; 36:25ff.). These prophecies, with their focus on individual piety, pointed to an individualizing of the concept of election (cf. Ps. 65:4): they gave grounds for distinguishing between election to privilege and election to life, and for concluding that, while God had chosen the whole nation for the privilege of living under the covenant, he had chosen only some of them (those made faithful by regeneration) to inherit the riches of the relationship to himself which the covenant held out, while the rest forfeited those riches by their unbelief. The NT teaching about election assumes these distinctions; see especially Rom. 9.

II. New Testament usage

The NT announces the extension of God’s covenant-promises to the Gentile world and the transference of covenant-privileges from the lineal seed of Abraham to a predominantly Gentile body (cf. Mt. 21:43) consisting of all who had become Abraham’s true seed and God’s true Israel through faith in Christ (Rom. 4:9-18; 9:6f.; Gal. 3:14ff., 29; 6:16; Eph. 2:11ff.; 3:6-8). The unbelieving natural branches were broken off from God’s olive-tree (the elect community, sprung from the Patriarchs), and wild olive branches (believing Gentiles) were ingrafted in their place (Rom. 11:16-24). Faithless Israel was rejected and judged, and the international Christian church took Israel’s place as God’s chosen nation, living in the world as his people and worshipping and proclaiming him as their God.
The NT presents the idea of election in the following forms:
a. Jesus is hailed as God’s elect one by the Father himself (Lk. 9:35, reading eklelegmenos, an echo of Is. 42:1), and probably by John the Baptist (Jn. 1:34, if eklektos is the right reading; see Barrett ad loc.). The sneer of Lk. 23:35 shows that ‘the elect one’ was used as a Messianic designation in Christ’s day (as it is in the book of Enoch, 40:5; 45:3-5, etc.). In 1 Pet. 2:4, 6 Christ is called God’s elect corner-stone; this echoes Is. 28:16, lxx. In reference to Christ, the designation ‘points to the unique and distinctive office with which he is invested and to the peculiar delight which God the Father takes in him’ (J. Murray in Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, 1960, p. 179).
b. The adjective ‘elect’ denotes the Christian community in its character as the chosen people of God, in contrast with the rest of mankind. This usage simply echoes the OT. The church is ‘an elect race’ (1 Pet. 2:9, quoting Is. 43:20; cf. also 2 Jn. 1, 13), having the privileges of access to God and the responsibilities of praising and proclaiming him, and faithfully guarding his truth, which Israel had had before. As in the case of Israel, God had magnified his mercy by choosing poor and undistinguished persons for this momentous destiny (1 Cor. 1:27ff.; Jas. 2:5; cf. Dt. 7:7; 9:6); and, as before, God’s gracious choice and call had created a people—his people—which had no existence as a people before (1 Pet. 2:10; Rom. 9:25f., citing Ho. 1:10; 2:23).
In the Synoptics Christ refers to the eklektoi (pl.) in various eschatological contexts. They are those whom God accepts, and will accept, because they have responded to the gospel invitation and come to the wedding-feast stripped of self-righteousness and clad in the wedding-garment provided by the host, i.e. trusting in God’s mercy (Mt. 22:14). God will vindicate them (Lk. 18:7) and keep them through coming tribulation and peril (Mk. 13:20, 22), for they are the objects of his special care.
c. eklegomai is used of Christ’s choice of his apostles (Lk. 6:13; cf. Acts 1:24; 9:15) and the church’s choice of deacons (Acts 6:5) and delegates (Acts 15:22, 25). This is election to special service from among the ranks of the elect community, as in the OT. Christ’s choosing of the Twelve for apostolic office involved the choosing of them out of the world to enjoy salvation (cf. Jn. 15:16, 19), except in the case of Judas (cf. Jn. 13:18).

III. Theological development in NT
The complete theological development of the idea of election is found in Paul’s Epistles (see especially Rom. 8:28-11:36; Eph. 1:3-14; 1 Thes. 1:2-10; 2 Thes. 2:13-14; 2 Tim. 1:9-10). Paul presents divine election as a gracious, sovereign, eternal choice of individual sinners to be saved and glorified in and through Christ.
a. Election is a gracious choice. Election ‘by grace’ (Rom. 11:5; cf. 2 Tim. 1:9) is an act of undeserved favour freely shown towards members of a fallen race to which God owed nothing but wrath (Rom. 1:18ff.). And not only does God choose sinners to save (cf. Rom. 4:5; 5:6-8; Eph. 2:1-9); he chooses to save them in a way which exalts his grace by magnifying their sinfulness. He shuts up his elect, both Jew and Gentile, in a state of disobedience and unbelief, so that they display their true character as sinners, and stand out in history confessed as unbelievers, before he shows them his mercy (Rom. 11:30-32; the Gentiles, 9:30; 10:20; the Jews, 10:19, 21; 11:11, 25f. [‘so’ in v. 26 means ‘through the coming in of the Gentiles’]). Thus the outworking of election further exhibits the gratuitousness of grace.
b. Election is a sovereign choice, prompted by God’s own good pleasure alone (Eph. 1:5, 9), and not by any works of man, accomplished or foreseen (Rom. 9:11), or any human efforts to win God’s favour (Rom. 9:15-18). Such efforts would in any case be vain, for however high sinners aspire and however fast they run, they still in reality only sin (Rom. 8:7f.). God in sovereign freedom treats some sinners as they deserve, hardening (Rom. 9:18; 11:7-10, cf. 1:28; 1 Thes. 2:15f.) and destroying them (Rom. 9:21f.); but he selects others to be ‘vessels of mercy’, receiving ‘the riches of his glory’ (Rom. 9:23). This discrimination involves no injustice, for the Creator owes mercy to none, and has a right to do as he pleases with his rebellious creatures (Rom. 9:14-21). The wonder is not that he withholds mercy from some, but that he should be gracious to any. God’s purpose of sovereign discrimination between sinner and sinner appeared as early as his limitation of the Abrahamic promise to Isaac’s line and his setting of Jacob over Esau (Rom. 9:7-13). It was true from the first that ‘not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel’ (Rom. 9:6), and that those Israelites who actually enjoyed the salvation promised to the chosen people were only ‘a remnant, chosen by grace’ (Rom. 11:5; 9:27-29). And it remains true, according to Paul, that it is God’s sovereign election alone that explains why, when the gospel is preached, some do in fact respond to it. The unbelief of the rest requires no special explanation, for no sinner, left to himself, can believe (1 Cor. 2:14); but the phenomenon of faith needs explaining. Paul’s explanation is that God by his Spirit causes the elect to believe, so that when men come to a true and active faith in Christ it proves their election to be a reality (1 Thes. 1:4ff.; Tit. 1:1; cf. Acts 13:48).
c. Election is an eternal choice. God chose us, says Paul, ‘before the foundation of the world’ (Eph. 1:4; 2 Thes. 2:13; 2 Tim. 1:9). This choice was an act of *predestination (Eph. 1:5, 11), a part of God’s eternal purpose (Eph. 1:9), an exercise of loving foreknowledge whereby God determined to save those whom he foreknew (Rom. 8:29f.; cf. 1 Pet. 1:2). Whereas the OT, dealing with the national election to privilege, equates God’s choosing with his calling, Paul, dealing with personal election to salvation, distinguishes the choice from the call, and speaks of God’s calling (by which he means a summons to faith which effectively evokes a response) as a stage in the temporal execution of an eternal purpose of love (Rom. 8:30; 9:23f.; 2 Thes. 2:13f.; 2 Tim. 1:9). Paul stresses that election is eternal in order to assure his readers that it is immutable, and nothing that happens in time can shake God’s resolve to save them.
d. Election is a choice of individual sinners to be saved in and through Christ. Election is ‘in Christ’ (see Eph. 1:4), the incarnate Son, whose historical appearing and mediation were themselves included in God’s eternal plan (1 Pet. 1:20; Acts 2:23). Election in Christ means, first, that the goal of election is that God’s chosen should bear Christ’s image and share his glory (Rom. 8:29, cf. v. 17; 2 Thes. 2:14). They are chosen for holiness (which means Christlikeness in all their conduct) in this life (Eph. 1:4), and glorification (which means Christlikeness in all their being, cf. 2 Cor. 3:18; Phil. 3:21) in the life to come. Election in Christ means, second, that the elect are to be redeemed from the guilt and stain of sin by Christ, through his atoning death and the gift of his Spirit (Eph. 5:25-27; 2 Thes. 2:13; cf. 1 Pet. 1:2). As he himself said, the Father has given him a certain number of persons to save, and he has undertaken to do everything necessary to bring them all to eternal glory (Jn. 6:37-45; 10:14-16, 27-30; 17:2, 6, 9ff., 24). Election in Christ means, third, that the means whereby the blessings of election are brought to the elect is union with Christ—his union with them representatively, as the last Adam, and vitally, as the life-giver, indwelling them by his Spirit, and their union with him by faith.

IV. Significance of election for the believer

Paul finds in the believer’s knowledge of his election a threefold religious significance.
a. It shows him that his salvation, first to last, is all of God, a fruit of sovereign discriminating mercy. The redemption which he finds in Christ alone and receives by faith alone has its source, not in any personal qualification, but in grace alone—the grace of election. Every spiritual blessing flows to him from God’s electing decree (Eph. 1:3ff.). The knowledge of his election, therefore, should teach him to glory in God, and God only (1 Cor 1:31), and to give him the praise that is his due (Rom. 11:36). The ultimate end of election is that God should be praised (Eph. 1:6, 12, 14), and the thought of election should drive ransomed sinners to incessant doxologies and thanksgivings, as it does Paul (Rom. 11:33f.; Eph. 1:3ff.; 1 Thes. 11:3ff.; 2 Thes. 2:13ff.). What God has revealed about election is to Paul a theme, not for argument, but for worship.
b. It assures the believer of his eternal security, and removes all grounds for fear and despondency. If he is in grace now he is in grace for ever. Nothing can affect his justified status (Rom. 8:33f.); nothing can cut him off from God’s love in Christ (Rom. 8:35-39). He will never be safer than he is, for he is already as safe as he can be. This is precious knowledge; hence the desirability of making sure that one’s election is a fact (cf. 2 Pet. 1:10).
c. It spurs the believer to ethical endeavour. So far from sanctioning licence (cf. Eph. 5:5f.) or presumption (cf. Rom. 11:19-22), the knowledge of one’s election and the benefits that flow from it is the supreme incentive to humble, joyful, thankful love, the mainspring of sanctifying gratitude (Col. 3:12-17). JI Packer;
The New Bible Dictionary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.) 1962.

So while I appreciate your 8 hours of work Helen, I appreciate far more the depth and extensiveness of efforts like that above, who did, assuredly, spend far more than 8 hours.

At any rate, the more I study the Bible, the more I see the TULIP doctrine being vindicated, that Calvinism is just a nickname for biblical Christianity.

There is, a definite struggle inside of me to combat false teachings, and a definite struggle outside of me, where I see Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism, and the various stripes of Arminianism being advocated, affecting people in such negative ways and producing such nasty fruits, that I WILL struggle against such false doctrines any time and any where I can.