Who are the elect?

Helen has it right on.

Jesus is the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world.

The elect are all of those whom God foreknew in Christ. This includes all the saints of all the ages (see Revelation).

Grace precedes the law! The gospel was announced to Abraham in advance. The law was given to keep God's people close to him (Old Covenant). The Spirit was given to keep God's people close to him (New Covenant). The new covenant is better than the old covenant because the law, which was external, is now written on our hearts, and our hearts of stone have been changed into hearts of flesh (Jeremiah 33).

The new covenant includes the promise of the indwelling Holy Spirit and is better than just the external written code. OT saints looked forward to the promise. NT saints experience the promise. But both look to the same gospel and together they are the one people of God.

Just because OT saints didn't experience what NT saints experience doesn't mean that their salavation is different than ours. They were saved by grace just like we are, and they lived by faith just like we do.

God's lovingkindness (grace) is the same in every age.

 

Calvin didn't distinguish between faith and assurance, like his followers did.

How do I know that I'm of the elect?

Calvin's answer, as pointed out by R.T. Kendall, was to "look to Jesus."

To look to Jesus is faith. The ground of our faith/assurance is Jesus.

So everyone who has faith is looking to Jesus and everyone who looks to Jesus has faith.

Now included in faith for Calvin was repentance (obedience). So someone who has saving faith is born again, regenerated, changed, obedient. But the ground of faith/assurance was not obedience (sanctification), but rather Jesus.

According to Kendall, Calvin could say this because he believed that Jesus died on the cross for everyone. I have checked Kendall's footnotes with Calvin's Institutes and commentaries and Kendall is correct. Calvin believed that Jesus died on the cross for everyone. This is why Jesus is the ground of faith.

Now if Jesus only died for the elect, Calvin would not have been able to make the death of Jesus the ground for faith because Jesus might not have died for you. I can't say to you, "look to Jesus" because he might not have died for you. If Jesus didn't die for you, it would be worthless for you to look to Jesus.

Therefore the ground of faith and assurance must be found somewhere else. Calvin's disciple, Beza, who believed Jesus died only for the elect, made the ground of assurance "sanctification." Instead of assurance being grounded in an objective fact (the death of Jesus), it now is grounded in a subjective experience (my personal works).

It's just like Satan to get us to take our eyes off of Jesus and direct them to ourselves. But this is the result of moving from Calvin's "Jesus died for everyone" to Beza's "Jesus died only for the elect."

 

DS said:

Interesting statements.

Can you elaborate further on the phrase 'the ground for faith' ?

Are you saying, with regards to eternal salvation, there can be no salvation without having an object of faith as the grounds for faith ?

That salvation, in order to be effective, must proceed from one's faith ? Or for one to have something or someone to believe in ?

 

Calvin was saying that the ground of faith is "looking to Jesus."

The object of our faith is Jesus Christ. Faith is passive for Calvin, meaning that God gives it to his elect so that they can look to Jesus. That a person can look to Jesus is proof that one is the elect. His looking to Jesus is faith, and faith is therefore also his assurance.

How do I know that I am the elect. I have faith in Jesus Christ. Assurance comes not from looking to my own subjective experiences of sanctification but to looking to the objective sacrifice of Christ on the cross for my sins.

Looking to Jesus is therefore both faith and assurance.

 

Hi Helen, it's great to see you around again - haven't seen you here in quite a while (I was away for various reasons). Funny I should notice you around today, because just yesterday I was reading a lot of your husband's work again for the first time in ages. I love his stuff, and I always get so excited when I learn something new from it.

God bless you and your whole family.

 

I like this essay very much, and I agree with a lot of it. I do think you missed the point with respect to Esau, although you are accurate about God's purpose in election there. Remember that Paul was making a point about election, not about Esau -- he was simply using Esau as an example in order to make the point that God elects according to His own purposes, not according to whether we do something good or bad. Even that is part of a larger point in that chapter of Romans.

I also noticed that you conveniently "missed" romans 8:30, though you address the verses on either side of it.

8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Here you have a series that can not be mistaken for anything except the fact there are people whom God predestines -> calls -> justifies -> glorifies, an unbroken chain. The word here is ekalesen, (based on kaleo, not kletos) which means to bid forth or call.

This word can be taken to mean an invitation that can be refused - for example here's an example of the same word in a parable where people refused the call or bidding...

Luke 14:16 Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and bade many

But it would do great harm to the text to assume that Romans 8:30 is referring to a call that can be refused. That would force Romans 8:30 to mean that God justifies and glorifies those He invites, regardless of their response to that invitation. Surely that's not something even Arminians believe. We differ on WHY one person responds and another doesn't, but we agree that God Justifies those to whom faith has been given.

Which brings me to one of the verses included in your essay...to quote..

To which I respond, absolutely. The Christian receives faith. "and that [faith is] not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast."

 

God's purpose in election in this context reveals that a person didn't have to be a physical descendent of Abraham to be among the elect (Rom. 9:1-9). Isn't this the main point of this section of the letter that would make the Jews upset?

The purpose of this passage (Rom. 9:10-18)seems to be to show the Jews that birth order, or ethnicity, or works - being good or bad - are not the things that secure one's salvation.

God can show mercy to whom he will (Rom. 9:14-29).

Righteousness is obtained by faith not works (Rom. 9:30-32).

And you as Jews are stumbling over your own Messiah in unbelief (Rom. 9:32-10:21).

The elect are those whom God shows mercy, who have recieved righteousness by faith, and who call upon the name of the Lord because they believe God raised Jesus from the dead and because they confess that Jesus is Lord.

The elect are not those who are disobedient and obstinate when hearing the word of Christ.

It seems to me that the Esau example and the potter/clay example are pressed too hard. I think the mistake of "exegesis" is that we try too hard to understand every nuance. I wonder what new gems of interpretation the poem Jack and Jill would yield if we applied the same "exegesis" that we apply to the Bible.

Shouldn't the flow of the argument yield more insight than meticulous exegesis on one word or phrase or preposition, especially since we are not native speakers of koine Greek?

I'm just wondering out loud what Paul would think of our exegesis of his letters. I wonder if he wouldn't say that we are obsessing over the illustrations and missing the point of the argument.

What think ye?

 

Every man has within himself the two trees, yet God only allows him to either see one, or both trees. man has a garden within himself.

we have the flesh nature represented by the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which has satan as its ruler. and we have the tree of life which is of the Spirit and represented by the christ nature.

many forms can be expressed as to the existence of the two trees, yet only until the arrival in our finite timeline and the availability of the spirit can one reach within, take of the fruit of the tree of life and be overcome by the power that the tree contains.

adam reached out to the flesh nature. the tree of the (self) knowledge of good and evil.
and yet then the "offering" was given simultaneously to reach out and take of the fruit of the tree of life..

the tree like the spirit is within our hearts and minds. either we follow the nature of the flesh, and eat of the tree of (self) knowledge of good and evil. or we follow the nature of the spirit and eat of the tree of life (christ).

if the availability becomes that we should eat of the tree of life. then it is only a matter of time before the nature of the flesh is "overcome".

until we see satan falling from "our" heavens will we be rid of the power he commands. that of death and sin.

Luk 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for [that day shall not come], except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

the elect know that the "son of peridition" is their flesh nature that is being overcome by the Spirit of Christ within them. the tree of life.

the elect know that a battle is raging within, yet they are witnessing their Lord overcoming the power of sin and death within the life of the chosen elect. and will watch until satan falls and the victory is acheived. the event is not if we overcome. it is when.

if One believes they are of the elect and has overcomer then...

Have you "seen" Satan fall from your heavens as the lord has proven death has NO power in your life? has satans powers become insignificant? has the "power" of sin and the condemnation of death become of little notice in your life?

1Jo 3:20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
1Jo 3:21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, [then] have we confidence toward God.

sin or even the thought of death has become insignificant in the life of the elect as it is their God who has become responsible to uncover faults within their lives that will be addressed jointly.

 

Bob,

Great points.

By law, I meant the "Mosaic Law." Beza, Perkins, the Puritans, Edwards preached that the Law preceded Grace, meaning that one needed to be convicted of sin before one could be comforted with the Gospel. Calvin, of course, wanted nothing to do with "prepatory" things. He believed that grace or faith came first.

I agree that there is only one gospel and that salvation is only in Christ. Your example of Moses and Elijah is a point well taken.

However, I don't think of the Old Covenant as beginning in Genesis. I'm thinking specifically of the Mosaic Law which was intended to keep God's people close to him, but which was not able to because they did not have it written on their hearts. Thus, Hebrews, speaks of the New Covenant being better than the Old Covenant.

The Abrahamic/Davidic covenants are the covenants that express the Gospel. The Old/New covenants are administrative covenants. The New Covenant is better because it accomplishes its purposes better than the Old.

The reason being the internal change that is accomplished by the giving of the Holy Spirit?

I'm asking a question now. There does seem to be a difference in how the Holy Spirit ministered in the Old Covenant vs. the New Covenant.

Any answers?

 

Having recently debated on preterism, I came to realize that while the destruction of Jerusalem may not have really been the second Coming (except in a very limited typical sense), still, we do not appreciate its significance. This was the immediate "judgment" prophecied in many scriptures, so obviously, when Romans 9 speaks of "vessels of wrath"; it is obviously the judgment of Jerusalem that is being pointed to with those saved spared, and the Church as the spiritual Jerusalem going on past that as the "vessels of mercy". So all the more proof that this is not talking about individuals being preordained to eternal death. Salvation does refer to individuals, and the point is that it is not of Israelite heritage (because that was to pass away), but by being in Christ.