Featured Individual Election

Umm...not too sure about that

 

How is faith defined here though?

I see faith in someone being defined as being fully persuaded in something being fulfilled by that person who says/promises they'd do it, based on their nature/ability etc. (Rom 4:20,21)

By this definition, how could Christ believe in someone else for our salvation when instead it should be us believing in Him?

 

Found this quite edifying, thanks!

Of course, on theological grounds, I'd have to disagree with him only on his conflating preterition and reprobation - but had he distinguished the two, this is a derivative of Scriptures.

 

Individual Election is seen enough in Scriptures - the only obstacle to accepting it by all is the accompanying doctrine of predestined individual reprobation, which I don't find biblical. I think a consistent belief system is possible with just holding the former while rejecting the latter.

Definitely, God granted a privilege to the individually elect that He didn't provide the others. Is that privilege salvation itself - or simply the promise of salvation (Rom 9:8)? Couldn't God have desired and offered salvation to all but only promising it to the elect in order to contrast His working vs the flesh's own working?

Also, in the parable of the King and the feast, did the King shut the doors to all who wouldn't come at the very beginning itself without even extending an invite - or was there a time for them with an open invite which they reject and fill for themselves their measures of sin until the time is passed (Gen 15:16, Matt 23:32) and the doors are shut to them?

 

My approach to these positions actually begins with me pointing out how it needn't be one or the other always. Obviously, logically, it has to be either something or its contradictory opposite but never both - but I don't find such precision reached yet in these positions. There's enough nuance possible whereby one could hold the best of both positions presented without having to choose one over the other.

So just for kicks I claim to be both infra and supra the way it's been presented . Well, there's a lack in precision when God's decree to permit the fall is conflated with Adam's actual sin that brought about the fall. So supra always seems to hold Rom 9:11 to show that election must precede Adam's sin but the whole force of Scriptures reveal God's heart is not to will destruction of any to begin with and so duh, infra is obvious whereby God elects only after a view of the fall, not before it. And the contradiction is presented that God could elect only before Adam's sin OR after a view of the fall but never both together.

I resolve this by not equating God's view of the fall with Adam's sin (or any particular man's/creature's sin). Karl Barth's doctrine of creational entropy helped - i know that sounds kinda fancy but basically it just says only God can be God. Any other creature that is left to be itself ie not God would eventually fall short of the glory of God. If any perfect eternal creature is to exist without falling, God alone must work in it constantly. So God could have had a view of the fall even before He considered any particular person - He could have the view of the fall just from His desire to create a creature that's not Him, then goes about electing before any of the creature's particular good or evil, and then actually permits the specific sins of that creature to come to pass. See, both infra and supra.

 

A couple of points here. I know of the existing arguments on how to interpret what was gifted/granted from the greek texts, especially if it was salvation, faith or grace in Eph 2:8. My personal take on this is that all these texts consistently refer to Grace as associated with the gift in Christ - my reasons being the noun-verb usage in these texts and Rom 5:15 which links grace, gift and Christ together. My understanding of the gift being the Holy Spirit. Anyways, I do not wish to derail the conversation along this trail because I do not disagree with the essence of what you've noted.

I did not mean to distinguish the 'promise of salvation' from 'salvation' itself as if to imply the elect don't have salvation - to be promised something is to be granted it whole. This is more to argue against what's been granted or kept from the non-elect. If salvation itself is the difference between elect and non-elect, then God desires the elect to receive it while He passes over the non-elect from ever receiving it. However, if the promise of salvation is the difference, then God could very well desire salvation for the non-elect too without them eventually receiving it because it's not been promised as to the elect.

The 1689 confession too - while it mentions God passing over the non-elect at this before-the-ages election moment, what exactly is God's desire in His heart for the non-elect at the time of this passing over? Does He desire them to still come to repent, believe and be saved or does He pass them over from ever having the possibility of being saved? That's the crucial difference in inferences, which we could well discuss about if you or anyone else is interested

 

A pastor gave me this interpretation of the "Free Will vs Election" issue: We humans look at it as "Whosoever Will May Come....and so whosoever wills Does come" ..... "God looks at it as: Predestined by His divine will." He compared it to fabulously wealthy man dangling a coin in front of a poor helpless beggar. The beggar grabs that coin, but in reality it was that very wealthy man who had all the money in the world placing that coin so that the beggar could take for his own. (I don't know if this is a valid illustration for any & all circumstances, but IMHO, it makes sense to me. Comments?

 

The entire complexity of the issue could be captured if the wealthy man dangled a coin each in front of two hopeless beggars and predetermined the first to take it assuredly. How would we explain the wealthy man's predetermination in light of say the second beggar walking away without taking the coin?

One explanation is to say this proves the beggars have the ultimate say - for one has the power to walk away even when the wealthy man dangles a coin before him. Another explanation is to claim the wealthy man never dangled a coin in front of the second beggar and therefore has the final say. All such analogies, though helpful to an extent, can never capture the entire extent of Scriptures until they include Christ's working 'in' a person. So the wealthy man not only dangles a coin, and not only can remove the blindfolds of both the beggars, but can also generate new desires within the first beggar to willingly want the coin while not working so within the second.

 

Could you clarify what you mean by us understanding only human will but not divine will - we surely do understand enough to know what we mean when we pray, not my will but thine be done. Though we may not exactly know what that will might be, we still know we're praying for only one of the two wills to be fulfilled. That gives us something to make sense of in terms of comparison, right?

It's just that when debates go on without a united conclusion, we're quick to end all conversation with the mystery of God card - claiming such things can Never be understood until the resurrection. I still think there's enough revealed in Scriptures to resolve and reconcile these arguments - so I'd wait for Scriptures to explicitly declare stuff to be the hidden things of God before closing the door on it

 

"Sovereign Election (Part 1)" from Ligonier Ministries Sovereign Election (Part 1) by Steven Lawson | May 27, 2021

"Sovereign Election (Part 2)" from Ligonier Ministries Sovereign Election (Part 2) by Steven Lawson | May 28, 2021

 

This is quite an interesting perspective. Of course, this is how we ought to perceive of God in the obvious metaphors of Scriptures (God being a lion etc.) but I wasn't aware we were to do this for other non-metaphoric passages too. Perhaps that's where the debate lies - as to what's metaphoric and what's not.

I guess I read these the other way actually - I don't go from a human concept to making the divine like that, but rather read from Scriptures something that's a divine concept and understanding more about how it's been revealed in humanity. So if I saw a verse stating God decides or considers or regrets, I'd take that at face value and see how God has also bestowed these divine traits in me to be able to understand more about what God's revealing about Himself in these. I don't go from a human concept applied to God at a perfected level - but rather go from a divine concept that's applied to man at a limited level. I don't know if I'm explaining myself right since the line seems so fine between the two.

To your particular illustration above, why cannot an immutable and eternal God decide or consider or regret? And what truths about God are we capturing in say Gen 6:6 other than the fact that God was displeased with the outcome of His own decision and that that had grieved Him? I suppose the thinking is that an immutable God wouldn't want to alter His earlier decisions if given a second chance and hence cannot 'regret'? I'd say I would rather change my ideas on what 'regret' is, being informed of it as a divine concept here, than to declare it inapplicable to God as merely a human concept.

To regret then, is simply to be displeased with the net outcome of your decisions. It does happen so often in our human experiences that we experience regret with the outcome of our decisions because our decisions were wrong and hence we'd want to change if given the chance or in the future - but it's also entirely possible that you are displeased with the outcome of your decision even when you decided what's perfectly right, especially when your decision involves allowing another's actions to mess the outcome up. Given a chance to redo it, you'd still choose to decide the same right thing, even when you know the other is going to mess the outcome inevitably. You still are right in expressing displeasure and describing your grief at the outcome.

Similarly with the deciding or the considering. I don't need to technically consider at least 2 things before deciding - I could simply decide to do whatever I desired if I were sovereign and omnipotent. And as part of that sovereign decision, I could also further decide to factor in another being's desires where my root desire itself is to allow for the other being's desires to play out. Under this hierarchy of decisions, my subdecision to allow for the other's particular evil desire to play out could cause me displeasure when they mess the outcome but I still would decide for this to happen as part of my root desire to allow for whatever the other being wills. I still have the power to alter the outcomes, and even the power to alter their desires (by generating my desires within them) but I could choose not to do so just to let them see the end of their desires that were fit in within my desire for exactly those to play out.

Again, these are not how I myself would've thought of doing things - I see God doing these things and that informs me of how these concepts work.

 

It is us believing in Him and on Him.
But I think that perhaps an example of my own understanding of what it is that Christ did for His sheep would be helpful.

According to Hebrews 12:2,
He is the Author and Finisher of faith...
The faith that believers do things by, and some of these acts are in many places... especially Hebrews 11.
It is also said to be "of" Christ in various passages such as Galatians 2:16-20:

" We [who are] Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, [is] therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."

Here I notice that Paul is stating that he is actually living by the faith of the Lord Jesus...not his own faith.
To me, the word "of" here is associated with the concepts of "by" or "from".

Therefore, to be "of" something is to have originated with or belonged to it, at least at one point.
As an example, the phrase "of the Gentiles" in verse 15 means "belonging to", or "originating from",
or the phrase "Saul of Tarsus".

Greek support:
Galatians 2:20 Interlinear: with Christ I have been crucified, and live no more do I, and Christ doth live in me; and that which I now live in the flesh -- in the faith I live of the Son of God, who did love me and did give himself for me;
Galatians 2:20 Greek Text Analysis
Galatians 2 Greek interlinear, parsed and per word translation, free online

 

Another example:
" My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, [the Lord] of glory, with respect of persons." ( James 2:1 ).

That faith is "obtained", or gained from God as a gift:
"Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:" ( 2 Peter 1:1 ).

That is why I see that biblical faith that endures all its trials and temptations,
cannot have originated from men...
Because it was obtained;
It was not something that men are created with, and all we must do is "exercise" what we all naturally have;
We don't have it, and Scripture also plainly says that not all men have it ( 2 Thessalonians 3:2 ).
His word also also says this:

" But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed." ( Galatians 3:23 ). <-------- Here I see that faith is a separate idea or concept from "the faith", which is the entire body of truth associated with those who love and follow Jesus Christ.

Yet another example:
" For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:" ( Ephesians 2:8 ). <------- Here I see that faith, what believers are saved through ( not because of, but what carries us through our trials and temptations in this life ) is "not of ourselves", but rather is the gift of ( by or from ) God Himself.


A gift that was authored and finished by Jesus Christ,
and that becomes ours because it was a gift given to God's people by Him.

 

I see reprobation, or the Lord actually blinding people ( or allowing people to be blinded ) to the Gospel,
as being in accordance with the Scriptures in many places:

" Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,
40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with [their] eyes, nor understand with [their] heart, and be converted, and I should heal them." ( John 12:39-40.

" What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
8 (according as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day." ( Romans 11:7-8 ).

" But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." ( 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 ).

Other passages where the Lord gave people over to something for a purpose...
one of which is to actually harden hearts ( Exodus 33:19, Romans 9:14-18 ) towards Him:

Exodus 4:21.
Exodus 9:12.
Exodus 10:1.
Exodus 11:10.
Isaiah 6:9-10.
Matthew 13:10-17.
Mark 4:9-12
Romans 1:28.
2 Timothy 3:8.
Hebrews 3:10-12.