Only one way to reconcile two Biblical positions on election

[Guest]

I am firmly on the fence between Calvinism and non-Calvinism, but there are several issues that seem to strongly favor Calvinism.

One is the following. Consider the two main Biblical positions concerning election:

• 1 Peter 1:2 ...elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father...

• Ephesians 1:5 ...having predestined us to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will...

So Biblically we are elect according to the foreknowledge of God and according to the good pleasure of God's will.

How can the two be reconciled? Well, if it's true that we're chosen strictly according to his will, then it's also true that we're chosen according to his foreknowledge (because he knows whom he has chosen "before the foundation of the world").
On the other hand, if we are chosen strictly due to his foreknowledge (he looks to the future and sees who will choose him - which makes us the chooser not the other way around by the way), then it can't also be true that we are chosen according to his will.

This seems to make it obvious that we are chosen according to his will...

[Guest]

On the other hand, if we are chosen strictly due to his foreknowledge (he looks to the future and sees who will choose him - which makes us the chooser not the other way around by the way), then it can't also be true that we are chosen according to his will.

I'm not sure why you believe this must be the only conclusion. If we are elect according to God's foreknowledge, then is it really our choice? In other words, couldn't God do it another way if He wished? But if it were His choice to elect according to foreknowledge, then it would still seem to be logical to call it "His choice" and also "His good pleasure".

Would it be unpleasing to God to elect by foreknowledge alone?

I would also point out that Ephesians one is a complex run-on sentence. Could Eph 1 not simply mean that God's good pleasure is that He "predestined us to adoption as sons". In other words, all who come to Christ are predestined to adoption as sons. Like drawing a line in the sand and saying "eveyone on this side is team a, everyone on the other side is team b". Christ was chosen to redeem man. Everyone who comes to Christ is chosen because He is chosen. Likewise eveyone who is in Christ is predestined to adoption as a son because Christ is the son.

This language is common in Paul's writings. He speaks of us seated in the heavenlies (Epp 2:6), even though we are not, because Christ is seated there and we are "in Him". Also, baptism is a participation in Christ's death and resurrection, even though we have not yet died and have yet to rise. (Col 2:12, Rom 6:3-4)

I'm not saying you have to agree, but does that at least make some sense?

[Guest]

I don't really understand your counter as it may relate to my point, but I will say this.
Class election (or whatever it's called) does make some sense and have Biblical support, but it just doesn't make logical sense to me. To say that God "chooses" a certain group to be his elect isn't really a choice. Obviously, there is a group that enters the kingdom and a group that doesn't. And of course the group that does enter is sort of the group that he has chosen. But that goes without saying. There will always be 2 groups and you don't have to choose one - they're just there by virtue of the fact that there are 2 groups.
It certainly seems to me that the fact that the writers of Scripture speak of election indicates that there is in fact some real choosing going on here.

[Guest]

There is no doubt that God chooses people, nor is there any doubt that God predestines people. No one that I know of denies this (Open Theists or Arminians). However, the question isn't about whether God chooses and predestines. Instead, the question is who does God choose/predestine and for/to what.

[Guest]

See my signature,

[_Steve]

Brad,

To say that God chose Israel for something suggests that all those who are in Israel are thereby chosen for that same thing—since Israel really just means the people who are in Israel. Similarly, to say that Christ is chosen for a certain thing likewise means (since "Christ", in Paul's theology, is a corporate entity just as Israel is) that the people in Christ are chosen for that same thing.

A person was not necessarily chosen to be in Israel (anyone could be in or out of Israel by cheir choice to embrace Israel's covenant with God or rejecting it), but once having chosen to be a part of Israel, they would be chosen in Israel.

The Bible does not mention that we were chosen to be in Christ, but since we are now in Christ (whether by our own choice or otherwise) we are said to be chosen in Him.

To say that a certain high school band was chosen to lead the Rose Parade does not tell us whether of not any given person will be marching with that band. The second trombone player might suffer a drug overdose at a party the night before and have to be replaced by someone who was not previously in the band. It is the band that was chosen—not the specific participants in the band. However, each of the actual participants could truly say, "We were chosen to lead the parade!"

On a slightly different point, I think it is a mistake to treat the words "elect" and "predestined" as interchangeable. I believe that to speak of the church's "election" is to speak of its status and significance in Christ. When we speak of the church's "predestination," we are speaking of the destiny and privilege that is to be enjoyed by those who are among the chosen—i.e., adoption into the family of God and eventual conformity to the likeness of Christ (Eph.1:5/Rom.8:29).

Being among the "elect" means you belong to the group; being "predestined" means that God has a glorious destiny for those in the group.

Of course, it need not make a dime's worth of difference what a person believes on this subject.

[Guest]

Steve wrote:
Of course, it need not make a dime's worth of difference what a person believes on this subject.

Could you clarify a bit. I'm not sure what you mean/are saying here.

[Guest]

Hi Brad,

Both of the verses you quoted were written to the Jews. They were elected as God's people. This is not election to salvation.

Butch

[_Steve]

Hi Brad,

When I say "it need not make a dime's worth of difference what a person believes on this subject," I mean that an opinion one way or the other on the topic does not necessarily dictate any important behaviors—as both Calvinists and Arminians have been known to love God, and to be committed to holy living and to evangelism. In such cases, their views about election and predestination were practically immaterial.

Of course, different beliefs on these topics has led some people to adopt scandalous concepts of God's character, or to take the obligation of obedience too casually, or to become disheartened and fall away. In those cases, the beliefs made a significant difference.

Since such beliefs might or might not make a difference in the believer's life, I said "it need not" make a difference.

[Guest]

Both of the verses you quoted were written to the Jews.

I don't see why you'd think Eph was written to the Jews. Concerning 1Pet you may have reason, but Steve effectively refutes that in his lectures on that book.