Talk:Election

From Theopedia

Contents 1 The scope of the article 2 Recent major changes 3 Calvin removal 4 Removal of note on Barth

The scope of the article

I'm having a little trouble getting my arms around the desired scope of this article. In its broader sense, election is related to more than eternal salvation (at least directly). E.g. God chose Abraham to father the nation Israel, he chose the nation Israel to serve his purposes among other nations. God did a lot of choosing that is not unto salvation. To cover this adequately is probably no small task.

I guess "the broad sense" of it could be mentioned in passing, and let the article focus specifically on salvation. In my mind this may force a new look at the best outline (and subsections) for the article. Any guidance or comments??? Gomarus 14:32, 22 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Recent major changes

I put back the original intro paragraph because it is helpful to begin an article with a general defintion of a doctrine or school of thought before providing more particular defintions. Thus, I kept the Calvinist definition that was written by Avielh Aleczis. Also, note that major changes should be addressed on the talk pages before they are integrated into the articles. At the same time, we appreciate the many new additions. Jordan Barrett (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm also not so sure about listing bible verse after verse. It may be better to simply list them rather than have them all written out. Any thoughts? Jordan Barrett (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, now that I think of it, I would like to rethink the flow of this article. While Theopedia is Reformed, this does not mean that we need to have a lengthy section of what Calvin thought. I think it would be much more helpful to outline this article by topic or by answering the questions that the intro provides (who?, how?, etc.). Calvin (and Arminius) can be incorporated into these sections/discussions rather than having his own lengthy section (to reinforce this position, why should we outline Calvin's thought when a person can read his actual writings online for free?). This is definitely open for discussion, but that is my .02. Jordan Barrett (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jordan regarding lengthy section on Calvin. Calvin's views may be summarized in a couple of quotes. There is no need to present his argument in detail. That is why we give references and footnotes. Jim Ellis 12:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Calvin removal

I removed the following due to the discussion above. Portions of this can be edited down for re-insertion into the article.

He then argues that unconditional election is shown by,

I. God's free choice of Abraham's descendants and rejection of other nations. That God chose Abraham's descendants for reasons not in them, not doing the same for other nations.

"Because He loved your fathers, therefore He chose their descendants after them. And He personally brought you from Egypt by His great power" Deut 4:37 NASB

"The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples, ,,but because the LORD loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers,,, the LORD brought you out by a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt." Deut 7:7-8 NASB

"Yet on your fathers did the LORD set His affection to love them, and He chose their descendants after them, {even} you above all peoples, as {it is} this day." Deut 10:15 NASB

"Know, then, {it is} not because of your righteousness {that} the LORD your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stubborn people." Deut 9:6 NASB

"Know that the LORD Himself is God; It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves; {We are} His people and the sheep of His pasture." Ps 100:3 NASB

"For the LORD will not abandon His people on account of His great name, because the LORD has been pleased to make you a people for Himself." 1 Sam 12:22 NASB

Calvin also argues that this election of Abraham's descendants is "firm and stable" in that when God apparently abandons them, He confirms the original election with (as if) a "second" election, pointing to the future.

"When the LORD will have compassion on Jacob and again choose Israel, and settle them in their own land, then strangers will join them and attach themselves to the house of Jacob." Is 14:1 NASB

"You whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, And called from its remotest parts And said to you, 'You are My servant, I have chosen you and not rejected you." Is 41:9 NASB

"Again, proclaim, saying, 'Thus says the LORD of hosts, "My cities will again overflow with prosperity, and the LORD will again comfort Zion and again choose Jerusalem." Zech 1:17 NASB

"The LORD will possess Judah as His portion in the holy land, and will again choose Jerusalem." Zech 2:12 NASB

Calvin says that,

"election [of Israel]... remains inviolable, though the signs of it do not always appear." (brackets added)

Calvin is forced to add this because during his time there was no nation of Israel. It was destroyed by the Romans for more than a millenium then. He had to point to the future, to show that God's election of Israel did not change, otherwise His argument fails (because election would be conditional).

II. God's free choice of individuals within Abraham's descendants "by special grace" rejecting others. That God is not bound to share His grace equally, but He is free to give more to some, less to others for no reason within the individuals.

1. Ishmael was equally part of the Abrahamic covenant with Isaac because he was also circumcised, yet God rejected Ishmael and chose Isaac (the grace given to Ishmael is not equal to that given to Isaac).
2. Esau was cut off, Jacob chosen (both recieve grace but unequal)
3. Almost the whole of Israel was cut off (Calvin alluding to Rom. 11:7-8), and a only remnant was chosen (both groups recieve grace but unequal).
4. Calvin also points out Judah chosen over Joseph (David over Saul).

III Paul's teaching that the same kind of election is at work in individuals in the Christian dispensation.

Calvin points out that all elect individuals (including those in the O.T.) belong to one seed (Jesus Christ),

"to whom God not only offers salvation, but so assigns it, that the certainty of the result remains not dubious or suspended[2]. These are considered as belonging to that one seed of which Paul makes mention, (Rom 9: 8; Gal 3: 16, &c)."

And that many of Abraham's physical descendants were cut off to show that election is ultimately tied to the Father and not to Abraham. It also serves as a visible image, that when God invites a people (which is all of mankind in the N.T.) to His covenant, He does not elect them all; but freely chooses to give more grace to some and less to others for no reason within them (just like with regard to Abraham's descendants).

"The reason why the general election of the people is not always firmly ratified, readily presents itself, viz., that on those with whom God makes the covenant, he does not immediately bestow the Spirit of regeneration, by whose power they persevere in the covenant even to the end."

"...Not that simply to be a son of Abraham was a vain or useless privilege, (this could not be said without insult to the covenant), but that the immutable counsel of God, by which he predestinated to himself whomsoever he would, was alone effectual for their salvation. "

Calvin concludes :

"We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction. We maintain that this counsel, as regards the elect, is founded on his free mercy, without any respect to human worth, while those whom he dooms to destruction are excluded from access to life by a just and blameless, but at the same time incomprehensible judgment..."

Thus, while God chooses who to save and who to reject unconditionally, there is a difference in how He saves and how He condemns. He saves the elect on the basis of His free mercy, while He condemns the reprobate on the basis of His righteous judgment, but both are ultimately determined by God's sovereign pleasure.

"In regard to the elect, we regard calling as the evidence of election, and justification as another symbol of its manifestation, until it is fully accomplished by the attainment of glory. But as the Lord seals his elect by calling and justification, so by excluding the reprobate either from the knowledge of his name or the sanctification of his Spirit, he by these marks in a manner discloses the judgment which awaits them."

Thus for Calvin, calling and justification are the evidence that one is elect, while a lack of the knowledge of Jesus or a lack of sanctification (i.e. at time of death) are the marks of being reprobate. ^[1]

Jordan Barrett (talk) 03:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of note on Barth

I'm not trying to be arrogant or mean, but the basictheology website is incorrect. Barth does not fall under corporate election, but universal election. Thus, it is not just the church, or Israel, etc. For Barth Jesus is the electing God and the elect man, and everyone must realize their election in him (hence why he's often accused of a blatant universalism). Plus, the article is too vague to be cited. It's not only wrong, but it doesn't cite any sources. Also, and this is my own opinion, Barth deserves his own section - not a blurb under "corporate election." Even if people don't agree with his view, it is rather challenging and unique within the history of Christian thought. Bruce McCormack goes so far as to say that "when the history of theology in the twentieth century is written from the vantage point of, let us say, one hundred years from now, I am confident that the greatest contribution of Karl Barth to the development of church doctrine will be located in his doctrine of election." Jordan Barrett (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I set out to find a ref for corporate election prior to Barth, but that now appears unnecessary. :-) I too have found errors in some of the Basictheology website info, so eliminating it as a reference is fine with me. However, I have seen Barth's name associated with "corporate election." Jim Ellis 18:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the first error I've seen as basictheology. Good to know that I should keep a better eye out though. I can see how Barth could be associated with corporate election, but I think that's putting him in a nice, neat box when his view of election actually places himself in his own camp. Jordan Barrett (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, basictheology is not the website I was thinking of when I mentioned errors. Sorry. Jim Ellis 18:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)