Does the Bible say God chose and predestinated some to salvation

[JIM]

If it was not about Salvation AT ALL, then why include it in Romans? Paul is in the middle of a LONG discussion all about salvation (and sin and faith and works of the Law failing to save), so to think anything was just thrown in that had nothing to do with the topic is silly.

Because as I have pointed out on a couple of occasions now, that the purpose of chapter 9 is established right at the beginning. The Jews were claiming that since they were Israelites, members of God's chosen (elect) nation, then that was sufficient for their salvation. Paul is explaining that is not so.

Paul had just spent the first eight chapters explaining that salvation was by grace not by law. The Jews, Paul's brothers, his kinsmen according to the flesh, expected to be saved by the law. Paul said no. He ended chapter 9 giving the reason for the Gentiles acceptance (v.30) and the reason for the Jews lostness (v.31-33). He then proceeds into chapter 10 showing the Jew's rejection of God's righteousness. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness (10:3). He continues through to the end of chapter 10 dealing with Israel's choice of law rather than grace. He ends chapter 10 with, But of Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people" (v.21) Having done that Paul then moves into chapter 11 detailing the salvation of God's "true" Israel (which he had introduced in chapter 9 (v.6).

 

[JIM]

Thank you for your time but none of it was missed. It was all addressed and is being ignored. Moving on from your nonsense.

I do love arrogance when it is expressed in ignorance.

 

[atpollard]

Because as I have pointed out on a couple of occasions now, that the purpose of chapter 9 is established right at the beginning. The Jews were claiming that since they were Israelites, members of God's chosen (elect) nation, then that was sufficient for their salvation. Paul is explaining that is not so.

Paul had just spent the first eight chapters explaining that salvation was by grace not by law. The Jews, Paul's brothers, his kinsmen according to the flesh, expected to be saved by the law. Paul said no. He ended chapter 9 giving the reason for the Gentiles acceptance (v.30) and the reason for the Jews lostness (v.31-33). He then proceeds into chapter 10 showing the Jew's rejection of God's righteousness. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness (10:3). He continues through to the end of chapter 10 dealing with Israel's choice of law rather than grace. He ends chapter 10 with, But of Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people" (v.21) Having done that Paul then moves into chapter 11 detailing the salvation of God's "true" Israel (which he had introduced in chapter 9 (v.6).

I am going to simply disagree with your "Jew-centric" focus on those chapters and leave it at that. I have been around the block enough to know nothing "useful" (for either of us) comes from these sort of differences of opinions.

To borrow from the OT:

"The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face shine upon you,
And be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you,
And give you peace."
- Numbers 6:24-26

 

[JIM]

I am going to simply disagree with your "Jew-centric" focus on those chapters and leave it at that. I have been around the block enough to know nothing "useful" (for either of us) comes from these sort of differences of opinions.

To borrow from the OT:

"The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face shine upon you,
And be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you,
And give you peace."
- Numbers 6:24-26

Do you think that Romans 9:1-5 or 10:1-3 is Jew-centric focused?

 

[atpollard]

Do you think that Romans 9:1-5 or 10:1-3 is Jew-centric focused?

Since you insist ... Romans 9:1-5
Yes, Jew-centric focused. My turn.

Why does Romans 9:5 end with the word "Amen."?
What is the significance of Romans 9:7?

I take Scripture in large contextual chunks, so Verses 1-5 are speaking of Jews, but what do the points I raise signify for how the PART fits together with the WHOLE?

[... assuming Paul was not senile and just subject to random bunny trails like many a preacher. ]
[We can look at 10:1-3 next.]

 

[makesends]

Your view of God's sovereignty makes God the supreme Puppeteer and means of course that he eternally condemns those he has "sovereignly" caused to sin. You can hold God to that if you like. I don't. I reject outright your definition of God's sovereignty.

No. You are the one inferring that from what I say. If you think it is possible for God to knowingly create what he did not intend, YOU have a logical conflict of terminology or principle. What is more important, if God is experimenting, then he is not omniscient nor omnipotent. I reject outright that definition of God.

 

[makesends]

That is determinism and that is false. Determinism basically says that everything that happens, including everything that we think and everything we do, is determined by things that have preceded, going all the way back to the beginning which has God as the beginner.

And how do you propose they come about, then? By Chance?

 

[makesends]

For all of your discussion there, you fail to understand or perhaps even to know that the Greek grammar will not permit the "that" in "that not of yourselves" cannot modify either grace or faith. Both of the Greek words for grace and for faith are feminine in gender. The "that" in the Greek is neutral in gender. Therefore, according to Greek grammar, the "that" can only modify the entire phrase, "by grace you have been saved through faith", that is, the gift in Ephesians 2:8 is salvation by grace through faith.

You apparently didn't read what I said. I agree that the Greek grammar shows that the "that" of "that not of yourselves" is specifically referring to Salvation, and not to grace nor faith. Happy? Hello!

My point is that the principle must logically also apply to the mentioned way, or means, by which the Salvation comes —it comes BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH. Logically, according to language, if Salvation is both 1. by Grace through Faith, and 2. not of yourselves, then Grace and Faith are also not of yourselves. And no, THE GREEK GRAMMAR DOES NOT PROHIBIT IT. It only grammatically fails to modify "grace" and "faith".

 

[JIM]

You apparently didn't read what I said. I agree that the Greek grammar shows that the "that" of "that not of yourselves" is specifically referring to Salvation, and not to grace nor faith. Happy? Hello!

My point is that the principle must logically also apply to the mentioned way, or means, by which the Salvation comes —it comes BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH. Logically, according to language, if Salvation is both 1. by Grace through Faith, and 2. not of yourselves, then Grace and Faith are also not of yourselves. And no, THE GREEK GRAMMAR DOES NOT PROHIBIT IT. It only grammatically fails to modify "grace" and "faith".

That is simply not logical either in Greek or English.

 

[atpollard]

That is simply not logical either in Greek or English.

Why is it "illogical" for the "gift" that is "of God" and "not of yourselves" to be [salvation, grace and faith]?
Why can "grace" not be a gift from God (LOGICALLY, not GRAMMATICALLY)?

• [Rom 12:3, 6 NASB] 3 For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith. ... 6 However, since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, [each of us is to use them properly:] if prophecy, in proportion to [one's] faith;
• [1Co 1:4 NASB] 4 I thank my God always concerning you for the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus,
• "Grace" given to "me", "us" and "you" ... so "grace can be "given".

Why can "faith" not be a gift from God (LOGICALLY, not GRAMMATICALLY)?

• [Rom 12:3 NASB] 3 For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith.
• [Luk 17:5 NASB] 5 The apostles said to the Lord, "Increase our faith!"
• "faith" allotted to each by God, and increased by God.

 

[JIM]

Why is it "illogical" for the "gift" that is "of God" and "not of yourselves" to be [salvation, grace and faith]?
Why can "grace" not be a gift from God (LOGICALLY, not GRAMMATICALLY)?

• [Rom 12:3, 6 NASB] 3 For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith. ... 6 However, since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, [each of us is to use them properly:] if prophecy, in proportion to [one's] faith;
• [1Co 1:4 NASB] 4 I thank my God always concerning you for the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus,
• "Grace" given to "me", "us" and "you" ... so "grace can be "given".

The word "grace" takes on several different meanings in the Bible. In some cases it literally means gift. But that is not the case in Ephesians 2:8. In other instances "grace" is referring to the graciousness of God. I believe that is the way it is used in the Ephesians passage.

Why can "faith" not be a gift from God (LOGICALLY, not GRAMMATICALLY)?

• [Rom 12:3 NASB] 3 For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith.
• [Luk 17:5 NASB] 5 The apostles said to the Lord, "Increase our faith!"
• "faith" allotted to each by God, and increased by God.

If you read the passage in Romans, it is apparent that what is being allotted are the spiritual gifts.

so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith (12:5-6).

If faith is a gift as you would claim, then why would Jesus chastise anyone for having only "little faith"?

Mat 17:20 He said to them, "Because of your little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you."

Why did He not simply increase their faith?

But all that being said, the point is that in Ephesians 2:8, it is pretty clear that the gift is salvation and that is by grace through faith. So that even if faith were to be a gift, Paul did not say so in Ephesians 2:8.

 

[makesends]

That is simply not logical either in Greek or English.

Assertion only. Your proof?


Again:

Proposition 1. Salvation comes by grace through faith.​

Proposition 2. Salvation is the gift of God, coming no other way —specifically, not by works.​

Conclusion: The means by which salvation comes, are also therefore, the gift of God, and not works.​

 

[JIM]

Assertion only. Your proof?


Again:

Proposition 1. Salvation comes by grace through faith.​

Proposition 2. Salvation is the gift of God, coming no other way —specifically, not by works.​

Conclusion: The means by which salvation comes, are also therefore, the gift of God, and not works.​

You need to study up on formal logic.

My father was gracious and promised me a car when I graduated from high school. My car came through grace and finishing high school. My car was a gift. Neither my father's grace nor my finishing high school was a gift.

 

[makesends]

You need to study up on formal logic.

My father was gracious and promised me a car when I graduated from high school. My car came through grace and finishing high school. My car was a gift. Neither my father's grace nor my finishing high school was a gift.

"...and that, NOT of yourself..." Eph. 2

Salvation is not a car, and not earned in any respect.

 

[JIM]

"...and that, NOT of yourself..." Eph. 2

Salvation is not a car, and not earned in any respect.

The issue was the logical implication of a statement. Your propositions 1 and 2 do not logically produce the conclusion you stated. And if you do not understand that, then as I said, you need to study up on formal logic.

 

[makesends]

The issue was the logical implication of a statement. Your propositions 1 and 2 do not logically produce the conclusion you stated. And if you do not understand that, then as I said, you need to study up on formal logic.

Of course. I took shortcuts, but your logic is self-contradictory. My conclusion was awkwardly stated, as was proposition 2. Nevertheless, it is true that if Salvation is BY Grace THROUGH faith, then those are necessarily the means by which Salvation comes. If they are the means, and Salvation is not of works, and not of yourself, they are included in what it not of works and not of yourself.

Your point was good in that grammatically Salvation is what is described as not of yourself and not of works. But your strange claim that the grammar prohibits that the grace through faith are grammatically prohibited from being of yourself nor of works, is not logical.

Take another look at the logic that produces your car analogy. Illogical

Take another look at the logic that produces your notions of free will. You see that man does choose. You therefore, somehow, think it means God does NOT choose, nor cause, your choice. You admit that choices do not come from a void, but from what happened previously, yet somehow think that God (if no other way) at the beginning of the long chains of what caused what happened previously, means that you didn't choose. You have contradicted yourself. —How is it possible that God can cause that you exist, yet in no way caused specifically everything you are and do? God only built the shell, and you supply all the internals? Even a deist, if pressured, has to admit that if God only started the universe rolling, that ever effect that we now see is a result of what began when God created.

You deny that you think decisions are made in a void, yet you deny cause and effect past some point, denying First Cause.

You admit God is Creator, but deny that is causal toward your choices.

 

[JIM]

But your strange claim that the grammar prohibits that the grace through faith are grammatically prohibited from being of yourself nor of works, is not logical.

I made no such claim.

 

[ShepherdsPie]

Does the Bible say God chose and predestined some to salvation?

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, Eph 1:4-5.


The answer is obviously a "Yes."

So then, do you consider election, or God’s choice of men, unfair, even thouh Paul said it's not? What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. Rom 9:14.

I love God’s promise of salvation for His Elect.
But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth,

- 2 Thessalonians 2:13 (NKJV)

~Pie

 

[Alive]

I love God’s promise of salvation for His Elect.
But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth,

- 2 Thessalonians 2:13 (NKJV)

~Pie

We are glad to have you join the forum and sharing scripture and what the Lord has taught you, sister.
Welcome.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Sure.

In the first option God past, present, and future appear before him at his position in eternity; all three observed simultaneously from the eternal vantage position before any of the events within them temporally occur.

In the second option God is observing the event at the time the event occurs, not from his vantage position in eternity. The first is not time-dependent; the second is time (temporally and spatially) dependent.

Some argue God knows the future because He looked down the timeline and saw what will happen, thereby also knowing what will not happen. That is how He knows what to prophecy and that is how He knows who will choose salvation. It's an enormously faulty point of view.

You said that in the first scenario the "past, present, and future appear before [God] at his position in eternity," all of it being "observed simultaneously" from his eternal vantage point "before any of the events within them temporally occur."

However, a problem arises from saying "before" any of the events "temporally" occur, for there is no such thing from an eternal vantage point. As Aiden W. Tozer put it, "In God there is no was or will be, but a continuous and unbroken is. For him, history and prophecy are one and the same." Therefore, I am compelled to assume that you meant what is past, present, and future from our temporal vantage point (at any given moment in history).

And perhaps you can now appreciate my confusion. If all of human history—past, present, and future—is observed by God at once from his eternal vantage point, then he effectively observes all events at the time they each occur (i.e., you made a distinction without a difference). It's just not a temporal succession of observations for God but a singular observation from an eternal now.

Alternatively, you are describing a God who is eternal (first scenario) and a God who is temporal (second scenario). But the latter is not the God of Christian orthodoxy, so that scenario can be summarily dismissed.