Who has been elected? Individuals or a group (Israel)?

[Eleanor]

Ridiculous.

The whole of the Old Testament is the story of a special, chosen, elected people - Israel.

And the NT?

 

[atpollard]

P.S. Balaam? He isn't exactly a righteous figure in Numbers.

GOD chose to speak with and through him ... Balaam was known as a TRUE Prophet. Nothing in the text suggests that Balaam consulted demons (like the Witch of Endor). Melchizedek, Jethro and Balaam share the distinction of being "not Israelite" that somehow knew God.

Make of that what you wish, I merely accept it at face value ... the unsaved do not really KNOW God (only know of God and reject Him).

 

[brightfame52]

On the contrary, it says it quite a bit. Search for "may believe" and "might believe" and you'll find plenty of results. Here's a good one:

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. John 20:31

Not to mention it was in the verse that you posted in this thread.

Scripture doesnt say that what you said. Its plain election is of individuals, and all the Individuals together is the One Israel of God.

 

[His clay]

Ridiculous.

The whole of the Old Testament is the story of a special, chosen, elected people - Israel.

Feel free to bring up the actual words of scripture that deals with election. Until you do, your comments are still unsupported. Don't you know this?

The standard is chapter and verse, in context, not horrible gloss overs of the whole OT. And don't forget that there is a NT also.

This is now the second time you have unsupported claims. Strike two.

 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

And the NT?

Well, it doesn't erase the Old Testament. The story continues, despite the gap of several hundred years.

 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Feel free to bring up the actual words of scripture that deals with election. Until you do, your comments are still unsupported. Don't you know this?

Batting verses back and forth in an effort to "win" on the Internet is childish. Quoting single verses taken out-of-context is the opposite of productive conversation.

Isaiah chapter 45 contains a good discussion of Israel as the elect. Chapter 65 of the same book talks about the adoption of Gentiles into Israel as the elect.

 

[Eleanor]

Well, it doesn't erase the Old Testament. The story continues, despite the gap of several hundred years.

The story continues in the cutting off of unbelieving Israel from the one olive tree of God's people,
in the grafting in of believing Gentiles,
in all mankind, Jew and Gentile, being on the same footing; i.e., salvation by faith, not by works, in Jesus Christ (Eph 2:8-9) and his atoning work for the remission of one's sin,
in receiving the promised indwelling Holy Spirit,
in adoption as sons of God and brothers of Christ, and
in the body of Christ, the church, who is the spouse of Christ in the two-in-one enfleshment of the marital union (Eph 5:30-32).

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Certainly people of many ethnicities are adopted into Israel. But that adoption isn't contingent on each of those people being individually elected by God beforehand. It's contingent on belief.

NOBODY COMES TO CHRIST except they are DRAWN TO HIM BY FATHER. (John 6:44)

 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

The story continues in the cutting off of unbelieving Israel from the one olive tree of God's people,
in the grafting in of believing Gentiles,
in salvation by faith, not by works, in Jesus Christ (Eph 28-9) and his atoning work for the remission of one's sin,
in receiving the promised indwelling Holy Spirit,
in adoption as sons of God and brothers of Christ, and
in the body of Christ, the church, who is the spouse of Christ in the two-in-one enfleshment of the marital union (Eph 5:30-32).

Everything you say is true.

But at the beginning of the New Testament, Israel is dead. It doesn't even exist. There is only Judah.

The story of the gospels is the re-establishment of the House of Israel through adoption. It is mostly those of the House of Judah that are removed because of unbelief.

-Jarrod

 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

NOBODY COMES TO CHRIST except they are DRAWN TO HIM BY FATHER. (John 6:44)

Again, plucking a single verse out of context and plopping it down here doesn't feed the conversation.

Did you want to talk about John 6? The Bread that came down from Heaven? Its certainly relevant.

 

[Eleanor]

Everything you say is true.

But at the beginning of the New Testament, Israel is dead. It doesn't even exist. There is only Judah.

The story of the gospels is the re-establishment of the House of Israel through adoption. It is mostly those of the House of Judah that are removed because of unbelief.

-Jarrod

God's people are one, both OT and NT, in the church, the true Israel of God (Gal 6:16), the one olive tree (Ro 11:16-23) of both OT and NT saints.

 

[Eleanor]

Certainly people of many ethnicities are adopted into Israel. But that adoption isn't contingent on each of those people being individually elected by God beforehand. It's contingent on belief.

And faith is a gift (Php 1:29, Ac 13:48, Ac 18:27, 1 Pe 1:1, Ro 12:3).

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Again, plucking a single verse out of context and plopping it down here doesn't feed the conversation.

It IS the conversation. Exclusive of any other conditions, If God Doesn't DRAW YOU to Jesus (Generally by CONVICTION OF SIN by the Holy Spirit - God's WORD to you - Rom 10:17), you ain't coming.

 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

It IS the conversation. Exclusive of any other conditions, If God Doesn't DRAW YOU to Jesus (Generally by CONVICTION OF SIN by the Holy Spirit - God's WORD to you - Rom 10:17), you ain't coming.

I notice that you omitted the rest of what I said.

So then, you don't want to talk about John 6, where that verse occurs?

 

[David1701]

Batting verses back and forth in an effort to "win" on the Internet is childish. Quoting single verses taken out-of-context is the opposite of productive conversation.

Isaiah chapter 45 contains a good discussion of Israel as the elect. Chapter 65 of the same book talks about the adoption of Gentiles into Israel as the elect.

You have deliberately snipped His Clay's post, thus giving a false impression. Here is what you omitted.

The standard is chapter and verse, in context, not horrible gloss overs of the whole OT. And don't forget that there is a NT also.

This is now the second time you have unsupported claims. Strike two.

https://christcentered.community.fo...individuals-or-a-group-israel.1034/post-36660

Why did you say the following, "Quoting single verses taken out-of-context is the opposite of productive conversation.", given that His Clay had clearly stated, "The standard is chapter and verse, in context, not horrible gloss overs of the whole OT."?

I hope that your reason was not wilful deception.

 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

You have deliberately snipped His Clay's post, thus giving a false impression. Here is what you omitted.



https://christcentered.community.fo...individuals-or-a-group-israel.1034/post-36660

Why did you say the following, "Quoting single verses taken out-of-context is the opposite of productive conversation.", given that His Clay had clearly stated, "The standard is chapter and verse, in context, not horrible gloss overs of the whole OT."?

I hope that your reason was not wilful deception.

My original post contained some sarcastic words in response to the bit that is now "omitted." I re-considered about 2 seconds after I hit post, went back and edited them away (the "omitted" bit went with them). No need for that.

-Jarrod

 

[atpollard]

My original post contained some sarcastic words in response to the bit that is now "omitted." I re-considered about 2 seconds after I hit post, went back and edited them away (the "omitted" bit went with them). No need for that.

-Jarrod

Been there, done that.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I don't think the translators are wrong. In verse 37 they have present tense, "God gives," and future tense, "shall come." But if you look two verses later, the giving has already been completed: "he has given me" (perfect-tense).

What is your exegetical argument here, exactly? Since the tense used in verse 39 supports your point, we should pay attention to that at the expense of any tense used in the preceding relevant verses? Surely not.

To the readers: The use of the present perfect tense in verse 39 (δέδωκέν, dedoken, "has given") indicates an action that started in the past and has relevance to the present. It does not inherently rule out the possibility of future giving. From the fact that the Father "has given" some people to the Son, one cannot conclude that he has no more people to give. To underscore this point, have a look at John 10:29 (which uses the same "has given" term) and compare it with 10:16 (where we see there are more sheep to be given beyond that historical moment).

My view is that the Father has a set number of elect or sheep whom he gives to the Son to redeem, and every single one whom he gives will indeed come, and Christ will not lose a single one, and indeed raise every single one up at the last day. Nothing in verse 39 undermines that, and everything about verses 37-40 either supports it or is at least consistent with it.

That is why I don't understand the point of highlighting the present perfect tense of δέδωκέν in verse 39.

Again, @Wycliffes_Shillelagh said, "Perseverance isn't required because group membership is fluid. One can leave the group, in which case they may not be saved." That seems to fly in the face of what Jesus said here in John 6, that he will not lose any of those whom the Father has given him, but raise them all up at the last day. Even if @Wycliffes_Shillelagh was right, that this is about only those the Father has given thus far, Jesus clearly indicated that this membership isn't fluid. "I shall lose none of all those he has given me," Jesus said—none leave the group and fail to be saved (i.e., their perseverance is assured).

Even if it refers to the future, it is the very near future. By the time the crowd goes home, the opportunity has passed.

This is not an "opportunity" for "whoever." This is the voice of the great Shepherd calling his sheep. He knows who they are. They know his voice and follow him. And the sheep are guaranteed to believe—and persevere.

Remember, John 10:26 doesn't say, "You are not my sheep because you do not believe."

 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

What is your exegetical argument here, exactly? Since the tense used in verse 39 supports your point, we should pay attention to that at the expense of any tense used in the preceding relevant verses? Surely not.

I thought my argument was pretty clear, but you snipped that part out when you quoted it, so... I guess I'll just say it again?

In John 6, Jesus is addressing a group of people that are standing in front of him. Not only is he talking to them, but also about them. Look at all the subjunctives throughout the chapter. He speaks of the possibility of their salvation.

Where it says "all" and "every one" we should understand it as "all of you" and "every one of you" rather than "all persons throughout history" or "every one who will ever exist."

This is why Jesus can talk about it as a completed action just 2 verses after he posed it as something happening in the present.

To the readers: The use of the present perfect tense in verse 39 (δέδωκέν, dedoken, "has given") indicates an action that started in the past and has relevance to the present. It does not inherently rule out the possibility of future giving. From the fact that the Father "has given" some people to the Son, one cannot conclude that he has no more people to give. To underscore this point, have a look at John 10:29 (which uses the same "has given" term) and compare it with 10:16 (where we see there are more sheep to be given beyond that historical moment).

You're right, the perfect tense doesn't preclude the event happening more in the future. The context does, though. Out of the group standing in front of Jesus, some will come to him, and a minute later Jesus talks about them as having been delivered to him (the state-of-being indicated by the perfect tense word).

Trying to pull those verses out of context and re-apply them to everyone in perpetuity is the exegetical mistake.

Again, @Wycliffes_Shillelagh said, "Perseverance isn't required because group membership is fluid. One can leave the group, in which case they may not be saved." That seems to fly in the face of what Jesus said here in John 6, that he will not lose any of those whom the Father has given him, but raise them all up at the last day. Even if @Wycliffes_Shillelagh was right, that this is about only those the Father has given thus far, Jesus clearly indicated that this membership isn't fluid. "I shall lose none of all those he has given me," Jesus said—none leave the group and fail to be saved (i.e., their perseverance is assured).

Speaking of that group on that day, and those who were delivered to Jesus... it would be odd if Jesus were to add some to Israel, with foreknowledge that they would later be removed from it. So yes, all of those people that were there that day that believed and were added would (did) persevere.

Does that mean we can take that and apply it carte blanche to EVERY person that will come afterwards? No. It only applies to those that Jesus was talking about, and that isn't everyone.

This is not an "opportunity" for "whoever." This is the voice of the great Shepherd calling his sheep. He knows who they are. They know his voice and follow him. And the sheep are guaranteed to believe—and persevere.

Remember, John 10:26 doesn't say, "You are not my sheep because you do not believe."

There is quite a bit written about lost sheep in the prophets and gospels. How do you reconcile the existence of lost sheep with your view that all the sheep are guaranteed to believe?

As I see it, the House of Israel was divorced by God (Jer 3) and later put to death (Eze 37) for the cause of unfaithfulness. The northern kingdom lost its standing before God as a nation. The survivors escaped into the Gentile nations around them and lost any kind of identity. Yet they were descendants of Abraham - that is to say, they were still sheep. They were lost sheep, but still sheep.

Jesus came to preach to those lost sheep and call them back into the metaphorical fold (Mat 10, 15). Why did he need to do that? Because even though they were sheep, there was no safety for them outside the fold. For dead Israel to live again, the lost sheep needed to be adopted back into the nation, re-generated, metaphorically resuscitated.

A large part of the book of John - including all the bits we've been discussing - is dedicated to Jesus teachings on how to tell who is a sheep, and who is not. That is to say, He addressed the theological question of 'who is an Israelite?' He discards the genealogies of the Sadducees, and the traditions of the Pharisees in favor of a rule that one's parentage may be determined by looking at behavior:

Jhn 8:37-39 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.

There is no guarantee that every lost sheep will believe or be saved, because it is not guaranteed that every lost sheep will even hear the message. This is the sense in which faith is a gift - the message is given, by speaking it. Faith comes by hearing.

-Jarrod

 

[David1701]

My original post contained some sarcastic words in response to the bit that is now "omitted." I re-considered about 2 seconds after I hit post, went back and edited them away (the "omitted" bit went with them). No need for that.

-Jarrod

Your edit left the misrepresentation that I mentioned. It seems that you didn't think to edit that away.