Our election is not founded on God’s foreseeing our future f

[Guest]

Possibly. But I guess I'm not sure what you mean. Can you describe the distinction between election and predestination you're referring to?

Are you speaking from a Calvinist viewpoint or non-Calvinist?

[Guest]

Well, election comes first, then as one is elected he then is predestined to be conformed into the image of the Son, and predestined to sonship. If this is correct, then election and predestination are two separate things.
Am I right, or am I missing something?

SoaringEagle

[Guest]

I’m certainly not an expert on this topic. But I believe that from a Calvinist standpoint, predestination is just another term for unconditional election. From a non-Calvinist standpoint, I believe that you are somewhat correct in your description if I understand it correctly.

Although there are varying views on this from the non-Calvinist side, from what I understand, Christ is “elected” to be the means of man’s salvation and reconciliation to God. Those that choose to trust Him and make Him Lord are also the “elect” by virtue of that relationship (being in Christ). God predestined that those who would be in this category to also be considered adopted sons and be conformed into the image of Christ. This is something above and beyond salvation. No man comes to God without being called, and God sets up divine appointments based on His foreknowledge. God does the wooing, we do the responding. God is the first cause in that He calls, but man has the final choice of whether he will participate in the benefits of the cross or not. Son-ship and holiness are among those benefits.

Getting back to your original question, it appears that whoever sent this to you might be committing the logical fallacy of the excluded middle (false dichotomy). The presumption is that “predestination” can only be talking about justification and that there is no other way to look at it. I think there is another logical way to look at it, as you have pointed out.

Anyway, I have a limited understanding on the issue and I know that there are those on this forum that have studied this topic much more than I. I am currently in the middle of studying Steve’s lectures on this and I hope to gain a better grasp of the topic through that. But for now, I hope someone else will chime in and be more helpful to you.

God bless.

[Guest]

Disclaimer: I am no expert in the area of Biblical theology. I'm just here to learn. I've been listening to Steve's lectures and was blown away by how closely my understanding of the bible lines up with his. I believe that's only happened once before.

So anyway, I saw this post and couldn't resist responding to it. To anyone, please feel free to critique it. It's all a learning thing.

Our election is not founded on God’s foreseeing our future faith.


Ephes. 1:4 (ESV)
even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love

We are simply chosen by God in love. It is not for anything in us. Not for a faith that God could fore see in us in the future. He simply choose us before the foundation of the world. There are no conditions in His choosing us to believe. We believe because He choose us to believe.

It seems to me that Paul is speaking in the first person, of a group of people that he himself is part of. A jewish remnant, possibly. Maybe the apostles. I think that the latter is most likely. Either way he isn't speaking of gentile believers in vss. 4-12, but rather Jewish believers. Note below Paul continually uses 1st person, plural pronouns; "us", "we", in the first eight verses below.

Eph 1:4-14
(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,
(6) To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
(7) In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
(8.) Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
(9) Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
(10) That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
(11) In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
(12) That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

Now in verse 13 he is using 2nd person pronouns. The subject is now someone other than himself and/or his group

(13) In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise,

By verse 14, he bunches both groups together.

(14) Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.


I'm certainly not a greek scholar so I don't know how this theory would work in the original language. Still there are other aspects of this passage that not only do not support the calvinistic style of election but rather refute it.

Verse 13 as one example, clearly points out that the Ephesians did, of their own free will, trust and believe upon hearing the gospel. If they were fore ordained or pre destined as calvinism teaches, then it would seem that Paul would have gone through the same smew when speaking of the Ephesians as he did when speaking of the Jews.