Chosen by God - A study in Election

You said: "God's 'purpose of election" is referring to the election of the Jews rather than an election unto salvation."

That is absolute apostate rubbish.

Rom 11:5
So then ALSO, in the present time, there has been a REMNANT according to the election of grace.

Rom 11:8
What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained [[[ ""IT""]]], but the rest were hardened,

Who are these PRESENT (the time of Pauls writing) elect remnant that Paul is referring to?
They are Jewish converts to Christianity!

What exactly is this ""IT"" that they have obtained?
True righteousness that ONLY COMES with the belief in the risen Savior the Lord Jesus Christ.

Yes indeed the text is utterly unassailable in stating that ALL JEWISH CHRISTIANS in the Pauls day were the ELECT REMNANT chosen OUT OF the nation Israel by God to be saved.

Hey, some actual contextual analysis. Congratulations, you're on your way. Except you're still reading it backwards and beginning with what you understand election to be speaking of, and ignoring the larger point which Paul is speaking to which is answering challengers who say because God changed the plan from the nation of Israel He failed because Israel failed. Paul is demonstrating that the whole process was God's purpose in election, the remnant that persisted stood in achieving what Israel was intended to achieve. The word "elect" has many meanings, and Paul uses it in a couple of different senses across his writings. Who is God's elect? Jesus Christ, who by faith achieved what Israel was chosen to achieve. Paul has a single point throughout Romans and doesn't deviate from it, throughout revealing how God's purposes are fulfilled in Jesus first through the law itself proceeding from how nature condemns men, proceeding to the revelation of the law to bring consciousness of sin, finally ending with Jesus as the fulfillment of the law then through Jesus as the representation of Israel, beginning with highlighting how God's plan for Israel from the beginning was to show mercy to the whole world, then revealing how Israel did not fail but succeeded in God's election of Jesus Christ.
If you would draw your word meanings based on their immediate context you would understand these things, but instead you begin with a definition and then distort the writing to fit that definition.

I don't take advice from an apostate. I give it.

Hey, some actual contextual analysis. Congratulations, you're on your way. Except you're still reading it backwards and beginning with what you understand election to be speaking of, and ignoring the larger point which Paul is speaking to which is answering challengers who say because God changed the plan from the nation of Israel He failed because Israel failed. Paul is demonstrating that the whole process was God's purpose in election, the remnant that persisted stood in achieving what Israel was intended to achieve. The word "elect" has many meanings, and Paul uses it in a couple of different senses across his writings. Who is God's elect? Jesus Christ, who by faith achieved what Israel was chosen to achieve. Paul has a single point throughout Romans and doesn't deviate from it, throughout revealing how God's purposes are fulfilled in Jesus first through the law itself proceeding from how nature condemns men, proceeding to the revelation of the law to bring consciousness of sin, finally ending with Jesus as the fulfillment of the law then through Jesus as the representation of Israel, beginning with highlighting how God's plan for Israel from the beginning was to show mercy to the whole world, then revealing how Israel did not fail but succeeded in God's election of Jesus Christ.
If you would draw your word meanings based on their immediate context you would understand these things, but instead you begin with a definition and then distort the writing to fit that definition.

I would think the apostate is the one adding accepting Calvinist dogma to the gospel as if confessing Christ's death, burial, and resurrection alone is insufficient.

Bare in mind I'm just one of the 850 or so that are viewing the forum but are you saying that Jesus Christ is the elect or am I misunderstanding you?

Not in every case, and in the passage in question its more of a double meaning since not all of Israel pursued the law as work. Romans 9-11 is God's purpose in election so it touches both on the fulfillment of the purpose of Israel through Christ as elect but also speaking of the remnant as the natural elect in contrast to the gentiles. Romans 9 and Romans 11 are making the same point to seemingly different audiences, with the Jews in focus in Romans 9 owing to the usage of their heritage and the gentiles in view in Romans 11 focusing on their rebellion.

I take your rejection as a badge of honor.

As for Romans 9-11, it is God's sovereign purpose at issue but the quotes Paul uses and the lead up in Romans 1-8 make it clear that Paul is speaking to "children of Abraham" about why they have been displaced, and how God has chosen to show mercy to the gentiles through their rejection. Paul is explaining how this has been the plan from the beginning. God's 'purpose of election" is referring to the election of the Jews rather than an election unto salvation.

As for Ephesians not being useful for doctrine, that's a twisting of what I have actually stated. It is simply that the original purpose of being a doxology must be understood as the principle meaning rather than imposing doctrine onto the text and taking that doxology to justify it.

Hey, some actual contextual analysis. Congratulations, you're on your way. Except you're still reading it backwards and beginning with what you understand election to be speaking of, and ignoring the larger point which Paul is speaking to which is answering challengers who say because God changed the plan from the nation of Israel He failed because Israel failed. Paul is demonstrating that the whole process was God's purpose in election, the remnant that persisted stood in achieving what Israel was intended to achieve. The word "elect" has many meanings, and Paul uses it in a couple of different senses across his writings. Who is God's elect? Jesus Christ, who by faith achieved what Israel was chosen to achieve. Paul has a single point throughout Romans and doesn't deviate from it, throughout revealing how God's purposes are fulfilled in Jesus first through the law itself proceeding from how nature condemns men, proceeding to the revelation of the law to bring consciousness of sin, finally ending with Jesus as the fulfillment of the law then through Jesus as the representation of Israel, beginning with highlighting how God's plan for Israel from the beginning was to show mercy to the whole world, then revealing how Israel did not fail but succeeded in God's election of Jesus Christ.
If you would draw your word meanings based on their immediate context you would understand these things, but instead you begin with a definition and then distort the writing to fit that definition.

Oh,,then in the case in Matthew https://biblehub.com/kjv/matthew/24-22.htm Jesus is not speaking of himself in the reference but referring to others as the elect?

Yes, it's a contextual question. Sometimes the elect is the nation of Israel, sometimes it's those in Christ, sometimes its a specific individual. The question in Romans 11:7 is which one fitting the title of "elect" managed to obtain what Israel was elected to obtain? Who managed to achieve the righteousness promised to come via the law?

Yes, it's a contextual question. Sometimes the elect is the nation of Israel, sometimes it's those in Christ, sometimes its a specific individual. The question in Romans 11:7 is which one fitting the title of "elect" managed to obtain what Israel was elected to obtain? Who managed to achieve the righteousness promised to come via the law?

In both Matthew and Mark the term elect is in aorist because of the word "cut short" and so it would not mean it was going to be cut short(future) it being aorist denotes that it had already been cut short when Jesus said it. In Romans it is an genitive,adjective so in reference to a noun,pronoun already predetermined by God(choice/chosen) as used by Paul.

I'm not quite sure what you're speaking to, exactly. Aorist is something said of verbs, genitive nouns so I don't know what you're saying is in the aorist in Matthew and Mark that's supposedly in the genitive in Romans. Going beyond that looking for significance in the grammar is rife with trouble, unless you're settling between two possible meanings.

It's quite clear when you take a doxology and force-fit it into the musings of a medieval lawyer while conveniently ignoring portions of it that run counter to the out-of-time salvation such as "when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him" you're working on pretexts.
You fail to account for the contextual issues of Scripture and fail to ask the important questions like "What is the original purpose of this writing?" In so doing you place your philosophy over Scriptural truth and instead of looking to Scripture to conform yourself to it you twist it to prove yourself right. You make yourself Scriptures judge and place Paul at odds with the entire rest of the Word, even prioritizing him over Jesus.

"musings of a medieval lawyer"????
Are you belittling the beloved apostle Paul. I think you are.

Paul wrote perhaps one third of the Bible. Was the pioneer who began innumerable Churches. He was taught directly by revelation from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself for three years. He was exalted by a visit to the third heaven. Paul's word is Gospel. Paul's doctrine is divine in origin, and as far as the Church is concerned penned by far most of it.

Such a man deserves far better than to be belittled and insulted in such a manner.

Are you gonna sit here all night and criticize every word I write? Why don't you think for yourself for a change and actually do some of your own research and Bible study?

Frankly my back hurts from carrying you around on it for all of dozens these pages.

Oh well

Oh you are talking about Calvin the "medieval lawyer".
As of said before I have never read Calvin's commentaries therefore I am innocent of these charges of prejudicially imposing anything upon the text. I am simply reading it for what it is according what it says.

Koinonia.
The inward call of God.....
I had heard all about Jesus at school and from a vicar....


After that call goes out from a faithful minister of the gospel,whether it be from the pulpit or from a couch in your own home,then God gives the inward call .
It is this inward call that is irresistible to a renewed fleshy heart.

Paul said to the Ephesians .

That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ,the Father of glory,may give you the spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him,having the eyes of our hearts enlightened,that you may know what is the hope to which he called you,what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the Saints,Ephesians 1:17-18

Those verses are just one of so many passages.
When you begin to look at scripture with an "EYE" toward the effectual call of God,you will see many instances where it is mentioned.



When God quickens your spirit it is irresistible ...my testimony.

He chooses,he draws and he quickens,made alive in Christ.....no choice.......because it was God's will for our lives before we were even born,he knew us.......
The spirit of God dwells in the inner being of a believer......never ever to leave.
There is a guy on here who kicks against the spirit dwelling in a believer......so his doctrine is False and untrue

So far I have not seen you expound, exegete, clearly explain any part of scripture in context.