General Election

Barnpreacher · #1 (**permalink**) 12-16-2008, 06:29 PM

Do paedo's believe that all members of the visible church are generally elected as the term was used of Israel in the O.T.?

I know that today we use the term general calling to all that hear the gospel and efficacious calling to those who are converted by the Spirit of God. But using the term election seems to go beyond the use of the word calling as it is used in the NT. A general election makes sense when referred to the seed of Israel as we see in the O.T., but I was curious what the difference between a general calling and a general election in the New Covenant would be.

**turmeric** · #2 (**permalink**) 12-16-2008, 06:44 PM

Oops, almost moved this to Politics Forum!

Hippo · #3 (**permalink**) 12-16-2008, 07:29 PM

I am sure that it betrays my lack of knowledge but I have never heard of the concept of a "general election" outside the context of a FV framework whereby "election" means something other than its confessional meaning.

Barnpreacher · #4 (**permalink**) 12-16-2008, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hippo

I am sure that it betrays my lack of knowledge but I have never heard of the concept of a "general election" outside the context of a FV framework whereby "election" means something other than its confessional meaning.

Calvin says:

Quote:

Now we know, and it has been before stated, that the election of God as to that people (Israel) was twofold; for the one was general, and the other special. The election of holy Jacob was special, for he was really one of the children of God; special also was the election of those who are called by Paul the children of promise, (Rom. ix. 8.) There was another, a general election; for he received his whole seed into his faith, and offered to all his covenant. At the same time, they were not all regenerated, they were not all gifted with the Spirit of adoption. This general election was not then efficacious at all.

Poimen · #5 (**permalink**) 12-16-2008, 07:43 PM

Calvin speaks of a general election in the Institutes (3.21.7):

Quote:

“his free election has been only half explained until we come to individual persons, to whom God not only offers salvation but so assigns it that the certainty of its effect is not in suspense or doubt… So, indeed, God’s generous favor, which he has denied to others, has been displayed in the adoption of the race of Abraham; yet in the members of Christ a far more excellent power of grace appears, for, engrafted to their Head, they are never cut off from salvation… It is easy to explain why the general election of a people is not always firm and effectual: to those with whom God makes a covenant, he does not at once give the spirit of regeneration that would enable them to persevere in the covenant to the very end. Rather, the outward change, without the working of inner grace, which might have availed to keep them, is intermediate between the rejection of mankind and the election of a meager number of the godly… Not that it was a vain and unprofitable thing simply to be a child of Abraham; such could not be said without dishonoring the covenant! No, God’s unchangeable plan, by which he predestined for himself those whom he willed, was in fact intrinsically effectual unto salvation for these spiritual offspring alone.”

The idea is certainly valid for a paedobaptist but its use may be unadvisable considering the controversy at Dordt. The Remonstrants, after all, used Reformed theological terms all the while emptying them of their historically understood content. So much so that to speak of 'general election' in our day and age invites comparisons to those who hold to a conditional and losable election.

Personally I have used the term in my sermons on the Canons but not without a careful explanation of the term, especially distinguishing it from 'eternal election'.

Barnpreacher · #6 (**permalink**) 12-16-2008, 10:25 PM

When he says election was two-fold for "that" people it almost sounds as if the idea of general election expired with the physical state of Israel under the Old Covenant, but then he references Romans 9:8 which is obviously referring to those in the New Covenant.

-----Added 12/16/2008 at 10:25:55 EST-----

I thought this topic might get a little more discussion going.

***Contra_Mundum*** · #7 (**permalink**) 12-16-2008, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

When he says election was two-fold for "that" people it almost sounds as if the idea of general election expired with the physical state of Israel under the Old Covenant, but then he references Romans 9:8 which is obviously referring to those in the New Covenant.

-----Added 12/16/2008 at 10:25:55 EST-----

I thought this topic might get a little more discussion going.

The reference to Rom.9:8 appears to me merely for illustrative purposes, not for stating anything about a present "general election."

I believe that language is confined (properly) to the Old Testament context. Paul, it seems to me, is careful not to speak of election in the New Testament context regarding anything other than soteriology.

Whereas, in the OT there was that specific "national" election "above all the peoples of the earth" (Dt. 7:7). That choice had redemptive-historical purposes.

So I agree with what you state there was your first impression.

I think Daniel is correct when he points out that recent movements have been "free" with this concept respecting the church, an unwarranted application of the term.