"The doctrine of Election in a proverbial nutshell"

Kim G · #1 (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 02:41 PM

I recently came across a dispensationalist's view (disciplemakerministries.org) of election. He calls this "The doctrine of Election in a proverbial Nutshell." I have removed the multiple parathetical statements and verses so as to better understand the flow.

Without furthur ado *drumroll*, "The Doctrine of Election in a Nutshell":

Quote:

The Promised One of Genesis 3:25 is God’s Son, chosen (elected) from the “foundation of the world” to be both the Redeemer of the lost and both a new and “last Adam” to restore the dominion relinquished to Satan by Adam’s sinful choice. The Promised One would be successful where the first Adam failed. The Promised One would be the “firstborn” of a New Genesis and would become the “door” into this New Genesis to “whosoever” of fallen humanity willing to believe in His death, burial, and resurrection, repent of sin, confess Him as LORD, call on Him to save them, and be supernaturally “born again” “by grace through faith” into the New Genesis “in Christ.” Therefore, this whole group that would become the descendants of the Seed of the Promised One “through faith” would become the elect “in Christ”. Although election does not always translate into the salvation of the individual or group elected, the primary and “eternal purpose” of God in election is a continuing and ongoing faithful remnant for the stewardship and preservation of Truth to His glory to the end of time.

Later he says:

Quote:

All those saved "by grace through faith" down through the Ages are God’s ultimate elect remnant. They were not individuals chosen by God to be saved. These are individuals who chose to believe God and were saved.

I grew up in a dispensational church, but I had never heard such

. Was I just asleep? Is this actually the "normal" dispensational view of election?

Wannabee · #2 (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 02:48 PM

This is a "typical" view of many churches. It's a man centered gospel that denies God's sovereignty without realizing it. Pray for those who haven't been given the good teaching and understanding that we, only by the unimaginable and unfathomable grace of God, have been blessed with.

Your resident dispy,

Kim G · #3 (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wannabee

Your resident dispy,

Are you really dispy? Just curious, since I really have no idea what I believe (though I know what I don't believe!).

Wannabee · #4 (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 03:00 PM

Oy, that ought to open a

.

For the moment, I think I'll let others answer that for me since I'm probably a bit biased...

BJClark · #5 (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 03:34 PM

Not really a comment on the article, but more something my 13 yr old son said yesterday when we were talking about this topic..

He asked.."How can someone believe they make the decision on whether they go to heaven or not?" Then he add's his thoughts "if it were left up to everyone, then everyone would be going to heaven, and that's not what the bible says...the Bible clearly says there IS a Hell and people will go there, and since there is a Hell and nobody would choose to go there, or there would be no need for the bible to mention hell, that must mean God declares it, or that would make God a liar, and well, God is not a liar."

Then he got quite, and I asked what he was thinking..and he said.."the thought of an eternity in hell, that's forever and ever with no end to suffering, that's really scary."

His 13 yr old friend who was with us, looked at him and said.."I've never thought about it that way, WOW, I'm going to have to think about that some more."

Davidius · #6 (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 03:44 PM

It may be both/and. Christ is called the "elect" in 1 Peter 2, that is, the "chosen" corner stone. The Greek word is the same (ἐκλεκτός - eklektos, which becomes "elect" in English when the prefix, the preposition ἐκ, loses its kappa). When used of Christ in Peter, it is normally translated as "chosen" instead of elect, at least in the newer versions. Either way, the Greek word, and both English translations, are applied to Christ and his people. In Peter, the imagery is of Christ the chosen/elect cornerstone upon whom His people are added as stones to build God's house.

I can also think of at least one Old Testament messianic prophecy which uses this language with regard to the Savior:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isaiah 42

Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.

It's translated "chosen" in the newer translations.

(note: "chosen" is basically the same as "elect" but has a Germanic rather than Latin/Greek origin)

Kim G · #7 (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davidius

It may be both/and. Christ is called the "elect" in 1 Peter 2, that is, the "chosen" corner stone. The Greek word is the same (ἐκλεκτός - eklektos, which becomes "elect" in English when the prefix, the preposition ἐκ, loses its kappa). When used of Christ in Peter, it seems to normally be translated "chosen" instead of elect. Either way, the Greek word, and both English translations, are applied to Christ and his people. In Peter, the imagery is of Christ the chosen/elect cornerstone upon whom His people are added as stones to build God's house.

I don't dispute the fact that Christ is the "elect" in one sense. But I don't agree that the "elect" in another sense is a group of believers who chose to trust Christ, rather than those who are chosen by Christ.

Davidius · #8 (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 03:54 PM

I know. I wasn't really commenting on that question in my post, rather pointing out some variation in the usage of the term in Scripture to show that that guy isn't wrong when he says that Christ is also "elect" in some sense.

danmpem · #9 (**permalink**) 05-30-2008, 05:16 PM

Kim,
While I don't know everything about dispinsationalism, that quote definitely has the perspective of an individual who has an Israel-centered hermeneutic to the Bible. Israel was God's "chosen nation", but not everyone was chosen to be saved within the nation. This is used by some to find a middle-ground in the doctrine of election (a person may be chosen by God, but that does not guarantee salvation for the individual).

(I'm not trying to bash dispinsationalism or any dispies out there, I'm just giving my

on the quote.)

Gomarus · #10 (**permalink**) 06-02-2008, 08:19 AM

I think you will find both Arminian-leaning dispies and Calvinistic-leaning dispies, John MacArthur being of the latter type. I don't think Dispensationalism itself is necessarily preferential for or against Calvinism or Arminianism -- although by definition it is anti-Covenant Theology. Earlier proponents (a la Scofield, Chafer, Ryrie, Walvoord) would have identified themselves as soteriological Calvinists (although moderate) and dispensationalists. With its widespread popularity (especially among independent and non-confessional churches) you find some with basically an Arminian theological framework who are dispensationalists.

Regarding the OP, although Christ may certainly be regarded as "the Elect One," the nutshell summary is a typical Arminian conclusion.

danmpem · #11 (**permalink**) 06-02-2008, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gomarus

I think you will find both Arminian-leaning dispies and Calvinistic-leaning dispies, John MacArthur being of the latter type. I don't think Dispensationalism itself is necessarily preferential for or against Calvinism or Arminianism -- although by definition it is anti-Covenant Theology.

Although, MacArthur is more covenantal than most would like to admit. Yeah, he has his dispy roots, but between Lordship salvation, 5-point Calvinism, and then some, his teachings transcend those of even progressive dispinsationalism. I first heard of Watson's A Body of Divinity while listening to one of his sermons, when he recommended it.

Gomarus · #12 (**permalink**) 06-02-2008, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danmpem

Although, MacArthur is more covenantal than most would like to admit. Yeah, he has his dispy roots, but between Lordship salvation, 5-point Calvinism, and then some, his teachings transcend those of even progressive dispinsationalism. I first heard of Watson's A Body of Divinity while listening to one of his sermons, when he recommended it.

Yeah. I'd like to see him leave the remnants of his dispensationalism behind.

S. Lewis Johnson was a lot like MacArthur in his theology. The eccentricties of dispensationalism never seemed to be prominent in his teaching.