Election

[davo]

God's displeasure towards Esau as stated by Paul in Romans was not that of a rancid hatred, but needs to be seen and understood in the light of redemptive history...
These are a few thoughts I've thrown together around this idea of "election" --

Read more [HERE (http://pantelism.com/Election.htm)] and discuss it below:

[Paige]

Wonderful! This is definitely one for group sharing. Thanks Davo! :clap2:

[Barry]

Good job Davo.
Concerning the term, "children of God" I see that used in a distinctive way not intended to nullify the fact that all were God's children as loved offspring (as Paul told the Greeks concerning their own had indicated).

It's "children" of God in this plan. Specially discipled children of this unfolding plan.
Any thoughts?
Barry

[davo]

Thanks Paige and Barry :9_cool:


Concerning the term, "children of God" I see that used in a distinctive way not intended to nullify the fact that all were God's children as loved offspring (as Paul told the Greeks concerning their own had indicated).

It's "children" of God in this plan. Specially discipled children of this unfolding plan.
Yes Barry, this is true.

Generically speaking we are all "sons of God" by virtue of our being created in His image – this IS inclusive, and cannot be denied i.e., humanity is Adam's offspring and Adam is called "son of God" [Lk 3:38]. So Paul's inclusive assessment in speaking to the Athenians in Act 17:29 rings true: "Therefore, since we are the offspring of God…".

Those who were "inheriting the kingdom" were the ones coming into God's priestly call of service – coming into the priestly kingdom and thereby being specifically designated "sons" or "children" of God. Such a designation speaks unquestionable of the authority of the saints as servants and witnesses to God's grace, and is NOT to be seen as negating the general nature of humanity being God's special creation and by virtue of such "children of God".

So the receiving of "the inheritance" was the receiving of the right as children/sons [Jn 1:12] to "rule and reign in life" [Rom 5:17b; 1cor 6:2a] as ones ordained of God to represent [rule with] Him [1Cor 3:9a; 2Cor 5:20; 6:1a] as lights of the kingdom to the world – thus their designations as "sons" etc.

When Paul and others spoke in terms of NOT ALL Israel being "Israel", "Jews" or "God's children" [Rom 2:28-29; 9:6, 8; Rev 3:9] they were delineating the fact that historic Israel was not, and had not for some time, lived in accordance with her holy vocation and calling as Yahweh's priests to the world, i.e., being Yahweh's light to the Gentiles, as was their mandate as kingdom priests [Ex 19:5-6; Isa 42:1, 6; 43:10; 49:3-6; Zech 3:8]. It was THIS kingdom mandate of having the authority as witnesses to Yahweh that was stripped of from old covenant historic Israel and given through Christ to the nation producing its fruits [Mt 21:43-45] i.e., new covenant Israel, also known as "the Israel of God" [Gal 6:16]. Historic Israel through her self-centred and self-righteous exclusiveness abdicated her God-given role as God's redemptive handiwork in the earth – it was THIS mandate and role that those "this generation" first-fruit saints of faith inherited, i.e., they received and entered into inheritance as God's elect.

[Dano]

Davo, your articles are awesome. Thank you

[davo]

Thanks Dano -- any thoughts on this you'd like to share on this?

[Amie]

– humanity is now Israel and believers are the New Jerusalem. Christ's disciples then are God's ministers in His new creation – a priesthood of believers.

I like how you worded the above.


This is why 'election' in its proper context of redemption was [past tense] about purpose and NOT position, it was about service and NOT security i.e., it was NOT about getting to Heaven, but rather Immanuel!! –

If I heard this one live I'm pretty sure I would be applauding!


Any divine calling and empowering subsequent to the Parousia was and is for the maintaining and testimony in worship and witness of this grand reality.

Last night I had an interesting conversation with my son. He realizes, he says, that there are wisdoms to draw from the bible. He continued in saying that it is the story of how God gave us this life to live, so why should he continue to dwell in the past rather than enjoy the life that God gave him in gratitude. He pointed out that there is no law that anyone has to read the bible.

I don't know where he got all of the crazy ideas first of all (lol - yes that's sarchasm). On one hand, it sounds like he's choosing not to be a witness by not being interested in reading the bible. On the other, his faith is a testimony. I would love for him to want what I want, but alas, he is not me.


Is it possible that both Calvin and Luther erred – one in dragging redemptive election past the Parousia, and the other by dragging "justification" i.e., salvific vindication past this life – making it the means of escaping a supposed post death calamity and thus a passport into heaven? I believe so. Yes there is a "righteousness of faith" for the believer, but again that righteousness is in relation to one's standing in the call of God for service [2Pet 1:10] – a new covenant standing in life, not a standing in Heaven's queue.

YES!! I tire of hearing the arguing about Calvinism and Arminianism as if those were the only two options out there! I'm a proud proponent of the third side of the coin :), "Pantelism".

GREAT article Davo.

Amie

[davo]

Thanks Amie,

Yes it astounds me that those who claim the preterist hermeneutic, which supposedly acknowledges historical context, hold so doggedly to a futurist perspective in seeking to carry past the "fullness of all things" a program of events that in essence undermines that of which they claim as fulfilled.

Example: IF as is popularly taught – beyond the grave there awaits yet further condemnation for sin, then clearly Christ didn't bear all sin and its condemnation at Calvary; something that suggests a still incomplete atonement, i.e., we must therefore still be in our sins etc. Now THAT is not good news.

Understanding "election" as age specific prêteristically, just makes consistent sense, at least IMO anyway. Trouble is – take away "threat" and you remove "control" and religious righteousness reacts to that, for therein it thrives – as we all well know.

[Englishman]

Davo,

I know this thread is aged, but maybe I am not too late...

Just a quick observation about: "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel". I have seen your application about Israel fulfilling (or not fulfilling) their appointed calling which serves your point well. But I would also like to run this observation by you...

Paul seems to be answering an objection that he has no business preaching to a non-Hebrew audience because all of the promises about Israel are confined to Israel as a race. The blood line, they say, is the determining issue.

But Paul overcomes this by reminding them of a remarkable fact about their own genealogical makeup as nation....

The common conception is that Jacob was the father of all of the tribes. And that these four women: Rachel, Leah, Bilhah, and Zilpah, were the mothers of all the tribes.

However, there was a fifth woman.

And that woman was not the wife of Jacob and not even his concubine. And Jacob had no children by that fifth woman.

Nevertheless, the children of that fifth woman carried the name of Israel. How so? Because Jacob decreed "let my name be named on them". It was not a question of blood genealogy. It was his word that settled it. He also specifically authorized them to wear the name of Abraham and Isaac. Also, Jacob did not require any qualification test except only an affirmation that they were indeed the children of him that was "separate from his brethren".

Not only that, these two children of that fifth woman were the very children upon whom Jacob pronounced a special blessing.

So here we see two tribes carrying the name of Israel but who were not even born in Jacob's house. These facts were well known. Josephus tells us that these two tribes were known as the children of adoption.

Paul was defending his right to call the Gentile believers the "Israel of God". Apparently he met with strong objection from his Hebrew kinsman for applying the name Israel to these new converts. But Paul silenced these objections by simply reminding them about their own genealogy wherein their father Jacob placed his name upon those who were not even born in his house. Paul simply reminded them that "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel".

In other words, "all of those who wear the name of Israel is not confined to those who were born in Israel's house."

-Englishman

[davo]

I know this thread is aged, but maybe I am not too late...
G'day Englishman, and welcome :) .

You're never too late when sharing useful information as you have above -- great observation and to be noted well. Certainly there are a number of like type of accounts where "non blood-line" people were numbered as Yahweh's people: you have those non Israelites who joined themselves to Israel in the exodus from Egypt; you also have the likes of Ruth; there was Rahab of Jericho -- numbered among the heroes of faith etc, etc.

Yes, Paul makes the charge that "flesh and blood" [1Cor 15:50] [which I see as analogous to Law and Lineage] were NOT the qualifying agents of the Kingdom. Old covenant Israel was trusting in the fleshly ordinances of Mosaic Law and Abrahamic Lineage [Jn 5:45; 8:33, 39] as their badge of honour, their ticket of approval as it were into the kingdom.

Even Jesus himself acknowledged Israel's hereditary [Jn 8:37], yet what he challenged by his "not sons" declaration was their reliance on their "position" at the expense of their calling i.e., their "purpose" -- Israel was to be God's "means" of blessing into the world, yet they sought to make it an exclusive "ends" in itself. Yet in spite of this, God fulfilled all for Israel and beyond through Christ and the first-fruit saints.

PS: my original link is not working as my site crashed -- I'm in the process of rebuilding it :)

[Englishman]

Davo,

Thanks for your further observations.

As always, it is an additional challenge to see where these issues may take their place from a "fulfillment" perspective rather than from the perspective of "transition".

I am going to start studying some "federal headship" issues that Paige recently put in front of me. It appears that she has already tackled many of the questions that I have so I will probably be calling on her for guidance. (Yes, I will review the lengthy thread that was posted a few months ago on PlanetP. It looks like you also have some astute comments there.)

I have learned two new words this week!

"Presentism", and "pantelism".

When you get your site going I will see how you define the latter.

-Englishman

[Steve Zodiac]

Englishman,


Nevertheless, the children of that fifth woman carried the name of Israel. How so? Because Jacob decreed "let my name be named on them". It was not a question of blood genealogy

I assume your reference is to Ephraim and Manasseh in Genesis 48. However, being Joseph's sons, they were blood relatives of Jacob despite the fact that their mother was Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera, priest of On.

All who were to inherit the kingdom with the Messiah were blood relatives of Isaac. The "gentiles" were also descendants of Abraham, as they had the Law "written on their hearts."

Jesus the Messiah spoke a parable about the Prodigal Son. The eldest son (the House of Judah) remained at home (within the Land) and worked for his father (practiced the Law). The younger son (the House of Israel) left home and wandered among the lawless pagans, squandering his inheritance and losing himself in dissipation and sickness (worshipping other gods). But, when the younger son returned home, there was great rejoicing; all was forgiven him, and the father placed on his finger the signet ring of inheritance. The complaints of the eldest son were silenced by the father’s affirmation that “…all I have is yours. But this, my son and your brother, was dead and now he lives again.”

The parable is a symbol for the restoration of the Twelve Tribes. The House of Judah was preserved as a Remnant, but the House of Israel needed to be adopted through the covenant with Abraham that was instituted prior to circumcision. Since no mixed-lineage people were allowed to become part of the Assembly under the Mosaic Covenant, then God resorted to one that had previously been ratified without regard to Law. The House of Israel, also called, “the Greeks,” “gentiles,” and “the Dispersion” was welcomed back into fellowship, since the Messiah had purchased them with his own blood.

[Englishman]

Steve Zodiac,

You probably know this by heart:

"Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions: And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand. And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us what thou meanest by these? Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand. And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes. And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land: And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:" (Ezekiel 37:16-22).

So here we see "two" joined into "one". The House of Judah being one of them and the House of Israel (Joseph/Ephraim - the Ten Lost Tribes) being the other.

In Ephesians Paul says:

"But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh." (Eph 2:13-17)

Here is what you wrote:

"The House of Israel, also called, “the Greeks,” “gentiles,” and “the Dispersion” was welcomed back into fellowship, since the Messiah had purchased them with his own blood."

You are saying "gentiles" means "House of Israel"?

So are you saying that "both" in the book of Ephesians refers only to "Judah" and "Israel" of the Ezekiel prophecy, and that it does *not* embrace anyone who was never at anytime within the meaning of those two words? Does Paul's "one new man" above include anyone who at anytime in their life was not a member of any of the 12 tribes?

With regard to the two tribes of Israel who were both of 50% Egyptian blood, Josephus says this:

"It was indeed the desire of Jacob himself to Joseph that he would give him his sons to be his own by adoption, as I have before stated."

The point is that their "blood line" did not guarantee them the right to wear the name of Israel. It took an independent discretionary act. It was the "word only" of Jacob that gave these boys of 50% Egyptian blood the privilege to wear the name of Israel. This was an act of adoption as both the Genesis account conveys and as Josephus plainly tells us. It was an act of pure grace. And the subsequent blessing was grace upon grace.

The whole point of the many examples of Paul was to settle for all time that the principle of "sonship by blood line" had come to an end.

I am not sure where you are going with your emphasis on "literal Israel". I am not clearly seeing where the "gentiles" (the non 10-tribe version) are in your synthesis. You say "gentiles" (I cannot tell which version) come in through the Abrahamic covenant by reason that the "law was written on their hearts". While I can see that this is an incidence of sonship, I cannot find where this is the basis for sonship.

Mostly this is ignorance and slowness on my part. And perhaps I need to hear much more.

Maybe you have a treatise that develops your conclusions in your last paragraph?

-Englishman

[Lou]

Englishman you make a good point about Ephraim. In Jeremiah 31 God says that He will restore Ephriam as well as the tribes of Israel.

Jeremiah 31:9 They shall come with weeping, And with supplications I will lead them. I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters, In a straight way in which they shall not stumble; For I am a Father to Israel, And Ephraim [is] My firstborn. …18 " I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself: 'You have chastised me, and I was chastised, Like an untrained bull; Restore me, and I will return, For You [are] the LORD my God. 19 Surely, after my turning, I repented; And after I was instructed, I struck myself on the thigh; I was ashamed, yes, even humiliated, Because I bore the reproach of my youth.' 20 [Is] Ephraim My dear son? [Is he] a pleasant child? For though I spoke against him, I earnestly remember him still; Therefore My heart yearns for him; I will surely have mercy on him, says the LORD.

Steve I agree that many times that when “Gentiles” is used both Old and New Testament it is for the lost tribes it is not every time.
The first century Church was the “first fruits” that means that harvesting was to come after them.

Revelation 22:1 And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, [was] the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each [tree] yielding its fruit every month.


Here I see a continuous harvest.

[Englishman]

Lou,

This is marvelous!

I mean the adoption chapter in Jeremiah that you pointed out.

Just a quick anecdote....

One of the prizes of the Christian calling is to sit at a table with Abrahm, Isaac, and Jacob. (Matt 8:11) A friend of mine told me that he was looking forward to sitting at that table. But he said he was not a good conversationalist and so he had always wondered what he would say the very first time he met Israel.

But after studying these adoption scriptures he now thinks his very first conversation with Israel might go something like this:

"Israel! Israel! Oh, but you look so wonderfully youthful! And I now see that your eyesight has been healed! Now you can see me clearly. Israel, I have been wanting to share something with you. Do you remember the big disappointment you had when you lost all hope of ever seeing your favorite son? Well, I wanted to tell you that I am a child of that Son of your loins that was separate from his brothers.

Then after a short pause, Israel proceeds:

“My child. My child!!....Come forth that I may hug you! And let my name be named on you. Forever. And may the blessings of the heavens upon my Son prevail upon you to the everlasting hills. And, my child, let the name of my father Isaac be upon you, and the name of my grandfather Abraham. They are seated with me here at this table and they are anxiously awaiting to meet you.”

Etc. etc.

(My friend told me that his imagination went into high gear when he started to see what these many adoption scriptures were saying.)

Thank you for putting Jeremiah’s adoption chapter in front of us.

-Englishman

[Amie]

Davo,

Interesting posting the article over at PP. All I can think of to say is "daaanngg!"

Amie

[davo]

Yes well I'm getting a few nibbles :9_cool:

[Robert]

I was looking back and wanted to resurrect this thread. Could some of you take a piece by piece style and show the pantelist idea of election as opposed to calvinism and arminianism?? I really would like to see this broken down in a deliberate pattern if any of you can do such. Especially the whole idea of the way the verses are used to indicate special election for the sheep who know and hear His voice and those who are placed in the Fathers hand of whom He will lose none??/ Glad i found this.

Robert