"The Elect Obtained it, the Rest Were Hardened"

[H]

I just listened to an interesting sermon by John Piper on Romans 11:7-10 ("The Elect Obtained it, the Rest Were Hardened"). I wonder if some of you would be interested in listening to it and telling me what you think.
(I downloaded the MP3 file, but you can also listen to it online in Quicktime format.) Here is the link:

http://www.biblicalpreaching.info/sermonplay.php?id=78&PHPSESSID=80aafac6caf3a5a197adc07ac3942450

Lord bless!

H

[lenore]

THE MESSAGE OF ROMANS 11:7-10 SAYS

And then what happened? Well, when Israel tried to be right with God on her own, pursuing her own self interest. she didnt succeed. The chosen ones of God were those who let God pursue his interest in them, and as a result received his stamp of legitimacy. The "self-interest Israel" became thick-skinned toward God. Moses and Isaiah both commented on this.
Fed up with their quarrelsome, self-centered ways.
God Blurred their eyes and dulled their ears.
Shut them in on themselves in a hall of mirrors.
and they're there to this day.
David was upset about the same thing.
"I hope they get sick eating self-serving meals.
break a leg walking their self-serving ways.
I hope they go blind staring in their mirrors,
get ulcers from playing at god."

[vernecarty]

It is interesting to me how proper Biblical exegesis can go a long way toward clarifying many apsects of Biblical teaching which at first glance would appear to be perplexing. I have been reading Kenneth Wuest's exegesis of the first epistle of Peter and he makes some very insightful comments about the text. A. T. Roberston is also a great source of insight.

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

I am curious about two matters.
How many people agree (or disagree) that all three Persons of the Godhead play a distinctive role in the salvation of each soul?
How does this opening salvo by Peter provide exegetical insight into the role each Person executes?
If you have done some study and reflection on first Peter verses one and particularly verse two fire away...!
I will give Ken Wuest's treatment a bit later.
Verne
p.s If any one is interested in the actual Greek text I can post that as well...

[vernecarty]

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.





Both Wuest and Robertson agree that our understanding of the word foreknowledge has to be constrained by the context of its usage. They give each instance of its NT ocurerence and make a very good case that the meaning is not identical in all instances. Any thoughts?
Verne

[al Hartman]

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

It would seem that, in the portion of the text of v.2 which deals with eternal matters, chronological order cannot be implied.  That there is an order may only be because the constraints of human language demand it.  An alternative is that the order is one of priorities, i.e., that
- God the Father's foreknowledge of the identities of the elect takes
   precedence,
- whereupon God the Holy Spirit sets them apart for Him,
- to ultimately (in the realm of time) be cleansed with the blood of Jesus
   Christ:  God the Son.

[vernecarty]

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

It would seem that, in the portion of the text of v.2 which deals with eternal matters, chronological order cannot be implied.

Great point. Arguments about sovereignty versus resposnibility often overlook this.

That there is an order may only be because the constraints of human language demand it.  An alternative is that the order is one of priorities, i.e., that
- God the Father's foreknowledge of the identities of the elect takes
   precedence,
- whereupon God the Holy Spirit sets them apart for Him,
- to ultimately (in the realm of time) be cleansed with the blood of Jesus
   Christ:  God the Son.

Again a great point. We know that the reason for time is the unfolding of God's purpose. We cannot help but be constrained by chronology. It is certainly true that so far as the process of salvation is concerned, chronology is unavoidable and is in fact employed in describing the process:

 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world,

Wuest contends that that indeed priority is seen in the salvation process. He points out that the word elect, is a plural adjetive of the Greek verb eklego, which means to "pick out" or "to select from a number". This prerogative He ascribes to the Father and makes the primary and specific cause that any are saved. Thanks Al!
Verne

p.s there is a certain false teacher who shall remain nameless, teaching a doctrine of devils that God elects from among the redeemed, as opposed to humanity at large. Reject it!

[vernecarty]

The adjectival noun elect, is Scripturally always plural number and this is something I better understood after reading Wuest.
This legitimately raises the question of whether it is proper to talk about election with regard to individuals. (foreknowledge is different as we shall see)
I think I now have a better grasp of why Arminians reject Romans 9 and the example of Jacob and Essau and invoke a national as opposed to individual application.
I must say though that I still disagree with their position.
The Spirit of God cited Jacob and Essau as individuals in giving the example.
The notion that the elect, comprises individuals from the class of those already redeemed is fallacious and betrays a total lack of understanding of what the word of God is saying about this. Of course this is what Georgie boy taught so what would one expect from his confused disciples? Join in folks. We are all in learning mode here are we not?  
Verne

[vernecarty]

I did not want to simply take Ken Wuest's word for it so I got out my Bible and checked each time the word or cognate is used. With the apparent exception of Isaiah 42:1, the context does indeed suggest plurality. It is so without exception in the NT. I am prepared to be corrected on this point if needed.
If God is indeed talking about a set, then the relevant question becomes: how is it comprised? That is, is the set Biblically defined?

One of the best known verses is Ephesians 1:4 where the verb is rendered chosen.

 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:

Verne

[vernecarty]

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,


We therefore see that certainly in the NT the teaching of election is generally applied to a group.
In Ephesians four the group is indentified as chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.

This group is elected according to the foreknowledge of the Father.
According is kata and has a root significance of "down", which in turn implies domination. That is to say, the choice of God is dominated by the foreknowledge of God.
The implication here is critical.
One has to rightly understand what the Bible is talking about when it talks about foreknowledge.
Failure to do so generally leads to serious error on the matter of election.
Verne

[Oscar]

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,


We therefore see that certainly in the NT the teaching of election is generally applied to a group.
In Ephesians four the group is indentified as chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.

This group is elected according to the foreknowledge of the Father.
According is kata and has a root significance of "down", which in turn implies domination. That is to say, the choice of God is dominated by the foreknowledge of God.
The implication here is critical.
One has to rightly understand what the Bible is talking about when it talks about foreknowledge.
Failure to do so generally leads to serious error on the matter of election.
Verne

Verne,

After all is said and done, are you saying that "elect according to the forknowledge of God" means "elect according to something besides the foreknowledge of God"?

Interesting.

You also said:

Again a great point. We know that the reason for time is the unfolding of God's purpose.

True enough if you are refering to the time dimension we live in.  However, it seems to me that we can reasonably infer that God acts in his own dimension, or dimensions of time, or their equivalents.  Otherwise the creation would have to be eternal.

Thomas Maddux

[vernecarty]

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,


We therefore see that certainly in the NT the teaching of election is generally applied to a group.
In Ephesians four the group is indentified as chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.

This group is elected according to the foreknowledge of the Father.
According is kata and has a root significance of "down", which in turn implies domination. That is to say, the choice of God is dominated by the foreknowledge of God.
The implication here is critical.
One has to rightly understand what the Bible is talking about when it talks about foreknowledge.
Failure to do so generally leads to serious error on the matter of election.
Verne

Verne,

After all is said and done, are you saying that "elect according to the forknowledge of God" means "elect according to something besides the foreknowledge of God"?

Interesting.

Not exactly. I am saying (and I think your question illustrates this) that not everyone that says foreknowledge is talking about the same thing. In fact the case can be made that it does not always have the exact same meaning in Scripture in the various places it occurs.
I will try and show that from both  context and syntax shortly. Your insights are welcome Tom.
I am pretty much thinking out loud here.  

You also said:

Again a great point. We know that the reason for time is the unfolding of God's purpose.

True enough if you are refering to the time dimension we live in.  However, it seems to me that we can reasonably infer that God acts in his own dimension, or dimensions of time, or their equivalents.  Otherwise the creation would have to be eternal.

Thomas Maddux

Indeed! String theory is now mathematically positing many co-existing dimensions.
Not too long ago this was entirely the realm of science fantasy!
We are limited in assessing God's doings as we cannot do so but from our own space-time constraint. A kind of Heisenberg uncertainty principle eh?
Difficult to see how we could infer provable truth from any other perspective.
Verne
p.s. Hebrews very specifically tells us that our particular space-time fabric is going to be rolled up like a garment. This kind of incredible imagery is repeated in Revelation where the robes of the saints are their righeous acts, viz. that which has been woven, so to speak, in the fabric of space-time. Pretty awseome stuff...!
It makes our day-to-day choices take on a whole different perspective...possibly the very threads of our future spiritual sartorial splendor as it were...
I know I am waxing a little poetic here but these are incredible considerations...pardon me while I tingle with excitement...

[al Hartman]

   ...String theory is now mathematically positing many co-existing dimensions.
Not too long ago this was entirely the realm of science fantasy!

My maternal grandmother was decades ahead of everyone else in this area.  She developed her string theory during the Great Depression:  If you save every piece of string you come across, you'll never want for string...  By the time I was a teen, she had a ball of twine that would choke a T-Rex.  Talk about dimensions!

I know I am waxing a little poetic here...

     "Wax on...  Wax off..."
                   --Mr. Miagi (Pat Morita)
                     The Karate Kid

 ;Dal

[vernecarty]

Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,


We therefore see that certainly in the NT the teaching of election is generally applied to a group.
In Ephesians four the group is indentified as chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world.

This group is elected according to the foreknowledge of the Father.
According is kata and has a root significance of "down", which in turn implies domination. That is to say, the choice of God is dominated by the foreknowledge of God.
The implication here is critical.
One has to rightly understand what the Bible is talking about when it talks about foreknowledge.
Failure to do so generally leads to serious error on the matter of election.
Verne

Verne,

After all is said and done, are you saying that "elect according to the forknowledge of God" means "elect according to something besides the foreknowledge of God"?

Interesting.

Thomas Maddux

Foreknowledge is an interesting word in the Scriptural text. We get our English word prognosticate from it. The English word essentially means to accurately forecast future events or conditions. Many interpret the Scriptural significance to be " having previous knowledge".

The specific word is used only twice in the entire NT. The cognate verb is used five times.

Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;
Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.

  For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,

 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

If you are of the opinion that there is no distinction in the way these NT passages use this term you will have one view of election.
If you draw a distinction based on context and syntax, again, how you view elction will depend on the kind of distinction that you draw, namely, the way you define foreknowledge in those instances.
Alford, Robertson and Wuest all agree that the meaning is not the same in all of these verses. Indeed, even a non-scholar such as myself simply reading the English text could readily arrive at that conslusion, apart from any technical linguistic considerations.
They contend that the nouns in Acts 2:23 and 1 Peter 1:2 and the verbs in Romans 8:29, 11:2 and 1 Peter 1:20 go far beyond the classical meaning of "having previous knowledge", and is in fact defined for us in Scripture itself.
Verne

[vernecarty]

So far I think we can conclude the following.
Peter is teaching us that all three Persons of the Godhead play a disticnt role in the process of salvation.
From a human chronological perspective, it would seem that God the Father excercised preemptive prerogative in picking out a group from among humanity, the elect, to be thus saved.
He did so on the basis of what the Scripture describes as His foreknowledge.
The word or its cognate appears seven times in the NT.

I am open to correction by one better instructed if any of these conclusions are deemed unsound.
Verne

[al Hartman]

   ...it would seem that God the Father excercised preemptive prerogative in picking out a group from among humanity, the elect, to be thus saved.

That the Father exercised prerogative seems unquestionable.  Would you expound upon why you consider it preemptive?  Preemptive of what?  And how so?

Thanks,
al