Originally posted by Esther
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Eschatology 201 Guidelines
This area of the forum is primarily for Christian theists to discuss orthodox views of Eschatology. Other theist participation is welcome within that framework, but only within orthodoxy. Posts from nontheists that do not promote atheism or seek to undermine the faith of others will be permitted at the Moderator's discretion - such posters should contact the area moderators before posting.
Without turning this forum into a 'hill of foreskins' (Joshua 5:3), I believe we can still have fun with this 'sensitive' topic.
However, don't be misled, dispensationalism has only partly to do with circumcision issues. So, let's not forget about Innocence, Conscience, Promises, Kingdoms and so on.
End time -isms within orthodox Christianity also discussed here. Clearly unorthodox doctrines, such as those advocating "pantelism/full preterism/Neo-Hymenaeanism" or the denial of any essential of the historic Christian faith are not permitted in this section but can be discussed in Comparative Religions 101 without restriction. Any such threads, as well as any that within the moderator's discretions fall outside mainstream evangelical belief, will be moved to the appropriate area.
Millennialism- post-, pre- a-
Futurism, Historicism, Idealism, and Preterism, or just your garden variety Zionism.
From the tribulation to the anichrist. Whether your tastes run from Gary DeMar to Tim LaHaye or anywhere in between, your input is welcome here.
OK folks, let's roll!
Forum Rules: Here
Without turning this forum into a 'hill of foreskins' (Joshua 5:3), I believe we can still have fun with this 'sensitive' topic.
However, don't be misled, dispensationalism has only partly to do with circumcision issues. So, let's not forget about Innocence, Conscience, Promises, Kingdoms and so on.
End time -isms within orthodox Christianity also discussed here. Clearly unorthodox doctrines, such as those advocating "pantelism/full preterism/Neo-Hymenaeanism" or the denial of any essential of the historic Christian faith are not permitted in this section but can be discussed in Comparative Religions 101 without restriction. Any such threads, as well as any that within the moderator's discretions fall outside mainstream evangelical belief, will be moved to the appropriate area.
Millennialism- post-, pre- a-
Futurism, Historicism, Idealism, and Preterism, or just your garden variety Zionism.
From the tribulation to the anichrist. Whether your tastes run from Gary DeMar to Tim LaHaye or anywhere in between, your input is welcome here.
OK folks, let's roll!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
The Elect
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Darfius View PostSo any thoughts on the actual content of the post? Weird to complain about reading on a forum.
Leave a comment:
-
So any thoughts on the actual content of the post? Weird to complain about reading on a forum.
Leave a comment:
-
Eek such a long post I was reading and reading and decided to see how much further I had to go and it was too far.
- 1 like
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Darfius View Post
Seriously have you ever considered a blog for that?
I know that I've posted some long OPs before but... wow!
- 2 likes
Leave a comment:
-
The Elect
Of vital importance to the proper understanding of eschatology is the question of who the elect are. In these three critical verses of our Lord, the elect define parameters such as the depth of the deception and the timing and duration of the time period being spoken of.
One easy answer would be that the elect are “Christians”, but there's no need for guesswork. The Bible interprets the Bible.
The word translated elect is the Greek word eklektós, which means chosen out and selected, by implication for favor.
This proves the “eklektos” are not merely “Christians”, because of these verses:
Abel existed long before “Christians” did. Let's prove this out further:
Here Abel is declared righteous by no less an authority than the Lord Jesus. How do we know “righteous” and “elect” can be equated? Great question:
This is clear Hebrew parallelism (Paul is a Hebrew, though he wrote in Greek), which slightly rephrases something to clarify its meaning. In this instance, “chosen” stands juxtaposed to “justifies”. And in verse 30 he also equates the justified with those called “according to God's purpose”. It's important to note that it's not merely those called, but those called “according to God's purpose” and I will explain why.
The Greek word translated justifies/justified is dikaioó, which means shown or declared to be righteous.
So Abel being declared righteous by God means that he was one of the elect.
The Bible distinguishes between the “called” and “the chosen” [elect]:
The Greek word translated “called” is a derivative of kaleó, which means “called, invited”. A parable of the Lord further illustrates the difference between called and chosen:
We will dive deeper into the differences between the two groups later, but this is sufficient for the present to display that a difference exists. Now we will proceed to display what the difference is.
Hebrew is not as “precise” a language as Greek, just as Greek is not as “precise” a language as English. One could argue that languages gain precision in what they lose in meaning, or that “meaning” is somewhere between a multifaceted approximation and a precise data point. There are several different words used for the concepts which correspond to the terms “called” and “chosen”.
The whole of Israel was “called”, but of that “assembly/community/congregation” (terms that all roughly correspond to “those called”), certain were “appointed/chosen” by the Lord for a special purpose.
This distinction is repeated here:
The word translated “appointed” has the meaning of “called”! This means that they were the called of the called--the doubly called. Already there is a suggestion of different levels in man's relationship to and with God. And this notion is reinforced in the structure of the “assembly”. Being composed of 13 tribes, there is one tribe—Levi--which is “called” to minister to the Lord's sacred dwelling. And from among the Levites, there are certain persons called to be priests, who are permitted to serve within the Lord's sacred dwelling. And from among the priests, there is one high priest who alone is permitted to enter the Most Holy place. So we see from this that while many are “called”, few are “doubly (or even more) called” to participate in closer relationships with the Lord.
The ignorance (often willful) of this fact often leads to the dangerous blurring of the lines the Lord Himself drew between those called to be dedicated to Him and those who respond to the call and are therefore called to closer levels of dedication. And this is not just a modern phenomenon, as we can see from the context of “Korah's rebellion”.
Korah and his gang declared that the Lord's distinctions were pointless because “the whole community was holy (called)” and “the Lord was with them” (the idea is that they were all “covered in the blood” or that they were all “chosen” or “righteous”).
For the sake of not lengthening this post still more, to sum it up, it didn't work out for Korah and gang. In fact, they were said to have treated the Lord with “contempt” and were dealt with accordingly. His distinctions will be respected.
So “appointed” and “chosen” roughly correspond and this can be seen in a variation on “the elect”--election:
The Greek word translated election is eklogé, which combines the idea of choosing and appointing, as the context of the verse shows: “God's purpose in election”.
That was preparatory to introducing another related term:
The Greek word translated adoption is huiothesia, which is a compound word made from the Greek words hyiós (son) and títhēmi (to place/appoint): to appoint as a son (adopt).
More Hebrew parallelism. “When the times reach their fulfillment” is the same as “until the redemption of those who are God's possession”. Paul is speaking in future terms, and he hot dang diddly didn't mean 70 AD.
So “God's possession” = the called = the chosen = the appointed = the adopted = the elect. That root títhēmi meaning place/appoint now requires expounding:
I touched on this earlier by pointing out the differences in the Hebrew and Greek languages, but those differences spring from the differences in thought between the two peoples/cultures. The Greeks were the “fathers” (acknowledged, at least) of “Western philosophy”:
Western philosophy refers to the philosophical thought and work of the Western world. Historically, the term refers to the philosophical thinking of Western culture, beginning with the ancient Greek philosophy of the pre-Socratics. The word philosophy itself originated from the Ancient Greek philosophía (φιλοσοφία), literally, "the love of wisdom" (φιλεῖν phileîn, "to love" and σοφία sophía, "wisdom").
Again in the interest of saving space, this boils down to a love and hyper development of abstract thought in the Greeks. It's not that the Hebrews were incapable of abstract thought, but rather they as a general rule tended to think in much more “concrete” terms.
For example, the abstract concept of anger is written in ancient Hebrew awph, which is the word for nose. In the Hebrew mind, when someone was angry, their nose would warm up and their nostrils would flare.
So to the Hebrew mind, to “appoint” or “place” someone was to “put” them as you would “put” an object somewhere and to “plant” them as a tree with firm roots. We have a vestige of this way of thinking when we say someone has “planted firm roots” somewhere.
If you're not aware by now that the garden of Eden was a temple, you're behind the (end)times. Which makes “plant” and “put” sacred terms here and certain other places.
So God's chosen/elect being compared to planted trees is replete through the Old and New Testaments.
Which brings us to:
A fig tree is only ever used to symbolize ethnic Israel in Scripture and God does not contradict Himself or His word. The Lord Jesus was counting on His listeners/readers actually knowing Scripture to interpret what He said.
Christians are only ever compared to a different tree:
And even here the tree is called Israel's “natural” tree, with Gentile Christians having to be grafted (planted) in.
So the sign of the fig tree that the Lord Jesus gave unquestionably involves national/ethnic Israel. This is also supported elsewhere, and we will tie in the concept of election:
God's call is irrevocable. And He called the nation of Israel to be kings and priests. He still needs to deliver them as a nation. They are His chosen nation.
In fact, the Bible (God) presents the permanent destruction of the nation of Israel as untenable for God because “the enemy” would “think their hand had done this”, rather than it being what it was, a temporary judgment from God:
Back to the elect:
The argument is not that ethnic Israel were elect/chosen by virtue of being ethnic Israel. Paul himself refutes that notion, as well as other Scripture. But that the special call from God to become/join the elect originated with them, and particularly the patriarchs, who are mentioned in both Romans 9 and 11.
But Paul would not waste space in Scripture arguing irrelevancies. His argument here and culminating in Romans 11 is that because “election” originated with ethnic Israel, it is only right and fair for it to end with them, too. If election for them is something God need not honor, then what assurance can the “Christian” possibly have?
Which brings us to precisely what qualifies someone as “the elect”, beginning with the patriarchs:
Abraham believed and so was declared righteous by God and so chosen, but his belief was proved by his works:
Here Abraham's righteousness and subsequent blessings/appointment/election are credited to his obedience. Faith without works is dead.
And take note that his election came with a promise that his descendants would “take possession of the cities of their enemies”! If the nation of Israel was destroyed forever in 70 AD, God's promises and His calls would be revocable. God forbid!
Are you, dear reader, prepared to earn your election the way Abraham, called the father of the faithful, earned his? If not, then do not dare to call yourself a Christian, because Christ told you to pick up your cross and follow Him. And election is neither sure nor irrevocable:
And to reiterate, the Lord Jesus said it was possible:
Now for the crème de la crème:
The “day of the Lord”'s defining feature is presented here as “great delusion” and deception which will separate those who “believe the truth and are saved” from those who “believe the lie and are condemned”. And this also aligns with the Lord's description of “that day”:
Deception is the first thing the Lord warns will indicate the “end of the age”!
A deception so great that “even the elect” might be deceived, if it is possible for them to “refuse to love the truth”, which would prove that they were “called, but not chosen (elect)”.
Belief in Jesus Christ and belief in the truth are in the greatest sense one and the same. He is the Truth. But just as it did for Abraham, that belief will translate into works, even great works:
A prophecy that has not as yet been fulfilled.
And though Jesus is the greatest embodiment of the truth, He said that Another would come to “guide us into all truth”:
So being “the elect” in the context of Matthew 24 is to believe in and allow one's self to be guided into “all the truth” and so be saved, rather than suppressing the truth with one's wickedness, during a time when ethnic Israel “buds” again after a lengthy period of inactivity.
We will finish by revisiting the wedding banquet parable, which is intentionally echoed in Revelation (and in God's frequent pronouncements that He would restore Israel “as a husband turns back to his forsaken wife”).
Notice that we go from a wedding banquet to “outer darkness”, which is a phrase associated with eschatological judgment in Scripture. And what did the man do to deserve such banishment? Was he not called (invited)? Yes, but he was not chosen, and that by his own doing. He refused to wear the proper garments. And what are the proper garments?
Tags: None
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Leave a comment: