Here is why eschatology is so crucial to the debate over predestination.

[squirrelyguy]

A robust, biblical view of the eschaton is, in my opinion, the only way to make sense of what the Bible teaches concerning how people are saved. If you are not a premillennialist, then it is impossible for you to have a correct view of how people are saved (but that doesn't mean you aren't saved). The relevant passages of Scripture on the subject of salvation history (past, present, and future) require a certain assumption about what happens when Christ returns in order for them all to fit together. That assumption happens to include a belief in a literal reign of Christ on earth between His second coming and the eternal state (although this belief by itself is by no means sufficient, as most premillennialists don't believe in a possibility of one's eternal destiny being changed after death).

Though I could write a lengthy thread on this subject, I doubt many would read it and engage with it...so I'll start with one passage. Let's look at what Paul says in Romans 11 and compare it to what he says earlier in Romans 9.

"I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!" (vv. 11-12)

"Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all." (vv. 28-32)

Here is the question for Calvinists: who is this "they", "their", and "them" that we see in these verses, if not the "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" in 9:22?

 

[ReverendRV]

A robust, biblical view of the eschaton is, in my opinion, the only way to make sense of what the Bible teaches concerning how people are saved. If you are not a premillennialist, then it is impossible for you to have a correct view of how people are saved (but that doesn't mean you aren't saved). The relevant passages of Scripture on the subject of salvation history (past, present, and future) require a certain assumption about what happens when Christ returns in order for them all to fit together. That assumption happens to include a belief in a literal reign of Christ on earth between His second coming and the eternal state (although this belief by itself is by no means sufficient, as most premillennialists don't believe in a possibility of one's eternal destiny being changed after death).

Though I could write a lengthy thread on this subject, I doubt many would read it and engage with it...so I'll start with one passage. Let's look at what Paul says in Romans 11 and compare it to what he says earlier in Romans 9.

"I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!" (vv. 11-12)

"Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all." (vv. 28-32)

Here is the question for Calvinists: who is this "they", "their", and "them" that we see in these verses, if not the "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" in 9:22?

Ah, another good Thread! Mixing Eschatology with Soteriology could be interesting...

 

[ReverendRV]

A robust, biblical view of the eschaton is, in my opinion, the only way to make sense of what the Bible teaches concerning how people are saved. If you are not a premillennialist, then it is impossible for you to have a correct view of how people are saved (but that doesn't mean you aren't saved). The relevant passages of Scripture on the subject of salvation history (past, present, and future) require a certain assumption about what happens when Christ returns in order for them all to fit together. That assumption happens to include a belief in a literal reign of Christ on earth between His second coming and the eternal state (although this belief by itself is by no means sufficient, as most premillennialists don't believe in a possibility of one's eternal destiny being changed after death).

Though I could write a lengthy thread on this subject, I doubt many would read it and engage with it...so I'll start with one passage. Let's look at what Paul says in Romans 11 and compare it to what he says earlier in Romans 9.

"I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!" (vv. 11-12)

"Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all." (vv. 28-32)

Here is the question for Calvinists: who is this "they", "their", and "them" that we see in these verses, if not the "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" in 9:22?

Your OP suffers from a Faulty Premise. "They" refers to Elect Israel, so there is no difference between us and them; the Elect cannot Conflate with "Vessels of Wrath". Paul calls us "Vessels of Honor", so those Saved at the end are not created as Reprobate Vessels of Wrath...

You would do better to focus on asking how anyone can believe after the Holy Spirit is removed from the World, and show that people do believe after that moment in Time...

 

[squirrelyguy]

"They" refers to Elect Israel, so there is no difference; the Elect cannot Conflate with "Vessels of Wrath"...

But does this sweeping assumption make the most sense of the text? He also says in 11:25 that "blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." Who are the people that are blinded in part? Elect Israel? Why would God be blinding the elect? Keep in mind that this "blindness" that Paul speaks of is not removed until "the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." Has the fullness of the Gentiles come in yet? Quite a few blinded Jews have lived and died in the 2000 years since God began bringing Gentiles in.

You would do better to focus on asking how anyone can believe after the Holy Spirit is removed from the World, and show that people do believe after that moment in Time...

That's a great question, but it's probably for another thread.

 

[preacher4truth]

"They" refers to Elect Israel, so there is no difference between us and them; the Elect cannot Conflate with "Vessels of Wrath"...

You would do better to focus on asking how anyone can believe after the Holy Spirit is removed from the World, and show that people do believe after that moment in Time...

Correct. I would like biblical evidence showing we cannot understand salvation unless we are premil; "If you are not a premillennialist, then it is impossible for you to have a correct view of how people are saved..."

I've never heard that argued before.

 

[squirrelyguy]

Correct. I would like biblical evidence showing we cannot understand salvation unless we are premil; "If you are not a premillennialist, then it is impossible for you to have a correct view of how people are saved..."

I've never heard that argued before.

Just follow this thread; the evidence that you seek is what I'm laboring to provide.

edit: I see that you said "Correct" in response to ReverendRV's statement about elect Israel; see my response to him as to why that explanation is inadequate.

 

[ReverendRV]

But does this sweeping assumption make the most sense of the text? He also says in 11:25 that "blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." Who are the people that are blinded in part? Elect Israel? Why would God be blinding the elect? Keep in mind that this "blindness" that Paul speaks of is not removed until "the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." Has the fullness of the Gentiles come in yet? Quite a few blinded Jews have lived and died in the 2000 years since God began bringing Gentiles in.

That's a great question, but it's probably for another thread.

Your OP says that concerning Election, they are beloved by the Father; so in a sense they are Elect. The answer has to be that Israel is not Unconditionally Elect then; so if I dive in, your OP could turn out to support Calvinism...

Your Verses must speak about more than one kind of Election, because God has blinded Israel and they have to wait until the Rapture...

 

[squirrelyguy]

Your OP says that concerning Election, they are beloved by the Father; so in a sense they are Elect. The answer has to be that Israel is not Unconditionally Elect then, so your OP could turn out to support Calvinism; if I dive in...

Explain what you mean by Israel not being unconditionally elect, while being elect in a sense.

 

[ReverendRV]

Explain what you mean by Israel not being unconditionally elect, while being elect in a sense.

Paul says that according to Election, they are loved by God. But he also says they are blinded until the Rapture. So, if the Rapture happens five years from now, those Jews who die before then are blinded; and Elect. They die in their blindness. There is no name under Heaven but the name of Jesus Christ by which they must be Saved. So although they are somehow Elect, they are not Unconditionally Elect. Paul teaches us there is a Spiritual Israel; for now this is the Church, not the Jews. But though all this is true, Israel has been Elected by God; this is clear. So they are at least Corporately Elect, even though they may not be Individually Elect...

 

[ReverendRV]

Explain what you mean by Israel not being unconditionally elect, while being elect in a sense.

Think about it; Provisionists teach that people are only Elect because they Believe. Paul teaches that concerning Election they are loved by God. So you must believe that Israel is even now Elect through their Belief in the Gospel. But they don't Believe...

Right?

 

[preacher4truth]

Just follow this thread; the evidence that you seek is what I'm laboring to provide.

I will look and wait for this evidence to appear. It should be easy to prove your point and I am not seeing you do so. No offense intended, but if anyone cannot clearly make their point it may well be they truly can't and don't really grasp what they are putting forth.

edit: I see that you said "Correct" in response to ReverendRV's statement about elect Israel; see my response to him as to why that explanation is inadequate.

I don't believe it is inadequate, it just needs hashed out. Since you brought the passage up as evidence, what commentary do you have as a source to help you understand it? What commentaries on Romans have you read in their entirety? Which are you seeking to help you understand it?

 

[Chalcedon]

Correct. I would like biblical evidence showing we cannot understand salvation unless we are premil; "If you are not a premillennialist, then it is impossible for you to have a correct view of how people are saved..."

I've never heard that argued before.

That makes me not saved and all my views on salvation are wrong.

I'm glad he demonstrated my eschatology and views on salvation/election are wrong, NOT !

This is what happens with blanket statements with no evidence for ones view. Its based upon assumptions that are not evident in the text.

 

[preacher4truth]

Paul says that according to Election, they are loved by God. But he also says they are blinded until the Rapture. So, if the Rapture happens five years from now, those Jews who die before then are blinded; and Elect. They die in their blindness. There is no name under Heaven but the name of Jesus Christ by which they must be Saved. So although they are somehow Elect, they are not Unconditionally Elect. Paul teaches us there is a Spiritual Israel; for now this is the Church, not the Jews. But though all this is true, Israel has been Elected by God; this is clear. So they are at least Corporately Elect, even though they may not be Individually Elect...

Many times in Scripture God speaks of Israel in the present tense, by saying "You" when in fact the fulfillment is for others of Israel in latter times. God though still says "You." These promises are to the elect in Israel, although not all in Israel are of Israel. Our text in context shows and explains this, making the sense clear; Romans 9:6-7.

Paul is implementing this "Jewish speak" based in and found in the OT Scriptures. An example would be to those in Deuteronomy 30:1-6ff.

Deuteronomy 18:15 is another example.

 

[preacher4truth]

That makes me not saved and all my views on salvation are wrong.

Well, he graciously still says we're saved, lol! He says we do not understand salvation unless we share in his eschatological views.

I'm glad he demonstrated my eschatology and views on salvation/election are wrong, NOT !

LOL!!! Hang on, he's about to!

This is what happens with blanket statements with no evidence for ones view. Its based upon assumptions that are not evident in the text.

I agree, there is no evidence.

 

[squirrelyguy]

Paul says that according to Election, they are loved by God. But he also says they are blinded until the Rapture. So, if the Rapture happens five years from now, those Jews who die before then are blinded; and Elect. They die in their blindness. There is no name under Heaven but the name of Jesus Christ by which they must be Saved. So although they are somehow Elect, they are not Unconditionally Elect. Paul teaches us there is a Spiritual Israel; for now this is the Church, not the Jews. But though all this is true, Israel has been Elected by God; this is clear. So they are at least Corporately Elect, even though they may not be Individually Elect...

This differentiation between corporate and spiritual election seems foreign to the text to me. That's why I posted this thread. Isn't it more natural to assume that, to be elect at all, one must be chosen by God to be a target for mercy in the end? Hence the need to assume a literal eschaton in which at least some of those who died outside of Christ are raised and given the opportunity to receive Him. It technically isn't post-mortem salvation if they are first raised from the dead before they receive Christ. It's post-resurrection salvation, meaning they are receiving Christ while alive, not while they are dead.

 

[Chalcedon]

This differentiation between corporate and spiritual election seems foreign to the text to me. That's why I posted this thread. Isn't it more natural to assume that, to be elect at all, one must be chosen by God to be a target for mercy in the end? Hence the need to assume a literal eschaton in which at least some of those who died outside of Christ are raised and given the opportunity to receive Him. It technically isn't post-mortem salvation if they are first raised from the dead before they receive Christ. It's post-resurrection salvation, meaning they are receiving Christ while alive, not while they are dead.

Where does the Bible say

Cooperate or spiritual election ?

 

[squirrelyguy]

Think about it; Provisionists teach that people are only Elect because they Believe. Paul teaches that concerning Election they are loved by God. So you must believe that Israel is even now Elect through their Belief in the Gospel. But they don't Believe...

Right?

I don't believe that people can only be elect if they believe during this lifetime. I believe that many people are elect, but will die without having believed in Christ...but by virtue of being elect, they will be raised at Christ's return and "provoked to jealousy" when they see the glories of the kingdom of God which they are excluded from.

This is perhaps a good time to mention my second assumption one should accept about eschatology...that there will be people raised at Christ's return who died outside of Christ in this lifetime, but who are excluded from the kingdom of God for the duration of the eschaton. It also becomes necessary to assume that their ultimate salvation at the final judgment is still a possibility at this point.

 

[Chalcedon]

I don't believe that people can only be elect if they believe during this lifetime. I believe that many people are elect, but will die without having believed in Christ...but by virtue of being elect, they will be raised at Christ's return and "provoked to jealousy" when they see the glories of the kingdom of God which they are excluded from.

This is perhaps a good time to mention my second assumption one should accept about eschatology...that there will be people raised at Christ's return who died outside of Christ in this lifetime, but who are excluded from the kingdom of God for the duration of the eschaton. It also becomes necessary to assume that their ultimate salvation at the final judgment is still a possibility at this point.

Can you define elect with a source for your definition.

 

[Chalcedon]

This is perhaps a good time to mention my second assumption one should accept about eschatology...that there will be people raised at Christ's return who died outside of Christ in this lifetime, but who are excluded from the kingdom of God for the duration of the eschaton. It also becomes necessary to assume that their ultimate salvation at the final judgment is still a possibility at this point.

This is very heretical and sounds exactly like universalism masked.

 

[squirrelyguy]

I will look and wait for this evidence to appear. It should be easy to prove your point and I am not seeing you do so. No offense intended, but if anyone cannot clearly make their point it may well be they truly can't and don't really grasp what they are putting forth.

I don't believe it is inadequate, it just needs hashed out. Since you brought the passage up as evidence, what commentary do you have as a source to help you understand it? What commentaries on Romans have you read in their entirety? Which are you seeking to help you understand it?

You just said 1) my point is probably not true since I can't succinctly articulate it in a single forum post, and yet 2) you asked that I back up my interpretation of this passage by citing which commentaries on Romans (which I've read in their entirety!) support my beliefs.

Do you see what you just did? You demanded that my interpretation be both easily explained, presumably in a single forum thread, and at the same time demanded that I provide voluminous source material via commentaries that support my beliefs. If I did provide a list of commentaries (which I've read in their entirety, of course), how would that conform to your expectation that my point ought to be something that can be succinctly made on this humble internet forum? Are you sure that you aren't just resistant to entertaining interpretations of Scripture that differ from your own?