U - Unconditional Election (Five Points of Calvinism, Part 2)

Intro to the Five Points of Calvinism

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

The Five Points of Calvinism

Part 1 - T - Total Depravity
Part 1a - Total Depravity and Free Will

Next in this series on the five points of Calvinism is the "U" in the TULIP, which stands for Unconditional Election. As I did on the "T" I'll begin with a definition that I have gotten from the Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics.

Unconditional Election is the doctrine which states that God chose those whom he was pleased to bring to a knowledge of himself, not based upon any merit shown by the object of his grace and not based upon his looking forward to discover who would "accept" the offer of the gospel. God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation (Romans 9:15,21). He has done this act before the foundations of the world (Ephesians 1:4-8).

This doctrine does not rule out, however, man's responsibility to believe in the redeeming work of God the Son (John 3:16-18). Scripture presents a tension between God's sovereignty in salvation, and man's responsibility to believe which it does not try to resolve. Both are true -- to deny man's responsibility is to affirm an unbiblical hyper-calvinism; to deny God's sovereignty is to affirm an unbiblical Arminianism. The elect are saved unto good works (Ephesians 2:10).

Thus, though good works will never bridge the gulf between man and God that was formed in the Fall, good works are a result of God's saving grace. This is what Peter means when he admonishes the Christian reader to make his "calling" and "election" sure (2 Peter 1:10). Bearing the fruit of good works is an indication that God has sown seeds of grace in fertile soil.

So, with that as a background, let me offer some of my own thoughts. First of all, this doctrine affirms the sovereignty of God in salvation, but it has a different spin than other views. I believe that even Wesleyans and Arminians affirm the sovereignty of God in salvation to some degree. Calvinists though, affirm God's absolute sovereingty in salvation.

This "sovereignty in salvation" is a subset of God's "sovereignty in everything." When we talk about predestination and election, many are troubled by it, as I have been in the past. But, we need to understand that, Biblically speaking, God's sovereignty is far more expansive than just over salvation. Here are a few Scriptures that affirm this:

Psalm 33:11 But the plans of the Lord stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations.

Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.

Daniel 4:35 35All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: What have you done?

Isaiah 46:10 9Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. 10I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come.

Matthew 10:29-30 29Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. 30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

Acts 17:26 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.

The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

These passages speak of God's expansive sovereignty. His will determines everything that happens - even when a sparrow will die. An old Baptist preacher once said that there is a new count of the hairs on our head in heaven each morning when we get out of the shower. So, when we speak of God's sovereignty in salvation, our individual salvation is just one part of God's overall sovereignty. God's election of some unto salvation is spoken of in numerous passages:

Romans 8:29-30 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

Romans 9:10-22 10 Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls she was told, The older will serve the younger. 13 Just as it is written: Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. 16 It does not, therefore, depend on man?s desire or effort, but on God?s mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. 19 One of you will say to me: Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will? 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? ?Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, Why did you make me like this? 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? 22 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath?prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory? 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

Romans 11:5-7 5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6 And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.  7 What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, Ephesians 1:4-5 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will?

The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

I think those passages are pretty clear God did elect or predestine some and that this election occurred in eternity past. The question now comes up as to the mechanics of how He did this.

I propose, and Calvinists propose that these passages speak of the election of some certain individuals unto salvation. Although you may disagree with me, I think that this is evident on a surface reading of these and other passages. With that said I'll address a couple of counter-arguments which have been proposed by those who think that I and other Calvinists have failed to look below the surface of such passages to get at the real meaning.

These are the "election based on foreknowledge" view and the corporate election view. The view that election is based on foreknowledge finds is scriptural warrant in Romans 8:29

"for those God foreknew, he also predestined . . ."

This view says that God basically looked down across history, saw who it was who would believe in Jesus, and He elected them. I would also call this the "ratification" view because in this view God is not electing anyone, He is simply ratifying the choices that believers make.

This view is often offered as a means of saving God from the criticism of being sadistic. In this view God doesn't actively predestine anyone to heaven or hell, thus being mean to the folks going to hell, He is passive in the process, simply waiting to see who will choose Him so that He can choose them. When I say that God is passive, I want to admit that those who hold to this view would say that God is not being passive here - He is actively "wooing" unbelievers to Himself. My point is that this view basically does away with anything resembling predestination or election.

To the contention that this view makes God into a "nicer" God I would say that it doesn't. If the criticism of the Calvnistic view is that God is mean or sadistic (and I don't believe the Calvinistic view makes God sadistic), then I say that in this view God is just as mean or sadistic. In this view, from eternity past God looks into the future to see who will and who won't choose to believe in Him, and He goes ahead and creates the unbelievers anyway. He has the power to not create them and if He doesn't they won't suffer the pains of hell, yet He goes ahead and creates them anyway. If I as a father, know that my child likes to play on the freeway and I open the door to him and let him crawl out into traffic, then I am as negligent as if I had tossed him out onto the freeway. Again, I am not accepting the criticism that the Calvinistic view makes God into a sadist, I am just saying that, if that is the criticism, it applies equally to those who use the above argument.

Another "argument from reason" I would offer in this case is to say that the "foreknowledge view" still implies the same kind of determinism that Calvinists are accused of. If God has infallible foreknowledge and from eternity past He infallibly looks into the future and infallibly knows who will receive Him and who will not, then the choices of those who receive or reject Him have to be infallibly determined from eternity past. In other words, if in the year 24 bazillion B.C. God knows that I am going to accept Jesus on such and such a date in 1981, then the events of 1981 have to be infallibly fixed in 24 bazillion B.C. Otherwise, God couldn't know them. This poses a greater problem for the non-Calvinist because in this view something is determining the the choices of individuals in the future, and it isn't God!

Scripturally, Romans 8:29 says that God foreknows, it doesn't say what He foreknows. This may seem like a minor point, but it is important nonetheless. The non-Calvinist makes an argument from silence in this regard by supplying the content of the foreknowledge in Romans 8:29. If someone wants to make the case that election is based on "foreseen faith" they will have to go elsewhere for proof. We do know from 2 Timothy 1:9 that our salvation is not based on anything we have done:

who has saved us and called us to a holy life, not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace.

The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

This passage is an interesting one to throw into the mix. Is faith something we do? If it is, then salvation and calling can't be based upon it, according to this verse. If faith is something that God does to us, or in us, then we can still see that faith is a part of the equation of salvation, but it is not the basis. This is the Calvinist (and I think biblical) view - faith is a gift of God, therefore it is not the basis of salvation, but the first breath of the new birth. In that respect it is essential - i.e. if a baby doesn't breathe he doesn't live, thus faith is essential to salvation. But faith is an effect of the new birth, not the cause of new birth. But that's another debate and we'll take it up at another time. My point is that it wouldn't make sense to say that faith is something we do, then to say that election is based on that foreseen faith, but salvation is not. I suggest that election is a part of an entire "salvation package" that includes calling, regeneration, faith and repentance, and more and that none of it is based on anything we do, including faith.

The word "foreknow" is made up of two Greek words - the first means "beforehand." The second has a primary sense of "to know" and a secondary sense of "to approve." If, in Romans 8:29 we take the secondary sense of the word and thus render it "approve beforehand," this affirms the Calvinistic position. It means that God approved His choice beforehand, it doesn't mean He ratified the choice of men. If we take the primary sense of the word, to "know beforehand," this doesn't strengthen the case of the Calvinist as much as if it was the secondary sense, but neither does it help the case of the non-Calvinist. It simply would mean that God knew whom He would choose before choosing them. To say anymore would be to read more into the text than is warranted.

The second argument against the Calvinistic view is the corporate election view. The corporate election view goes something like this - God has elected Christ, and all who are united to Christ, become members of the elect. Thus, election isn't of individuals, election is of the corporate body of Christ. It's up to you if you will be a part of the corporate body or not. You can become a member of the elect by believing in Christ.

The first thing I would say in response to this is that the one doesn't negate the other. It is true that Christ is the elect one, and it is true that the body of Christ is elect. It is also true that individual election is election in Christ. But none of this militates against the idea that individuals are elect.

Against this I would offer the following Scriptures:

Acts 13:48
When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed. The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

The word "appointed" here is a passive, so this business of being "appointed" was done to those who believed, it was not something they did. It is also in the perfect tense, indicating that it is a past action with present day results. Those who believed, were those who were chosen or appointed before believing and these were individuals. The choice here was accomplished beforehand, making this an election of individuals, not a corporate body.

II Thessalonians 2:13 says:
But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

In this case, God's choice of these folks happened "from the beginning" and it was a choice of individuals who would be saved "through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth."

I realize that all of this is difficult to swallow and I want to again emphasize the things I have emphasized in prior posts.  Calvinists believe in things like predestination and election because we believe this is what the Bible teaches.  We also believe that the gospel is offered freely to all (some don't, but those are hyper-Calvinisits).  We also believe that "whosoever will may come," (we just don't believe anyone will want to "come" apart from a work of regeneration).  We believe that God's sovereingty in this matter does not negate man's responsibility or freedom, though as I have stated before, we want to be very careful in the way "freedom" is defined.  We believe that election takes place in the realm of God's secret, or decretive will and that we don't have access to that will.  Therefore, we don't go around looking for a big "E" on the forehead of people.  As far as we are concerned, anyone we meet might be a part of the elect, so we take the gospel to them. 

We believe that passionate evangelism and predestination can go hand in hand.  A story is told of Spurgeon, that one time he was leading his congregation in prayer and he prayed "Father, bring in all the elect, and when you are done, elect some more." 

As to the charge that predestination makes God unfair, I would say it does not.  We have to consider the pool of humanity from which God is electing.  The pool of humanity is not neutral to God or favorable toward God in any way.  All have sinned, all have turned away from God.  All men are like lemmings running away from God as fast as they can so they can get to the cliff.  Of those who don't want God, God saves some.

R. C. Sproul talks about this in regard to the idea of justice.  There are three forms of justice which God might apply to human beings.  He might apply justice - giving us what we deserve.  He might apply injustice - giving us what we don't deserve.  He might apply non-justice, also known as mercy, which is not giving us what we deserve.

God gives justice to some - to some who sin against Him and who don't want Him, He gives them what they deserve.

God gives "non-justice" to some - to some who sin against Him and who don't want Him, He gives them mercy and saves them.

God gives injustice to no one.  He never turns away anyone who truly wants to come to Him.  In his natural state, there is not a man alive who will come to him, though.

We can argue that this is unfair all we want, but the truth of the matter is that God is no injustice in all.  I hate to bring this up in our day of fairness and tolerance, but, in Romans 9:19-21, Paul denies the validity of the question of fairness:

¹⁹ One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” ²⁰ But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” ²¹ Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

I'll grant that, in our day, a response like Paul's in this case doesn't go over well, but that is a reflection of what is wrong with us, not what is wrong with Paul, or God.  We've lost a sense of authority in our day, we've lost an appreciation of what it means to submit to a sovereign.

I realize this whole issue of submission to a sovereign has always been a problem at all times and in all cultures, but it is particularly accute here in America.  Although Calvinism doesn't rule the day anywhere, in countries that have a history of monarchy, the idea of sovereignty isn't a foreign concept the way it is here in America.  In America, our slogan is "we submit to no sovereign," we are a nation of "rugged individualists."  As such, it is hard for us to fathom the notion that God has a right to rule His creation as He sees fit.  I know this doesn't prove my case, but I would ask critics of this view to at least consider that our cultural baggage may have as much to do with their resistance to this view as does their exegesis.

So, I'll stop there and just say that I believe the Calvinistic view faithfully relates the biblical teaching and now I'll sit back and await the fur that flies by day and the disagreements that stalk by night.

The rest of the Five Points of Calvinism

Part 3 - L - Limited Atonement
Part 4 - I - Irresistible Grace
Part 5 - P - Perseverance of the Saints

 

Comments

[Ed Piman]

Sir,

You have invited comment. I presume the invitation extends even to one in the grasp of carnal reason. If it does not, you are able to delete my remarks.

"As to the charge that predestination makes God unfair, I would say it does not."

I agree with you, in a manner of speaking. As I understand it, God separates people into two sets, one bound for glory and the other for torture. Why is one person tortured rather than another? God alone knows. But how would it matter? Given that a man shot several children at school, what real difference would it make how he selected the victims?

"Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?"

The questions are rhetorical. It is axiomatic that the potter has the right to use the clay as he pleases. Bio-technology has put that same clay in our grasp. Those first human clones, what rights will they have? Will they be pottery, available for 'common use', say as gladiators or organ banks? If we make them, they're ours, right?

"Therefore, we don't go around looking for a big "E" on the forehead of people. As far as we are concerned, anyone we meet might be a part of the elect, so we take the gospel to them. "

Really? The hooded terrorists beheading people on tape included? No human action makes any difference with respect to salvation, so I am as likely to find the elect serving time for child rape as anywhere else. I find that so remarkable that I do not believe I have understood the matter correctly.

[Jon Cohen]

Ed,

If you wouldn't mind I would like to quote some additional scripture for you. This is not intended to be a reference to authority, but merely to clarify the basic ideas of Christianity.

"Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off." (Rom 11:22)

"If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning." (2 Peter 2:20)

So kindness and election go hand in hand, but the direction of causation is from election to kindness. As for people who have kindness but do not have faith, the idea is that those souls where known by God, and according to his judgement they were placed in a life where they would not accept Christ. In other words, they were judged fairly, given a life and will be treated afterwards according to what they deserved from the beginning. I think only the worst suffer eternal torture. The rest are thrown into a lake of fire and then darkness. The elect also go through a flame, but then enter the new Earth.

A child rapist could come to know God and turn out to have been in the elect all along. Our first clue is they would start to become kind. With our limited perception, we can only know if they really are elect if persist in their faith and kindness to the end. And yes, one of the hooded terrorists could be such a person. Saul, later known as Paul would be the most famous example of that transformation.

The risk implied by your question of the potter is exactly why George Bush and many of the rest of us oppose cloning. However, if there are cloned people, we would attempt to protect them just as we do the unborn.

[mark mc]

''Why is one person tortured rather than another?''

Ed, we know that people are punished for their sins: that's someting we're told. The mystery is why Christ has taken away the punishment due to our crimes, for any of us. Evidently, it has nothing to do with the crimes of some of us being less severe than the crimes of other people.

As you say, ''No human action makes any difference '' with respect to election. Then, why is anyone destined for glory, considering that "all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God"?

Beyond that, I do not understand why, if God would save me, he will not save all men. It strikes me as being something piously to be wished for that he would do so, somehow. However, the Scriptures leave no grounds for expecting this. Quite the contrary, in fact. If he saves none, it's only justice; if he saves any, it's more than anyone can require of him. God is not wrong to save the hooded terrorist, if he is not wrong to save me. So, we preach the gospel to all.

As for the cloning thing, we are not potters as God is the potter. We are not the makers of ourselves, or of one another, as God is our maker; and no degree of technical sophistication will unseat him from this unique place. The issues that you raise can't be safely addressed, without appreciating this uniqueness of God and our vital need to be subject to him. Technical skill, in the hands of monsters, only makes the monsters more perfect.

[Jeremy Pierce]

If injustice is giving people what they don't deserve, then isn't grace (unmerited or undeserved favor) unjust?

Another view on foreknowledge is that it's not referring to God knowing something about people but simply God foreknowing the people in question. God knew me before the foundation of the world and didn't just know what I would do.

I can't agree with you in your claim that simple truth about the future amounts to the same thing as something causing the truth about the future. Assuming it's bad to be predetermined by causes, it just isn't the same sort of bad for it to be true that you'll do something, since the reason for your doing it may well be what you do that isn't caused by someone or something else. It was true ten years ago that Bush would win the 2004 election. That doesn't necessarily mean that what was true at that time made Bush win. On a libertarian view of freedom, each person's choice may have been uncaused entirely. I'm not sure why it's being true ahead of time should make a libertarian queasy. What they don't like is its being caused ahead of time. Therefore, the mere foreknowledge view does not have the consequences Arminians don't want it to have.

[Jeremy Pierce]

Ed, you miss three things. One is that God is the ultimate creator. He does have rights over us, and we have none over him. Second, we're mere stewards of God's creation, so we don't have those rights over things we "create" that are really in his image and thus his property. Third, a criminal shooting relative innocents (innocents with respect to them) is not the same as a just government dealing out a punishment to criminals. God's judgment of sinners is more like the second (or rather the second is more like God's judgment of sinners).

You have understood the matter correctly if you take Jollyblogger to be saying that Usama bin Laden might be one of the elect. Anyone who knows anything about the Bible should know that, so I'm surprised you don't. The gospel message is an offer to all, no matter how sinful. The reason it doesn't matter how sinful is because all sin is sufficient to be worthy of eternal damnation. Thus if God is willing to extend grace, it's grace to someone deserving eternal damnation. On the same grounds that God couldn't do this to bin Laden, he wouldn't be able to do it to Mother Theresa. Her sin was nowhere near as grand or harmful, but it was equally sufficient to deserve eternal punishment. Everyone has rejected God, whether they wrap it in pious trappings or kill and rape people. That's the Christian gospel completely independent of Calvinism. Anyone who takes the Bible seriously has to say that.

[Adrian Warnock]

I have posted my own thoughts on this subject over on my blog.....

[Rey]

"I'll grant that, in our day, a response like Paul's in this case doesn't go over well, but that is a reflection of what is wrong with us, not what is wrong with Paul, or God. We've lost a sense of authority in our day, we've lost an appreciation of what it means to submit to a sovereign."

Forgive my common-thinking for I am not a theologian like many of you. In my humble opinion, I think we do Paul a huge disservice especially in this his systematic and logical arguement. In such a well thought out letter, for us to put the final punctuation mark at this portion is boggling.

I repeat my point from Romans Chapter 3's poetic quoting. Context is immensely important.

[brad]

Jeremy, Adrian, David,
I challenge you with this question. Why did Paul write these things in the first place? Let me take Ephesians 1. Paul begins to write in Ephesians 1 about the believers adoption and that this adoption is predestined and that it precedes the believers chosing in other words this adoption and election is unconditional. As Paul continues to write, he begins to get emotional and breaks into prayer.

"Oh, I pray that the eyes of your heart may be opened to this truth that you may know the hopeto which He has called you...and to know Him better..."

Paul writes these words because the worship of the Sovereign God is his experience, and the apostle knows how important this experience is to the believers hope and, therefore, moral strength.

If we are not fixated on the purpose of the doctrine and, instead, discuss them outside of the context of their life giving power, are we but clanging gongs? Furthermore, are we giving the witness that knowledge is the intention of doctrinal knowledge, when, in fact, the goal is faith and love.
brad

[Paul]

God doesn't pass through time as we do. He created time and is outside of time, apart from a period of 33 or so years when he became a part of time. He is able to say "before Abraham was I AM" which is a nonsense statement in terms of tense, but a true statement for the creator of all things. God did not have to plan out the whole of my life to know what I was going to do with it. He is constantly watching the whole of my life, and all of the rest of his creation, from beginning to end.

All just my humble opinion you understand, I just believe that when God said that he desired that that none should perish, he meant it.

[dan kirton]

I know this will offend alot of you guys but I believe it's good advice; You don't need John Calvin, or R.C. Sproul or any of these guys. I've been through this debate again and again and found that Calvinism emphasize the scriptures which validate its view to the neglect of scriptures which speak of man's responsibility to believe and obey. There is a tension between the two. This has been a theological HOBBY HORSE that no one needs to ride.

[Dick]

We did a piece based on this post by David at Viewpoint. Readers may visit it at http://www.wscleary.com/pov/home?month=11&year=2004#555