DOCTRINES OF GRACE CHAPTER 5: UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION PART II
ANSWERING DIFFICULT QUESTIONS
MAN HAS A NATURAL DISTASTE FOR ELECTION.
In this chapter we will address some of the legitimate questions that skeptics raise concerning the reformed doctrine of election. No doctrine with the possible exception of baptism has engendered more debate and division among Christians than this one. Some of the questions are rooted in a misunderstanding of what the doctrine really asserts. Others see the doctrine as being out of step with an ever softening and accepting culture. Some think election presents a skewed view of the character of God as a hardened and angry despot. It will be our aim in this chapter to demonstrate that election does just the opposite as it magnifies the God of mercy who loves sinners. The author is not so naïve as to believe the answers given will satisfy all objectors. Nevertheless, it is important to give answers even if they fail to change minds. Our approach will be to attempt to set ourselves at a distance from the doctrine and attempt to evaluate it as objectively as possible. Better yet, we will try to put ourselves in the shoes of the skeptics as we attempt to give real answers without belittling those who ask real questions.
It is important to say at the outset that this doctrine is difficult for many to believe because it is purely a divine doctrine; it is not of this world. Human wisdom cannot put its arms around a God who elects freely, based on nothing in the object, and offers no explanation for His choice. As with any other Christian doctrine, election is cloaked in mystery and can only be understood by a God-given faith. Not only is election beyond the purview of human wisdom but it is resisted by natural man for it eliminates the contribution of man in salvation. This will always be repulsive to the flesh which always yearns for control. Being the most ‘divine’ of all doctrines, election cannot accord with any natural faculty in man. Only when one bows to God’s revealed will and embraces without question the revealed truths of Christianity, will election not only make sense but will manifest the glory of God. When a skeptic yields to the truth of election it is always accompanied by a new era of comfort, peace and joy.
Saying it another way, the primary reason why men have an emotional allergy to election is because it confronts the dignity of man. The universal trait of man after the Fall is his desire to sit in the seat of the divine, “To be as God knowing good and evil.” For all men, saved and unsaved, election threatens their most cherished sin, self-worship. Man yearns to be independent of God. The desire of David to build God a house (2 Sam 7) or Peter’s boast to never abandon the Lord (Mt 26:33) comes from the same sinful root. The sin of Adam and Eve to go their own way has been passed down to every other human since that fateful day. Simply put, man wants to be the main character in the cosmic narrative; he wants to be known for his wisdom, ingenuity, energy, righteousness, and spirituality. Election, however, puts God in the center, a fact repulsive to proud mankind.
Another and related reason why men have a knee jerk reaction to election is that it forces man to concede that God is sovereign in all things. This is especially true in salvation where God is the potter and man is the clay. His will is the determining factor of everything that happens. Psalm 115:3 tells it all, “But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases.” A verse like this grates against the common experiences of man and is therefore rejected. Men run businesses, rule countries, manage farms, raise families, and invent cures. What place is there in that scheme for a sovereign God? But as always, the Scriptures paint a picture of reality that is completely counterintuitive. When someone comes along and says that a sovereign God actually caused an event to happen, the statement is quickly dismissed as religious nonsense.
In sum, election is denied because it challenges man’s most cherished illusion; that he is in control of his own destiny. Henley’s poem captures man’s central desire:
“It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate,
I am the captain of my soul.”[1]
Election stands against this bold assertion.
Nevertheless, we cannot simply ignore many of the criticisms and nagging questions about election. Beginning with this chapter and the next we will look to address some of the more legitimate concerns many have of the doctrine of Unconditional Election.
ELECTION SEEMS TO CONTRADICT THE NOTION THAT SALVATION IS A FREE OFFER.
That election seems to go counter to God’s free offer of salvation is to many the prime reason to reject it. If God commands us to preach the gospel freely to every creature while fully knowing that some will not receive it because they are not chosen makes the offer seem disingenuous. This is a legitimate point. Since no one wants to accuse God of such chicanery, the solution given by many is to assert that the ultimate cause of salvation is found in the free choice of men and not in God’s election.
So which is it? Let us note first off that all orthodox Christians agree that the offer of the gospel is genuine. A perusal of the following biblical texts shows this to be true:
“Come, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without price” (Isaiah 55:1).
“For ‘everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved’” (Rom 10:13).
“Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Mt 11:28).
“And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2:21).
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).
“The Spirit and the Bride say, ‘Come.’ And let the one who hears say, ‘Come.’ And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price” (Rev 22:17)
Feeling this tension between the free offer of the gospel and divine election many in the ‘reformed’ tradition have resolved the problem by asserting that the free offer is given only to those who are elect. The evangelist’s duty is not to offer the gospel to anyone, but the offer is restricted to the one who shows some evidence of the Spirit’s work in his heart. This idea, however, has been rejected over the course of church history and has even been labeled a heresy. The formal name of this view is hyper-Calvinism. But as R.C. Sproul says this view is sub-Calvinism at best and anti-Calvinism at worst.[2] Great Baptist preacher/evangelist, Charles Spurgeon, denounced this brand of ‘Calvinism’ noting that it denied the free offer of God. He described Hyper-Calvinism as
“a declaration of the facts of the gospel but nothing should be said by way of encouraging individuals to believe that the promises of Christ are made to them particularly until there is evidence that the Spirit of God has begun a saving work in their hearts, convicting them and making them ‘sensible’ of their need.” [3]
Such a view limits the offer of the gospel by certain qualifications in the recipient. Such a view destroys the notion of grace which is a free and unconditional act of God. Hyper-Calvinism is a bold rebuttal of God’s free grace which is no longer free but limited to those who the evangelist thinks are ready to receive it. What Hyper-Calvinism believes is a solution to the free offer/election paradox ends up destroying both truths.
At first glance it seems irrational to believe that something can be freely offered while the results are already known, a closer inspection will demonstrate that though the two ideas seem incompatible they are not at all in opposition to one another.
First let’s look at the invitation. An invitation is genuine when the inviter lays no qualification on the offer but to accept it. God has never (and will never) offer the gospel to anyone and then retracted the offer because He saw something in the receiver that made them unworthy. The offer was free and God promises to give its benefits to anyone who will receive it. Rejection of the offer lies completely in the hands of the invited ones. If they reject the offer it is because they have an antipathy toward God and don’t want anything from Him, free or not. Refusal to receive the gospel lies completely in the hard-heartedness of man. And it so happens that this problem is universal. Man’s heart is so hard against God that no one is inclined to receive the offer. This we discussed earlier in our chapters on Total Depravity. But the fact that no one is inclined to accept an offer does not in any way diminish the genuineness of the offer.
What about election then? Election is a pure act of grace whereby God actually chooses some who hate him and have no desire to accept the offer. This He accomplishes by acts of pure grace in changing their hearts, minds and wills and literally compelling them to receive what they naturally would reject. Thus, election has nothing at all to do with the legitimacy of the offer. It is separate and distinct from the free offer of the gospel.
The parable of the banquet in Luke 14:16-24 illustrates this clearly. The master invites everyone to his great feast, yet one by one they turn him down with feeble excuses. The master’s invitation was real but no one felt inclined to receive it. Such is the history of the world. But the story doesn’t end there. Unsatisfied with the denials, and deeply upset that no one will take his offer, the master orders his servants to go out and compel many to come in, the poor and the maimed and the lame and the blind. What is this but God’s work of grace to infuse into the hearts of rebellious men the desire to come and accept His gracious offer?
Now this does not answer all the questions people might have. Our goal is to show that the free offer and election are logically compatible. It answers the intellectual questions but fails to satisfy emotionally. Thus, some might ask, “Why doesn’t God work in the hearts of all men to receive His offer?” This, the Bible does not answer. According to Ephesians 1:5, God does all things according to “the good pleasure of His will.” His actions cannot be illogical, but neither must they be fully resolved in the mind of man. Questions that the Bible doesn’t answer, we leave to the province of sacred mystery.
IF THE GOSPEL IS A FREE OFFER HOW CAN IT BE A COMMAND?
Not only is the gospel an offer but the Bible treats it as a command.[4] Paul said to the Greeks, “Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent.” This raises a further issue that needs to be briefly addressed. The aforementioned Spurgeon believed that all men were commanded to believe the gospel. Spurgeon called this ‘duty-faith’ which gave him the right and even the command to press the gospel upon the conscience of sinners. Those who could not see why God would command dead sinners to believe, including the Hyper-Calvinists, demurred.[5] They asked why God would command dead sinners to do anything. This debate about whether or not the gospel was a command goes back to the early church but came to a head in the 18th century. Andrew Fuller, a British Baptist, a brilliant and evangelistic minister of the 1700’s, dealt with this issue head on. Searching the annuls of history he discovered,
“No writer of eminence can be named before the present century, who denied it to be the duty of men in general to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ for the salvation of their souls.” [6]
Seeing the gospel as a command does stir up questions about how one reconciles such a command to believe with the doctrine of election. The first issue we addressed was how could a free invitation be valid in light of election? Here the question is, how could God command something of man that man could not obey? This was the age-old dispute between Augustine and Pelagius that we have discussed in the chapter on Total Depravity. There are several answers. First, there is nothing mutually exclusive about commanding and offering. A boss can offer you a free trip to Mexico and at the same time command you to take it. One doesn’t exclude the other. Second, a command to receive something that has eternal benefits is really a really a transaction of grace. God wants men to receive the gospel so that they might live. How much more gracious can He be than to command that which is best for mankind? Third, the Bible teaches that God’s emphatic command to obey the gospel is the very instrument God has chosen to bring men to Himself. We have seen before that the gospel is the very power of God unto salvation. Is it not possible, then, that His power is channeled through a very vehement command to obey the offer? And fourth, as Augustine showed us, God often commands things that the recipient cannot do so that any response will redound to His glory. Is it cruel that God genuinely commands men to believe the gospel knowing that man cannot obey the command? But that assumes that God is emotionally detached from the command and has no interest in one’s response. But nothing in the Bible hints that this is true. Jesus wept over Jerusalem because she would not receive him.[7] Such an urgent commission is seen in the ministry of the prophet Ezekiel who was told that the blood of men would be on his hands if he did not warn them of God’s judgment.[8] God did not tell Ezekiel to gently suggest that the Jews repent, but to command them with greatest urgency.[9] The fact is, God pleads with sinners to come to Him, yeah, even commands them, because He loves them and wants what’s best for them. As Spurgeon would say, the fact that receiving the gospel is a command gives the preacher a warrant to plead passionately for sinners. Who knows but that in the mystery of God such a fervent exhortation might be the instrument He uses to convert sinners.
FOUR TRUTHS TO REMEMBER
Four basic truths need be kept constantly in mind when wrestling with the doctrine of election. First, one must remember that God controls every aspects of one’s salvation, from the decree in eternity past, to the means used to bring someone to Christ, to the preservation of the saint unto glory. In other words, God chooses unto salvation, but He also chooses the means to that salvation. The two things cannot be separated. A guided missile may be programed to reach its target accurately, but nothing happens unless the command center pulls the switch. God has ordained those whom He will save AND also ordains the means whereby they are saved. The fact that God knows the end does relieve His children from the responsibility of employing the means He has ordained. Man has no say about the choice, but has a huge part to play in the execution of that choice. This is why Christ commands the church to pray fervently for more workers in the harvest.[10] Why? Because without workers, there are no means employed and without means there is no salvation. We know that God chooses but that is not our concern. Our concern is to obey His commands, which is to employ every means possible to extend His kingdom on earth.
Second, it is important to remember that it is man’s responsibility to receive the offer of Christ crucified for them and not to be sidetracked by trying to unravel the mystery of God’s decrees. The gospel is not ‘believe that you are chosen by God’ and be saved. Belief in one’s election has nothing to do with salvation. The object of one’s faith is always to be Jesus Christ in His death, burial and resurrection; “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.” Election is never to be the grounds of one’s assurance or the focus of one’s Christian’s life. Both saved and unsaved sinners must ever focus on the person and work of Jesus Christ Himself and that alone. That which links the sinner to eternal life is faith in Christ not the divine decree. The apostles in the sinking boat did not rest on God’s election for their safety but they screamed out for Jesus to save them. Election is a beautiful, soul-strengthening truth for those who have trusted in Christ, but it has never saved a soul and never will.
Third, election in no way negates the truthfulness of the free offer of the gospel. Salvation is offered to all men indiscriminately and all who hear the offer have equal access to its blessings. The offer is genuine and it should be given with the conviction that anyone who receives it will be saved. The offer pays no heed to one’s knowledge of the Bible, spiritual sensitivity, family tree, ethnicity, or whether or not one believes in election. The offer throws a wide net over every hearer and says, “Whoever comes to the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved.” Thus, the one who offers the gospel has no right to say, “I don’t think this message is for such a person as this.” Neither should the receiver say, “I don’t think this offer is for me for I may not be elect.” The offer is color blind; it favors no one, but offers itself freely to all and never stops to think about election.
Fourth, as in all the great doctrines of the faith, we must learn to hold in sacred tension the paradox of God’s free offer and His unconditional election of sinners. Living in a Western, scientific, Enlightenment culture we naturally fall into the pit of expecting divine truth to fall at the feet of man’s reason. Many systems have veered off the path of orthodoxy by trying to harmonize what God leaves to mystery. For Arminianism the harmony comes by emasculating divine sovereignty and empowering the free will of man. In hyper-Reformed circles sovereignty is so emphasized that it ignores the human means that God employs to bring sinners to Christ. One ignores God’s election, the other ignores the human means employed to disseminate the free offer. Both views are egregiously wrong. The truth is that election and the free offer carry equal weight in the Scriptures. And we who trust the Word of God must allow the paradox to rest peacefully in our minds while vigorously holding to our faith in a God who knows all things. We who live between the two comings of Christ abide under Paul’s apt summary, “For now we see through the glass darkly, but then, face to face.”
Although none of these four propositions will solve the intellectual tension of trying to harmonize the free offer of the gospel and election, they do at least give us some scriptural guidelines within which we can live out the mystery of faith. Someday God will bring all these truths together and we shall be satisfied. For now we hold on to all the paradoxical oceans of revelation allowing our faith to swim broadly in their deep waters.
ARE MEN CHOSEN BECAUSE GOD FOREKNOWS THEIR FAITH?
Over the years the chief objection to Unconditional Election rests on the idea that election rests upon the foreknowledge of God. That is, God sees in advance those who receive His free offer of grace and on that basis elects them. This is a formidable argument in that there are Bible texts that appear to support it. And if this idea is true then the doctrine of Unconditional Election is disproven.
Let us think this through for a moment. If God in His omniscience chooses those whom He knows will believe His gospel then Unconditional Election must be false. The doctrine of election says that God chooses apart from anything resident in the receiver. God chooses solely from His own character of grace, according the ‘counsel of His will.’ If we say, however, that God chooses because God saw something in the recipient via His foreknowledge, then His choice is based on something in the object and election is no longer unconditional. Because this has been a formidable objection to Unconditional Election over the years it is important that we tackle it head on. First let us review the Scriptures that seem to support this view of election based on God’s foreknowledge.
First we must delve into the meaning of the word ‘foreknowledge.’ In several key texts the Scripture uses this word in connection to salvation. The chief among these are found in 1 Peter 1:1-2 which says,
“Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.”
It is to be noted that the text says that the exiles are elect ‘according to the foreknowledge of God, the Father.’ At first read it seems plain that God chose the saints of Asia Minor based on His knowing beforehand that they would receive the gospel message. To bolster this argument the word for foreknowledge, πρόγνωσις (prognōsis), simply means to know something or someone in advance.[11] From it we get the English word prognosis which usually has the connotation of predicting in advance the outcome of a medical condition.
To further bolster the argument Scripture clearly asserts that God does indeed know things that happen in the future. In Isaiah 46:9b-10 He confidently declares,
“I am God and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying, my counsel shall stand and I will do all My pleasure.”
Furthermore in Romans 8:29 the concept of foreknowledge is clearly linked with predestination. “For those He foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.”
At face value the verse could mean that predestination (election) is based on God’s foreknowledge. That is, God chose because He knew in advance who would receive His grace.
So far this view seems to have the support of Scripture.
If foreknowledge only meant that someone knows something in advance then the Arminian view of predestination would be correct. God chooses sinners based on something He foresaw in those He chose. This is called the prescient view.
But as we put this idea under the microscope of Scripture and study the passages in their context and evaluate how this idea aligns with the overall teaching of the Biblical narrative, we will find that it is seriously wanting.[12]
We begin with the verse just quoted from Paul’s epistle to the Romans. In the larger context of the book of Romans, chapter 8 verses 29-30 form what is called the golden chain of salvation. In its larger context, the eighth chapter is the apostle’s culminating argument that God’s salvation is guaranteed for every believer; that God has employed the entire arsenal of divine omnipotence to keep the Christian secure in the faith. To prove this He appeals to the unassailable work of the Holy Spirit in the Christian in verses 12-27. He then capstones that argument with one of the most famous verses in the Bible, “All things work together for good to those who love God” (verse 28). Then Paul proceeds to prove this truth by asking a series of questions that demonstrates that nothing in heaven or on earth can alter God’s faithfulness to the believer. He asks, “If God is for us, who can be against us?” Of course the answer is no one! God has justified you and declared you the Christian innocent before the bar and no force in heaven of on earth can change that. Hallelujah! Paul crescendos his argument with that beautiful section which states that nothing can separate the believer from Jesus Christ (verses 35-39).
The great foundation upon which this entire section rests is that golden chain we mentioned earlier. If this chain is to bring any comfort for the saint (which is its intent) then it must rest squarely on the work of God and not the fickleness of man. And this is exactly what we find. Paul gives the audience five works that God alone accomplishes for the believer. God has foreknown the sinner from eternity, He has predestined that sinner, He has called that sinner, He has justified that sinner, and He will most certainly glorify the sinner who has trusted in Christ. Could Paul have said anything more comforting to the believer than this? [13]
If this interpretation be true then how should we interpret the word foreknown? First, it is important to note that God does not ‘know’ as humans ‘know.’ Humans glean information in order to know something. God knows everything because He created everything. When God ‘knows’ someone or something, it is a comprehensive, intimate knowledge that bears no sense of progress. Adam for example did not know know ‘good and evil’ (Gen 3:5 Hebrew יָדַע=yada). This he must learn after experiencing sin. Men learn things by degrees based on information or experience. God knows all there is to know about everything. He is omniscient. Even in the Hebrew thinking, knowledge is far deeper than gleaning information. In those early chapters of Genesis we read that Adam ‘knew’ Eve. This is the same word quoted earlier. This does not mean Adam learned about Eve or became acquainted with her. Rather he ‘knew’ his wife in the deepest kind of intimacy one human can have with another (Gen 4:1). Speaking of the entire nation of Israel God says in Amos 3:2, “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.” In other words God knew Israel in a far deeper way than He knew other nations. It was a knowledge based on a relationship. Thus when the Bible says that God ‘foreknows’ something, it cannot mean that God was simply aware of an event in someone’s life but that He had an intimate relationship with that person. The word know is much more than an intellectual function. Listen to how Paul uses the word in Galatians 4:9, “But now after you have known God or rather, are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage?” The Galatian Christians not only knew God, but more importantly, they were known by God in an intimate, personal way. Paul says it again in Philippians 3:10, that He wants to know Christ by sharing His resurrected life. Paul was not pleading for a mere acquaintance with the Savior but a deep, deep relationship with his Savior.
We bring this meaning of ‘know’ back to our text. Paul was not comforting the saints of Rome by saying that God merely foreknew the saints in the sense that He learned some facts about them. God already knows all the facts. If we take ‘know’ to mean the mere gaining of a fact, then the verse would read as follows: “Those who God learned something about by His omniscience He predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son.” If this is the meaning of the text it becomes absolutely meaningless at best and heretical at worst for it makes God out to be a reactive weakling. Let us then search out how the word foreknow is used elsewhere in the New Testament.
Looking at the few times the word foreknow is used in the New Testament, we find it never bears the meaning of hearing about someone beforehand except in one particular case.[14] And when God is doing the foreknowing it can never mean that. For example in Romans 11:2 we read,
“God has not rejected His people whom he foreknew.”
This does not mean that God simply knew about Israel (see again Amos 3:2). The point of the passage is that God would not reject that one nation with whom he had an intimate relationship. God knew Israel, He loved Israel, He put His favor upon Israel. God had most certainly known every nation for He created them all. But He only knew one nation in an intimate sense. The issue Paul is getting at in Romans 11 is ‘has God rejected all the Jewish people?’ His argument is that Israel is not ultimately rejected and through jealousy about the conversion of the Gentiles, Israel will believe the gospel. The whole point of Romans 11 is that God could never abandon the nation He set His love on, the nation He foreknew.[15]
In 1 Peter 1:20 we have another use of the verb to foreknow that is relevant to our current discussion. Here Peter uses the word in relation to Jesus, the Messiah,
“knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you.”
Peter is comforting the persecuted believers. He wants them to know that the Savior who came into the world and manifested himself to the world was actually the Messiah of God appointed before the foundation of the world. Peter uses the word foreknown to express this idea. Jesus was chosen (foreknown) by God to redeem His people. It would destroy the verse and also be rank heresy to say that Peter is teaching that God simply knew about Jesus before time. The Father appointed Jesus to be the Savior of the world. This truth would comfort the persecuted believers.
Notice also how Peter uses the word in his first sermon at Pentecost.
“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men’”(Acts 2:22-23).
Peter wants the Jews in the Temple Square to feel the pangs of guilt for crucifying their Messiah, the Lord of glory. No sin could be greater. However he also wants them to know that their heinous sin was in God’s plan all along. All the events leading up to the crucifixion was “according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God.” Here ‘definite plan’ and ‘foreknowledge’ are used in a parallel sense. God did not simply know that Jesus would die on a cross; it was His definite plan; He ordained it; He foreknew it in the sense He made it happen.
On the contrary if we adopt foreknowledge to mean that God saw in advance that sinners would believe by the exercise of their wills, then the entire superstructure of the salvation of sinners rests on the sinner’s act of believing. Now I ask the reader, what comfort is that? If salvation rests on something the sinner does, then being fickle as we all are, it is entirely possible that one could just as easily abandon his faith. Such a view reduces salvation to God waiting on man to choose before He can save them. More importantly it robs man of any confidence in His God, something both Paul and Peter are trying build up in the readers. If man’s faith turns on the switch of God’s election, then man has essentially assumed the place of God. Such an attitude puts us right back into the garden where our first parents jumped at the prospect of being divine and thrust the entire human race into the abyss.
Not only does the prescient view of foreknowledge go counter to the entire drift of New Testament theology, but it also violates the grammar of the passage. Paul, as you will notice, employs the relative pronoun ‘whom’ or ‘what’ four times in the passage. The rules of grammar demand that the word must be used in the same way throughout the passage. Arminians say that in verse 29 the relative pronoun οὓς must be translated ‘what’ for the thing that God foreknew was not the person but the person’s faith. If that is the case then the word must also mean ‘what’ in its other three usages. So the passage would read like this. ‘For what he foreknow He predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son….. moreover what He predestined these He also called and what He called these He also justified and what He justified these He also glorified.’ Translating the word οὓς as ‘what’ turns the passage into absolute gibberish. God has foreknown people to be conformed to Christ. God has predestined people and called people and justified people and glorified people. Which people? His people! The only way the passage makes sense is to translate it ‘whom’ throughout. This means that God did not foreknow a person’s faith but rather He foreknew the person. By looking at the simple grammar of the text we find that the prescient view fails the interpretive test. Note how the same idea is expressed in the testimony of Jeremiah.
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”
God knew Jeremiah, not his faith, his prophetic office, or anything else.
One last thought on the prescient view. To say that God looks down the corridor of time to see one’s faith and chooses them on that basis means that God is subject to time. The Bible, however, shows God to be above time, transcendent, seeing all things in the eternal present. “I am that I am” describes God’s relationship to time. God does not look down the corridors of time to see what will happen. He knows and ordains all events that exist in time. What happened three thousand years ago and what will happen three thousand years from now are before Him in an eternal present. God does wait to see who will believe; He ordains those that will believe.
Furthermore the prescient view assumes that God learned something He did not previously know. There was a time, according to this view, when God did not know who would believe. Such a view of God clearly denies His omniscience. God knows everything past, present or future. He knows who will believe because He has ordained who will believe. To say that God did not know someone’s faith before that person actually exercised it in time is rank blasphemy against His character. It attacks His omniscience. Some theologians have tried to skirt this obvious problem by positing a doctrine called Open Theism.[16] This belief says that God cannot know contingent events such as man’s free choices. He learns the future right along with His creation because the future can never be known. This aberrant theology destroys not only the omniscience of God but His sovereignty in all things. God becomes a weak, hand-wringing deity who yearns for men to obey Him but has no control over what they do. Such a God is a pathetic lackey not worthy of one’s worship. This is another example of a false theology which sacrifices the character of the true God on the altar of human reason.
DOES GOD SAVE THOSE WHO HAVE NO ABILITY TO EXERCISE FAITH?
If faith is the instrument through which God brings men to salvation, then what about those who cannot believe due to mental incapacities such as brain dysfunction or other debilitating factors? Here is where the doctrine of election comes to the rescue, carrying on its shoulders the mercy of God. The Bible itself acknowledges that children of a certain age cannot discern between good and evil and therefore cannot possibly exercise faith.[17] Though they are not innocent, God still retains the sovereign right of choosing whomsoever He will. This can bypass the necessity of faith. Though this is not God’s normal way of saving people, election allows for it. For example, we find that John the Baptist had the Spirit of God while yet in his mother’s womb (see Luke 1:44). The Baptist did not confess Jesus as Messiah in his mother’s womb. Yet God granted to him the saving work of the Spirit. Though we cannot go as far as some, stating that persons incapable of exercising faith will be saved, election at least allows for it.
This is a big issue in the debate of infant salvation. Parents of deceased babies will almost always ask, “Is my little child who died with Jesus or not with Jesus.” The answer to that is simply, “It is possible that God saves them outside a personal confession of faith.” Some traditions try to alleviate the tension by stating that baptism itself regenerates and therefore if a child is baptized he is safe.[18] But that begs the question of what happens to unbaptized infants? The Roman Church deals with this problem by inventing a place called Limbo which has no scriptural support. Here unbaptized children live in a neutral place that is not heaven or hell.[19]
The fact is that the Bible does not deal directly with the issue. Thus we dare not dabble in such speculations. Some solid teachers have posited a view that says Scripture teaches that all little children who die are immediately taken to heaven.[20] They argue from the general character of God who is by nature merciful. They also find support for this position from their reading of 2 Samuel chapter 12 where David, who has lost his child says, “I shall go to him, but he will not return to me” (2 Samuel 12:23).
The present author, however, does not see the text in 2 Samuel as compelling. In the Old Covenant view of the afterlife, when a Jew died he went to a place of waiting called Sheol. Jacob expected to see Joseph there, thinking his son had died.[21] The wicked are there as well.[22] Often in the Old Testament we find the expression so and so was “gathered to his people.”[23] David was merely saying that he would see his child in that place of waiting. Another text that some use to prove the salvation of all little children is found Jesus’ words in Mt 19:14, “Let the little children come to me and do not forbid them for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” If children are a part of the kingdom of heaven, then Jesus must be saying that little children are saved. However Jesus is not emphasizing the fact that little children enter the kingdom but that all who exercise a childlike faith will enter the kingdom. It is an analogy, not a statement about the afterlife.
So what happens to infants who die? The doctrine of election helps us resolve this knotty problem. Earlier we said that the only sufficient cause of salvation was election. If a person is elect they shall be in glory, if not, they shall not enter glory. When dealing with the death of infants we dare not go beyond what Scriptures teach. The fact is there are some who are appointed to perdition. Judas is one, the antichrist of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 is another as well as those false teachers described in Jude 4 who were “long ago designated for this condemnation…who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.” And of course we have the express declaration of God that he did not choose Esau even though at the time Esau had done nothing good or bad.[24] As a contrast we have that illustration of John the Baptist that we mentioned earlier. The point here is that what ensures one’s salvation is whether he or she is elect. Now we must be careful here. The proof that one is saved is one’s faith. The fact that God may reach down and save some who for various reasons cannot exercise faith does not in any way negate the fact that faith is the appointed instrument whereby God saves sinners. As to those who cannot believe, as in the case of little children, it is possible that God has elected them and they will be in glory. But of that we cannot be absolutely sure. It is one of those mysteries that God does not reveal to us and thus best for us to leave alone. Those sage scholars of the Westminster Confession, many of whom were paedobaptists, dealt wisely with this delicate issue,
“Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit who works when, and where, and how he pleases; so also, are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.”[25]
The Westminster Divines realized that some would die who had no capacity by age or mental ability to believe and in such cases they reverted back to the only thing they knew to be true, God’s electing grace. When the means of salvation are beyond the reach of the person, then the only thing left standing is God’s sovereign choice which lies beyond the purview of human accessibility. Now to be clear, we are not talking about those who do not believe because they are ignorant of the gospel. According to Romans chapter one, such people are guilty because they had the capacity to know God yet chose to “suppress the truth in unrighteousness.”[26] At the end of the day, four truths must govern all our thinking in this matter. First, all the elect shall be in glory. Second, all those who truly believe the gospel shall be saved. Third, it is left to God’s sovereign disposition to save anyone He deems fit by an exceptional disbursement of His grace. Fourth, it is beyond the scope of theology to determine when and if these special disbursements occur. Fifth, the fact that God may elect some who cannot believe in no way reduces the urgency for the church to preach the gospel to every creature, for it is clear that man is saved through the preaching of the gospel.
Election is not a doctrine that diminishes the grace and mercy of God as many believe. On the contrary, election is an ally to God’s grace to sinners, a silent partner to salvation through faith alone. Only those who do not see the beauty of election will fail to understand this.
SUMMARY
I am quite aware that not everyone is satisfied with the explanations presented. As I said at the outset, election is a doctrine that is to be believed and not felt. Many view it as a hard truth that represents a God who strips men of their freedoms and sends people to hell. These caricatures of election only belie a deep misunderstanding of the doctrine. And until these biases are discarded, all the explanations in the world will not convince a person that this doctrine is a precious jewel in the storehouse of God’s gracious dealings with mankind. For the many who think election speaks of an unjust God, our only hope is that by the power of the Spirit they may come to behold its beauty. Such a misunderstanding of God is echoed in the man in the Parable of the Talents who hid his one coin because he misunderstood the Master. He said,
“Lord, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not scattered seed and I was afraid and went and hid your talent in the ground” (Mt 25:24-25).
If we think election represents a harsh God then we will never believe that God chooses until one’s heart is changed by the Spirit. Many Christians who are tainted by the world’s definition of justice think the God of election is unjust. Like the man in the parable, the God of election is not the God they were looking for. And when they read in the literally thousands of biblical texts of his electing love, they look away. So for anyone who struggles with this doctrine I can only pray that you will take the time to reconsider this beautiful doctrine and to search the Scriptures to see whether this doctrine is so. Election graciously guarantees the salvation of an innumerable company of men and women of every tribe, kindred and nation. It also guarantees that all who believe the gospel are elect.
In the next chapter we will answer several more objections to this doctrine in the hope that some will at last see its truth and beauty and it will lead them into a whole new realm of Christian understanding and delight.
ENDNOTES:
[1] Invictus, William Ernest Henley.
[2] See Sproul, R.C.; What is Reformed Theology. Baker, 1997, pg 159
[3] Murray, Iain; Spurgeon vs. Hyper-Calvinism, Banner of Truth, 1995, pg. 62
[4] See Also Acts 16:31; 1 John 3:23
[5] Ibid. Murray. pgs 48-52. The debate over ‘duty faith’ was at the heart of Spurgeon’s battle with the Hyper-Calvinists. One representative of this view, James Wells said, ‘the doctrine of duty faith I throw to Paul’s dung heap.’
[6] Quoted from Murray, Spurgeon vs. Hyper-Calvinism, pg 43. From Fuller’s, The Gospel of Christ Worthy of all Acceptation. Sprinkle, vol 2, page 343 ff. (Fuller lived in the 18th century).
[7] See Luke 19:41-44
[8] See Ezekiel 3:16-27
[9] Ezekiel 18:31
[10] See Matt 9:38
[11] It is used this way in Acts 26:5: “They have known for a long time, if they are willing to testify, that according to the strictest party of our religion I have lived as a Pharisee.”
[12] That Scriptures must be interpreted according to the overall teaching of the Bible is a hermeneutical principle called ‘the analogy of faith.’
[13] It is interesting that Paul leaves sanctification out of the great chain probably because that is a work that involves the human will and Paul did not want to give even a hint that the chain of salvation rested on anything man does. This is further proof that foreknowledge has nothing to do with man’s free choosing.
[14] The word can mean to simply know something beforehand or prognosticate. For example in Acts 26:5 Paul says, “They knew me from the first, if they were willing to testify, that according to the strictest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.”
[15] We add to that Isaiah 49:15-16; “Can a woman forget her nursing child and not have compassion on the son of her womb. Surely they may forget, yet I will not forget you. See, I have inscribed you on the palms of My hands.”
[16] See Greg Boyd, God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God. Baker Books, 2000.
[17] See Isaiah 7:16
[18] The Lutheran and Roman Catholic traditions believe this.
[19] See: https://www.britannica.com/topic/limbo-Roman-Catholic-theology
[20] A clear explication of this belief is found in Safe in the Arms of God, MacArthur, John. Thomas Nelson, 2003
[21] See Gen 37:35
[22] See Psalm 9:17
[23] See Psalm 49:9; Gen 35:29; 49:29; Nu 20:24, Judges 2:10; etc.
[24] See Genesis 25:23-34; Malachi 1:3; Romans 9:10-13
[25] Westminster Confession of Faith; 10,3.
[26] See Romans 1:18-23