DOCTRINES OF GRACE CHAPTER 6: UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION PART III
In this chapter we continue to address several more objections that many have concerning the doctrine of Unconditional Election.
ELECTION IS A FORM OF FATALISM.
The first of these is the understanding that Unconditional Election is a form of fatalism, in this case Christian fatalism. Now to understand what people mean by this criticism we must understand what fatalism is. Coming from the Greek goddesses of destiny called ‘Fates’, fatalism is a belief that impersonal forces or laws of necessity control the destiny of all that happens. Warfield states that fatalism “confounds God with natural law.”[1] Fatalism teaches that impersonal forces determine outcomes inextricably. This world view has taken hold of the secular world through Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection. This ‘theory’ credits the development of all life species through an overarching impersonal process called natural selection. This ‘theory’ serves as the ‘creator’ to be worshipped. But it is a creator without personality. Its theme song is Que Sera Sera, ‘whatever will be will be’. It renders man as a mere cog in a cosmic machine that grinds along in a predetermined manner according to fixed laws and imprisons all into a cave of despair from which no escape is possible.
Christianity offers a radically different view of life. Though in both systems the final destiny of all man is determined, these world views diverge when we consider two things. First, what (or who) is leading people to their destinies and second, what are the means by which these ends are realized.
To the first question we state that the Christian world view in direct conflict with fatalism believes in a personal Creator who possesses mind, emotions and will and who ordains the outworking of history. Not only does this God ordain all things but interacts with His creation as well. The God of the Bible is not an impersonal robotic force but a personal, interactive, caring, loving, merciful being who has deep feelings for His creation. He is not the God of the deists who winds up the clock, sets naturalistic forces in motion and then sits back and watches. He is a God who intersects time and space on a personal level. And when one begins to read about these attributes a great sense of relief overtakes him. God is truly a God of law but His dominant attribute, at least as far as humanity is concerned, is His tender mercy. When one knows his or her destiny lies in the hand of a God who yearns to be gracious and kind, that person will be inclined to move toward that God and place his or her destiny into His hands. To be under the sovereign rule of a gracious deity bears no resemblance to fatalism.
When a Christian sees things happening in his life he doesn’t see it as the chance product of a closed universe governed by impersonal law, but as the will of a wise and loving God. Even when hard providences happen to the believer, the pain is tempered by the knowledge of the God of tender mercies. This is a far cry from having to go through the hard knocks of life believing that they were result of chance events that have no goal, no purpose. Theologian Hodge put the concept in these beautiful words,
"(God does not give over His rule to) necessity, or to chance, or to the caprice of man, or to the malice of Satan, to control the sequence of events and all their issues, but has kept the reins of government in his own hands.’" [2]
Another theologian adds,
“(Fatalism) snatches the reins of universal empire from the hands of infinite wisdom and love and gives them into the hands of blind necessity.”[3]
Having answered the question of who (or what) controls the predestination of events, we move to our second query; what are the means employed in fatalism verses the means used by a sovereign and personal God. In fatalism, there are no means employed. Means implies that there is someone to employ them. In fatalism, events follow a predetermined and soulless course of cause and effect leading to a predetermined result. But in a universe ruled by God, He chooses to use second causes to achieve His purposes. All along the spectrum of history God is choosing not only what will eventually happen but also the instruments that bring the final result to pass. The Westminster Confession says it this way,
“Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.”[4]
To achieve His design, God doesn’t coerce or force the hand of anyone under His administration. Rather he uses the choices of men to accomplish His purposes. This aspect of Christianity is profound. Men under the government of God are not left to flow down the river of fate but may use their own desires, their own wills, their own instrumentality to bring to pass what God has ordained. In this worldview men are not only allowed to make choices to bring the future in, but are commanded to do so. The upshot of this is Christians have always vigorously employed means to achieve great things, believing that God has given them the power of choice to achieve those very ends. This has huge implications for one’s daily living, and in one’s sanctification, evangelism, and prayer life. It is also a doctrine that brings great comfort for suffering Christians for they know that in the midst of their suffering their groans are not smothered under the grinding hopelessness of fate but are sweetened by the personal and kind care of a loving God. “For whom the Lord loves he chastens and scourges every son whom He receives,” the Apostle says.[5] The Christian can live life breathing freely for He knows there is a personal reason for everything; all events have meaning to an all-wise God.
Christianity is as far from fatalism as the east is from the west.
ELECTION DENIES FREE WILL IN FAVOR OF DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY
As with any truth of God, there are ditches on either side of orthodoxy into which men are apt to fall. Orthodox Calvinism seeks to run a course between the ideas of man’s free will and God’s sovereignty. Well-adjusted Calvinists have always asserted that both truths are plainly taught in the Bible and have lived in light of both despite the tension. Such ‘warm’ Calvinists can be detected quite easily. They are men who live peacefully and joyfully knowing that God controls all things while they freely and expectantly using means to serve Him. These Calvinists unabashedly yearn for the salvation of sinners and the sanctification of fellow believers. But, alas, such men seem to be a dying breed in American Evangelicalism. Many reformed Christians who believe in election and the absolute sovereignty of God relapse into a spiritual complacency that majors on doctrinal precision and de-emphasizes the use of means in the ongoing work of Christian expansion. Their mantra is, “We hold to accurate verse by verse exposition of the word of God” but de-emphasize how that interpretation is to be applied in daily living. Such groups would admire yet fail to mimic the work of fellow Calvinist William Carey who wrote the seminal missions’ book entitled An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens. [6] Carey believed in God’s absolute sovereignty but saw man’s responsibility to do everything possible to win people to Christ. Would that we had more of his stripe today!
Unfortunately many reformed churches today do not follow the pattern of the great evangelistic movement of the eighteenth century. Almost all of the great missionaries of that era were of a Calvinist persuasion and firmly believed that God has chosen some to salvation. Yet they equally believed that the church should employ every legitimate means to bring men to Christ. In this august group are men such as the aforementioned Carey, Hudson Taylor, Adoniram Judson, John Patton, David Brainerd, and Henry Martyn. They lived under the influence of both truths and never saw a tension between them.
Our goal here is to show that these two truths are highly compatible. As documented in an earlier chapter, free will simply means that one chooses according to his greatest desire. Men spend their entire lives choosing what they want. Men will not choose that which is repulsive or contrary to their nature. For the unbeliever who is dead in sins that would include all things spiritual. Why then employ means? Because God has chosen the use of means, especially the preaching of the gospel, as the very thing He ordains to change a man’s disposition toward Christ (see Romans 1:16). Means, so far from being antithetical to election, are election’s handmaid. We labor, we strive, we preach, we teach, we love, we serve, for it is in our zeal for the conversion of sinners that God is most likely to work. Jesus told His followers, “The harvest truly is plentiful but the laborers are few. Therefore pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest” (Matt 9:37-38). The church prays and God uses the means of prayer to save souls.
The great Charles Spurgeon believed both in God’s sovereignty in salvation and man’s responsibility to believe. He rested on the first truth and got busy with the second. He said,
“I believe that the two great doctrines of human responsibility and divine sovereignty have both been brought out the more prominently in the Christian Church by the fact that there is a class of strong-minded hard-headed men who magnify sovereignty at the expense of responsibility; and another earnest and useful class who uphold and maintain human responsibility oftentimes at the expense of divine sovereignty.” [7]
The Doctrines of Grace never have and never will cause a Christian to be lazy in the use of means. Nor will the Doctrines of Grace cause him to deny that man is free to choose. God commands us to believe that He knows the beginning from the end and He also asks us to be part of the process in moving men to believe the gospel. It is ours to hold these two truths in sacred mystery. Denial of either of these truths can lead to great error.
ELECTION IS NOT INDIVIDUAL BUT CORPORATE
In recent decades some theologians have posited a view that sees election as God choosing groups or nations but not individuals. This is called corporate election.[8] This theory has increasingly infiltrated the church as the general drift of Evangelicalism is toward any theology that denies God’s choice of individuals. Corporate election avoids saying that God chose anyone specifically. What it does say is that God chooses an entire group, say Israel, without reference to any one individual in the group. As you can see, this view has the appeal of keeping election in the hands of God without forcing Him to elect anyone in particular. This view avoids the criticism that God is unfair when He chooses one person over another. And indeed there are Bible texts that seem to support this view. For example speaking to Christians Peter says,
“But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness and into His marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9).
The words of Peter seem to indicate that God looks at His church as a group (generation, priesthood, nation, people) rather than as individuals. Proponents of this view frequently turn to Paul’s phrase ‘in Christ’ to further support corporate election. The argument is that Christ alone is the chosen One, (Isaiah 42:1; 1 Peter 2:4), and all those who freely enter into union with Him by faith are elected by God.
But upon closer examination we find that the idea of corporate election is self-defeating. For starters, corporate election is another variant of traditional Arminianism. That is, in corporate election God chooses those who have somehow or other become a part of the elect group. God does not choose an individual, He chooses rather a group and all who happen to be in that group are elect. Well, the question is asked, how did they get into the group? If it was by birth, then salvation would be ethnicity. If it is by choice (choosing to be part of church) then salvation is by the human will. No matter how you slice it, this view takes away from God’s sovereign choice of individuals. This argument crops up over and over again when one reads proponents of this view. Take this statement, for example,
“The prime point is that the election of the church is a corporate rather than an individual thing. It is not that individuals are in the church because they are elect, it is rather that they are elect because they are in the church, which is the body of the elect One [i.e., Jesus Christ]. . . . A Christian is not chosen to become part of Christ’s body, but in becoming part of that body [by free will, exercising faith] he partakes of Christ’s election. Although God, in his foreknowledge, doubtless knew which individuals would repent and so be joined by him to Christ’s body, this is not at all the same thing as picking them out to make them repent. God’s choice is not an individual one of who should repent; it is a corporate choice of the church in Christ” [9]
This leads to a more indicting criticism of Corporate Election. If this view is correct it runs headlong into a logical conundrum. Advocates of this view say that God elects the Church or Israel from the foundation of the earth yet God has no knowledge of who will enter that group. But this requires that God choose something that is completely undefined and unknown. How can you have a group without members? How can you have a group without individuals in the group? Groups have no identity apart from the individuals who are in it. Groups are comprised by the people in the group. If there are no members, there is no group. For example, according to corporate election when God conceived of Israel, He conceived of an undefinable, amorphous essence called by the name Israel. He wasn’t thinking of Abraham, or Isaac, or Jacob because they had not yet chosen to join the group. Israel was simply a word without meaning, a substance without form.
The problem is more vexing if we think of the corporate group called the church. According to corporate election God sent His son to die for the church (or humanity), yet He died for no one specific. Only those who meet the conditions of faith will be brought into the group and de facto become the elect. Thus, Christ died for nobody in particular. He only died for those who choose to enter the group but He didn’t know them personally. And yet God calls this intimate group, ‘His church.’ But what if none choose? Can there be a church with no members? Corporate election must answer yes to this. This means that Christ shed His precious blood for nothing substantial, indeed shed His blood for no one in particular which can mean no one at all! And how does this view square with Jesus saying, “My sheep hear my voice?” Sheep know the shepherd and the shepherd knows the sheep. Or what about the statement that “Jacob have I loved” (Romans 9:13)? Or Paul’s greeting to “Rufus, chosen in the Lord” (Romans 16:13). The truth is that God loves and elects people, individuals with names. He called the prophet Jeremiah by name when he said, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you and have appointed you as a prophet to the nations” (Jer. 1:5). The Scriptures are clear that God chooses individuals. Is further evidence necessary? He chose Paul (Acts 9:15). He chose the heathen king Cyrus to allow the Jews to rebuild the temple and names him by name (see Isaiah 45:1). He calls Nathaniel before Nathaniel knew Him and even knows the man’s character (Jn 1:48). He also knew that Judas would betray Him (John 13:11). God recognizes groups but the groups only have meaning because He knows each individual in the group. Indeed when praying to His Father, Jesus over and over again references “those who the Father gave me” (see John 17:2,6,9)?
God chooses people and when they come together in space and time He gives them a corporate title. All the chosen are the church. But the church doesn’t exist unless there are first individuals who are known and loved by God individually.
WHAT ABOUT GOD’S ELECTION OF THE NATION ISRAEL?
A more focused application of the issue of corporate election is the belief of many that the entire nation Israel is chosen by God to salvation. Because this idea permeates much of the Evangelical church we tackle it separately. This idea has been in the church on and off for thousands of years but has made a resurgence over the past 150 years through an eschatological/hermeneutical construct called Dispensationalism. Though we desire not to paint all Dispensationalists with a broad brush, one of the unifying principles of this system is that the Old Testament promises to Israel are to be taken ‘literally.’[10] Thus it should not surprise us that Dispensationalism leans heavily on the fact that Israel remains God’s chosen people to this day and therefore will be saved according to God’s Old Covenant promises. True, there are many promises made to that nation in the Old Covenant. But are we to take them as prima facie guarantees of ethnic Israel’s corporate conversion? Or, to go one step further, are we to consider the Jews to be a special people to God in this New Covenant era? Almost everyone will admit that some Jews are not saved. Paul says this explicitly in Romans 9:6. In addition we have the biblical examples of Jews such as King Saul, Ahab and Judas, who fell short of saving grace.
But the problem is not resolved by these surface examples. The issue at root is, are the promises to ethnic Israel in the Old Testament still applicable to ethnic Israel today? Space does not allow us to delve into this question in any depth. However a few verses will show that the New Testament authors had a perspective that in the New Covenant all nations were on an equal footing with regards to God’s election. That is, no nation was favored in any respect. The Book of Galatians, along with the books of Romans and Ephesians are clear that in the New Covenant all nations stand before God on equal footing. In other words, there is no longer a ‘favored nation’ called Israel. If that were so then salvation would no longer be of grace. Consider the following verses.
“The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU.’ So then, those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer” (Gal 3:8-9).
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise” (Gal 3:28-29).
“Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is enslaved with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother” (Gal 4:25-26).
“For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And all who will follow this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God” (Gal 6:15-16).
“For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the hostility, which is the Law composed of commandments expressed in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two one new person, in this way establishing peace; and that He might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the hostility. And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit” (Ephesians 2:14-21).
The New Testament teaches that in the New Covenant all barriers of ethnicity have been broken down. The Jews carried forth the promise of Messiah in her genes, but now she has taken her place as equal with all nations under the gospel. True Israel is now all those who have Abraham by believing in the Messiah. That alone is the qualification for entering the kingdom. Thus, any idea that Israel is a special nation to God in this new era, whether that means a complete or partial salvation, is foreign to the minds of the New Testament authors.
DOES GOD REALLY PREDESTINE PEOPLE TO SUFFER IN HELL?
This question is framed so as to make it impossible for the Calvinist to answer satisfactorily. The fact is that God does decree the destiny of all men. Men go to heaven because they are ordained by God to go there; the same is true of those who go to hell. Unfortunately, some hastily conclude that God is satisfied that some people go to heaven and is equally satisfied that the rest of mankind are ordained to live in eternal separation from Him. This dark side of election is called reprobation. No matter what it is called it is a difficult doctrine. Nevertheless, reprobation is a necessary and logical outgrowth of election. If God ordains some to glory then it is obvious that those whom He does not ordain go to perdition. This two-edged sword of election- positive and negative – is sometimes called double predestination.
What makes this doctrine difficult is that in many parts of the Scripture God seeks the salvation of all men and actually weeps when they do not fall into His saving arms. If God is all-powerful and His will is the salvation of men, then why would He send any to hell? And it is certainly true that there are many texts that reveal the heart of God which desires men to be saved. Listen to the following verses:
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing” (Mat 23:37).
“Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?” (Ezekiel 33:11).
“The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).
Looking at these texts many rightly ask, “If God is so merciful then why didn’t He work in the hearts of everyone?” The answer to this is not found in Scripture. We know that God saves some “to the praise of the glory of His grace” while at the same time He allows others to perish, as the Confession says, “to the praise of His glorious justice.”[11] Any answer beyond that would be to delve into the secret counsel of God where no human may tread.
But let us remember that the difficulties are wrapped up in the limitations of the human mind. From the creature’s perspective there is an irresolvable tension between a God who loves to save sinners and a God who knowingly allows some to go to perdition. This tension lies in the secret counsels of God and will never be fully understood, “For who can know the mind of the Lord and who will be His counselor?” Part of the tension can be relieved when we meditate on how God seals the fate of the elect and the non-elect. Asking the question of how helps us to see the issue in a clearer light. So we continue. “How does God allow people to go to hell?” The easy answer is that He does not consign people to hell in the same way he chooses His elect to go to heaven. Or, to say it another way, God works in the hearts of the elect (we call that grace) and declines to work in the hearts of the non-elect (called justice). When people say God chooses people to go to heaven and chooses people to go to hell, we are espousing a view called equal ultimacy, meaning God works precisely the same way with both groups. This view is contrary to the teaching of Scripture. What’s the difference? In the elect, God works actively by working repentance and faith in their hearts by a direct operation of the Holy Spirit. In the non-elect, God simply lets them go and allows them live in open defiance to God in their Adamic nature. That is, God does not work unbelief in anyone’s heart. Unbelief already exists in their hearts through nature. So with the non-elect, God simply allows them to do what comes naturally to them. Thus, that group damns themselves and God does nothing to stop it. This understanding is far different than saying that God actively works to damn people. Thus, there is a vast difference in the way God works in the elect and in the non-elect. This view is called unequal ultimacy and is the view upheld in Scripture. God chooses to give grace to some, and withholds unmerited favor from others. Had not God given that grace, all would ultimately land in hell. It is important to remember that. Paul makes this point,
“Unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed we would have become like Sodom and we would have been made like Gomorrah” (Rom 9:29).
One more fact need be added to this discussion. God’s heart is for the salvation of mankind. He is “not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). That God delights in the damnation of those who reject His Son finds no place in Holy Scripture. There is joy in heaven over one sinner that repents (Luke 15:7). Never is there joy in a soul condemned to hell.
Though this idea of unequal ultimacy does not satisfactorily answer the difficulty it does at least properly reflect on the character of the God who is often maligned as a mean-spirited deity.
One more thing needs to be said. God’s justice in sending rebellious sinners to perdition demonstrates an attribute of God that is often overlooked in our present day. This reminds us that all of God’s attributes are important, His mercy and His justice, His kindness and His wrath. This is how He revealed Himself from the Holy Mount.
“The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression for sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children to the third and fourth generation” (Exodus 34:6-7).
Does God ‘send’ people to hell? The best response is to say that all men are willfully disobedient and deserve hell. Yet in His infinite mercy God delivers some from their self-imposed death march while others He leaves alone and allows them to continue to their just damnation.
About the unbelievers The Westminster Confession says,
“The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the inscrutable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy as He pleases for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.”
WHAT ABOUT SCRIPTURES THAT SAY GOD CHANGES HIS MIND?
One of the most compelling arguments against Calvinism is the notion that God seems to change His mind in Holy Scripture (see Gen 6:6-7; 1 Sam 15:11; Jonah 4:2; Psalm 106:45). The implications here are huge. If God can truly change His mind then no one can say for certain that His decree of election will stand sure. The very salvation of the elect rides on God’s immutable counsel. Arminianism tempers this tension by believing that God reacts to the free choices of man. Open Theism goes a step further by positing that God is not totally omniscient and He reacts to what is happening in history. Both of these systems seem to solve the tension created by texts that suggest God changes His mind. Those who believe the Doctrines of Grace, however, have a much harder time defending these texts.
The issue is simply this: if God knows all that will come to pass why does it seem that certain events cause Him to change His mind or feel regret? It is quite clear that the Bible teaches that God knows the beginning from the end. Isaiah 46:10 says that His “counsel shall stand” meaning that what God purposes to happen must happen. Texts like Numbers 23:19 further note that God is not like a man; He cannot lie nor change His mind. This is exemplified in texts such as Psalm 110:4 where God’s word to anoint the Messiah as the eternal High Priest of the order of Melchizedek can never fail. This immutability of the purposes actually gives stability to the life of all believers. To shake this foundation would be to shake the foundation of every believer in Christ. Salvation would ever be left to the capricious will of God. Is this possible?
Certain Scriptures might lead us to this conclusion. For example what does it mean that God “was sorry that He made man on earth” (Gen 6:6) or that He greatly regretted that He had set Saul as King (1 Sam 15:11)? Several things must be observed. First, the word for repent, or regret (נָחַם = nacham) means to console, comfort, to be grieved or sorry. That God can grieve or be sorry about something is clearly seen in the life of Jesus. He sorrowed over Jerusalem and was vexed by man‘s unbelief (Mk 6:6). In the garden of Gethsemane He was exceedingly sorrowful unto death. If God could be sorrowful as the God-man, though He knew all things, then He certainly could show sorrow for things in the Old Testament as well. The fact that God is omniscient does not flatten out His emotions. Thus it is not farfetched to say God was sorry He had made man while still understanding His plan for the race. We tend to look at God as we look at ourselves. We cannot experience variant emotions at the same time in the same relationship. We project this limitation on God, who as the old divines would say, has a nature of ‘simplicity.’[12] God is all His attributes all the time and there can be no separation. It is therefore no denial of God’s unity to say that He both ordains the future and weeps for what He sees in the future.
Naturally God’s emotions are not to be interpreted according to ours. What God does or chooses or feels though related to man’s doing, choosing and feeling, is not a direct parallel. God’s emotions transcend anything we experience. It is important to recognize this when trying to understand the nature of God. In other words, it is possible for God to regret something while being the sovereign author of it.
We have one more thing to say about God ‘changing’ His mind. In order to explain something about Himself God uses language that man would understand but doesn’t fully communicate the issue satisfactorily. When the Bible says God laughs or weeps or yearns or desires, we must remember that these emotions are not a direct parallel to what we as humans experience. God, however, explains there things with the only tool available, human language. This figure of speech is called accommodation. So when God says He ‘regrets’ making Saul king, His regret is not like human regret where we wish events had turned out a different way. God’s regret or remorse is that of a perfect being who feels all things according to His perfect design. Since we know nothing of this kind of regret or remorse, we often misunderstand what God is feeling.
THE COMFORT OF ELECTION
Many criticisms of election are that it makes people fearful and uptight about God. “What if I am not elect,” is the cry of many. And so the doctrine becomes a frightening prospect that unsettles believers and unbelievers alike. Yet upon close reading of the Bible we find that they writers always mention it as a doctrine of comfort, never a threat of a theological battleground. For those who are in Christ, election is the foundation of their confidence and a springboard to their life of faith. Why is this so? Let me suggest three reasons.
First, election serves as the basis of the Christian's assurance. If God has truly chosen me, and if my election rests upon His immutable will, than I need not always doubt my spiritual standing. In comforting believers in the later part of the first century, John says, “and by this we know that we are of the truth and shall assure our heart before Him. For if our heart condemns us God is greater than our heart and knows all things” (1 John 3:19-20). Why are we secure in our salvation? Because God knows us, and knows that He has chosen us in His Son. Yes, there will be times where the believer trembles for his or her salvation. At those times let the believer turn to the unchangeable decree of God rather than our own performance.
Our election gives us ‘so firm a foundation’ in Christ. Calvin said it this way,
“Predestination, rightly considered, neither destroys nor weakens faith, but rather furnishes its best confirmation.” 13]
Second, election is the basis of the believer's peace. A Christian who rests on the eternal counsels of God need never live his life in a spiritual frenzy. We all know people who are never at rest. They are always running, always calculating, always fearful of the future, always unnerved about the providences of life. They are like the tumbleweed, without root. Paul describes them as those who are "tossed to and from by every wind of doctrine.” Experiential knowledge of God's election brings stability to the Christian life. It "calms our fears and bids our sorrows cease.” If we know that salvation is in the hands of God, then we may rest in His pure and perfect will. Let Jeremiah be our example. That prophet was watching his beloved city of Jerusalem burn to the ground. His world was disintegrating right before his very eyes. Yet he reacted with a calm dignity. He knew that God had called him to that particular ministry and he was safe. In the middle of the Book of Lamentations he writes these words,
"The Lord is good to those who wait for Him,
To the soul that seeks Him.
It is good that one should hope and wait quietly.
For the salvation of the Lord" (Lam 3:25-26)
Election brought peace to the soul of Jeremiah.
Thirdly, a belief in election revolutionizes evangelism. What? Does not election kill evangelism? On the contrary, election energizes evangelistic zeal in a way that no free will doctrine can. If one knows that God has elected men and will draw them to Himself, then the job of the evangelist is to throw out the gospel net and watch God do the saving. Election takes all the heat off those who preach. We cannot save; God saves. Thus, it is not our energy, our technique, or our presentation that brings souls to Christ. We need not manipulate the wills of our target audience. Our commission is to be faithful (1 Cor 4:1). Paul is our model. He went from city to city and preached the same message of Jesus Christ and Him crucified to every city (1 Cor 2:2). And through this foolish message many were saved. To achieve this result, Paul did not study the habits of his pre-modern culture, nor did he poll the people of his day to see what kind of sermon they wanted. He did not employ cute illustrations, or dull the sharp edge of truth. He preached the gospel and bathed it in prayer. How simple election makes the evangelistic mandate. Give men the gospel and you have done the will of God. And yes, the elect will come. It is God's will to save men; it is His will to be merciful to sinners; it is His will to use the preaching of the gospel to draw them in. We must let God be God. We must let him do the saving. Rediscover the doctrine of election, dear reader and you shall bear witness for God with a freedom and confidence you have never had before.
So we close our review of the doctrine of election. Our purpose has been to edify and clarify, not to incite debate. If any reader still struggles with this doctrine, it is my prayer that he or she will pray it through and search the Scriptures diligently “to see whether these things be so.” No endeavor could be more worthy of one who is created in the image of God and chosen in Christ.
NOTES:
[1] Warfield, Benjamin B., ‘What Fatalism Is,’ From The Presbyterian (Mar. 16, 19O4): 7-8; reprint.
[2] Charles Hodge quoted by B.B. Warfield in his article ‘What Fatalism Is.’ From the Presbyterian Magazine, March 16, 1904.
[3] Boettner, Lorraine, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, pg 205
[4] The Westminster Confession of Faith (5.2).
[5] Hebrews 12:6
[6] Written in 1792 and led to the formation of the Baptist Missionary Society by a group of fourteen people in Kettering England which included Carey, John Ryland, Andrew Fuller, and Samuel Pearce.
[7] Spurgeon, Charles, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Pilgrim Publications, volume 8 pg 181
[8] See Klein, William, The New Chosen People: A Corporate View of Election, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001
[9] God’s Strategy in Human History. Forster, Marston, Wipf & Stock, Eugene OR. pg 136
[10] Literal in the sense that the words are interpreted woodenly without reference to literary genre or figurative application.
[11] The Westminster Confession of Faith 3.7 reads, ‘The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.’
[12] Kevin DeYoung; He says, “The simplicity of God means God is not made up of his attributes. He does not consist of goodness, mercy, justice, and power. He is goodness, mercy, justice, and power. Every attribute of God is identical with his essence.” See Gospel Coalition Website. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/theological-primer-the-simplicity-of-god/.
[13] Calvin’s Institutes, Book III, XXIV, IX.