God’s Gracious Choice: Election
February 28th, 2007
(By John MacArthur)
Having addressed “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” in yesterday’s post, we are now returning to what was originally scheduled for this week’s blog entries. Today we will consider the doctrine of election.
Election is the act of God whereby in eternity past He chose those who will be saved. Election is unconditional, because it does not depend on anything outside of God, such as good works or foreseen faith (Romans 9:16). This doctrine is repeatedly taught in the Bible, and is also demanded by our knowledge of God. To begin with, let’s look at the biblical evidence.
The Bible says prior to salvation, all people are dead in sin — spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1-3). In this state of death, the sinner is utterly unable to respond to any spiritual stimulus and therefore unable to love God, obey Him, or please Him in any way. Scripture says the mind of every unbeliever “is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Romans 8:7-8, emphasis added). That describes a state of total hopelessness: spiritual death.
The effect of all this is that no sinner can ever make the first move in the salvation process. This is what Jesus meant in John 6:44, when He said, “No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draws him.”
This is also why the Bible repeatedly stresses that salvation is wholly God’s work. In Acts 13:48 we read, “And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.”
Acts 16 tells us that Lydia was saved when, “the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.”
Romans 8:29-30 states, “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”
Ephesians 1:4-5,11 reads, “Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will . . . also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.”
Ephesians 2:8 suggests that even our faith is a gift from God.
In 2 Thessalonians 2:13, the apostle Paul tells his readers, “God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation.”
Second Timothy 1:9 informs us that God “has saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity.”
Occasionally someone will suggest that God’s election is based on His foreknowledge of certain events. This argument suggests that God simply looks into the future to see who will believe, and He chooses those whom He sees choosing Him. Notice that 1 Peter 1:2 says the elect are chosen “according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,” and Romans 8:29 says, “whom He foreknew, He also predestined.” And if divine foreknowledge simply means God’s knowledge of what will happen in advance, then these arguments may appear to have some weight behind them.
But that is not the biblical meaning of “foreknowledge.” When the Bible speaks of God’s foreknowledge, it refers to God’s establishment of a love relationship with that person. The word “know,” in both the Old and New Testament, refers to much more than mere cognitive knowledge of a person. Such passages as Hosea 13:4-5; Amos 3:2 (KJV); and Romans 11:2 clearly indicate this. For example, 1 Peter 1:20 says Christ was “foreknown before the foundation of the world.” Surely this means more than that God the Father looked into the future to behold Christ! It means He had an eternal, loving relationship with Him. The same is true of the elect, whom we are told God “foreknew” (Romans 8:29). That means He knew them — He loved them — before the foundation of the world.
If God’s choice of the elect is unconditional, does this rule out human responsibility? Paul asks and answers that very question in Romans 9:19-20. He says God’s choice of the elect is an act of mercy. Left to themselves, even the elect would persist in sin and be lost, because they are taken from the same fallen lump of clay as the rest of humanity. God alone is responsible for their salvation, but that does not eradicate the responsibility of those who persist in sin and are lost — because they do it willfully, and not under compulsion. They are responsible for their sin, not God.
The Bible affirms human responsibility right alongside the doctrine of divine sovereignty. Moreover, the offer of mercy in the gospel is extended to all alike. Isaiah 55:1 and Revelation 22:17 call “whosoever will” to be saved. Isaiah 45:22 and Acts 17:30 command all men to turn to God, repent and be saved. First Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 tell us that God is not willing that any should perish, but desires that all should be saved. Finally, the Lord Jesus said that, “the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out” (John 6:37).
In summary, we can say that God has had a special love relationship with the elect from all eternity, and on the basis of that love relationship chosen them for salvation. The ultimate question of why God chose some for salvation and left others in their sinful state is one that we, with our finite knowledge, cannot answer. We do know that God’s attributes always are in perfect harmony with each other, so that God’s sovereignty will always operate in perfect harmony with His goodness, love, wisdom, and justice.
The argument I receive from my Non-Reformed friends in Christ is that God wouldn’t be fair to condemn someone who was totally dead. If he had no opportunity to actually and genuinely believe.
This is where they bring in the “neutral ground” theory.
God creates a neutral ground, He opens the understanding for everyone on this neutral ground, and then they simply say yes to the gospel, or they say no.
There’s no merit attributed.
Have you ever heard this? And if so what would be your response.
BTW, I am so blessed when I read short teachings like this on election. And humbled. Thanks.
Mr. MacArthur,
I have enjoyed your teachings on many subjects for some time now, but cannot agree with your calvinistic views…God ordained the plan, not the individual (Eph. 3:10-11). God’s plan is simple…based upon hearing the gospel, faith in Christ is produced in the heart of the sinner. Paul wrote, “So then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). This true faith leads to repentance, confession and baptism for the remission of all past sins (Acts 2:38). At the point of baptism, sin is forgiven and the Lord adds the baptized believer to His church (Acts 2:47). The blood of Christ is contacted in baptism, not by faith alone). It then becomes our task to build up the Lord’s body (church).
This is the plan by which God saves mankind.
Keep warning of the dangers of liberalism, but it is my prayer that you leave calvinism.
J.M. Gilbert, Jr.
Dear Don,
I’ve heard that many times, and the arguments will be nothing but chasing your tail unless or until you can get the person to agree to look at Scripture (only Scripture) and work with you through the careful exegesis of each passage. It’s easy to postulate “neutral ground,” but it means nothing unless Scripture teaches that concept. “Neutral ground” is an emotional reaction to a Bible doctrine someone finds odious, so the only solition is to get that person to agree to humble himself before the word of God.
Possibly the neutral ground thinking is attempting the consideration of the general revelation of God that man rejects? He’s, in a sense, rejecting Jesus and the special revelation of the written Word by rejecting what God reveals to Him in creation, conscience, etc.? That, Romans 1:19-20, is why no one is without excuse, correct?
Jim,
That’s an excellent thought. Thanks.
Mrs. B,
I agree no one has an excuse. Rom. 1:19-20 Even the Cross and empty tomb are clearly evident in the world as a whole.
But at the same time, there’s no way someone can love God, cry out for His mercy, and ask for forgiveness, unless the Lord loves us first; has mercy on us first; and forgives us first.
The neutral gound says that God would be unjust to condemn someone who is incapable of believing, and someone who has to be loved first. God has to allow a dead heart to be able to choose, in order for God to be just.
I agree with Jim, the Scriptures don’t teach a neutral ground.
I made this comment: “A supernatual change of our disposition which results in repentance and belief in the gospel…and this new dispositon of hert means our delight is in the law of God.”
I received this respond back from a reader saying:
“I know this definition wants to identify this change of disposition as the new birth, but I absolutely can not find any support in the Scriptures for the imposition of regeneration on the spirit of man apart from faith to trust God’s provision for our salvation. Rather, I do see support for the power of God’s Word to ignite faith leading to and enabling repentance (a change of mind), confiession, conversion, and calling out to God for salvation. But God’s Word can be rejected in the same way that light can be boarded against to block its entrance.”
Interested quote: How would you answer this person?
Charles
Hello,
First, I’d like to say thanks to Dr. MacArthur and others for posting great articles on difficult topics such as these. I’ve wrestled and grappled with these Scriptures for the last few years. And I’ve come to the conclusion that the reformed perspective of God’s grace and election makes the most sense logically, theologically, and biblically. I guess I am “already, but not yet” there on this issue. The one question I still struggle with is the ever-popular “what happens to those people who [created and given life by God] die without hearing the precious gospel of Jesus Christ?” I’ve heard the weak argument that every soul is of infinite value to God because Jesus died for all and such. I agree with Dr. MacArthur wholeheartedly. I’m just still trying to reason all this out. Thoughts and insights from anyone are welcome…great site by the way!!! Thanks again.
donsands, I believe God is being just and does reveal Himself to unbelievers. He so loved the world. Jesus was lifted up and is therefore drawing “all” men to Himself( http://www.blueletterbible.org/tsk_b/Jhn/12/32.html ). Are those “all men” only the elect or is it “all” mankind, all being included in their partaking of and being privy to what He does with those that are His?
He is merciful or we’d all be immediately resigned to the presence of hell(having a sin nature and acting accordingly soon enough after birth). Too often we miss the details of just how good God is to humanity.
So grateful am I that He drew me, enabled me, and saved this unworthy one. Salvation is ALL of the Lord. The complexity often sweeps over my head yet comforts my heart.
“God does reveal Himself to unbelievers”. Amen.
We agree here.
But a dead unbeliever ain’t gonna respond and become a believer.
God has to quicken the dead spirit. He opens the blind heart. His mercy is for those He elects, and those He has mercy on, will repent and believe the truth. The new heart will hate it’s sin, and love the truth, because God has been merciful to an evil heart, which hated God, and in no way wanted God. This humbles the human heart, because God redeems hateful sinners, who don’t want Him, and who deserve His just punishment.
God could certainly save each and every person on this earth, if He so desired, though He owes no one, except just judgement for our blasphemies and unthankful hearts.
I am also grateful for God taking this callous, and blind son of the devil, and having mercy on him. All praise and glory to His name, forever and ever. Amen.
Donsands,
God would be perfectly NOT to reveal Himself at all and to condemn all to hell.
Remember Genesis? God made us. Their is no lien on the title deed to you or me. God owns us outright and we are vile.
Therefore, God owes us nothing. All that God owes in regard to us is this: God owes His own holy character our destruction.
That is why the atonement was necessary.
Read Rom. 9:22–”What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?”
According to this passage, the only reason He even lets anyone of us to live on this earth is for His own glory. He doesn’t owe that to us.
Actually, when we talk as though God is not fair, we blaspheme. And when we think God has to do anything for even one of us we show our foolishness.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Donsands,
That is “God would be perfectly righteous and loving NOT to reveal Himself…”
Phil.
Praise God for this post. I just got done writing on election for a fellow believer in the Lord. And this article was right on time as well. Thanks, keep us in the Word!
Phil,
Amen.
But He is revealed in His creation. It’s the simple truth. And He deceided to reveal Himself in Christ our Lord, the Word of God made manifest. 1 Tim. 3:16
To Him, and through Him, and for Him are all things. Amen.
For those struggling with the doctrine of election, I would recommend perusing monergism.com for many great articles by various theologians past and present on this very topic.
Also, John MacArthur was intervied by Phil Johnson on this topic which is available at Grace to You.
The doctrine of election is a challenging doctrine to be sure. It assaults our sinful tendency toward autonomy. But it is a clear doctrine of Scripture!
I have rarely met a believer who easily came to the conclusion that election was a biblical doctrine. Even Jonathan Edwards had difficulty with the doctrine as a young man. But, once submit ourselves to Scripture’s teaching that God is the sovereign ruler of the universe, we can embrace His sovereignty in salvation.
The gospel of justification by faith alone in Christ alone is not a right to be owed to any unbeliever (as if it would be unfair or unjust of God to not grant it to all), after all, what do we have to put confidence in the flesh? And what are we but those who “glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh” Phil. 3:3? Just studying through Romans for my church Sunday School and we see clearly from Romans 3:10-18 building on 1:18ff that every man is willfully, rebelliously, and foolishly suppressing the revelation of God’s righteousness to his own destruction. In the grace and mercy of God I stand! The typical anti-calvinistic arguments want to make the message man-centered, because we all are by nature man-centered semi-pelagians as Dr. Sproul once said. I would suggest to the critics: How do you explain the conversion of the great apostle Paul??? (Acts 9:1ff; Acts 26:1ff; Phil. 3:3-11; Gal. 1:13-16a; 1 Tim. 1:12-17). Interesting that this topic has come up this week, because I just received a postcard from Pensacola Theological Seminary advertising two courses to prospective students on “Current Theological Trends” and “Romans and Galatians:Pastoral Studies in the Doctrine of Soteriology”. The notes explaining the courses read as follows: “This course will examine issues such as the contemporary church movement and Calvinism to warn pastors…” “The soul-winning pastor will be encouraged by this practical and positive exposition of soteriology. The simplicity of the Gospel and eternal security of the believer will be defended against various errant teachings such as Calvinism and lordship salvation.” Are they going to exposite Scripture or their own doctrinal statement? Go figure…
To J.M. Gilbert,
If God ordained the plan, but not the individuals like Paul and Jeremiah and the 12 disciples et. al., then nobody would be saved. The plan would be perfect and wonderful and glorifying to God. But we all would remain reprobates suppressing that truth in our own unrighteousness. God has to convert us from within, otherwise we remain “dead in our trespasses and sins”. How can I “hear” the preaching of the Word if I am spiritually deaf, dumb, and blind? How can I produce fruit from the seed if my heart is by nature the hard soil of the pathways? Did I detect that you believe that a person is not forgiven, not in the body of Christ, not redeemed, until he is baptized?
J.M. Gilbert,
You stated…
>>God’s plan is simple…based upon hearing the gospel, faith in Christ is produced in the heart of the sinner.
[…] and now….the Doctrine of Election Published March 1st, 2007 Theology In the short time I have been doing this particular blog, I have learned that if you really want to get a lot of attention and get it fast, post something that has to do with either a churches bathroom ministry or the doctrine of election. Since we have covered the pragmatic potty already, now, the doctrine of election. Seriously, here is a great piece from Pulpit Magazine, entitled God’s Gracious Choice: Election […]
I have been posting recently concerning the Charismatic issue. I am a charismatic and it may surprise some to hear that I fully agree with McArthur’s post on the subject of election. I believe there is no other doctrine that takes into account all that the scripture has to say about this subject without reducing one aspect or another. The offense of the cross and the pride of men’s heart causes men to react negatively to these truths but I believe the scripture is clear.
1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure. NAS
This scripture show clearly that election or being chosen comes first and results in our salvation. All the glory belongs to God because he has done all the work of saving us and there is nothing for us to boast in.
I see it like an old fashion teeter tooter. God, his power, glory, and character, are on one side and the pride, works, and choices of man are on the other side. The only way to lift man up in any way is to bring some aspect of the power, glory, and character of God down. It is impossible to lift up God and man at the same time. Just like it is impossible for both sides of a teeter tooter to be up at the same time. Something’s got to give and it’s the pride of man that must be broken as we acknowledge the truth of the Scriptures.
I do have some difficulty with what I believe are some of the more extreme doctrines of Calvinism such as pre-salvation regeneration (you get born again before you get saved) and limited atonement (I prefer the term limited election). I don’t know if either of these topics will be covered in this discussion but it would be interesting if it was.
Yours in Christ,
Riley
Here are two interesting scriptures that concern election and salvation.
John 6:44 “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.”
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.”
The first scripture says that the only way we can come to Jesus is through the drawing of the Father. The next scripture says the only way we can come the Father is through Jesus. Logically it would seem that the drawing of the Father must come first. Once we have been drawn to Jesus then we can come to the Father through the grace of Jesus our Savior.
I am tending towards calling John 6:44 the grace of election, and John 14:6 the grace of salvation through Christ. I was wondering what anyone else might think about what these two scriptures mean and how they fit together.
Yours in Christ,
Riley
Riley,
I see it as the Father has chosen whom He set His love upon, and gives them to the Son, and Jesus lays His life down for the ones elected by the Father. The Son loves the Father, and values Him above all else, and the Father loves the Son, and values Him above all else.
After saying all this, I realize how “His understanding is unsearchable.” Isaiah 40:28
I’ve written a comprehensive rebuttal to claims and evidence of this film. Please read it and decide for yourself.
You will find it at extremetheology.com
@ Riley
yAy a topic we agree on … almost.
I was wondering, as a believer in Predestination, how you could not believe in definite atonement.
Well, instead of using theological jargon, how can you believe that if God elected all believer’s before the foundations of the earth, but somehow on the cross Jesus didn’t die for those specific people but only for the possibility for them to be saved?
It follows the unity of the Godhead
1) The Father elects
2) Jesus dies for the elect
3) The Spirit regenerates the elect
The Arminian scheme makes the Godhead fight itself.
I have a question:
Why is someone considered a calvinist just because he believes in the doctrine of election?
Eddie
[…] John MacArthur has a great overview of the doctrine of election. […]
@ Eddie
B/c predestination has 2 answers “yes”or “no.”
Only Calvinists side w/ the yes, while other doctrines of the TULIP, some Arminians accept and some Calvinists reject.
Also historical, this particular issue has been of such hot polarizing debate, that the side of “yes” became synonymous w/ Calvinism.
To all,
I wish we could drop the term “Calvinist.” It is too divisive. Last Sunday, we were in John 6. Several of the most recent converts in the class were giving testimony spontaneously to the fact that God had grabbed them without their help or wisdom and had converted them. They witnessed to God’s sovereign choice. The entire class was enjoying this unplanned and unrehearsed confirmation of what we were reading.
Then I mentioned the term “election.” And the fight was on. From then on it was partisanship to the hilt.
I, also, believe that the glory of God revealed in the Scripture concerning His absolute control comes to believers who are willing to believe it. It’s a heart issue. The head is rebelling against the sovereignty of God because the heart is corrupt.
In our class, it was the new believers who had no problem acknowledging the sovereignty of God. Their hearts were still on fire. The oldie-moldies were the ones trying to defend themselves and take credit for choosing God.
One thing I think of from time to time is the upcoming banquet for the saints. If I’m wrong and I give God too much credit for my salvation, He will have to tap me on the shoulder and ask me to move up. If the lovers of their own “free will” are wrong they’ll be embarrassed.
I’ll take my licking over theirs.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Thanks John for your response.
So does that mean we call those who side with Martin Luther on justification in Christ alone, “Lutherist?”
:-). Sorry..I couldn’t resist that one. Seriously though John Calvin didn’t invent it…he discovered it. Just because I believe in the doctrine of election doesn’t mean I follow the teachings of John Calvin, I follow the teachings of Christ.
I have an idea, lets call al the people who follow Newton’s discovery of gravity…”Newtonists”…:-)
Eddie
You say, “Election is the act of God whereby in eternity past He chose those who will be saved.” I see it differently. From the passages referenced here,and other gospel scripture, I believe the process of election has to do with some being chosen to become shepherds - the shepherds being the elect. In the gospels and revelation, there are references made about some who are entrusted and assigned positions of authority.
@ Eddie
I see your point, but it’s hard to change hundreds of years of jargon.
Did you know that Michael Jackson did not even the moonwalk? Well its still attributed to him and so will predestination to Calvin (as in to make them famous not their origin) and Newtonian physics, to you guessed it -Newton.
Go figure. Yes predestination was taught in the OT you better believe it!
To Dan W.,
Yes, you detected that I believe one has to be baptized to be saved. If Jesus taught it, I am sure I can believe it…Mk. 16:16.
J.M. Gilbert, Jr.
Yeah John, I know that my reason will never change hundreds of years of debates but it was just something that’s been running through my heard for a long time. I haven’t really studied predestination in the O.T. yet…guess I have my work ahead of me.
Eddie
P.S. I hop[e you caught my humor there about the Newtonist!..:-)
@Mr. Gilbert
I have a question for you, do you think that the thief on the cross went to Paradise? He never was baptized and was saved.
@ Eddie
What’s “humor”? Is this some new kinda heresy?!?!
jk I gotcha loud and clear
John said:
yAy a topic we agree on … almost.
I was wondering, as a believer in Predestination, how you could not believe in definite atonement.
Well, instead of using theological jargon, how can
you believe that if God elected all believer’s before the foundations of the earth, but somehow on the cross Jesus didn’t die for those specific people but only for the possibility for them to be saved?
Riley:
Glad we agree on this … almost.
I believe that election does not require limited atonement. The purpose and effectiveness of the atonement was for the elect but the sufficiency of the atonement was enough for all men.
In this I am in agreement with Charles Hodge, in his “Systematic Theology.” I quote:
“In view of the effects which the death of Christ produces on the relation of all mankind to God, it has in all ages been customary with Augustinians to say that Christ died, ’sufficienter pro omnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electis;” sufficiently for all, efficatiously only for the elect. There is a sense therefore, in which He died for all, and there is a sense in which He died for the elect alone.” Vol. 2, pg. 545-546
—(I can’t proof read the Latin so I hope I got the spelling right)—
and
“The righteousness of Christ being of infinite value or merit, and being in its nature precisely what all men need, may be offered to all men. It is thus offered to the elect and to the non-elect; and it is offered to both classes conditionally. That condition is a cordial acceptance of it as the only ground of justification. If any of the elect (being adults) fail thus to accept of it, they perish. If any of the non-elect should believe, they would be saved. What more does any Anti-Augustinian scheme provide? The advocates of such schemes say, that the design of the work of Christ was to render the salvation of all men possible. All they can mean by this is, that if any man (elect or non-elect) believes, he shall, on the ground of what Christ has done, be certainly saved. But Augustinians say the same thing. Their doctrine provides for this universal offer of salvation, as well as any other scheme. It teaches that God in effecting the salvation of his own people, did whatever was necessary for the salvation of all men, and therefore to all the offer may be and in fact is made in the gospel… …a man may make a feast for his own friends, and the provision be so abundant that he may throw open his doors to all who are willing to come. This is precisely what God, according to the Augustinian doctrine, has actually done. Out of special love to his people, and with the design of securing their salvation, He has sent his Son to do what justifies the offer of salvation to all who choose to accept of it. Christ, therefore, did not die equally for all men. He laid down his life for his sheep; He gave Himself for his Church. But in perfect consistency with all this, He did all that was necessary, so far as a satisfaction to justice is concerned, all that is required for the salvation of all men. So that all Augustinians can join with the Synod of Dort in saying, “No man perishes for want of an atonement.”
I couldn’t say it any better than this, so I didn’t even try.
Yours in Christ,
Riley
Oops, I forgot the reference.
The second quote is also from “Systematic Theology” by Charles Hodge
Vol. 2, pg. 555-556
Riley
“Occasionally someone will suggest that God’s election is based on His foreknowledge of certain events. This argument suggests that God simply looks into the future to see who will believe, and He chooses those whom He sees choosing Him.” This is a humanistic view point. It takes God and His grace out of the picture and puts man full center. Man out pride states that he chose God instead giving God the glory in that while we were yet sinners (God-hating rebels running in the opposite direction from God)He died for us and chose us to be His own.
” Moreover, the offer of mercy in the gospel is extended to all alike.” I have to disagree with this statement. Your supporting verses of this thinking, “Isaiah 55:1 and Revelation 22:17 call “whosoever will” to be saved”, is talking to the chosen. Both talk of those who thirst to come drink the water of life freely. It is only through the exchanging of our stone hearts to hearts of flesh by the Holy Spirit can we thirst for God. Before this occurs, we hate God and do not desire anything from Him. In essence, these verses are stating a fact not merely stating a wish. God commanding “all men every where to repent” isn’t an extension of His mercy to them, but instead, a decree of His holiness and a showing of the evilness in man’s heart. He, thus, shows His chosen His just ways in sending the unsaved to hell and by this shows us His mercy and grace toward His chosen. To say that God extends mercy to all, is to turn around and states that we have a hand in choosing or not choosing God. God did not die for unbelievers that will never be saved for if He had then there would be no need for them to pay for their sins in hell…Christ would have paid for their sins on the cross. Christ only died for His sheep.
Sarah,
“Man out (of) pride states that he chose God instead (of) giving God the glory…”
Bingo!
LOL! Phil, I really must learn to edit better! “Of’s” really make a difference.
)!
Sarah,
After rereading your last comment, I just wanted to propose something to you. Spurgeon seemed to believe this way. There is both a general call–to all, and a particular call–to the elect.
I believe God wants no one to perish and I can stack up Scripture to back that up. But I also believe God’s intention for salvation is for the elect and I can stack up Scripture to back that up.
So which do you believe? I think the Scripture teaches both, just as the Scripture teaches both that Jesus was a man and that He is God. We are not dealing with the mind and will of a cat. We’re talking God here. Maybe He’s that complex. He’s a Trinity, you know, so He’s far beyond all we could imagine.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Phil,
when it comes to God I don’t believe that God has a general call to all otherwise they would come. What I do believe is that He provided examples for us to follow in the general call to all. What I mean by that is that we are to go out to all men and preach the Gospel. Then those who are called or elected will come and those who are not,not only will they not be called by God, but they will also receive a hotter spot in hell than those who never heard about Christ. This is a clear teaching from Christ when He instructed His apostles to go out and spread the Gospel to all and those who did not receive it would have more wrath upon them than Sodom and Gomorrah. Many people try to either bring God down to our level in His behavior (Just because God commanded us to tell(call) everyone, doesn’t mean God will. He knows His elect we don’t.) or bring man up to God in their behavior (God hates the wicked and so some people feel we have the right to hate the wicked, but He told us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. He isn’t asking us to do more than He does in this situation for He has common grace and common mercy on the wicked by giving them good things and allowing them to breath, thereby, showing only the greatness of His love which not for them but for us. I believe He does this so that His elect might glory Him in all His attributes.)
Sarah,
By issuing the gospel, God has called the non-elect. And by His revelation in nature and conscience, He has called the non-elect who do not hear the gospel. You have rightly said we are more accountable for rejecting the gospel. And Romans one says we are more responsible because of general revelation.
If you do not like calling that a calling, so be it, but God does hold us more accountable for it. Hence, it exists. It is He Who designed nature with its witness and placed in us a conscience. And it is He Who issued the gospel. At least some reformeds call it a general call and a particular or effectual call.
Look at it like this. When Jesus started saying, “Repent and believe,” was that a call or was He joking? Not all who heard did as He asked. Yet “call” is a term that certainly covers it. And He said they’d be held accountable for it.
Jesus was God and He did call on all in His hearing to repent and believe.
Your argument has this merit: Paul, I think, used that particular term only of the elect. So if one wishes to use it as a technical term there is biblical precedent.
To see how some theologians of the past used the term read this Spurgeon sermon: http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0073.htm .
You might also reference Millard Erikson’s Christian Theology, page 930.
Visited your website. It is really informative on persecution.
I appreciate your thought in the area of glorifying God for His sovereignty.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
I think the best example I can give concerning what I mean is the rich young ruler in Matthew 19:16-28. The man asks Jesus what he needs to do in order to be saved and Jesus states the law to which the man states he has kept. Jesus then shows him a part of the law that he was unaware of by telling him sell all he had and follow Him. The man turns away from Jesus and is not saved. Here we have Jesus in His fully-man state proclaim His own Gospel or “call”(something He has commanded us to do and gives us the example to follow) to this man, but in His fully-God state did not call this man. He then uses this man as an example to His apostles of just how impossible it is for mankind to enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus did in His fully-man state proclaim or “call” people where ever He went setting the example from which we are to follow. This story shows He called the rich, young ruler in fully-man state (His example to us for us to follow) but did not call him in His fully-God state.
The Incarnate Christ was always fully God. Be careful there.
Phil.
I never said He wasn’t (this is what I said…”but in His FULLY-GOD state did not call this man”), Phil, you simply are not following what I am saying. Jesus was fully man and fully God…I never once in what I said denied that. I said He did things in His fully-man state while at the SAME TIME doing things in His fully-God state. As fully man He “called” or proclaimed the Gospel to the young, rich ruler, but at the same time as fully God He did not call the young, rich ruler because ultimately the man was never saved. Therefore, this is an example of what we as humans are to do and it is an example of how God doesn’t call everyone.
Also, Phil, I think you are mixing up the terms “revealed” (which had have various meanings) and “called”…two totally different things.
sarah,
Jesus loved the rich young ruler as a Man, and not God? Mk. 10:21
I have a difficult time believeing that. I believe Jesus, the God-Man, loved this man.
Also, Jesus says, “Come to Me ALL who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.”
Hope you don’t mind my nudging in. I have to agree with Phil, that the call is to all, and there’s an inward call to God’s elect, those He set His love upon, before the foundation of the world.
@ Riley
I have Hodge’s ST, but too much foreign languages for me haha
I agree w/ what he is saying, but I’m not sure we are reading it the same way.
Seems like all Prof. Hodge is saying is that
1) Christ’s atonement is powerful enough to cover all sins - that I agree
2) and that it is a genuine offer for all - I agree
3)That people are culpable for its rejection - I agree
4) That is its efficacious only for the elect - I agree (well see below what i and prof. Hodge say about “efficacious grace”)
5) Therefore it is only a limited atonement b/c only the elect’s sins were died for. - Do we not agree here…
If you read pg 557-558 Prof. Hodge addresses this view and he is def. a proponent of limited atonement.
“It [the atonement] cannot demand that satisfaction twice, first from the substitute and then from the sinner himself. This would be manifestly unjust…”
ie He didn’t die for everyone’s sins and its not merely “efficacious grace” is only for the elect
“The application of the benefits is determined by a covenant between the Father and the Son.”
No application (of its salvific work) to the ones outside ie no application to the non-elect
and most clearly here:
” His work being specially designed for the salvation of his own people, render, through the conditions of the covenant, that event certain; but this is perfectly consistent with tis being made the ground of the general offer of the gospel.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Donsands,
I agree that it is a hard thing to swallow that God doesn’t love everyone. We live and have lived in a humanistic society for a very long time. Man’s pride is pervasive. Man thinks more highly of himself than he ought to. Only through reading Scripture and accepting its content can we come out of our, mine included, completely saturated humanistic thinking. God does hate the wicked Psalm 5:5 “The boastful shall not stand in Your sight; You hate all workers of iniquity.” God is justified in hating workers of iniquity. They are those who are not chosen. They have been hated from the foundation of the world just as we have been loved from the foundation of the world. We, the elect, were workers of iniquity and still sin, although not workers (or we do not practice of iniquity anymore,), but because Jesus was slain before the foundations of the world we, from the first elected person until the last elected person, were covered under His blood. He came to earth to fulfill in a literal sense and in a complete manner(Him becoming fully man) that which was already done. How can God love that which is completely and forever in rebellion to Him. For example, do you love children? Then you must hate abortion. God loves that which is perfect and hates that which is not. Yes, Jesus loved the rich, young ruler for that is what Scripture says, but He loved him as fully man and did it without sin and still at the same time rejected him as His enemy for He could not love someone who was and forever will be in complete rebellion to Him. Here is another example of the “God calling everyone” concept. God calls Jane Doe by stating, “Jane, come unto Me.” Jane states, “No! I shall not come to You.” Then God calls John Doe, “Come here, John.” and John says, “I will come to You.” Now what was it that made John respond to God and come to Him if John is dead in His trespasses and sins and there is nothing in him that will come to God unless God calls him? Wasn’t it God making him alive by His calling him? Then why didn’t Jane respond and come to God? Is it that God lacks power to bring Jane to Himself or maybe He really didn’t mean what He said when He commanded Jane to come to Himself, thereby, presenting Himself to the human race as a God who is unable to bring life to anyone He calls or just really doesn’t mean what He says? Do you really think that God would lower Himself in this way. Isn’t not more reasonable to suggest that He just doesn’t call everyone. That Romans 9 means what it says? That God shows mercy and compassion on those whom He chooses and those He hardens He does because “What if God, WANTING TO SHOW HIS WRATH AND TO MAKE HIS POWER KNOWN, endured with much long suffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that HE MIGHT MAKE KNOWN THE RICHES OF HIS GLORY ON THE VESSELS OF MERCY, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?” “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated” God said numerous times in the Bible. Was poor Esau the only unsaved person who was not graced with God’s love or is he just our example of how God truly does hate workers of iniquity? As for the verse, “Come to Me ALL who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” Who are they who labor and are heavy laden? Is it those who have physically hard jobs or those who have had bad childhoods etc? No, these are they who are His. We can become laborious and heavy laden because we at times do not trust in God to do His perfect work in us and because we hate our sins we become heavy laden. So He has instructed us to come to Him and give Him our load which He carries. That is why He says that His yoke is easy His burden is light.
Sarah,
I WILL say this about you: You have a zeal for God’s holiness. Don’t ever change that. You are right on humanism in the church. Preach it.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins. PS–I asked Nathan Williams about Challies again. We’ll see if there’s an answer.
Phil, that is the best compliment I could ever get…thank you! I thank God that it is not my zeal for that would soon die, but it is His zeal that He has GRACIOUSLY given to me and will continue to give all His children for His name sake. Peace!
“Yes, Jesus loved the rich, young ruler for that is what Scripture says, but He loved him as fully man and did it without sin and still at the same time rejected him as His enemy for He could not love someone who was and forever will be in complete rebellion to Him.”
What do you mean, He loved him as fully man? I believe He loved him as God in the flesh. 1 Tim 3:16
Sarah, I agree that God hates. I agree that God doesn’t love everyone the same. I agree that He loves His people, and died for them with a holy eternal love. I believe God loves His creation and cares for it, and that includes the unbelievers in this world.
I also see where the Lord says to love your enemies.
Why does He say this?
Because the Father Loves them, and grants them rain in due season, although they are unthankful. Matt. 5:44-48
This is a deep subject to be sure. I appreciate your thoughts.
Donsand,
what does God hate? Does He love the sinner and just hate the sin? That is not at all what Psalm 5:5 says. Why did He hate Esau? Was Esau the only unsaved person God hated? Esau didn’t exhibit as much of his depraved state as others have and do. What singled him out to have God’s hatred not only in hell but also during his stay here on earth? Wait…didn’t he have rain and sunshine? First, God says He hates Esau but then He turns around and gives him rain and sunshine. Could it be that it wasn’t love that Esau received(I didn’t say it God did) but the common grace and mercy that God must show His creation in order that our totally depraved state not over take us? If we did obey God and loved our enemies like He said we should, we wouldn’t even come close to showing the type of “love” that it looks like God is showing them. We are to love our enemies so that we may be sons of our Father in heaven…why? If we have hate in our hearts that is sin because we are unable to hate with a holy hatred as He does, and thus, we wouldn’t be like our Father in heaven because of the hate (sin) in our hearts. We are the ones who have to hate the sin and love the sinner because we are not perfect like God to do otherwise. One day we will hate those who are in total rebellion against God, but that won’t be until we are glorified. One day we will stand and applaud God as He sends each of His enemies to hell. Please don’t think that I’m an unfeeling person saying this. My sister isn’t saved and I pray each day for her salvation, but if she is never saved, God will be more than justified in sending her to hell…because that is what we all deserve. Don’t confuse His love with His common grace and mercy.
“Don’t confuse His love with His common grace and mercy”
Sarah,
I don’t think I’m doing that. I understand God loves His own. And all those who are unbelievers are under His judgement, as Esau is. But God loved the rich young ruler, and that puts me on my knees.
It’s very simple to me. Jesus said love your enemies. He didn’t say, “One day we will hate those” same people. I don’t that I could say that. But I know where you are coming from.
God will be glorified in all He does. He is perfect when He has mercy, and when He judges. He is the potter, and we are clay. He makes a vessel of honor, and a vessel of dishonor. He makes a beautiful vase, or a spittoon.
I am Reformed completely in my beliefs. But I have a lot to think over about how you share your reformed beliefs.
God bless. Have a good Lord’s day.
You too…I have a lot to learn also and always look forward to learning about Him which we will do forever! Peace!
Donsands and Sarah,
I know I already said this, but I’ll try it again. God loves the wicked and He hates the wicked.
Remember Esau. He hated him. Yet He loved him enough to promise to make him into a great people. So there is an example of God’s multi-layered will, as Millard Ericson puts it.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Common grace isn’t limited only to rain and sunshine. Cain was even spared his life and like Esau his descendents multiplied. This might be evidence of OUR HUMAN love (that we would allow someone we don’t like to continue to live and not only live but to be prosperous) but that isn’t God’s definition of love. Look at the persecuted church…they aren’t prosperous in earthly things. God’s common grace is at work every second of every day to keep this world working…from His universe to animal and plant kingdom to mankind. But common grace doesn’t equal God’s love. However, God’s common grace is so gracious that even our human love cannot match it…now just think what His love for Himself as the Godhead and for His people is like! Psalm 5:5…God indeed hates workers of iniquity to say anything else is to bring God down from being God.
@ John
You quote this from Hodge.
“It [the atonement] cannot demand that satisfaction twice, first from the substitute and then from the sinner himself. This would be manifestly unjust…”
Hodge is a deep thinker and sometimes his logic is hard to follow. Hodge is in this quote stating an accusation against Augustinianism which he then argues against. Hodge is not actually in agreement with the statement.
This quote is the position of those who believe Christ’s atonement was pecuniary in nature. (Carefully read pg. 470 as he suggested for his fuller explanation of this.) A pecuniary satisfaction would be like a person owing a certain amount of money. If that amount of money is paid to the creditor the debt is paid in full and the person is free instantly. The payment exactly equals the debt, it can’t be refused, and it doesn’t matter who pays the debt just so long as it’s paid. No further or second payment can justly be required. There is no grace involved in a pecuniary satisfaction. The exact debt is paid and the creditor has no choice as to whether he accepts the payment or not. There is no grace in an exact this for that (pecuniary) payment of a debt.
Hodge does not believe Christ’s satisfaction was pecuniary in nature. He believes it’s judicial in nature. A judicial satisfaction may not and often doesn’t exactly equal the debt owed. (A theft may be punished by imprisonment but a theft does not equal an imprisonment.) The person himself is indebted to the offended party. He himself deserves to be punished. The offended party is under no obligation to accept a substitutionary sacrifice. The acceptance of the substitute is a matter of grace on the part of the offended party if they accept it at all. It may often be accepted conditionally, and in the case of Christ it is accepted with the condition of faith attached. It may be accepted immediately or delayed in its acceptance or application. This is the nature of a judicial substitution.
As Hodge points out later, below what you quoted, we are not already or eternally justified when we are born. At birth we are dead in sins and by nature children of wrath, even as others. If Christ’s death had be pecuniary in nature then all for whom Christ died would have been instantly and eternally freed from all the debt of sin. How could we have possibly be born dead if the benefits of the sacrifice to free us and give us life had already been conferred? If should be obvious that the benefits of the sacrifice are obtained by grace only when the condition of faith is met.
Rom 4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him (Abraham) for righteousness. 23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Special attention needs to be paid to the “shall be” and the “if” of v. 24. The phrase “it shall be imputed, if we believe” clearly shows the conditional nature of the imputation of righteousness. The future tense of the imputation shows that even for the elect the payment for the debt of our sins is not credited to our account until the condition of faith has been met. If an unelect person was to trust in Christ the payment would then be credited to them also because the sacrifice is sufficient for all. It is “unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference.” (Rom. 3:22) Since faith is a gift from God only given to the elect, the unelect are never going to trust in Christ. So the payment is never going to be credited to their account in the first place Therefore, when they pay for their sins in hell they are not paying for their sins for the second time but for the only time. There is no injustice in this. Therefore the atonement of Christ is judicial in nature. It is sufficient for all even though its purpose is only for the elect. John 3:16 is a conditional offer of the judicial sacrifice of Christ that is credited to the account of whosoever will receive it by faith. It is nevertheless understood that only the elect will be drawn and enabled by God to believe and receive this offer.
The sufficiency of the atonement is not limited. It is the purpose and ultimate effectiveness of the atonement that is limited only to the elect. That is why I prefer the terms limited election or limited purpose.
I believe this is an important distinction because it means that the gospel can legitimately be preached to all the world. No distinction needs to be made between the elect and the unelect. Since the atonement was sufficient for all, the offer of the gospel can legitimately be offered to all. Jesus said, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” Mark 16:15 Therefore there must be a legitimate gospel to preach to them. What is the gospel? Paul said, “I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you… how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures;” I Cor. 15:1,3) If Christ’s death was not sufficient for the unelect also then there is no gospel to preach to them. It is not acceptable to make the excuse that we preach simply because we are told to preach. God is a God of truth and he can’t be commanding us to go out and preach a gospel that is not the truth to most of the population of the world. Even though we believe and accept that God’s purpose in the atonement is limited to only those whom God has chosen and no one else is going to receive it, nevertheless, the sufficiency of the atonement allows us to truthfully preach the gospel to every creature.
I may be mistaken, but I believe that what I have stated here is in full agreement with what Hodge is saying.
By the way, for those who do not have a copy of Hodges “Systematic Theology” you can view or download the whole thing at this link to Calvin College Ethereal Library.
http://www.ccel.org/index/author-H.html
Yours in Christ,
Riley
@ Riley
Thanks for the great clarification and the pecuniary explanation (how long will remember that word
).
You said:
“The sufficiency of the atonement is not limited. It is the purpose and ultimate effectiveness of the atonement that is limited only to the elect.”
I think(?) we agree.
1) I also believe that the scope of the atonement is infinite ie that there can’t be an amount of sin His infinite worth could not cover.
2) Ultimate effectiveness = Only the elect receives or ever was planned to receive its full (underserved) benefits.
Seems, like as with Eddie (who didn’t like the term “Calvinist”), you just don’t like the term “limited atonement,” but we can’t just go changing hundreds of years of technical jargon can we now
haha
I don’t like the term “Lord’s prayer” b/c he never prayed that prayer and it should be called the “Disciple’s prayer” (with John 14-17 as “The Lord’s Prayer”), but if I can’t get it my way you can’t either.
Thanks for the help - let’s keep on sharpening each other,
-John
Reading these comments just makes me feel as though a lot of people who claim faith are actually practicing natural selection, and projecting their own territorial tendencies upon the deity of Christ rather than accepting His super-nature. Christ was gracious and benevolent even towards the demons Legion, granting them their desire to reside in the herd of pigs rather than casting them into the Abyss (He gave them what their hearts desired, which was to run away from Him!) Christ is the narrow path, because He loves everyone and we clearly do not.
Ouch Beautiful feet!
I think you might have missed the point of that story. Think: The demons asked “Have you come to torment us before the time?” The reason Jesus did not torment them was b/c it wasn’t their time yet and ultimately would’ve been a rebellion of the Father’s timetable.
It’s also a pitiful show of benevolence to spare them the abyss for just a brief window of time only to throw them into the Lake of Fire for all eternity (if you went into the ER w/ a broken arm and they gave you band aid for some superficial bleeding - would you consider that true benevolence?)
Besides if you put it like that it makes Jesus prefer the demons over the people there by letting them destroy their swine - and that ain’t right.
We must accurately display the Gospel for people and mostly here sharpen my fellow brothers and sisters! That is my act of love.
Thanks John.
Looks like we do pretty much agree on this.
The only reason I prefer limited election/purpose to limited atonement is that it leads some to believe that Jesus didn’t die for the unelect at all - even in a merely sufficient way. This I believe is a gospel killer leaving you with no gospel to preach to the unelect.
I came out of a denomination that is not known for evangelism but it’s very Calvinistic. I think a proper understanding of the atonement would help fix that problem.
You made a nice response to Beautiful Feet also. His post sounds like sloppy agape to me - from an incomplete understanding of the full nature of God.
Yours in Christ,
Riley
Thanks both, John and Riley. From the sounds of it then, the good news of Christ is only good for some and not others?? I think the good news is for everyone, but some, like the demons, will reject it.
Postscript to John: You mentioned: “Besides if you put it like that it makes Jesus prefer the demons over the people there by letting them destroy the swine - and that ain’t right.”
Jesus did let the demons go into the swine - I don’t judge His actions but acknowledge them. I don’t think it was a matter of preference, but one of benevolent response to their request.
Jesus could have sent the demons where He wanted, but He gave them what they asked for - I see that as the ultimate benevolence - as One who is not intimidated or in need to exact further punishment on those slated for Hell.
[…] God’s Gracious Choice: Election […]
Doctrine of God’s Sovereignty–
Jonathan Edwards quote:
From childhood up my mind had be full of objections against the doctrine of God’s sovereignty and choosing whom He would to eternal life and rejecting whom He pleased, leaving them eternally to perish and be everlastingly tormented in hell.
It used to appear like a horrible doctrine to me. But I remember the time very well when I seemed to be convinced and fully satisfied as to His sovereignty and His justice. Thus, eternally disposing and dealing with men according to His sovereign pleasure, but never could give an account how or by what means I was thus convinced, not in the least imagining at the time, nor a long time after that there was any extraordinary influence of God’s spirit in it, but only that now I further saw and my reason apprehended the justice and reasonableness of it.
However, in my mind, I rested in it and it put an end to all those cavils and objections, and there has been a wonderful alteration in my mind in respect to the doctrine of God’s sovereignty from that day to this so that I scare ever have found so much as the rising of an objection against it in the most absolute sense in God’s showing mercy to whom He will show mercy and hardening whom He will.
God’s absolute sovereignty and justice with respect to salvation and damnation is what my mind seems to rest assured of as much as of anything I see with my eyes, at least it is so at times. The doctrine has often appeared exceedingly pleasant and bright and sweet. Absolute sovereignty is what I love to ascribe to God.
Listen to John Piper’s message on Romans 9;
“The Absolute Sovereignty of God: What Is Romans Nine About?”
http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TopicIndex/43/110_The_Absolute_Sovereignty_of_God_What_Is_Romans_Nine_About/
paragraph 3 mistake:
“…so that I *scarce* ever…” not *scare*
Just a comment:
Could those who write long passages PLEASE write in paragraphs of 3-5 lines?
I find it difficult to read 20-30 lines all grouped together.
Break up your thoughts into smaller paragraphs.
Thanks!