What Is the Doctrine of Election?
August 9th, 2007
(By John MacArthur)
The idea that God does what He wants, and that what He does is true and right because He does it, is foundational to the understanding of everything in Scripture, including the doctrine of election.
In the broad sense, election refers to the fact that God chooses (or elects) to do everything that He does in whatever way He best sees fit. When He acts, He does so only because He willfully and independently chooses to act. According to His own nature, predetermined plan, and good pleasure, He decides to do whatever He desires, without pressure or constraint from any outside influence.
The Bible makes this point repeatedly. In the very act of creation, God created precisely what He wanted to create in the way He wanted to create it (cf. Gen. 1:31). And ever since the creation, He has sovereignly prescribed or permitted everything in human history, in order that He might accomplish the redemptive plan which He had previously designed (cf. Is. 25:1; 46:10; 55:11; Rom. 9:17; Eph. 3:8–11).
In the Old Testament, He chose a nation for Himself. Out of all the nations in the world, He selected Israel (Deut 7:6; 14:2; Psalm 105:43; 135:4). He chose them, not because they were better or more desirable than any other people, but simply because He decided to choose them. In the words of Richard Wolf, “How odd of God to choose the Jews.” It may not have rhymed as well, but the same would have been true of any other people God might have selected. God chooses whomever He chooses, for reasons that are wholly His.
The nation of Israel was not the only recipient in Scripture of God’s electing choice. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ is called Christ, “My Chosen One” (Luke 9:35). The holy angels also are “chosen angels” (1 Tim. 5:21). And New Testament believers are those who were “chosen of God” (Col. 3:12; cf. 1 Cor. 1:27; 2 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 2:10; Titus 1:1; 1 Pet. 1:1; 2:9; 5:13; Rev. 17:14), meaning that the church is a community of those who were chosen, or “elect” (Eph. 1:4).
When Jesus told His disciples, “You did not choose Me but I chose you” (John 15:16), He was underscoring this very truth. And the New Testament reiterates it in passage after passage. Acts 13:48 describes salvation in these words, “As many as have been appointed to eternal life believed.” Ephesians 1:4–6 notes that, God “chose us in Him [Christ] before the foundation of the world, that we would 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, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.” In his letters to the Thessalonians, Paul reminds his readers that he knew God’s choice of them (1 Thess. 1:4), and that he was thankful for them “because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation” (2 Thess. 2:13). The Word of God is clear: believers are those whom God chose for salvation from before the beginning.
Even the foreknowledge to which Peter refers should not be confused with simple foresight as some would teach—contending that God, in eternity past, looked down the halls of history to see who would respond to His call and then elected the redeemed on the basis of their response. Such an explanation makes God’s decision subject to man’s decision, and gives man a level of sovereignty that belongs only to God. It makes God the One who is passively chosen, rather than the One who actively chooses. And it also misunderstands the way in which Peter uses the term “foreknowledge.” In 1 Peter 1:20 the apostle uses the verb form of that very word, prognosis in the Greek, to refer to Christ. In that case, the concept of “foreknowledge” certainly includes the idea of a deliberate choice. It is reasonable, then, to conclude that the same is true when Peter applies prognosis to believers in other places (cf. 1 Pet. 1:2).
The ninth chapter of Romans also reiterates the elective purposes of God. There, in reference to His saving love for Jacob (and Jacob’s descendants) as opposed to Esau (and Esau’s lineage), God’s electing prerogative is clearly displayed. God chose Jacob over Esau, not on the basis of anything Jacob or Esau had done, but according to His own free and uninfluenced sovereign purpose. To those who might protest, “That is unfair!” Paul simply responds by asking, “Who are you, O man, who answers back to God?” (v. 20).
Many more Scriptures could be added to this survey. Yet as straightforward as the Word of God is, people continually have difficulty accepting the doctrine of election. The reason, again, is that they allow their preconceived notions of how God should act (based on a human definition of fairness) to override the truth of His sovereignty as laid out in the Scriptures.
Frankly, the only reason to believe in election is because it is found explicitly in God’s Word. No man and no committee of men originated this doctrine. It is like the doctrine of eternal punishment, in that it conflicts with the dictates of the carnal mind. It is repugnant to the sentiments of the unregenerate heart. And like the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the miraculous birth of our Savior, the truth of election, because it has been revealed by God, must be embraced with simple and unquestioning faith. If you have a Bible and you believe it, you have no other option but to accept what it teaches.
The Word of God presents God as the controller and disposer of all creatures (Dan. 4:35; Is. 45:7; Lam. 3:38), the Most High (Psalm 47:2; 83:18), the ruler of heaven and earth (Gen. 14:19; Is. 37:16), the One against whom none can stand (2 Chron. 20:6; Job 41:10; Is. 43:13). He is the Almighty who works all things after the counsel of His will (Eph. 1:11; cf. Is. 14:27; Rev. 19:6), and the heavenly Potter who shapes men according to His own good pleasure (Rom. 9:18–22). In short, He is the decider and determiner of every man’s destiny, and the controller of every detail in each individual’s life (Prov. 16:9; 19:21; 21:1; cf. Ex. 3:21–22; 14:8; Ezra 1:1; Dan. 1:9; Jas. 4:15)—which is really just another way of saying, “He is God.”
Yes He is God! And the wonder in my heart never ceases as I ponder what He has done for me. He chose me. He called me. He saved me. He keeps me saved and will bring me faultless before His throne! What humility we all need to display because everyone of us knows that we are not worthy of Him and His great salvation. I just want to praise and bless His name today–that I of all people would be one of God’s elect–O for a thousand tongues to sing my great redeemer’s praise!
Why did he choose you, Victoria? According to Calvinism, for no reason other than you won the eeny-meeny-miney-moe-catch-a-sinner-by-the-toe. He could just as easily saved everyone but, naaahhh, tough noogies to the billions of others (who are sinners becuase He decreed it anyway), they can fry in hell for eternity because it glorifies God. As far as I am concerned, it is blasphemy to suggest that.
Jazzy: many, MaArthur included, feel that if man responds to the natural revelation (spoken of in Romans 1) that He will (since He is able to do all things) get the truth to them. He is not limited. I met a Nigerian believer recently who said he sincerely asked the God who is obviously there, seen in creation, to reveal Himself and that is what He did.
What, pray tell, is so hard to believe about foreknowledge?
David, let’s put Calvin aside and consider what God says and means.
John 1:12,13
John 3:3-8
Note the order of being born spiritually and then acting accordingly. That is what is hard to believe about foreknowledge. It isn’t that God foreknew “what” mankind spiritually blind in Adam could do to be born again in Christ. It is that God foreknew “who” He would first regenerate spiritually who would as a result enabled to repent and believe. If the Nigerian is truly a Biblically born-again believer, God was drawing and working out salvation concerning one He had chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. Natural man can’t make choices spiritually…they are dead.
DAVID–How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? there comes a place in human reason where intellect fails us. I do not know how much I really understand the mysteries of God. Why would we argue about these matters when there is a lost world we need to bring the gospel to–especially postmodern America. You can have your opinion and I can have mine. It just so happens that you are posting on a site that is reformed in it’s understanding of theology. You have a right to believe as you do, and so do I. I really hate arguing these things– I am just amazed that God has chosen to save any of us. Can’t we just be grateful for God’s great salvation and endeavor to get that message out to a lost and dying America– That God saves sinners by His grace!
David,
Rather than reacting with emotionally-charged pejoratives, why not make your case from Scripture? No matter how we feel, we must ultimately submit to what the Word of God teaches.
Here are a few verses to get the conversation started (emphasis added throughout):
Other passages could be added to these (such as John 13:18; 15:16; Rom. 8:29–30; 9:11–15; 19–23; 11:5; Eph. 1:11; 2:10; 1 Thess. 1:4; Titus 1:1; 1 Pet 1:2; 2 John 1:13). But hopefully this list will help direct the discussion back toward exegesis and away from emotion.
Thanks,
NB
David,
Do you believe God is enept? Do you believe that His will is at the mercy of our freedom? Do you believe the Holy Bible is a collection of events decreed by the will of man? Do you believe God is reactive instead of proactive?
You completely disregarded the Scriptural references given in the post and proceded to give a childish and worldly comment on the subject.
I do believe the Bible teaches the doctrine of Election. We just discussed it in our bible class a couple of Wednesdays ago.
Most in the class raised the same common questions. They basically wanted to know the reason why God chose one person over another. It is interesting that the article never tries to answer that question. That’s the whole point of the article, right? We can’t know because God has chosen not to reveal that.
I also sensed that the class was concerned about the power to choose being taken away from them and placed squarely in the hands of God.
If we had the power to chose, then we could feel somewhat in control and that is a comfortable feeling.
But, when faced with the reality that we are not in control and do not make the choice; it is an uncomfortable feeling.
It was very uncomfortable to me when my Lord first started to deal with me about this doctrine.
However, David makes a statement that I have thought about. How does Romans 1:18-32 reconcile with Romans 9?
Romans 9:19a says “You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault?”
Is Paul saying that they will say “If God is the one that makes the choice, then why does he still hold the unbeliever accountable?” It seems that Paul is saying in Romans 1 that those who do not believe will be accountable.
I would really like to know how to reconcile the two chapters.
A little help would be most appreciated.
Thanks,
Kelvin
Kelvin, does it help you to read Romans 1 along with chapters 2 and 3 up to the pivotal word “but” in Chapter 3 verse 21? 3:21 and following speaking of the way different from man’s vain attempts to be righteous in the previous verses?
Brothers and Sisters – This article is misleadingly titled as it is not “the” doctrine of election but simply “a” doctrine of election. I’v written on the various views, all scripturally supported and advanced by recognized theologians. One may choose to accept a specific view, as Pastor MacArthur has done, but that does not make it “the” doctrine as held by the Church at large. If you’re interested in the articles, they are all collected here: ttp://loveacceptforgive.wordpress.com/calvinism-arminianism/
Blessings and Peace
Why did he choose you, Victoria? According to Calvinism, for no reason other than you won the eeny-meeny-miney-moe-catch-a-sinner-by-the-toe. He could just as easily saved everyone but, naaahhh, tough noogies to the billions of others (who are sinners becuase He decreed it anyway), they can fry in hell for eternity because it glorifies God. As far as I am concerned, it is blasphemy to suggest that.
Jazzy: many, MaArthur included, feel that if man responds to the natural revelation (spoken of in Romans 1) that He will (since He is able to do all things) get the truth to them. He is not limited. I met a Nigerian believer recently who said he sincerely asked the God who is obviously there, seen in creation, to reveal Himself and that is what He did.
What, pray tell, is so hard to believe about foreknowledge?
1. On a theory of libertarian freedom, you cannot say why one person chooses Christ and not another, for in libertarian action theory, choices are by definition, uncaused. That’s standard philosophy that you’ll find anywhere.
2. So, at the level of causality, libertarian action theory must give way to a theory that we choose according to our desires in order to be biblical, since, as in James, our choices are attributed to our motives.
3. Is it possible for men, from a state of nature, to love God? No.
So, why then would one man choose Christ and not another given the same conditions? Chance? More spiritual? More intellectual? More afraid?
4. And if God chose on the basis of foreseen faith, then it would be the beginning of election by merit.
5. And that’s precisely what I’ve seen libertarians argue: that God elects based on something found in one agent and not another. That’s divine favoritism.
6. You say: Why did he choose you, Victoria? According to Calvinism, for no reason other than you won the eeny-meeny-miney-moe-catch-a-sinner-by-the-toe.
So, you believe that election this way is arbitrary.
That’s false.There is a sense in which mercy is arbitrary in a way that justice is not, for mercy, by definition, is undeserved, and not, therefore, obligatory. Reformed theology does not teach there is no selection criterion at all. It is merely hidden and undisclosed. We do not tell God He is arbitrary for what not disclosing His reasons. Is a storm that God causes “arbitrary?”
To say that it is arbitrary in the above sense is not to say that it’s unjust or unfair, for inequality of treatment is only unjust when it denies a party his just claims to something. But, by definition, no one has a just claim on the “mercy” of God. All are condemned as sinners and deserve death. (cf. Romans 3).
If the purpose of reprobation is to manifest the mercy of God (Romans 9), then how is that or election, it’s flip side, arbitrary? By attacking the doctrine of reprobation, the objection has just supplied a reason for reprobation. Something would only be arbitrary if it had no rationale, no overarching aim. What is arbitrary has no reason or criterion and therefore no purpose. Scripture declares in Ephesians 1 that we have been predestined according to the kind intention of God’s will, and Romans 8 says that part of the reason has to do with God’s intention that Christ be the firstborn of many brethren and that part of this purpose extends to us being conformed to Christ’s image. Therefore, election/predestination is in no way “arbitrary” because it is not random or purposeless.
7: You say:He could just as easily saved everyone but, naaahhh, tough noogies to the billions of others (who are sinners becuase He decreed it anyway), they can fry in hell for eternity because it glorifies God. As far as I am concerned, it is blasphemy to suggest that.
If cast in those terms, David, you’re arguing that your view is “more loving,” but if true, the universalist can make that same claim.
And this objection does not help you at all, for, even if election is based on foreseen faith, you must also affirm that God is creating people only to damn them for all eternity, since he nevertheless creates them. So, you’ve only moved that objection back one step.
8. Finally, and most importantly, there is not a single text of Scripture that says that God elects based on foreseen faith.
Is Paul saying that they will say “If God is the one that makes the choice, then why does he still hold the unbeliever accountable?” It seems that Paul is saying in Romans 1 that those who do not believe will be accountable.
Kelvin,
The objection arises in Romans 9 such that if the person who is hardened by God cannot do otherwise, he seems to be doing God’s will. How then, goes the objection, is this justice, for if a man is doing God’s will, why is he being judged for his sins?
The reply is “Who are you, O Man, to talk back to God,” for God has the right to craft what He desires from the one lump of men.
Why would this be an appropriate response?
You mention Romans 1, et.al. Here, men are blinded by their own love of evil, so what we have in divine hardening is God “giving men what they want.” They are not complying with the ends God decreed for them out of love for God, but from hatred for God. That is why God can hold them accountable, for in divine hardening, their morality is in no way being violated.
But doesn’t this make God the author of evil? God is the author of evil, in the sense that He is first cause of all things. This simply goes with pay grade. His decrees, through either action or inaction render events necessary, but, evil is the result of permission, not His direct causation, or a result of His judicial hardening of sinners, an act of justice Scripture supports repeatedly, as in the above text and in Romans 1. Nothing happens that compels a man or demon to act in a way it does not wish to act or against its nature. He may withhold constraining grace, as in the fall, in order to render a thing certain, but the agent of the evil, in this case Adam simply acts in accordance with his nature as a second cause, for reasons and motives sufficient for himself and arising from his own nature. Men thus do what God decrees, but for motives all their own. In so doing, they may incur judgment. In this way men act as infallibly as if they had no liberty, yet as freely as if there was no decree rendering their acts certain. See, for example, the predestination of Judas betrayal and Jesus crucifixion. These men did, with evil desires, what God desired and planned to happen since before creation, for Jesus is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world itself.
Mrs. Burrows,
The Bible Knowledge Commentary says this about Romans 9:14-18
“Because of God’s choice, Pharaoh then hardened his own heart (Ex. 7:13-14, 22; 8:15, 19, 32; 9:7, 34-35). All this shows that God chooses and works sovereignly, but not arbitrarily. Yet Pharaoh was responsible for his actions.
Walvoord, John F. ; Zuck, Roy B. ; Dallas Theological Seminary: The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures. Wheaton, IL : Victor Books, 1983-c1985, S. 2:477
This phrase “Yet Pharaoh was responsible for his actions.” is what I have not been able to to grasp.
How would I explain to someone that it was God’s choice to raise up Pharaoh to display His power but Pharaoh (and the unbeliever) is still responsible?
Maybe I shouldn’t be asking these questions?
Thanks for responding,
Kelvin
Sorry Gene,
I was formulating my thoughts before I refreshed my browser. I am considering your comments now.
Thanks.
The Scriptures never say that God has chosen some to go to hell, man is going there all on his own. Why? Because of the state of man!
Romans 3:10-12 There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there none who does good, there is not even one.
Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
Why is this man’s state?
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned–
Romans 5:16…for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation…
Romans 5:17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one…
Romans 5:18 So then as through one transgession there resulted condemnation to all men…
Romans 5:19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners
Because of Adam’s sin we are all born in sin, just as the Psalmist in 51:5. Because of sin we are totally incapable of choosing God.
Romans 8:7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so
There is not partiality with God, Romans 2:11, but out of the vast numbers of mankind, from the beginning of time, who were headed for hell and destruction He graciously and mercifully chose and predestined some of us to salvation in accordance with His one eternal purpose that runs through the ages, Ephesians 1:1-3:11.
Insted of wagging our finger at God we should fall down in humble gratitude, praising Him and saying, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.”
Acts 17:30 “Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent,
Joshua 24:15 And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve,
Isaiah 65:2 I have stretched out My hands all day long to a rebellious people, Who walk in a way that is not good, According to their own thoughts;
Acts13:46 …but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles.
Hebrews 3:12-13 Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; but exhort one another daily, while it is called “Today,” lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.
Luke 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing!
Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
Deuteronomy 30:19 “I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live
Genesis 4:7 “If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”
Ezekiel 33:11 “Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord God, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’
Luke 14:17-18 “and sent his servant at supper time to say to those who were invited, ‘Come, for all things are now ready.’ “But they all with one accord began to make excuses.
It would be nice if someone would at least admit the possibility that these few (of countless) scriptures actually mean that God offers salvation to all, even those He knows will refuse
Responislbe to do what is, by design, impossible. Is that what we’re saying about the position God puts us in? Like sitting in a tree by a river commanding a fish to fly up to us and when it doesn’t, jumping down and frying the wicked fish in a pan for eternity. How does that line up with God’s seemingly sincere offer? Oh, well. Smite away, bloggers, I’ve brought it on myself
Gene,
And this objection does not help you at all, for, even if election is based on foreseen faith, you must also affirm that God is creating people only to damn them for all eternity, since he nevertheless creates them.
Yes, I do affirm that. That’s the severity part of the goodness and severity off God (Romans 11:22). But those lost people DID have an opportunity.
David,
God is not obligated to offer salvation to all men. It is not God’s duty nor responsibility to offer salvation to anyone. According to Romans 1:18-20 God has given man both an internal and external witness as to His existence, His invisible attributes, His eternal power, and His divine nature. Further in Romans 2:14-15 it says that the work of the law was written the the hearts of the Gentiles who did not have the law, but their conscience would bear witness and their either accuse or defend them (in Genesis see Cain’s guilt and Pharoah response when he found out Sarah was married). Ecclesiastes 3:11 says that God has set eternity in the heart of man.
So therefore the problem is not with God, but with man as he has suppressed the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18). God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, his desire is for none to perish, but it is man’s responsibility to seek Him, to grope for Him according to the passage you quoted out of Acts 17. Yes, God so love the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. He cries out in Isaiah 45:22 “Turn to Me and be saved all the ends of the earth; for I am God and there is not other.”
He does not offer salvation, but makes salvation available to those who would seek Him out (Dt 4:29, I Chron 28:9, Jer 29:12-14, Heb 11:6), but the rub is that because of his utter sinfulness/unrighteousness man will not/can not of His own accord seek God (Romans 3:9-18, Psalm 14:1-3, 53:1-3), therefore God has predestined, called, justified, and glorified those to whom the blood is applied (Romans 8:30, I Pt 1:1-2) The atoning sacrifice has not made the salvation of those chosen by God possible, but certain.
There is a dynamic tension in Scripture on this issue, and the issue is not one of fairness, but of what is right and just, not according to our fallen and finite minds, but by what the Holy, Sovereign, and Unfathomable One has decreed. I empathize with your passion on this, for I was there for many years, but I had to finally give in to the overwhelming weight of Scripture and confess the finiteness of my own understanding.
Morris
I always wonder why it seems like there will be more white people in heaven. Why does God make it so much easier for a North American or European to “find” him, through TV, radio, churches in every town, Bibles in every bookstore……. than the millions growing up in the Middle East and else where.
David,
I am glad you wrote. I completely disagree with you, but I am glad you wrote. I have never actually met someone who holds to your views by conviction (though I have met many such believers who have held to your views by default).
Though the issue is, indeed, worth the effort to understand and hash through (I think we both would agree that our respective concepts of the nature of God is seriously affected — maybe even warped — by where we land on this issue), I nevertheleess also believe that you might be able to think more clearly (if not communicate more effectively) were you to tone down the rhetoric and try working on being a bit more winsome … or at least appearing winsome.
Just tossin’ it out there for your consideration.
In any event, I truly am glad you have chimed in, and I’m genuinely hoping that you succeed in bringing about what I am trusting is your desired goal in all of this: the glory of God.
Walter Heaton
David,
Acts 17:30 There are two things that should be noted about this Scripture. Like other uses of universal terms, they have both extensive and limit reference. That God commands all men every where, does not necessitate that each and every man in all time throughout all the world has been called by the Gospel. It is fact that they have not. Which distroys your arguement. The general call of nature is insufficient for repentence. Repentence requires true knowledge of God, which is in part what faith is, and that is found only in the Son, who alone declares him and that by the Word of God. There is only one name by which men must be saved and, you are condemned because you have not believed in the named of His only begotten Son and if you confess with your lips Jesus as Lord…. The offer is made only in that name. So you lose. Second, unless you can prove that you can perfectly keep all the commandments, which John would say makes you a liar and not of the Truth, then you cannot prove that the commandment to repent affords the ability to do it. If you argue that God has indeed given you the ability to keep his commandments perfectly, then I would ask you why you do not? Is it that as Jesus said, that you are not his because you refuse to keep them? John says that also. How do you square your disobedience with your humanistic theory? And, why would John say that even if we are unfaithful, he remains faithful and is just to forgive us?
Joshua 24:15 The obvious here is that the assertion is made that they hate God, so their choice is already made. It is not the case that they could choose otherwise. Why would they choose what they consider evil. Again, you lose. This is repeated by the Lord’s parable of the talents. Of course, the evil servent buries the talent. He believes the Lord is evil. His choice flows from his nature which is at emnity with God, hates him, and refuses to submit itself to him, because it is impossible for him to do so.
Isaiah 65:2 You need to turn back a couple chapters. Isaiah 63.17 is about people who God has made to violate his commandments, yet they know him to be their Father, sovereign Lord over his own household. These are also the people of his affection who he slayed by the sword and sent into captivity for the punishment of sins that he had caused them through some means to commit so that he might glorify his name. Now, I will not get into the debate concerning contingency of second causes, but the fact is, it was God who forordained their rebellion. Not all who rebelled, did he redeem, 65.13-16, and 65 speaks of his sovereignty in the new birth of a nation which he has conceived and given birth to in a new created order, 65.17. Again, you lose. Because God is the worker of all these things, including the repentence of his elect, 65.8-12. You cannot separate God out of the equation in his sovereign dealings with both the Jew and the Gentile in these passages, 65.1, and in this very verse what you have said is refuted. For, these people did not seek the Lord, but he was found by them. The logical conclusion is that he sovereignly secured some out of their rebellion, to himself.
Acts 13:46 This is no contest. We are born rejecting the offer of the Gospel. That we are in a state of unbelief is confirmed by passages like John 3.18. But, beside that, this passage has to do with an isolated instance of Jews rejecting the Gospel. It cannot be universalized because it was Jews who were preaching the Gospel. Therefore, it is not speaking of individual choice in rejection of the Gospel, but a necessity of the Great Commission and following the admonition of the Lord to present the Gospel to the Jew first, then the Gentile, to the ruling house, then to move on. It says nothing about the ability to receive the Gospel.
Hebrews 3:12-13 This has nothing to do with salvation, directly, nor as is oft claimed, its loss. If you will note, verse one is adressed to holy brethren. It is rather an admonition to perservere. Which is the true test of sonship, not our ability to obey, but being unfaithful, we have faith in Him who is the faithful Son over his own household, whose household we are. Since, “It is “God who works in us the willing and the doing of His good pleasure.” We are to work out that salvation with fear and trembling. Look closer at the context of the verses. It states in sixteen that it was all who came out of Egypt. We know that some who rebelled did enter his rest. So we can conclude that it was not according to their obedience, because of verse 19. It was due to God’s particular choice of certain individuals, despite their unbelief, that some did enter. They could not enter because of unbelief, but they could by grace. We, even believers, must understand that we live this life at his beckoning, so we must be quick to listen.
Luke 13:34 The context here is the unbelieving Jews who prevent others from entering into the promise. Notice it is you, not the children who are unwilling. The children are not being allowed to be gathered. This is what the Lord is condemning. Go back to Romans 1 again, it is men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness who prevent the knowledge of God from being proclaimed. In this verse, the children are not said to not ever be gathered. The condemnation is directed at Jerusalem which is symbolic of Jewish rebellion. Jerusalem is the mother of harlotries and her children are harlots also. But, woe is proclaimed not against the little one who is caused to sin, but towards the one who is at fault for making it so. Jerusalem is likened to Cain, not Abel, it is her kinsmen who are the object of God’s affection. There will be those who come to him in that day claiming that they chose him and did works in his name to which he will reply that he never knew them, nor knew from where they came. In other words he does not know intimately, the evil ones. Notice, that they were not willing. Willing to do what? Let him gather? Yes, it was their unwillingness to let him be the chooser that he condemns. Remember it was Adam and Eve who threw off the rule of God’s choices for them, and in their rebellion decided that they could choose for themselves what was good.
Romans 1:28 Again, context is a valuable tool. You skipped over some critical verses here. The sins that are listed are God’s wrath being poured out on men who suppress the truth. More than that you have removed this verse from the full context. Chapter five places the context back in Genesis 3 and informs us that sin is our nature not by our choice, but by God’s choice as punishment for Adam’s sin. That is the reason for the supression of knowledge. We do it by nature, not according to reason. And, verses 8-11 of Ch. 5 tells us that it was not our choice. If it had have been we would supressed the knowledge by nature. Quite to the contrary of our choosing, it was while we were supressing the truth that we were reconciled to God. Something quite supernatural has to happen to us before we can choose to follow him. Namely, he has to choose us and regenerate us before we can even understand the Gospel, John 3.3. The word see in John 3.3 means to comprehend. We must be born again, before we can understand the call to repentence.
Deuteronomy 30:19 This is a no brainer. Life and death are always before us. God has done that as a result of the fall. But, what is obvious here is that God does the choosing. It does not say choose life or death. God presents the only choice, life, as it was in the Garden. The problem is that fallen man sees death as a “good” choice just as it was presented, in deceit, to Eve. So now we see it with fallen eyes and approve of it with our minds in accord with our nature. That in reality, is not a choice. After all, what kind of fool would choose what is not good for him except the kind that says in his heart there is no God. In that case, it does not matter what God places before him. He will not choose what is good, because he cannot see the good so that he would obey God and choose life. Beside that, the result Israel’s free-will choice of wanting to live by the law was their choosing to pledge to follow and live by the commandments, rather than grace. In doing so, they condemned themselves and thereby became a testimony against themselves that mankind is unable to do for himself what he should, even though it is commanded by God. As it was in the beginning, so it shall be in the end, man does not live by bread alone, that is the sweat of his brow, the keeping of the commandments by law, but by every Word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, by his grace.
Genesis 4:7 Well, what can be said. Cain was not God’s elect, yet the commandment still is true. Righteousness is not a matter of choice. Man was created in God’s image. Righteousness is a matter of nature. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, Cain was a bad tree and chose for himself what the will of God should be. Abel was chosen by God a prophet, to offer the righteous sacrifice chosen by God. The only option for Cain was to accept the sacrifice already offered for him by Abel, a type of the Lord. But, rather that accept God’s chosen high priest and his sacrificial lamb, Cain was not Abel. Poor pun I know, but the fact is that Cain could not do anything other than what God had chosen for him to do. See Isaiah
63.17 again, or check out the story of Joseph’s brothers.
Ezekiel 33:11 Interesting that you should select this one. Read on. Israel is unable to turn, therefore Ezekiel 36-37. Especially pay attention to 36.27-28. He puts his Spirit in Israel his chosen, causes her to walk in his statutes, and because they do he blesses them as His people. Note the preceeding verses. It is not because Israel repented, quite to the contrary. Even though they are under his stern discipline they continued to “Profane my holy name…among the nations wherever you went.” As Ezekial says, “Lord you know.” Israel is redeemed and purified by the very name they blaspheme, it is not because they repented at his call, no, it is after he puts his Spirit in them and make them new creations and causes them to repent, that they do. It is, “Return to me, for I have redeemed you.”
Luke 14:17-18 Have you ever checked out the meanings of the words concerning those who do come? Jesus said, compel them. The word is anagkazo and means: to necessitate, compel, drive to, constrain by force, threats, etc. The other words used in the supper passage like come and bring are from roots that carry the connotation of binding sticks in a bundle and carrying them. Adding to that, that these were the poor, the blind the lame and so forth, those who finally do come do not have the personal means by which they can. They must be carried in. The one that is thrown out is the one who has not been dressed by the servants. He came in by his own choice and by his own means, dressed in his own righteousness. Yes, the invitation does go out, but those who are evil will not listen to the Lord of the Feast. Some pretenders do come to the feast, but the Lord rejects their overtures because they are dressed in the fig leaves of their own works. So, again, you lose.
Even if you could choose to follow Jesus, you would not. Even after the resurrection Jesus tells Peter that when he was older he would be girded about by another, tied to a tow line in other words, and taken where he would not choose to go. Yes, even a mature Christian is unable in and of himself to follow the Lord. The word John uses is thelo, the same word used in Gal 5.17 where it is said that the flesh and the Spirit are at war, so that you do no choose as you will and is in perfect concert with Romans 7. You in your flesh are incapable of repenting, my friend, Romans 8. Without the Spirit you cannot even understand the things of God, 1 Corinthians 2, nor can you call upon the name of Jesus that you might be saved, for no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Spirit, and without the Spirit you are not being made to walk in his commandments, Ezekial 36, and repent, for it is the Lord who creates the fruit of the lips, Isaiah 57.19.
What Does the Bible Say?
“Elect according to the foreknowledge of God…,” (1 Peter 1:2).
1 Peter 1:2 is very clear. God choose based on his foreknowledge of who would respond to the convincing and convicting work of the Holy Spirit (John 16:7-10).
These pre-suppositions from Calvinistic thinking begin when men try to reconcile that which is irreconcilable.
Both Divine sovereignty and human responsibility are truths found in the Word of God. The Sovereignty of God and the Free Will of Man are TWIN Truths! To say that one must keep a balance between these truths would not be appropriate. Our finite minds cannot comprehend every truth found in the Word of God. Both Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom are truths, they are NOT competing truths. They are truths that cannot be reconciled, and they need no reconciling! Only in the mind of an infinite God can these two truths be reconciled.
To allow for the Free Will of Man and the Sovereignty of God to equally co-exist does no damage to God’s Sovereignty. IMO, it is a greater testament to God’s Sovereignty as He allows for the Free Will of Man yet remains absolutely sovereign.
Admittedly, men can go off to an extreme in the direction Free Will of Man, which can lead to the dangerous teaching known as Open Theism.
“Elect according to the foreknowledge of God…,” (1 Peter 1:2).
There is no alternative reading or rendering of the passage unless one has a presupposition that they seek to rationalize. The presupposition here is Calvinism’s “Unconditional” election.
Calvinism’s “Unconditional” election is antithetical to the plain teaching of 1 Peter 1:2.
LM
I agree. God sovereingly lets man decide. In all those passages in which men’s failure to obtain salvation is placed to the account of their own will, this doctrine of limited atonement. of election and reprobation, is disallowed. “How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not.” “And ye will not come to me that ye might have life.” “…Bring upon themselves swift destruction.” “Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.”
It is useless to multiply quotations, since the New Testament so constantly exhorts men to come to Christ, reproves them for neglect, and threatens them with the penal consequences of their own folly, thus uniformly placing the obstacle of their salvation just where Christ places it in his parable of the supper–in the perverseness of those who, having been bidden to the feast, would not come.
LM,
What makes some people respond and others deny? Is it that some are morally superior?
If someone does not accept the doctrine of election, wouldn’t that person have to accept universalism?
I have been stuying this subject for sometime and have been struggling with this: Does the doctrine of elction mean that babies who are not elected go to hell when they die? Any input would be appreciated.
Nevergall:
Holding to the twin truths of Divine Sovereignty & Human Freedom (DS & HF) does not allow for universalism.
People can go off into extremes like universalism, but DS & HF does not lead to it.
Thanks,
LM
Eddie:
There has been a discussion along the lines of your question at Sharper Iron.
http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?t=6183&page=1&pp=7
You might find it helpful.
Lou
NG:
You asked, “What makes some people respond and others deny?”
I have been mulling this over.
1) The Bible is clear that man can choose to accept or reject the offer of eternal life through Jesus Christ.
2) Why do some believe and receive while others reject? I don’t know, because I cannot see what is going on in the inner heart of man. I do, however, know this much: The open call is to all mankind, and any one can come freely and be born again.
If you are angling for the “Irresistible Grace” answer to “what makes some people respond and others deny,” I categorically reject the extra-biblical teaching known as Irresistible Grace.
LM
I believe that it would help a person to understand their sinfulness.
Like reading The Evil of Evil by Jeremiah Burroughs.
Once a person comes to realize that he only deserves Death and Eternal Damnation from God will he appreciate The Doctrines of Grace.
David S
Who can argue that the Bible has many references to the sovereignty of God and how it pertains to man’s salvation. However, it seems to me that the problem with Calvinism is that it focuses only on the verses that can be use to defend its position. It’s so easy to skip past the fact that Jesus told Nicodemus that God loved ‘the world’ and that ‘whosoever’ would believe in Him… I think that we have to be careful in redefining the ‘world’ and ‘whosoever’ to mean only the ones He has elected. We must not put words into the mouth of our Lord. But even more, Peter tells us that God is not willing that ‘any’ should perish but that ‘all’ should come to repentance. I do believe that everyone who comes to God in salvation has been elected, however, I also agree with what I heard Adrian Rogers preach many years ago- “The more doors I knock on the more people I discover who have been elected.” The plan fact is – Jesus told us to go into ‘all the world’ and preach the gospel to ‘every creature’. Instead of spending so much of our time and ministry arguing a subject that none of us (John Calvin, John MacArthur, John Doe) will ever fully understand this side of eternity, we need to get busy being obedient to what Jesus clearly commanded us. We do know for a fact that God wants the whole world to hear His plan of salvation and we need to let the Holy Spirit do the work that only He can do – calling whosoever to repentance and faith.
The “elect” are not chosen for greater favour but rather for greater responsibility. They are not chosen to live while others die. Rather, they are God’s instruments for fulfilling the Abrahamic promise to “spiritually” bless all nations with the true knowledge of God. Consider the fate of the “elect:” the Israelite people as a whole, the prophets, the apostles, Jesus of Nazareth…
In the time of the patriarchs, God’s grace, his free gift, was manifested in terms of “material” blessings – land, sheep, cattle etc. The Law of Moses, which promised material blessings for obedience on a national scale, did not produce the required results on a national scale.
The prophet Isaiah foresaw that an enduring and persistent character able to withstand the forces of opposition to God could only be produced by suffering. His “suffering servant” theme finds its fullest expression in Jesus of Nazareth – perfectly obedient to the will of God, the light to the Gentiles, the blessing to the nations, the one for the salvation of the many. Jesus learned obedience through suffering.
Jesus’ demonstration of a perfect love that will lay down its life for others is the great drawing power of Christianity, the great “spiritual” blessing to the nations. This blessing has been brought about by suffering and death. How can followers of Jesus claim that the “elect” are chosen to live while the “non-elect” die? Jesus of Nazareth died so that the “non-elect” may live?
Terry:
Good post, well thought out and presented.
The Calvinist is determined to protect the Sovereignty of God to the point of eliminating the twin truth of the Free Will of Man.
Also, as you noted, the numerous invitations in the Bible that all can come and be saved, unravel Calvinism’s “Unconditional Election.”
LM
LM,
“Also, as you noted, the numerous invitations in the Bible that all can come and be saved, unravel Calvinism’s “Unconditional Election.”
Let me start by saying I appreciate your responses and will always welcome the opinion of an IFB. Many IFB’s that I know are not Calvinist or Arminian (they consider both to be unbiblical, extracurricular activity); however, the IFB theology is somewhere down the middle. My wife and I attended an IFB church for a period and we thoroughly loved and enjoyed the fellowship with its members and still actively communicate with the Senior Pastor.
In the above quote you mentioned “that all can come and be saved”. I do not dispute that many will come; however, please refer me to where it states all will come AND be saved.
There is no doubt that the invitation is for everyone; however, not everyone will respond to the invitation and of those that do respond, not all will be accepted (Matthew 20:1-16, Matthew 22:1-14). So, I fail to see the connection between all can come AND be saved.
Nevergall
Nevergall,
You wrote “of those that do respond, not all will be accepted (Matthew 20:1-16, Matthew 22:1-14).”
My take on these passages for what it’s worth –
Matthew 20:1-16
I personally see Jesus’ sense of humor displayed here. The context immediately preceding and following this passage is one of the disciples (Peter, James, and John named – but most likely all 12 were of similar mind – just like you and I probably would be if we were in their sandals.) worrying about their place of order in the Kingdom. It’s not a discussion of initial membership, but of Believers/Disciples having a proper attitude of serving out of gratitude and not with an eye to potential rewards.
Context preceding Matthew 20:1-16:
Matthew 19:27-30 “Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.”
I emphasized Peter’s “what shall we have therefore” because it caps off the “What’s in it for me?” question. I emphasized Jesus’ “and shall inherit everlasting life.” because it caps off His response. To me He is saying, Peter, you’re going to get a big ol’ throne, you’re going to be a hangin judge, get a big ol mansion, hang out with more folk than you can feed in a month of Sundays, sit on more acreage than Texas; all of this a hundred times over!!! Oh, and by the way, you get everlasting life too.
Point of Matthew 20:1-16:
He then proceeds to drive home this point with the illustration of the Laborers in the Vineyard. I believe His point is, hey guys, it is not “look how long I worked or how hard I worked, or how successful (fruit-bearing) I appeared.” The point is you each get a penny. You each get everlasting life. Don’t be whining “these last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day” but be grateful. You get everlasting life too.
Context following Matthew 20:1-16:
Matthew 20:18-19 Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again.
I take this directive as: Look guys, I’m going to be betrayed, condemned, mocked, scourged, and crucified – and all you’all can do is squabble about who is first and who is last!!! Grow up! Matthew 20:20-28 essentially boils down to “Stop this squabbling about position and start ministering to folks!”
Thus, the “many called, few chosen” in context here is addressing the fact that their will be a variance of rewards which will appear to be out of whack proportionately with the Christian’s situation on Earth (time and effort in the vineyard), almost as one is favored over another; but are totally right (no wrong), and good, and lawful as granted by the Householder.
Moving on to Matthew 22:1-14.
A new day has dawned. (Mt 21:18) We are now removed a number of miles and hours from immediate context of Matthew 20:1-16. Let’s check out the context of Matthew 22:1-14:
I see Jesus’ sense of humor again but directed at the Chief Priests and Pharisees this time. Not the Disciples. The context immediately preceding and following this passage is one of almost baiting the Priests and Pharisees.
He had cleared out the Temple the evening before and they were powerless to stop Him. This morning He’s physically hungry and ends up cursing the fig tree due to its symbolic representation of the nation’s spiritual situation. The Chief Priests and Pharisees have created a system that looks good but has no spiritual fruit. Soon after He arrives at the Temple and the Priests and Pharisees start right of with challenging His authority. He responds by essentially setting them up for the take down that we’ll find in Mt. 22:1-14.
Context preceding Matthew 22:1-14:
Mt 21:18-22 A new day dawns, He curses the fig tree on His way to the Temple.
Mt 21:23- 32 The Priests and Pharisee’s challenge His authority and He baits them with the left jab of the “Whence is John’s baptism” question. When they duck it, He sets them up with the Two Sons parable. The right hook punch here is the jaw dropping statement that the Publicans and Harlots (2nd son) will go into the Kingdom before the Priests and Pharisees. (1st son)
Mt 21:33-46 He rolls His hip and swings away again with another parable. Wham, the parable of the Murderous Husbandmen hits its mark! Matthew 21:45 “And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.” They perceived that He spake of them. I can almost read their thoughts myself… Psst, hey guys, do ya s’pose He means us here? Tell me God doesn’t have a sense of humor!
Point of Matthew 22:1-14:
A foundational basic principal of Bible Study is context and plain sense. When the context indicates a simple, plain sense, we don’t need to overwork the text. We simply need to take the Word for what It says. As much as I would like to align this story eschatologically with the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, it would be overworking the plain sense of the text.
Simply stated, the point of Matthew 22:1-14, is the Priests and Pharisees and their self-righteous followers were the original invitees of the wedding but they would be replaced with the Good and Bad bid to come from the highways. Even if they attempted to crash the party, they would be cast out.
Context following Matthew 22:1-14:
Matthew 22:15-22 The Pharisees continue their wicked attempts to entangle Him, tempt Him, and discredit Him. All to no avail. They leave in frustration.
Thus, the “many called, few chosen” in context here is addressing the fact that there were many Priests and Pharisees in Israel who thought they should be rewarded of God for their sanctimonious deeds; but would be replaced instead of rewarded. Further insult is added to injury in that the preferred replacements were drawn from the “low-life” ranks of the Publicans and Harlots. Thereby tweaking the noses of the Priests and Pharisees, and giving a wink and a nod to the Disciples as a reminder of His previous day’s lesson.
The dialogues of Matthew 20:1-16 are primarily between Jesus and His Disciples. The dialogues of Matthew 22:1-14 are primarily between Jesus and His Detractors. Parables that are not explained by Him in the immediate context are for the most part simply teaching stories and not foundation stones for doctrine.
The scripture seems to teach that all are called and few answer by faith alone, apart from works.
Because He Lives,
David
The first part of the parable (Wedding Feast, Matthew 22:1-10) seems to be a continuation of theme that started in the previous chapter (that the heirs of the kingdom have rejected it). This resulted in the kingdom being offered to others; and God’s servants where sent to preach the gospel (the invitation) to all people (v.9).
The second part (Matthew 22:11-14) seems to suggest that receiving an invitation to God’s kingdom does not guarantee entrance; one must be clothed properly (Isaiah 61:10).
Clothed properly? How was he to know the dress code for the party? I picture people coming in off the street after receiving the invitation and being given proper attire at the door by the king. MacArthur explains best when he states “this man’s lack of a proper garment indicates that he has purposely rejected the king’s own gracious provision”.
Although everyone who hears the gospel has been invited, only those clothed in Christ’s righteousness are actually presentable to God.
My original issue was with the assumption that “all will come AND be saved”.
The parable describes a man who was invited to the party; came to the party; and was bounced from the party. So, it seems apparent that all who come are not necessarily saved.
Hi NG:
If you are going to ask a question based on what I write, you need to ask your question based on exactly what I write.
Just one word change can skew the entire meaning of a statement. See the following.
You wrote, “In the above quote you (Lou) mentioned ‘that all can come and be saved’. I do not dispute that many will come; however, please refer me to where it states all will come AND be saved.”
All mankind “can come,” not all “will come.”
I trust your misquote was an unintentional error on your part.
Thanks,
LM
“I trust your misquote was an unintentional error on your part”.
Absolutely! Sorry for the lack of professionalism…it was unintentional.
NG:
You wrote, “Let me start by saying I appreciate your responses and will always welcome the opinion of an IFB. Many IFB’s that I know are not Calvinist or Arminian (they consider both to be unbiblical, extracurricular activity); however, the IFB theology is somewhere down the middle. ”
Thanks for the kind note.
I do land “somewhere down the middle.” I fancy myself a “Calminian,” an “In-Betweenie,” or some hybrid like that.
LM
NG:
Thanks for clearing that up. I appreciate it.
LM