Unconditional
Election
revised from original article
printed in PCC Bulletin vol. 2, no. 18 dated 29 Oct 2000
Let
us begin our examination of the second petal of the Calvinistic Tulip by
defining a few terms. These are terms that we can hardly escape from using in this study.
The first term we must define is ‘election.’
Election very simply refers to the act of God in choosing a people unto Himself. Or, to put it in
individualistic terms, it refers to God’s choosing of certain individuals to
enjoy His love for all eternity. The Canons
of Dort puts it this way:
Election
is the immutable purpose of God, by which, before the foundations of the world
were laid, He chose, out of the whole human race, fallen by their own fault
from their primeval integrity into sin and destruction, according to the most
free good pleasure of His own will, and of mere grace, a certain number of men,
neither better nor worthier than others, but lying in the same misery with the
rest, to salvation in Christ; whom He had, even from eternity, constituted
Mediator and Head of all the elect, and the foundation of Salvation…(Head 1,
Art. 7).
The
second term is ‘predestination.’ The most obvious meaning of this term speaks
of God predetermining our final destination, i.e. the final destination of our
souls. But remember that Biblical predestination comprehends not just our final
destination, but all that happens in time and space as we head towards the
final destination. To put it in another way, election marks out the elect,
while predestination marks out their steps (Ps 37:23, Prov 4:18, Heb 12:1).
A third term must also be mentioned, namely ‘reprobation.’
This is the antithesis of ‘election.’ If God chose some individuals from all mankind to experience salvation, it
follows that He must have ordained all the rest to wrath for their sin, and
therefore passes them by when He
extends grace to the elect for their salvation. The apostle Paul calls the
reprobates: “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction” (Rom. 9:22). The Westminster Confession of Faith
describes reprobation and the reprobates thus:
The
rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His
own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for the
glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them
to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice” (WCF
3.7).
With
these definitions, in mind, let us proceed with our study of the second petal,
namely, Unconditional Election. This second petal is incidentally, or should we
say, providentially, the first head in the Canons of Dort. There are good
reasons for this order, but we will not tarry to show it. It is really not
difficult to arrive at an explanation.
Let
us begin by looking at the contrary view, namely…
Conditional
Election
Considering first a definition of the
doctrine of election, viz.: That God, by an
eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of
the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in
Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of
the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall persevere in
this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on
the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under
wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of
the gospel in John 3:36: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life:
and he that believeth not the son shall not see life; but the wrath of God
abideth on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also.
If
you have been reading the first two articles in this series, you will probably
be quite on your guard as you read this statement. You will probably suspect
that there is something wrong with it. And so there is, for it is actually the
first article of the Remonstrance!
But can you detect what the problem is? I am afraid that without prior warning,
most modern Christian readers, so used to religious platitudes rather than
theological propositions, will simply accept the statement as biblical. Indeed,
I suspect that even with warning, many of us may have difficulty pin-pointing
where the error in the statement is exactly simply because we are so unused to
engaging our minds in
deep theological discussions.
What
then is the error?
Well, the error lies really in
a subtle attempt to redefine the idea of God’s sovereign predestination!
Imagine that you are in prison. You hear that a decree has been passed that
some prisoners will be released soon. But upon further enquiry, you hear two
versions of what will happen. The first says that the decree includes a list of
names and also specific instructions on the entire process of releasing
them including when and how the elected prisoners will be released. According
to this version, a benefactor had done all that is necessary to secure the
release of the chosen prisoners. But the second version says that there is no
predetermined list; however, it has been unchangeably decreed that some of the
prisoners, at least, will get to sit for an examination for which they will
also be given help, and those who pass will be released. According to this
second version, the benefactor had done good work to secure a way out for the
prisoners, and is even given the opportunity to help the prisoners to win their
release.
Now,
if you read the Arminian statement again, it will not be difficult to see that
it is really the second version that is presented.
In
other words, when the Arminians say that God “hath determined” to save those
who “through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe
on this his Son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of
faith, through this grace, even to the end;” what they mean is that God has
determined to save those who would exercise faith (assisted by prevenient
grace) to believe and persevere in the Lord Jesus Christ. This is what the
Arminian understands to be God’s “unchangeable purpose.” But what about the scriptural
idea that some are elected unto salvation (eg. Rom 9:11)? Well, the Arminian
who is confronted with this question will reply that the elect are simply those
whom God, who is omniscient, knew would repent and believe and so be saved.
The favourite proof-text of the Arminians in
support of this error is Romans 8:29-30:
For whom He did foreknow, He also did
predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the
firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also
called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them
he also glorified.
The
argument is that since the apostle Paul places foreknowledge before
predestination, it must be that foreknowledge (of the person’s faith) is the
basis of predestination. This is, however, far from what Paul is saying.
- Firstly, a straightforward interpretation of the verse
would suggest that foreknowledge here must be referring essentially to election
in Christ or being loved in Christ (Eph 1:4). Paul is imply saying that God
predestinates those He elects, and therefore loves and knows.
- Secondly, Paul goes on to speak about
what God would do for those He foreknew, namely: call, justify and glorify.
Notice how Paul uses the past tense for each of these acts, including
‘glorified’. This implies that the acts follow one after another in an unbroken
chain so that none who were foreknown would not be called, justified or
glorified. There is simply no room for any condition based on human response in
the chain. Even the call must refer to the effectual call which leads to
justification, for if it refers to the external call of preaching, then all who
hear the Gospel would be saved. In other
words, Paul was saying that salvation is the work of God from beginning to end.
It simply does not make sense for him to be saying that God predestinates those He
foreknew will come to faith and persevere. Even if the Arminian does not agree
with the doctrine of Total Depravity which we have already explained, this text
(Rom 8:29-30) does not allow for any contribution on the part of man to his own
salvation.
- Thirdly, if Paul means that predestination is according to God’s
foreknowledge, then predestination effectively means nothing, since the elect
will reach their final destination based on their own efforts (though assisted
by prevenient grace).
And
thus we affirm with the Synod of Dort that—
This election [unto salvation] was not founded upon
foreseen faith and the obedience of faith, holiness, or any other good quality
or disposition in man, as the prerequisite, cause, or condition on which it
depended; but men are chosen to faith and to the obedience of faith, holiness,
etc. Therefore election is the fountain of every saving good, from which
proceed faith, holiness, and the other gifts of salvation, and finally eternal
life itself, as its fruits and effects, according to the testimony of the
apostle: He hath chosen us (not
because we were, but) that we should be
holy, and without blemish before him in love (Eph. 1:4) (Head 1, Article
9).
Biblical Doctrine of Absolute Predestination
The
doctrine of unconditional election has its foundation not only in the eternal
love of God in Christ, but also in the fact that God has ordained all things
that comes to pass according to the counsel of His own will. Ironically, this
doctrine is suggested by the apostle Paul just one verse above the text used by
the Arminian to prove their doctrine of election by foreknowledge, for he says:
“And we know that ALL things work together for good to
them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose” (Rom
8:28). It would be impossible for “ALL things work together for good to them
that love God” if God is not in sovereign control over everything. If God is not in
control over just one thing, then the proposition that “all things work
together for good to them that love God” is no longer true.
The
Westminster Confession of Faith
(§3.1-2) states the doctrine most succinctly:
I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise
and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever
comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is
violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or
contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come
to pass upon all supposed conditions, yet hath He not decreed any thing because
He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such
conditions.
This doctrine of absolute
predestination is questioned by many because it seems to be counter-intuitive,
and appears to make men robots. But the fact that it is biblical can hardly be
doubted.
For
example, God said through Isaiah:
Remember
the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and
there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient
times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I
will do all my pleasure (Isa 46:9-10).
That the counsel of God
comprehends and determines all things and events of every kind,—whether great
and small, good or evil,—is also clear from Scripture.
- In the first place, even events that appear insignificant such as the
dropping of our hair from our head are brought about by God according to the
counsel of His will (Mt 10:30).
- In the second place, even things that appear to happen by chance has been
decreed and are brought about by the counsel of the Lord: “The lot is cast into
the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD” (Prov 16:33).
- In the third place disasters are ordained and brought to past by God: “I
form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil [i.e.
disaster]: I the LORD do all these things” (Isa 45:7; cf. Amos 3:6b).
- In the fourth place, even the acts of the wicked are ordained by God: “The
LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of
evil” (Prov 16:4). This, God does without violating the freedom and
responsibility of His creatures. So Judas is condemned though it was decreed
that Christ would be delivered by him (see Mt 26:24). So Peter in his sermon at
Pentecost condemned the Jews for their wickedness of slaying the Lord though He
was “delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23;
see also Acts 4:28).
It is clear that whatever happens in
this world is brought about by God according to the counsel of His will. The
counsel of God is His living will. It is sovereignly efficacious. No
contingencies can frustrate God’s will because all power belongs to Him (Ps
62:11). It would hardly be possible to conceive of God’s choice of the elect as
being contingent upon God’s foreknowledge of what man would do. Surely, God
knows all things because He sovereignly decreed them and brings them to past.
The god of the consistent Arminian, who knows what is going to come to pass not
because He ordained all things, but because He simply foresaw all things, is
simply not the God of the Bible, but an impotent god of man’s imagination.
Biblical Doctrine of Unconditional
Election
A
consideration of the absolute sovereignty of God ought to convince us that our
election is unconditional. But there is more. The Bible explicitly informs us
of that verity in order to mortify any remnant of pride that we may retain.
- First of all, the apostle Paul explicitly declares
that our election is made before the foundation of the world, according to the
good pleasure of the will of God and His eternal love for us on account of our being represented by Christ:
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in
Christ: According as he hath chosen us
in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without
blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children
by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the
praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the
beloved. …In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated
according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his
own will” (Eph 1:3-6, 11).
- Secondly, the Scripture is emphatic that election is not conditioned on our good works (including our response
to the Gospel). Paul was making this point when he tells us that God has
already declared his love for Jacob rather than Esau (who were twins) even
before they were born or capable of doing any good or evil:
“(For
the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the
purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that
calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger” (Rom
9:11-12)
The
same thought of unconditional election appears elsewhere, e.g.“… there is a
remnant according to the election of
grace. And if by grace, then is it no
more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. …. ” (Rom 11:5-6); and
“[God] hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace,
which was given us in Christ Jesus before
the world began” (2 Tim 1:9).
- Thirdly, the Scripture teaches in numerous places that faith and repentance are the fruit of election. E.g., “For we are
his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before
ordained that we should walk in them” (Eph 2:10; cf. Eph 1:4).
Thus the Lord Jesus Christ declares that all who come unto Him are
those whom the Father have given Him in the first place, i.e. elected before
the foundation of the world: “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me;
and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (Jn 6:37).
We believe because Christ first laid down His life for us: “But ye
believe not, because ye are not of my sheep” (Jn 10:26, cf. 10:14-15). This
same truth of faith being the fruit of election is highlighted by Luke: “And as
many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” (Acts 13:48b).
If faith and repentance are the fruit of the elect, our election certainly cannot be
conditioned on them.
- Fourthly, God claims to have the sovereign prerogative to
elect whom He will:
“As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. … So
then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that
sheweth mercy. … Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to
make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? ” (Rom 9:13, 16, 21)
The Biblical evidence from these four angles is clear, and the
conclusion inescapable: Our election is entirely gratuitous, and based on God’s
sovereign good pleasure. In other words, our election is unconditional, or more
specifically, not conditioned upon any contribution on our part.
Conclusion
The doctrine of unconditional
election and sovereign predestination is controversial only because man refuses
to summit to God’s declaration of His majestic sovereignty and man’s dismal
nothingness. Because of this many objections have been harnessed against the
doctrine.
Some
say: “The doctrine is ridiculous because it makes God drag the ungrateful sinner kicking and
screaming into the kingdom, while denying entrance to those who truly want to
enter into it.” It does not take much to answer this objection, for no one is
ever dragged the kingdom kicking and screaming. Anyone who enters the kingdom enters
as one who is born again and finds Christ to be lovely beyond all measures (Jn
3:3). On the other hand no one is denied entrance into the kingdom who wants to
enter into it, because no fallen man will ever want to enter but the elect whom
the Lord grants efficacious grace.
Some
others object that unconditional election makes it immoral for God to hold
those who reject the Gospel responsible for their unbelief. This again is
easily answered, for none who rejects the Gospel can honestly say: “God
prevented me from believing.”
Yet others say: “God is unfair to save only a
few.” The apostle Paul anticipates this question and answers it in Romans
9:14-15—
What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness
with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will
have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
The point is, we are saved by
God’s unmerited mercy and grace. If we really want fairness, then we are really
asking for strict justice, in which case all deserve to perish. Does a prisoner
in the death row for treason have the right to charge the king for unfairness
if he chooses according to his mercy to release another prisoner guilty of the
same crime? Such a person would surely deserve the greater
condemnation.
O glorious grace!
I was dead in trespasses and sin, without hope in this world, deserving nothing
but God’s wrath. I hated my Maker, and the only one who could save me. Yet God
in His boundless love sent His only begotten to suffer
and die for me, and then in the fullness of time, sent His Spirit to open my
eyes so I could see my bleeding Saviour nailed to the Cross for my crime. What
can my response be, but a humble “Why me, Lord?” W