ELECTION, CALVINISM, AND THE BIBLE, PART TWO

ELECTION, CALVINISM, AND THE BIBLE, PART TWO
by Jack Cottrell (Notes) on Thursday, January 20, 2011 at 4:02pm

In part one of this essay, I said that the Biblical language of election is used in several different senses or applied in several different ways. In that part, I explained the first four such ways: (1) the election of Jesus as the incarnate God the Redeemer; (2) the election of individuals to service, e.g., the patriarchs and the apostles; (3) the election of groups (especially Israel) to service; and (4) the election of groups as categories of individuals to whom God offers his gift of salvation, specifically the Jews and the Gentiles.

Now, fifth and finally, the language of election (predestination) is sometimes used in the Bible to refer to the fact that God has indeed chosen or predestined some individuals to salvation. Both Calvinists and non-Calvinists recognize this, of course. The difference between these groups is not that the former believes in predestination while the latter does not. No, the key difference lies in the fact that the former (Calvinism) believes that such election is unconditional, while the latter (non-Calvinists) believes that it is conditional. In TULIP, the Calvinist acronym for its doctrines of sin and salvation, the “U’ stands for “unconditional election.” The key word here is “unconditional.”

When Calvinists say that God chooses individuals unconditionally, they mean that in eternity past he surveyed in advance the entire future sinful human race and chose to save some while allowing the rest to remain unsaved and go to hell. They also mean that God does this without any regard whatsoever to any responses the chosen individuals have made to God’s announced conditions for salvation. Indeed, there ARE no such announced conditions for being thus chosen. From our perspective, the election is arbitrary; and we have no say in it at all.

The non-Calvinist approach is just the opposite of this. It has three main points. First, God does choose (predestinate) some individuals to be saved. The language of election or choosing is definitely applied to us as individuals (see Rom. 16:13). We are “the elect,” the ones chosen by God. See, e.g., Matt. 24:22, 24, 31; Mark 13:20, 22, 27; Rom. 8:33; Col. 3:12; 2 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 2:10; Titus 1:1; 1 Peter 1:1-2; Rev. 17:14.

The second point is that our election is conditional. I.e., God specifies in advance what conditions a sinner must meet in order to be chosen for salvation. In this New Covenant age these conditions, as clearly taught in the NT, are faith, repentance, confession, and baptism. (See my book, The Faith Once for All, chs. 19, 20, for an explanation of these as conditions for salvation.) These actions are decisions we must make in order to be chosen by God for salvation. Faith and repentance are not gifts which God bestows arbitrarily upon some sinners while passing others by. Ephesians 2:8 does NOT say that faith is the gift of God; Greek grammar does not allow this interpretation (see The Faith Once for All, 200). Nor should Acts 13:48 be translated as saying that “as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed” (NASB). The verb here is tasso, and it should be taken in the middle (reflexive) voice, not passive. I.e., “as many as turned themselves toward eternal life believed.”

The bottom line is that some choose to meet these conditions, and some do not. The Bible says emphatically that God wants all people to be saved (1 Tim. 2:2-4; 2 Peter 3:9), a fact that is clearly inconsistent with the whole idea of the unconditional election of only some to salvation. The Bible also clearly says that not everyone is willing to meet the conditions God specifies in order to be among the chosen. Jesus said these words over Jerusalem: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings.” But in spite of Jesus’ own earnest desire (“I wanted”), he sadly acknowledges—“and you were unwilling” (Matt. 23:37). Jesus wanted to choose them, but they did not want to be chosen.

This is how we must understand texts such as John 5:21, which says that “the Son also gives life to whom He wishes.” In general he wishes to give life to all sinners, but Scripture makes clear that he will actually give life or salvation only to those who do those things he has specified as conditions for receiving it. These conditions are part of the gospel, through which God draws all men unto himself (see John 6:44, 65; 12:32). The word of the gospel draws ALL who hear it, but some resist its drawing power. God calls and draws sinners unto himself, but this calling and drawing are universal and resistible, not selective and irresistible (contrary to Calvinist teaching).

The third point is that God from eternity past in his foreknowledge has already foreseen who will and who will not meet his gracious gospel conditions by obeying his gracious gospel commands. (On the concept of obeying the gospel, see Rom. 10:16; 2 Thess. 1:8.) Based on this foreknowledge, in eternity past those whom he foreknew would meet these conditions were predestined to be with him in glory for eternity future. See Rom. 8:29; 2 Thess. 1:9; 1 Peter 1:1-2. God did not predestine anyone to believe and repent. He foreknew that they would believe and repent along with obeying the other gospel commands, and as a result he predestined them to final salvation.

Those who want to see more detailed discussions of these points should consult my published works thereon: What the Bible Says About God the Ruler (originally College Press, 1984; now Wipf and Stock), especially chapters 4-5, 8-9; What the Bible Says About God the Redeemer (originally College Press, 1987; now Wipf and Stock), pp. 389-399, “Is Grace Conditional or Unconditional?”; The Faith Once for All (College Press, 2002), ch. 19, “Conditions of Salvation”; ch. 20, “Baptism”; and ch. 22, “Predestination”; my essay on “The Classical Arminian View of Election,” ch. 3 in Perspectives on Election: Five Views (Broadman & Holman, 2006); and my commentary on Romans (College Press, 2-vol. ed., 1996, 1998; 1-vol. condensed ed., 2005), especially the comments on Rom. 8:28 and on ch. 9.

Comments

ELECTION, CALVINISM, AND THE BIBLE, PART TWO — 10 Comments

  1. Pingback: ASK BOB: “What does the Bible teach about divine election?” | Bob Russell

  2. Great article. I’ve explored the Calvinism/Arminianism/Molinism/Amyraldianism spaces for so many years, and always wanted to find a position that takes the texts at face value, in context. Your nuanced types of election are very helpful, especially the Ephesians Jew/Gentile Context. I was wondering you thoughts on a few things though. Do you believe that there are greater and lesser levels of God’s drawing, prevenient grace? Do all people have the exact same level of the “wooing” force of the Spirit? Or is there a level that is stronger, and much more able to break a hardened will, a will that wasn’t formerly predisposed to the common means of grace? Was the direct theophany that Saul (of Tarsus) experienced a stronger drawing than others have received? If so, could it be said that there are some instances where God, according to His purpose, regardless of a person’s prior response to prevenient grace, chooses to bombard him/her with a level of grace that guarantees their submission. And if this is the case, could it also be said that God chooses to leave others (the non-Saul’s) in a state of their own now-enabled-free-will, to build upon or not build upon prior prevenient grace, though God could have bombarded them similarly if He so chose. In both cases, does it not come back to God’s choice of how to operate, either irresistibly at times (though infrequently), or through His normal mode offering grace upon positive receipt of grace (Mt 7:7, 11:25, 13:12), i.e. not-as-tampered-with-free-will. I believe Hubmaier, argued for this mediate position. Richard Baxter, an Almyridian, who was trying to bridge Calvinists and Arminians, also made this point. I just wondered how you would respond. Thanks Dr. Cottrell!

    • It is possible, I believe, that God’s drawing might be more intense for some, in response to the degree of rebellion they are throwing back at God. I would not agree, though, that God will choose to increase this to a level that guarantees submission. That violates the free-will nature of conversion. Having so said, I would not use Saul of Tarsus as a model for this idea. I see his case as unique, related to God’s unique purpose for him. To say that God might override free will, even though infrequently, is little different from Calvinism, if at all.

      • Thanks for the prompt response Dr. Cottrell. I guess we’d have to define what it means to “override free will”. If God fully disclosed His existence, His love, His Holiness, and the reality of His coming justice to someone, perhaps through a direct theophany and/or supernatural illumination of the person’s mind, resulting in a high degree of probability (perhaps even a 10 out of 10 chance) of conversion, does that mean God “overrode” their will, or simply that He removed all external barriers for them to freely choose a different way? If such an intensity is “overriding”, then what intensity of prevenient grace is not “overriding”? It seems subjective to draw a line somewhere, when any prevenient Grace could be perceived as God overriding a sinner’s hostile will. So in the end, I’m primarily questioning: (1) Is there an intensity of prevenient grace that 10 out of 10 times would result in a “free will” conversion?, (2) Who makes the final decision whether God enacts such an intensity, or any increase of intensity, God or man?

        • As soon as you entertain the concept of “prevenient grace” you have surrendered to the Calvinist doctrine of a person’s total inability to respond to the gospel. By definition, prevenient grace is needed to overcome that supposed inability.
          However, the Bible doesn’t support the notion of total inability. It therefore does not support the notion of prevenient grace as an “overriding” force.

          • Hi Donald. Are you suggesting that no operation of the Spirit occurs (conviction, opening of heart, illumination, etc) prior to conversion? What happened to Lydia in Acts 16? If Any operation of the Spirit occurs, then my two questions still need answered, I believe.

          • On the work of the Holy Spirit on the sinner before conversion, see my book, Power from on High: What the Bible Says About the Holy Spirit (College Press, 2007), chapter 6, “The Work of the Holy Spirit Before Conversion,” pp. 189-236.

          • That is one reason I do not subscribe to the Wesleyan concept of prevenient grace. But I do hold to a similar idea that I call original grace (see entries here discussing it). This view says that Romans 5 does mean that the whole human race was (tentatively) brought under a curse because of Adam’s sin. It doesn’t matter what content you think might be included in that curse, because Paul’s main point is that whatever it WOULD have been, it is removed for everyone by the cross of Jesus Christ. All babies are born pure, free, and innocent. As they grow up they do acquire a sinful nature because of living in this fallen world. The question here has to do with the extent to which God helps one overcome this acquired resistance to his law and his gospel. My point is that he will not apply an influence that guarantees a positive response. That would be equivalent to Calvinism.

        • Chad, sorry for the delay in replying; I just now saw your follow-up question to me.
          Of course I don’t deny the working of the Holy Spirit prior to conversion. But your questions seem to flow from a false premise: that the “intensity” of His work overrides the sinner’s will, or not.

          If He truly overrides any sinner’s will, we’re back to the two false concepts of selective treatment for some but not others, and irresistible grace.