“God’s Sovereign Choice”

Romans 9

January 6, 2008

Dr. Jerry Nelson

Appendices:

“What is Election” by Sam Storms p16

“Misunderstanding of the Doctrine of Election by Wayne Grudem p21

“How Can God be Just” by Sam Storms p25

“Double Predestination” by Sproul p28

“What is Hyper-Calvinism” by Storms p36

“Free Will” p38

“God’s Choice and Our Choice” by Piper p41

“Freedom of the Will” by Sproul p42

“The Myth of Free Will” by Chantry p45

See also the following books:

Willing to Believe by R. C. Sproul:

Description: What is the role of the will in believing the good news of the gospel? Why is there so much controversy over free will throughout church history? R. C. Sproul finds that Christians have often been influenced by pagan views of the human will that deny the effects of Adam's fall.

In Willing to Believe, Sproul traces the free-will controversy from its formal beginning in the fifth century, with the writings of Augustine and Pelagius, to the present. Readers will gain understanding into the nuances separating the views of Protestants and Catholics, Calvinists and Arminians, and Reformed and Dispensationalists. This book, like Sproul's Faith Alone, is a major work on an essential evangelical tenet.

The Justification of God by John Piper.

Description: “Written in an irenic spirit with a keen awareness and interaction with all significant scholarly – it is the best on Romans 9.” G.K. Beale of Gordon-Conwell Seminary

Read Romans 9:1-24

God promises in Romans 8 that those who are in Christ Jesus can never be separated from the love of God.

In fact, in Romans 8 the Apostle Paul articulates some of the grandest truths of the Scriptures:

Verse 28 “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

Verses 29-30 “For those God foreknew he also predestined… And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.”

So certain is Paul that those God justifies will be glorified, will spend eternity with God, that he puts it in the past tense – as if already completed.

What God starts, God finishes.

And then in verses 38-39, the Apostle Paul writes, “For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. “

In many ways, Paul has declared - those whom God chooses he keeps - he will never fail them.

Now in chapters 9-11 Paul is going to raise an apparent problem with that confidence in God’s keeping power – “The problem is the Jews?”

Isn’t the O.T. filled with promises to the Jews?

But how many Jews do you see in the church?

In Romans 9:2-5 Paul acknowledges his own distress over the condition of his fellow-Jews.

He feels this so deeply that he says he wishes he could be cursed and cut off rather than his brothers, the Jews.

Most Jews weren’t responding to the gospel.

The question this raises is this: “If God’s word, God’s promises, to the Jews weren’t kept, if most of the Jews aren’t part of God’s family, how much confidence can I place in God’s choice and keeping of me.

Didn’t God start something with the Jews that he didn’t finish?

Didn’t the Jews expect unfailing love?

If it didn’t work out for them - how can I know it will work out for me?

Someone might quickly point out that the reason it didn’t work out for the Jews is that they didn’t believe and follow Jesus.

Is that it?

Is that what it all boils down to?

It all depends on the individual?

If final salvation depended on the Jews and likewise it depends on us, then why all that talk in chapter 8 about God’s unfailing love?

If in fact we determine the outcome, then the last part of Romans 8 makes little sense -

But Paul’s whole point was not our ability to remain faithful to God but God’s ability to keep us faithful.

So that raises the question - if it all depends on God, didn’t God fail with the Jews? And if he did, how can I know he will not fail with me?

There are three questions in this text that Paul answers to ensure us that we are fully secured in God’s love and keeping.

The three questions form the structure of this part of the letter.

· The first, which we have already seen, in verse 6 is, “Has God’s word failed?”

· The second, which follows logically from the first, is in verse 14 “Is God (therefore) unjust?”

· And the third, which follows logically from the second, is in verse 19 “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?”

The answer to each question then forces the next question.

As I’ve already indicated, the first of those questions you will find implied in verse 6

The statement of verse 6 is, “It is not as though God’s word had failed.”

Again, what question is implied?

“Has God’s word, God’s promise, to the Jews, failed?”

Paul knew that few Jews were responding to the gospel.

And according to verses 4 and 5 that was in spite of the fact that they had so many advantages:

God adopted them, God was with them in the tabernacle and Temple, they had the covenants (the promises were given to them), they received God’s word (the law), they had it all.

But many of them, maybe most of them, didn’t end up trusting in God’s Messiah - Jesus.

What happened, “Did God’s promise, God’s word, fail?”

Paul says, “No, God’s promise didn’t fail!”

Paul then goes on to prove that.

He begins by noting that most Jews, and even we, have a wrong understanding of who actually has been chosen by God.

Many people have the impression that if someone is a Jew by racial lineage, by biological fact, then they are automatically a Jew in the sense of being one of God’s chosen, God’s elect, God’s promised people.

But what does Paul say?

Romans 9:6b-7 “For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. (Israel, you will remember was the name of the father of the 12 tribes of Israel – the grandson of Abraham) Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children.”

In other words, just because they are Abraham’s descendants doesn’t mean they are Abraham’s spiritual children.

Paul had already declared this fact.

Look back to Romans 2:28 “A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly…No a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly…by the Spirit…”

Corrie Ten Boom’s father said it this way, “Just because a mouse is in the cookie jar doesn’t mean he’s a cookie.”

So who are the true children of Israel?

Who are the true children of God?

Now as we answer that, keep in mind the fundamental question: Did God fail?

If God chose all Jews and few of them respond - then God failed.

But God did not choose all the descendants of Abraham or Isaac.

INSTEAD, as we will see, God chose specific people, one by one, to be his own - to be the recipients of his promises.

In the last part of verse 7 and 8, Paul quotes from the OT: It is not merely because you are a descendant of Abraham that you are one of his children - “On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.”

In other words, it is not merely the natural children of Abraham who are God’s children, but God’s children are chosen on a different basis.

Verse 8 “It is the children of promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.”

Abraham fathered two sons - Ishmael first and then Isaac.

They were both natural descendants of Abraham.

But who was chosen by God?

Isaac, not the firstborn Ishmael.

Now this is very important: when was Isaac chosen?

Verse 9 “For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”

Before Isaac was born and even before Sarah was pregnant, God promised she would have a son who would be the chosen one.

We respond, “That may be true, but surely God’s choice of Isaac was because of what God foresaw Isaac would do - He knew Isaac would trust God and be faithful to God so that is why God chose him.

Reasoning that way, we conclude that God keeps those who keep themselves in God’s love.

Anticipating that reasoning Paul uses another illustration.

Skipping to the next generation, Paul reminds his readers of Isaac’s and Rebekah’s children, Jacob and Esau.

They were conceived at the same time; twins.

So Paul says in verses 10-12:

“Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”

God’s choice of Jacob was not based parentage or birth order.

More importantly notice what he says in verse 11, God chose Jacob over Esau “Before they had done anything good or bad”

He intentionally points out that any choice of one over the other was not based on what they would ever do.

What does he say at the beginning of verse 12 “not by works but by him who calls…”

The choice was not based on works; it was not based on what God foresaw Jacob would do.

God’s choice of someone is not based on God seeing into the future and choosing the one who would eventually respond correctly.

I can hear someone objecting at this point and saying, “You are right, we all agree that God’s choice is not based on works, but God foresaw who would have faith and he chose him.

In other words, God chooses those who eventually believe.”

But if verse 11 doesn’t sufficiently contradict that kind of thinking look at verse 16:

Romans 9:16 “It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.

That our effort, our works, are not the basis of God’s choice of who to save has already been stated and granted.

But notice what else God’s choice doesn’t depend on: “It does not depend on man’s desire.”

“Desire” is a word that can be translated as a man’s want, a man’s wish, a man’s decision.

Could it be said anymore strongly?

God’s initial choice of us does not depend on God foreseeing our works or even God foreseeing our faith, our desire.

I think these verses make it Biblically untenable for us to still claim that God chooses based on who, he foresees, will believe.

The Bible says it does not depend on man’s desire or his effort.

Then what is the basis of God’s choice according to v11?

How God chooses a person is very different from the way we would do it.

God chooses them strictly of his own free will, not caused by anything that he sees in the ones he chooses.

God’s children are not determined by race, or works.

God’s children are not determined even by foreseen faith.

Then on what basis does God choose?

Verse 11: “In order that God’s purpose in election might stand.”

The word “purpose” is largely equivalent to the words “plan” or “design”.

“In order that God’s ‘design or plan’ in election might stand.”

Ephesians 1:11-12 says basically the same thing: “In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.”

The bases of God’s choices are not found in the chosen but in God - his plan and his glory.

Again looking at verse 11, God’s choices are made in accordance with “God’s purpose in election…”

The word “election” is used much in the Bible in reference to God’s choice and means God’s choice that is uncaused by anything outside of himself.

But don’t think God’s choices are arbitrary; no, they are according to his purpose, his plan, for his glory.

So Paul concludes with God’s statement to Rebekah”

Romans 9:12b-13 “The older will serve the younger.”

God’s decision, uninfluenced by anything in Jacob or Esau, was to choose Jacob and not Esau.

Paul supports this by quoting from the OT: “Just as it is written”, God said, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

We struggle with that word “hate” on the lips of God.

To understand those words we must understand that God is not here describing his emotions, he is describing his actions.

He loved Jacob, or to say it differently, he chose Jacob but he hated Esau, or to say it differently, he did not choose, Esau.

Jesus used the word “hate” in somewhat the same way when he said, “If you don’t hate your mother and father, wife and children, and yes, even your own life you cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)

Jesus was not speaking of an emotion but of a decision about who you would unquestionably choose to put first.

So here, God chose Jacob and did not choose Esau.

Remember the main point Paul was making?

Did God’s word fail in regard to the Jews?

Absolutely not! Those whom God chose, God kept!

He did not promise to choose everyone and save everyone and then fail to do so.

And it particularly important to note that the promise was not based on anything in the people who were chosen for that would jeopardize the fulfillment -

If the choice were based on us then we would be in control of our destiny and any failure on our part would determine God’s failure.

But God won't leave his promises to sinful fallible people.

Praise God that those whom he chooses are kept - God won’t fail.

When we hear that God chose us, not for anything he foresaw in us but solely of his own sovereign free choice, then we can take great encouragement that God won’t fail us because his choice and his keeping are dependent only on him and not on us.

But instead of being encouraged by that truth, some take exception to it.

Look at verse 14 and here is the second question:

Romans 9:14 “What then shall we say? Is God unjust?”

Is God unrighteous, evil?

It is as if Paul reads our minds?

Some still ask that question when they are told that God chooses to give saving faith and grace to one person but not to another.

And how does Paul answer the question?

“Not at all! No. God is NOT unjust!

Now here Paul has a chance to correct a misunderstanding if he wants to.

Did Paul say that God chooses some and doesn’t choose others not based on their works or even faith but solely based on something in God?

Look at the charge people are making: “Is God unjust?”

Surely they wouldn’t make that charge if Paul had said that God chooses based on what he sees we will do.

So here is Paul’s chance to clear up his message if we have misunderstood him.

Surely, we think, it must be something God foresees in those who will be saved or else, we think, God is being arbitrary and that would be unjust or unfair.

But what does Paul do?

Does he write, “No, no, you misunderstood me, God knew who would have faith, he knew who would respond, he knew who would be faithful and those are the ones he chose”?

Here’s Paul’s chance, so what does he do? Does he correct it? No!

He states the truth of God’s sovereign, free, unfettered choice of who would belong to him even more strongly than before.

Paul will defend God’s justice, differently that we would have expected, with two O.T. references:

The first is in verses 15,16 “For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’ It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.”

God will have mercy and compassion on whomever he chooses.

The first answer to our charge that God is unjust is that our charge itself is faulty - we aren’t even focusing on the correct issue.

The issue is not justice, the issue is mercy.

Paul has already very powerfully made the case, earlier in this letter, that every person deserves eternal punishment and God is in no way obligated to intervene.

If everyone went to hell - justice would be served.

When Paul writes about God choosing some to have life - that is not an issue of justice, as if God were being unfair, it is a matter of mercy.

For example, two men deserve to spend the rest of their lives in prison because of their crimes but the governor commutes the sentence of one but not the other.

Is that unjust?

To be sure it is unequal, but it is not unjust.

We sometimes think unequal means unjust.

If you give one child a larger piece of candy than another, be ready for the charge of unfairness.

But it is not necessarily unfair, in fact it could be the fairest thing based on something the child doesn’t even know about; but it is unequal.

But again, unequal doesn’t necessarily mean unjust.

The governor was under no obligation to commute the sentence of either man, both deserved to spend the rest of their lives in prison.

The Governor’s act wasn’t unjust; it was merciful.

No one can claim they deserve God’s mercy.

If he chooses to have mercy on some who deserve wrath - that is not about justice, it is about mercy.

We want to judge God by our standards.

We think everyone deserves to be treated exactly the same way.

But God operates by his standard, which is the only perfectly just standard.

Commentator Doug Moo correctly reminds us: “Determining right or wrong, what is just or unjust, demands a standard for measurement. That standard is ultimately nothing less than God’s own character. God, therefore, acts justly when he acts in accordance with his own person and plan.” (Moo, TNIVAC, 310)

As we have already seen, in verse 11, God’s choices are made “In order that God’s purpose in election might stand.”

I confess I don’t fully understand it but God’s choices are in perfect accordance with his character which is righteous, not unrighteous, just , not unjust.

Now the second way Paul responds to the charge that God is unjust, in choosing some and not others, is not very satisfying to me.

Verse 17 “For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”

When we come this illustration of Pharaoh, Israel’s Egyptian nemesis, I wish Paul would say that Pharaoh got exactly what he deserved and therefore justice was carried out.

Paul could have so easily written that, and it would have been entirely accurate.

Pharaoh like every other human being deserves God’s wrath and if God doesn’t choose to intervene God can’t be rightly charged with injustice.

But Paul doesn’t take that easy way out - instead he keeps beating the drum of God’s sovereign freedom to choose.

Look at verse 18: “Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.”

Even though Paul continues to run the risk of people charging God with unfairness - Paul wants to drive home his point:

God’s choice of some Jews and God’s choice of you, out of all the people of the world, was a matter of awesome mercy - it was not based on your worthiness or your actions present or future - it was all of grace.

And because his choice of you didn’t depend on you - you can have great confidence that his keeping you won’t depend on you either.

I think Paul knows that his answer to the charge of God being unjust isn’t as satisfactory as some would like because Paul, himself, raises yet another objection.

This is the third question: Verse 19 “One of you will say to me, “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?”

This question only makes sense however if verses 15-18 not only teach that God shows mercy sovereignly but also that God hardens people sovereignly.

If God was only responsible for showing mercy and not responsible for hardening people I don’t think this question would be asked.

And so Paul responds first in verse 20, "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?”

We don’t like the response but Paul, I think, says:

Be careful that you don't ask questions of God that are improper.

The issue is not that we can't ask honest questions but that once we have God’s answer we don't blame God if we don't like the answer.

You see, the very question, “Then why does God still blame us?” is stated in such a way as to find fault with God.

Shall the person made say to his maker, "Why did you make me this way?"

The question was, ‘if God sovereignly does the choosing, how then can he find fault with anyone’ is.

And Paul’s first response was, “Be careful, you have no right to be the judge of God”.

Paul’s second response is given in Romans 9:21-24 “Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory, even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?”

I confess again, these verses push me in a direction I don’t like going.

The theological term for it is double predestination.

I can’t get around the fact that here the Bible declares that God chose some to receive mercy and he chose others to pass over.

The Bible will not let me teach that God is the author of evil and it would seem evil to me to suggest that God actually created specific people to spend eternity in hell.

But neither can I deny that this passage that leaves God sovereignly in control of all that happens.

The conclusion is that I simply remain ignorant on how God does this without being unjust.

So how God accomplishes that, we are not told; but why he does it is stated clearly in verses 22-23:

God desires to “show his wrath and make his power known.”

And to “make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy.”

It is when we know "I once was lost," that we can sing "but now am found."

It is when I know the "wretch" I am, that it becomes "Amazing Grace".

The splendor of his undeserved mercy shines brightest against the backdrop of his deserved wrath.

Please hear me - these answers by Paul don't answer every possible question about how and why God does what he does.

There is a mystery to it still.

But we can know that what God does he does justly and we can find no fault with God for the destruction of those who resist him – and resist him they do.

At verse 24b Paul comes back to the issue of the Jews.

Remember how he started the chapter?

The Jews didn't respond to the Gospel of Jesus.

In spite of all their advantages they largely rejected the Messiah.

Why? Remember the first Question? Did God's word fail?

Paul's readers would have known the O.T. and all the promises to Israel about being God's children forever -

promises that sounded familiar from chapter 8 regarding the Romans and us.

Could God be believed or had God failed in the past, leaving the door open for his failure in the future?

“No” Paul writes, “God won’t fail” and he concludes his discussion by citing four O.T. passages, two from Hosea and two from Isaiah.

Through Hosea, God says, Because of mercy, “I will call them my people who are not my people.”

And through Isaiah, God says, Because of mercy, God will not destroy all the Jews but will sovereignly save some.

And all four quotations reiterate the dominant theme of the argument:

God has acted in mercy.

God acted in pure mercy when he chose Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

God acted in pure mercy when he chose people down through the ages.

And God acted in pure mercy when he chose you and me.

And if God chose us, based, not one whit, on what he saw in us or foresaw in us, then his choice was free and is not controlled by my actions or even reactions.

Just as every Jew he chose and promised to keep SO

He has chosen me and he has promised to keep me.

Just as he never failed one Jew he chose so he will never fail you or me.

In the sermon notes on-line you will find several excellent articles explaining more fully these concepts introduced in Romans 9 such as “Election,” “Double Predestination,” and “Free Will.” See the list of articles at the top of these sermon notes.

What is Election?

By Sam Storms

http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/what-is-election

Divine election is certainly one of the more profound and controversial doctrines in Holy Scripture. To some it is an idea conceived in hell, a tool of Satan wielded by him to thwart the evangelistic zeal of the church and thus responsible for populating hell with men and women who otherwise would have been reached with the gospel message. To others divine election is the heart and soul of Scripture, the most comforting and reassuring of biblical truths apart from which grace loses its power and God his glory. To the former, then, election is a primary reason why people are in hell. To the latter, it is the only reason why people are in heaven!

This radical difference of opinion concerning the doctrine of election and predestination is illustrated beautifully (and humorously) in a poem which appeared in The Continental Journal, March 11, 1779. It was entitled “On Predestination.”

“If all things succeed as already agreed,

            And immutable impulses rule us;

To preach and to pray, is but time thrown away,

            And our teachers do nothing but fool us.

If we’re driven by fate, either this way or that,

            As the carman whips up his horses,

Then no man can stray --- all go the right way,

            As the stars that are fix’d in their courses.

But if by free will, we can go or stand still,

            As best suits the present occasion;

Then fill up the glass, and confirm him an ass

            That depends upon Predestination.”

Two weeks later an answer appeared in the same newspaper.

“If an all perfect mind rules over mankind,

            With infinite wisdom and power;

Sure he may decree, and yet the will be free,

            The deeds and events of each hour.

If scripture affirms in the plainest of terms,

            The doctrine of Predestination;

We ought to believe it, and humbly receive it,

            As a truth of divine revelation.

If all things advance with the force of mere chance,

            Or by human free will are directed;

To preach and to pray, will be time thrown away,

            Our teachers may be well rejected.

If men are deprav’d, and to vice so enslav’d,

            That the heart chuses nothing but evil;

Then who goes on still by his own corrupt will,

            Is driving post haste to the devil.

Then let human pride and vain cavil subside,

            It is plain to a full demonstration,

That he’s a wild ass, who over his glass,

            Dares ridicule Predestination.”

[Both of these poems are quoted by Charles W. Akers, “Calvinism and the American Revolution,” in The Heritage of John Calvin: Lectures, ed. John H. Bratt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), pp. 170-171.]

Much of the disagreement and most of the animosity concerning this doctrine proceeds from a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means. Our analysis of divine election must, therefore, begin with an attempt to clarify precisely what is at stake and, at the same time, correct misrepresentations of it.

When I am asked, and I am asked often, “Sam, are you a Calvinist?”, I immediately respond with a request of my own, “Tell me what you mean by ‘Calvinist’. Then I’ll tell you if I’m one!” Often the person then defines “Calvinism” as a rigid, fatalistic system of theology, devoid of life and joy, in which God is portrayed as a celestial bully who takes sadistic glee in sending people to hell whether they deserve it or not. “If that is what you mean by ‘Calvinist’, then I most assuredly am not one!”

The problem is that Arminians often run into an equally distressing caricature of their own position. Sadly, many Calvinists think of Arminianism as an intellectually flabby, overly sentimental view of the Christian faith that borders on liberalism, if not universalism. The “God” of Arminianism, I once heard someone sarcastically say, is actually “man” spoke of in a very loud voice. I hope these studies will go a long way in dispelling such unkind and terribly misleading caricatures of what people really believe.

Whereas much may and will be said of election in these studies, the point of dispute is surprisingly simple. No one who believes in the Bible disputes the fact that election is taught there. It isn’t the reality of election, or even its source, author, time, or goal that has elicited so much venom among professing Christians. It is rather the basis of divine election, that is to say, why and on what grounds some are elected to salvation and life and others are not. There are essentially only three options, the first of which is more pagan than Christian.

First, it has been argued that God elects those who are good. In this view, election is a debt God is obliged to pay, not a gift he graciously bestows. It is on the basis of inherent or self-generated righteousness that God elects men and women. This is the doctrine of Pelagianism, named after the British monk Pelagius who popularized the view in the fifth century. One would be hard-pressed to find an advocate of this perspective within the professing Christian church.

Second, others contend that God elects some who are bad who, notwithstanding their being bad, choose to exercise faith in Jesus Christ. It is on the basis of this foreseen faith that God elects them. This is the doctrine of Arminianism, named after the Dutch theologian James Arminius (1560-1609). It has also been called Wesleyanism because of the influence of John Wesley.

Third, there is the view that God elects some who are bad who, because of their being bad, are not of themselves able to exercise faith in Christ. It is on the basis of his own sovereign good pleasure that God elects them. This is the doctrine of Calvinism, named after the French theologian John Calvin (1509-1564).

We are concerned with the latter two options. The question reduces to this: Does God elect people because they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, or does God elect people in order that they shall believe in Christ? Jack W. Cottrell, an Arminian, is to be complimented for acknowledging that this is in fact the issue separating Calvinists and Arminians. “The Calvinistic mind,” says Cottrell, “sees election as bringing about the transition from unbelief to belief, hence making unbelievers the object of election. The Arminian says that this transition is made by a free act of will; election then is an act of God directed toward the believer after the transition has been made” (Jack W. Cottrell, “Conditional Election,” in Grace Unlimited, ed. Clark H. Pinnock [Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1975], p. 72). Perhaps the most cogent recent exposition of Arminianism, particularly in its view of God, providence, and predestination, is Cottrell’s work, What the Bible Says About God the Ruler (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1984). The article cited, “Conditional Election,” has been revised and included in this more recent work in the chapter “Predestination,” pp. 331-52.

Thus the Calvinist says that God elects unbelievers and predestines them to become believers. The Arminian, on the other hand, says that God elects believers and predestines them to become his children.

The issue is not whether there is a cause or basis of God’s choice of people, but whether that cause is some condition (faith) fulfilled by an individual acting from free will or the sovereign good pleasure of God. Does God elect a person because that person wants God, or does God elect a person because God wants that person in spite of the fact that the person does not want God? We are not disputing whether faith and repentance are necessary for salvation. Indeed, one may even speak of faith and repentance as the condition for salvation, in the sense that one must believe and repent in order to be saved. The question, rather, is this: Are faith and repentance produced by free will and thus the cause of election, or are they produced by the Holy Spirit and thus the effect of election?

According to Arminianism, election is that act of God whereby he foreordains to eternal life those whom he foresees will respond in faith to the gospel. According to Calvinism, election is that act of God whereby he foreordains to eternal life those who, because of sin, cannot respond in faith to the gospel. Which of these two views is the one the Bible teaches? Or is there a third, mediating option? That is the question which I have set myself to answer in these studies.

Misunderstandings of the Doctrine of Election
(excerpt from Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem, pp. 674-79, Inter-Varsity Press, Zondervan Publishing House)

---

1. Election Is Not Fatalistic or Mechanistic.

Sometimes those who object to the doctrine of election say that it is "fatalism" or that it presents a "mechanistic system" for the universe. Two somewhat different objections are involved here. By "fatalism" is meant a system in which human choices and human decisions really do not make any difference. In fatalism, no matter what we do, things are going to turn out as they have been previously ordained. Therefore, it is futile to attempt to influence the outcome of events or the outcome of our lives by putting forth any effort or making any significant choices, because these will not make any difference any way. In a true fatalistic system, of course, our humanity is destroyed for our choices really mean nothing, and the motivation for moral accountability is removed.

In a mechanistic system the picture is one of an impersonal universe in which all things that happen have been inflexibly determined by an impersonal force long ago, and the universe functions in a mechanical way so that human beings are more like machines or robots than genuine persons. Here also genuine human personality would be reduced to the level of a machine that simply functions in accordance with predetermined plans and in response to predetermined causes and influences.

By contrast to the mechanistic picture, the New Testament presents the entire outworking of our salvation as something brought about by a personal God in relationship with personal creatures. God "destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ" (Eph. 1:5). God's act of election was neither impersonal nor mechanistic, but was permeated with personal love for those whom he chose. Moreover, the personal care of God for his creatures, even those who rebel against him, is seen clearly in God's plea through Ezekiel, "As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his evil way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways; for why will you die, O house of Israel?" (Ezek. 33:11).

When talking about our response to the gospel offer, Scripture continually views us not as mechanistic creatures or robots, but as genuine persons, personal creatures who make willing choices to accept or reject the gospel. Jesus invites everyone, Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matt. 11:28). And we read the invitation at the end of Revelation: "The Spirit and the Bride say, 'Come.' And let him who hears say, 'Come.' And let him who is thirsty come, let him who desires take the water of life without price" (Rev. 22:17). This invitation and many others like it are addressed to genuine persons who are capable of hearing the invitation and responding to it by a decision of their wills. Regarding those who will not accept him, Jesus clearly emphasizes their hardness of heart and their stubborn refusal to come to him: "Yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life" (John 5:40). And Jesus cries out in sorrow to the city that had rejected him, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!" (Matt. 23:37).

In contrast to the charge of fatalism, we also see a much different picture in the New Testament. Not only do we make willing choices as real persons, but these choices are also real choices because they do affect the course of events in the world. They affect our own lives and they affect the lives and destinies of others. So, "He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God" (John 3:18). Our personal decisions to believe or not believe in Christ have eternal consequences in our lives, and Scripture is quite willing to talk about our decision to believe or not believe as the factor that decides our eternal destiny.

The implication of this is that we certainly must preach the gospel, and people's eternal destiny hinges on whether we proclaim the gospel or not. Therefore when the Lord one night told Paul, "Do not be afraid, but speak and do not be silent; for I am with you, and no man shall attack you to harm you; for I have many people in this city" (Acts 18:9-10), Paul did not simply conclude that the "many people" who belong to God would be saved whether he stayed there preaching the gospel or not. Rather, "he stayed a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them" (Acts 18:11) - this was longer than Paul stayed in any other city except Ephesus during his three missionary journeys. When Paul was told that God had many elect people in Corinth, he stayed a long time and preached, in order that those elect people might be saved! Paul is quite clear about the fact that unless people preach the gospel others will not be saved:

"But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher?" ... "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ." (Rom. 10:14, 17)

Did Paul know before he went to a city who was elected by God for salvation and who was not? No, he did not. That is something that God does not show to us ahead of time. But once people comes to faith in Christ then we can be confident that God had earlier chosen them for salvation. This is exactly Paul's conclusion regarding the Thessalonians; he says that he knows that God chose them because when he preached to them, the gospel came in power and with full conviction: "For we know, brethren beloved by God, that he has chosen you; for our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction" (1 Thess. 1:4-5). Far from saying that whatever he did made no difference, and that God's elect would be saved whether he preached or not, Paul endured a life of incredible hardship in order to bring the gospel to those whom God had chosen. At the end of a life filled with suffering he said, "Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain salvation in Christ Jesus with its eternal glory" (1 Tim. 2:10).


2. Election Is Not Based on God's Foreknowledge of Our Faith.

Quite commonly people will agree that God predestines some to be saved, but they will say that he does this by looking into the future and seeing who will believe in Christ and who will not. If he sees that a person is going to come to saving faith, then he will predestine that person to be saved. In this way, it is thought, the ultimate reason why some are saved and some are not lies within the people themselves, not within God. All that God does in his predestining work is to give confirmation to the decision he knows people will make on their own. The verse commonly used to support this view is Romans 8:29: "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son."

a. Foreknowledge of Persons, Not Facts:

But this verse can hardly be used to demonstrate that God based his predestination on foreknowledge of the fact that a person would believe. The passage speaks rather of the fact that God knew persons ("those whom he foreknew"), not that he knew some fact about them, such as the fact that they would believe. It is a personal, relational knowledge that is spoken of here: God, looking into the future, thought of certain people in saving relationship to him, and in that sense he "knew them" long ago. This is the sense in which Paul can talk about God's "knowing" someone, for example, in 1 Corinthians 8:3: "But if one loves God, one is known by him." Similarly, he says, "but now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God ..." (Gal. 4:9). When people know God in Scripture, or when God knows them, it is personal knowledge that involves a saving relationship. therefore in Romans 8:29, "those whom he foreknew" is best understood to mean, "those whom he long ago thought of in a saving relationship to himself." The text actually says nothing about God foreknowing or foreseeing that certain people would believe, nor is that idea mentioned in any other text of Scripture.

Sometimes people say that God elected groups of people, but not individuals to salvation. In some Arminian views, God just elected the church as a group, while the Swiss theologian Karl Barth (1886-1968) said that God elected Christ, and all people in Christ. But Romans 8:29 talks about certain people whom God foreknew ("those whom he foreknew"), not just undefined or unfilled groups. And in Ephesians Paul talks about certain people whom God chose, including himself: "He chose us in him before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4). To talk about God choosing a group with no people in it is not biblical election at all. But to talk about God choosing a group of people means that he chose specific individuals who constituted that group.

b. Scripture Never Speaks of Our Faith As the Reason God Chose Us:

In addition, when we look beyond these specific passages that speak of foreknowledge and look at verses that talk about the reason God chose us, we find that Scripture never speaks of our faith or the fact that we would come to believe in Christ as the reason God chose us. In fact, Paul seems explicitly to exclude the consideration of what people would do in life from his understanding of God's choice of Jacob rather than Esau: he says, "Though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call, she was told, 'The elder will serve the younger.' As it is written, 'Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated'" (Rom. 9:11-13). Nothing that Jacob or Esau would do in life influenced God's decision; it was simply in order that his purpose of election might continue.

When discussing the Jewish people who have come to faith in Christ, Paul says, "So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works" (Rom. 11:5-6). Here again Paul emphasizes God's grace and the complete absence of human merit in the process of election. Someone might object that faith is not viewed as a "work" in Scripture and therefore faith should be excluded from the quotation above ("It is no longer on the basis of works"). Based on this objection, Paul could actually mean, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, but rather on the basis of whether someone will believe." However, this is unlikely in this context: Paul is not contrasting human faith and human works; he is contrasting God's sovereign choosing of people with any human activity, and he points to God's sovereign will as the ultimate basis for God's choice of the Jews who have come to Christ.

Similarly, when Paul talks about election in Ephesians, there is no mention of any foreknowledge of the fact that we would believe, or any idea that there was anything worthy of meritorious in us (such as a tendency to believe) that was the basis for God's choosing us. Rather, Paul says, "He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved" (Eph. 1:5-6). Now if God's grace is to be praised for election, and not human ability to believe or decision to believe, then once again it is consistent for Paul to mention nothing of human faith but only to mention God's predestining activity, his purpose and will, and his freely given grace.

Again in 2 Timothy, Paul says that God "saved us and called us with a holy calling, not in virtue of our works but in virtue of his own purpose and the grace which he gave us in Christ Jesus ages ago" (2 Tim. 1:9). Once again God's sovereign purpose is seen as the ultimate reason for our salvation, and Paul connects this with the fact that God gave us grace in Christ Jesus ages ago - another way of speaking of the truth that God freely gave favor to us when he chose us without reference to any foreseen merit or worthiness on our part.

c. Election Based on Something Good in Us (Our Faith) Would Be the Beginning of Salvation by Merit:

Yet another kind of objection can be brought against the idea that God chose us because he foreknew that we would come to faith. If the ultimate determining factor in whether we will be saved or not is our own decision to accept Christ, then we shall be more inclined to think that we deserve some credit for the fact that we were saved: in distinction from other people who continue to reject Christ, we were wise enough in our judgment or capacities to decide to believe in Christ. But once we begin to think this way then we seriously diminish the glory that is to be given to God for our salvation. We become uncomfortable speaking like Paul who says that God "destined us ... according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace" (Eph. 1:5-6), and we begin to think that God "destined us ... according to the fact that he knew that we would have enough tendencies toward goodness and faith within us that we would believe." When we think like this we begin to sound very much unlike the New Testament when it talks about election or predestination. By contrast, if election is solely based on God's own good pleasure and his sovereign decision to love us in spite of our lack of goodness or merit, then certainly we have a profound sense of appreciation to him for a salvation that is totally undeserved, and we will forever be willing to praise his "glorious grace" (Eph. 1:6).

In the final analysis, the difference between two views of election can be seen in the way they answer a very simple question. Given the fact that in the final analysis some people will choose to accept Christ and some people will not, the question is, "What makes people differ?" That is, what ultimately makes the difference between those who believe and those who do not? If our answer is that it is ultimately based on something God does (namely, his sovereign election of those who would be saved), then we see that salvation at its most foundational level is based on grace alone. On the other hand, if we answer that the ultimate difference between those who are saved and those who are not is because of something in man (that is, a tendency or disposition to believe or not believe), then salvation ultimately depends on a combination of grace plus human ability.

d. Predestination Based on Foreknowledge Still Does Not Give People Free Choice:

The idea that God's predestination of some to believe is based on foreknowledge of their faith encounters still another problems: upon reflection, this system turns out to give no real freedom to man either. For if God can look into the future and see that person A will come to faith in Christ, and that person B will not come to faith in Christ, then those facts are already fixed, they are already determined. If we assume that God's knowledge of the future is true (which it must be), then it is absolutely certain that person A will believe and person B will not. There is no way that their lives could turn out any differently than this. Therefore it is fair to say that their destinies are still determined, for they could not be otherwise. But by what are these destinies determined? If they are determined by God himself, then we no longer have election based ultimately on foreknowledge of faith, but rather on God's sovereign will. But if these destinies are not determined by God, then who or what determines them? Certainly no Christian would say that there is some powerful being other than God controlling people's destinies. Therefore it seems that the only other possible solution is to say they are determined by some impersonal force, some kind of fate, operative in the universe, making things turn out as they do. But what kind of benefit is this? We have then sacrificed election in love by a personal God for a kind of determinism by an impersonal force and God is no longer to be given the ultimate credit for our salvation.

e. Conclusion: Election is Unconditional:

It seems best, for the previous four reasons, to reject the idea that election is based on God's foreknowledge of our faith. We conclude instead that the reason for election is simple God's sovereign choice - he "destined us in love to be his sons" (Eph. 1:5). God chose us simply because he decided to bestow his love upon us. It was not because of any foreseen faith or foreseen merit in us.

This understanding of election has traditionally been called "unconditional election." It is "unconditional" because it is not conditioned upon anything that God sees in us that makes us worthy of his choosing us.

“How Can God Be Just?”

Sam Storms November 6, 2006

http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/how-can-god-be-just

One of the more frequently heard objections to unconditional election is that it impugns God’s justice. God is unfair and unjust, says the Arminian, if he treats people differently or bestows on some a favor that he withholds from others.

But this is surely a strange way of defining justice. Justice is that principle in virtue of which a person is given his due. To withhold from a person what he deserves or what the law demands that he receive is to act unjustly. How, then, can it be unjust to withhold from a person what he does not deserve? If you are in my debt and I demand payment, I can hardly be said to have acted unjustly. Similarly, should you not pay me, as you are obligated by law, it is justice that demands that you suffer the consequences.

All humanity stands infinitely indebted to God, rightly condemned to suffer the penal consequences that our sin deserves. No man can rightfully claim to deserve mercy or divine clemency, for “there is none who does good, there is not even one” (Rom. 3:12b). The verdict of Holy Scripture is “guilty as charged,” with no grounds for a new trial or for appeal.

No legitimate indictment may be brought against the bench should “His Honor” immediately consign the whole of Adam’s race to eternal death. There is justifiable recourse for the defendants neither in the law nor in themselves. No technicality in the procedural development of the trial nor character witness on behalf of the accursed can be claimed. Unlike earthly judges who may be baffled by quick-witted lawyers or bribed by unscrupulous partisans, God weighs all the evidence and judges with absolute impartiality. The verdict is the same for all: Guilty! The punishment is the same for all: Eternal Death!

God is under no obligation to save any, and is entirely just in condemning all. That he should pardon some is owing entirely to free and sovereign grace. Thus, “the marvel of marvels,” says Benjamin Warfield, “is not that God, in his infinite love, has not elected all of this guilty race to be saved, but that he has elected any. What really needs accounting for – though to account for it passes the powers of our extremest flights of imagination – is how the holy God could get the consent of his nature to save a single sinner. If we know what sin is, and what holiness is, and what salvation from sin to holiness is, this is what we shall face” (Benjamin B. Warfield, “Election,” in Selected Shorter Writings, ed. John E. Meeter, 2 vols. [Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1970], I:297-98).

I must confess that the question that haunts my heart is not “How can God be just?”, but “How can God be merciful?” It isn’t “Esau I hated” that disturbs me, but “Jacob I loved” that absolutely astounds me.

How Can God Be Impartial?

Somewhat related to the foregoing objection concerning God’s justice is the one which accuses him of partiality. God is not impartial, say many Arminians, if he favors some with life but not all. He is guilty of showing partiality toward the elect.

Of course he is! That is what unconditional election is all about. But we should refrain from saying that God is “guilty” of being partial toward the elect because this kind of partiality is a virtue, not a vice. It is a divine prerogative for which God should be praised, not vilified. Let me explain what I mean.

To say that God is impartial means that he is not moved or motivated by human characteristics such as race or gender or color of hair or socio-economic achievements. When God set his electing love on some but not all, he was not influenced by wealth or power or beauty or education or skill or potential or any other human consideration. God favored the elect, God was partial toward them, because that is what he wanted to do. He was not obligated by anything in any person to show favor to anyone. If God grants preferential treatment to his elect it is solely because it pleases him to do so, and not because the elect distinguished themselves from the non-elect by fulfilling some condit