XLI.    ELECTION   

(Election: those chosen by God to have fulfilled the requirements of salvation and are now in a right relationship with God and their fellow man)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

A       I will begin this subject by sharing points in which there is a general agreement among all denominations of Christians concerning the natural and moral attributes of God.  

1   Eternity is a natural attribute of God in the sense that He grows no older.  He was just as old before he created the universe as He is now, or as He will be on judgment day.

2    Omniscience is an attribute of God, in the sense that, from His infinite nature, God knows every object of knowledge.  He knows everything that can be known.

3   God has always possessed this knowledge.  He has never, and can never add to His knowledge.  God has eternally known every possible thing that ever was, or will be, or can be an object of knowledge.  If this were not true, God would be neither infinite nor omniscient.  

4   God exercises a universal providence, embracing all events that ever did or ever will occur in all worlds.  Some of these events He secures by His own agency, and others occur under His providence in the sense that He permits or allows these events to occur rather than to interfere to prevent them.  These events occur under His providence because His plan of government embraces all of these events.  He made provision to secure events that are good, that is, He made provision to secure the holy intentions of moral agents.  He also made provision to overrule for good, events that are evil, that is, the selfish intentions of moral agents.  These intentions are events that occur under Divine Providence, because every event that ever will occur must be the foreseen results of either God’s own agency or the work of creation.

5   Infinite unselfish love is the sum of all the moral attributes of God.            

6   God is both naturally and morally immutable; that is in both His natural attributes and in His moral attributes He is not subject to change.

7   All who are converted, sanctified, and saved, are converted, sanctified, and saved by God's own agency; that is, God saves them by securing, by His own agency, their personal and individual holiness.  

B       What the Bible doctrine of election does not mean.  

1   The Bible doctrine of election does not mean that God can choose to save anyone, in such a sense that God will or can save them without repentance, faith, and sanctification.

2   Nor does the doctrine of election mean that God chooses to save some, in such a sense that he will save them without them being born again and persevering in holiness to the end of their lives.  The Bible clearly teaches that regeneration and persevering are naturally indispensable conditions of salvation, and election cannot do away with them.

3   Nor does election mean that God will save some because of their own foreseen merits, or good works.  “Who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began” (2 Tim. 1:9)  The foreseen fact, that, by the wisest governmental arrangement, God could convert, sanctify, and fit them for heaven, must be a condition of the fact that God elects them for salvation, but that foreseen fact can’t be the fundamental reason for their election, as we will see.  God did not elect them to salvation because of their foreseen good works, but on condition of their foreseen repentance, faith, and perseverance. 

4   The Bible doctrine of election does not mean that God elected some to salvation based on conditions that are uncertain whether they will comply and be saved.  The Bible does not leave the question of the final salvation of the elect uncertain.  God chose the elect for salvation on the condition that God saw ahead of time that He would secure their repentance, faith, and final persever­ance.                  

C       What the Bible doctrine of election means. 
     The Bible doctrine of election means, that all of Adam’s race who are or ever will be saved, were chosen by God for eternal salvation from eternity past, through the sanctification of their hearts by faith in Christ.  In other words, God chose them for salvation by means of sanctification.  Their salvation is the end; their sanctification is a means.  God elects, appoints, and chooses both the end and the means to the end for the sake of the end.  The election of some individuals and nations to certain privileges, and to do certain things, is not the kind of election I’m talking about here.  I will examine the doctrine of election only as it relates to election unto salvation.
  I will prove that the doctrine is true, as I have stated it.

1   The doctrine of election is clearly implied in the teaching of the Bible.  The Bible everywhere assumes and implies the truth of this doctrine just as we might expect, since this doctrine naturally follows from the known and admitted attributes of God.  Instead of formally revealing election as a truth unknown to or unknow­able by our human reason, the scriptures, in many ways, speak of election as a truth that we can arrive at simply from His known attributes.  To deny election, you would have to deny the attributes of God.  I am surprised at the labored and learned efforts to show that the Bible does not teach this doctrine.  Suppose that the Bible did not teach this doctrine.  What then?  The Bible teaches us other truths, and our reason irresistibly reveals truths to us from which the doctrine of election, as I have stated it, must follow.  It is common for the inspired writers to treat truths like these the same way this is treated.  Suppose it was possible to explain every passage of scripture in such a way that not one scripture proves the doctrine of election.  It wouldn’t matter because we could derive the doctrine of election from God’s attributes.  It would still be true that the Bible assumes the truth of this doctrine, and incidentally mentions election as a truth of reason, and that it follows from God’s attributes.  This is how the Bible treats election.  The Bible assumes the truth of election just like it assumes the existence of God.  It mentions election just like it mentions God’s attributes.  The learned and labored efforts to show that this doctrine is not clearly stated in the Bible are worthless, since it is a truth that follows from the attributes of God, and from the revealed facts that some will be saved, and that God will save them, even if the Bible was silent on the subject.  Therefore, I will share only a few passages to show that the inspired writers repeatedly recognized the truth of this doctrine.  But I will not attempt to prove election from scripture, for reasons that I just mentioned. 

a       “So the last will be first, and the first last.  For many are called, but few chosen.”  (Matt. 20:16) 

b       “And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect’s sake those days will be shortened.”  (Matt. 24:22) 

c        “I do not speak concerning all of you.  I know whom I have chosen” (John 13:18) 

d       “You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you.  If you were of the world, the world would love its own.  Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.”  (John 15:16, 19) 

e       “And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.  For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.”  (Romans 8:28‑29) 

f     “And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, ‘The older shall serve the younger.’  As it is written, ‘Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.’  What shall we say then?  Is there unrighteousness with God?  Certainly not!  For He says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.’”  (Romans 9:10‑15) 

g       “Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.  What then?  Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were hardened.”  (Romans 11:5, 7) 

h       “Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, in whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,” (Eph. 1:4, 11) 

i     “Knowing, beloved brethren, your election by God.”  (1 Thess. 1:4) 

j     “For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.”  (1 Thess. 5:9)

k        “But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.”  (2 Thess. 2:13)  

l     “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multi­plied.”  (1 Peter 1:2) 

m     “The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition.  And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is” (Rev. 17:8) 
     The doctrine of election is clearly stated, or indirectly assumed and implied throughout the Bible, and in too many ways to quote here.  The above are only samples of the way scripture treats this subject.

2   Election is clearly a doctrine of reason.

a       God Himself secures the conversion, sanctification, and salvation of all that ever were or ever will be saved.  

b       Whatever God does to convert and save men, He does to secure that end; that is, God does it according to a previous design to do what He does.  Whatever God does to save the human race, He does to secure the salvation of all who will ever be saved, or, of all, whose salvation He foresees that He can secure, and with the certain knowledge that He will secure their salvation.  This is a universal truth.  He also does a lot for the non‑elect, in the sense of using such means with them that it might secure, and should secure their salvation.  But, since He knows that He will not succeed in securing their salvation because of their voluntary and persevering wickedness, we really cannot say, that He uses whatever means are necessary to save them, but we can cay that He uses those means for other good and wise reasons.  Although God foresees that He cannot secure their salvation because of their willful and persevering unbelief, He sees that it is important under His government to manifest a readiness to save them, and to use whatever means He can wisely use to save them, means that will ultimately leave them without excuse.
  But, concerning those who God foresees that He can and will save, it must be true, since He is a good being, that He uses means for their salvation, with the purpose of saving them.  And since He is an omniscient being, He must use these means, not only with a plan to save them, but also with the certainty that He will save them.  Concerning them, He uses these means for the sake of their salvation.  

c        But if God ever chooses to save any human beings, He must have always chosen to do so, or else He has changed. 

d       If God has, or ever will have, any plan for saving men, He must have always had this plan; for God never has, and never can have, any new plan.  If He ever elects to save somebody, He must have always elected him or her, otherwise He has a new purpose that is inconsistent with the fact that God is immutable.

e       If God knows who will be saved.  He must have always known who will be saved; otherwise, He must obtain some new knowledge that is contrary to the fact that God is omniscient.

f     We are told by Christ, that on judgment day He will say to the righteous, “Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:” (Matt. 25:34), that is, from eternity past.  Now, does the Judge have any new knowledge or plan concerning those individuals?  Certainly not.  

g       Since God must eternally know all about the elect that will ever be true, He must have chosen something concerning them; for it is naturally impossible, that He should have had no choice concerning them and their salvation.

h       Since God, from eternity past, has had some choice concerning their salvation, it follows that He must have chosen that they would be saved, or He would not use the means that He saw ahead of time would save them.  If He does not choose to use those means that He foresaw would save them, but afterwards decides to save them, He has changed his mind, which is contrary to His immutability.  If He always chose that they should be saved, this is the very thing that we are debating. 

i     Therefore, it must be true that God, from eternity past, chose everyone He will ever save for salvation; and since He saves them by means of sanctification, and does this on purpose, it must be that He also eternally intended this. 
     Denying the doctrine of election involves denying the attributes of God.  

j     It must also be true that God foreknew all that would ever be true concerning the non‑elect, and must have had some eternal design concerning their final destiny.  Also, that God has, from eternity past, had the same, and the only plan that He ever will have concerning them.

D       What could not have been reasons for election?  

1   The fact that God is infinitely benevolent and wise is not a reason for election. 
     God must base election on reasons; and these reasons must be good and sufficient.  There must be reasons that caused God to choose election.  If you assume that God is wise and good, we are safe in stating that God only had benevolent reasons for electing some to eternal life rather than others.  As a result, we must confess that election was not based on nor does it imply any partiality or favoritism in God.  Partiality consists in preferring one thing to something else for no reason at all, or in opposition to good and sufficient reasons.  Since God is infinitely wise and good, it follows that God cannot be partial.  God could elect some to eternal salvation and pass others by without a good reason.  That is, He cannot have done it arbitrarily.  Those who oppose election imply that God is partial, and election represents God as deciding the eternal destiny of moral agents by some kind of arbitrary sovereignty.  But this assumption is has no foundation.  They assume that God’s reasons for election aren’t good and sufficient reasons.  But, we have learned, that the highest good of God and the universe of creatures is the goal that God has set His heart on.  God must accomplish this goal by using the best means possible.  If God is infinitely wise and good, He must have chosen the most practical means.  Because God has chosen the best means for that goal, those means cannot be partial towards certain people. 
     To support of the assumption that election implies partiality and the exercise of an arbitrary sovereignty in God; many say that several equally good systems of means could secure the same goal.  Therefore, there is no reason to prefer any one system of means to another.  Therefore, they say, in choosing election, God must have been partial, or He must have exercised an arbitrary sovereignty.  To this I answer: 

a       There is no ground to assume that there can be different systems of means so precisely equal in value in all respects that there are no reasons for preferring one over an other.  

b       Even if there were several such systems, choosing one rather than another would not imply preference.  God must determine whether one system is slightly better than another system by the importance of the goal that each system has in view.  God would choose the one that has the most important goal.  If there were no difference between the various systems of means, God would choose one without reference to the other.  He must choose one.  He has no reason to prefer one system over another system.  His benevolence leads Him to choose one system of means because His goal demands it.  He therefore takes any one of many exact equals, indifferently, without preferring one to another.  This implies no partiality in God in any bad sense of the term.  Based on this supposition, God had to choose one among many exact equals.  If He were partial in choosing the system He chooses, He would have been just as partial as if He chose any other system.  If this is partiality, it is a partiality that comes from the need to make a choice, and cannot imply anything objectionable in God.  
     That there is no preference in this situation is clear, because, according to the supposition, there is no reason to prefer one to another.  But you can have no choice or preference, when there is absolutely no reason for that choice or preference.  The reason that deter­mines what you choose, and the object you choose, are identical.  When there is no reason for a choice, there is no object for you to choose.  You have nothing to choose, and so, you cannot make a choice.  To choose something, you must have an object; that is, a choice must terminate on something; it must terminate on some object.  If you make a choice, you must choose something.  If there are different systems of means, between which there is no possible reason to prefer one over another, there can be no such thing as preferring one to the other.  Saying you prefer one to another would be the same as saying that to choose something, but you don’t have any object to choose; or you choose something without choosing anything, which is a contradiction.
  If someone says that there can be absolutely no difference in the system of means as far as the accomplishment of the end is concerned, but perhaps God may prefer one over another for some other reason.  I ask, for what other reason?  According to the supposition, God only considers this system of means an object of choice because of its relationship to His eternal goal.  God can choose something only as a means, a condition, or a goal because anything He chooses must be one of these three things.  Our question concerns the means.  Now, if as a means, there is absolutely no difference between two different systems in their relationship to the goal, and the importance of God’s goal is the sole reason for choosing those means, it follows that preferring one to another is naturally impossible.  But God must choose one for the sake of His goal, it doesn’t matter which one.  That one may be chosen indifferently as far as the others are concerned.  This is not partial, and this is not an exercise of arbitrary sovereignty in any objectionable sense. 
     There is no reason to assume that there are various equal systems of means for accomplishing the great goal of unselfish love.  There must have been a best way, a best system, and if God is infinitely wise, good, and impartial, He must have chosen the best way because it is the best way.  Nobody can find any good reasons for preferring election to any other system, or for electing those God elects, in preference to anybody else.  Nevertheless, such reasons must have been apparent to God, or there would not have been any election at all.  

2   Election is not an exercise of any arbitrary sovereignty.  Arbitrary sovereignty is choosing and acting from mere will, without consulting moral obligation or the public good.  God is infinitely wise and good.  Therefore, it is impossible that God should choose or act arbitrarily in any situation.  God must have good and sufficient reasons for every choice and every act. 
     In the act of election, many believe that God elected some and not others simply because He wanted to exhibit His own sovereignty.  But, it is impossible for God to act arbitrarily, or from anything but a good and sufficient reason.  It is impossible for God to do so, and continue to be a God of love.  We have said that God has one and only one goal in view; that is, everything He does and says is for one reason, namely, to promote the highest good of others.  He has only one ultimate goal, and everything God does is to secure that goal.  The highest good of the universe, including His own well being, is the goal that His supreme and ultimate choice terminates.  Everything He does, He does to secure that Goal.  Everything God does His infinite intelligence directs, not only concerning His ultimate goal, but also in the choice and use of whatever means are necessary to accomplish that goal.  This must be true because God is good.  In election then, God cannot possibly exercise any arbitrary sovereignty, but He must have had the best reasons for election.  He must have had good reasons for choosing some and not others for salvation, and He must have affirmed His obligation with those reasons to elect those he elected in view.  Those reasons have been so good, that to do anything else would have been sin in Him; that is, to do anything else would not have been wise and good.  

3   God did not base election on some foreseen difference in the moral character of the elect and the non‑elect before regeneration.  The Bible everywhere tells us that before regeneration, all men have precisely the same character, and all men possess one common, totally depraved, selfish heart.  God did not choose to save some simply because He saw ahead of time that they would be less depraved and guilty before regeneration than the non‑elect.  Paul was one of the elect, yet he says that he was “the chief of sinners”.  We often see the most outwardly degenerate sinner, converted and saved.  This has been common in every age.
  The reason for election is not based in the fact that God saw ahead of time that some would be easier to convert than others would.  We often see those who are converted hold out for a long time in great obstinacy and rebellion, while God brings to bear on them all kinds of means and influences, and appears to make more efforts to convert them than He took to convert many others.  There is reason to believe that if God used the same means with those who are not converted that He used with some who are, many who are not converted would be converted.  It may not be wise for God to use the same means for the non‑elect, and if He should, those means might, or might save them.  God often uses means to convert the non‑elect that, to us, seem more powerful than He uses to convert many of the elect.  Matt. 11:20‑24 implies this.  “Then He began to upbraid the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent: ‘Woe to you, Chorazin!  Woe to you, Bethsaida!  For if the mighty works that were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.  But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the Day of Judgment than for you.  And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.  But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the Day of Judgment than for you.’”  The fact is, God must have had some reason besides their stubborn characters for electing them to salvation.           

E       What are the reasons for election?  

1   God is infinitely wise and good.  From the wisdom and goodness of God, it follows that He must have chosen a good goal, and He must have had some plan, or some system of means, to secure that goal.  We know that the goal is the good of others.  The means, we know from reason and revelation, include election.  It follows that the fundamental reason for election was the highest good of the universe.  That is, the best system of means to secure the great goal of love included the election of just those who He elected, and nobody else.  God’s wisdom and unselfish love has accomplished this.  The highest good demands it.  All choice must relate to a goal, or to conditions and means to accomplish that goal.  God has, and can have only one ultimate goal in mind.  All his other choices are means.  God must have based such choices, like electing certain people to eternal salvation, on the reason that the great goal of His unselfish love or benevolence demanded it. 

2   It is very easy to see that, under a moral government, it might be impossible to administer law in such a way that it would secure the perpetual and universal obedience of everybody.  It is also easy to see, that under a system of grace, it might be impossible to secure the repentance and salvation of everybody.  God must have foreseen all the possible and actual results.  He must have foreseen how many, and who He could save by the wisest and best possible arrange­ment overall.  Because we know that God is perfectly wise and benevolent, then we must conclude that the present system of means is the best that He could adopt to promote of the great goal of His government.  The fact that the wisest and best system of government would secure the salvation of those who He elected must have been a condition for the fact that God elected them.  Because God does everything for the same ultimate reason, it follows that the importance of their salvation was His ultimate goal, and that their salvation in particular must have been of greater relative importance in promoting the highest good of the universe as a whole than the salvation of others.  Therefore, the reasons for election are: 1) the importance of the salvation of those elected in particular, 2) the fact that, by the wisest arrangement, God could save them in particular, and 3) the supreme good to be promoted by it.

F       When did God make this election?  

1   Certainly not when the elect are converted.  We admit that God is omniscient, and has known all things from eternity as really and as perfectly as He ever will.  We also admit that God is unchange­able, and, as a result, He has no new plans, designs, or choices.  He must have had all the reasons He ever will have for election from eternity, because He always has had all the knowledge of all events that He ever will have.  As a result, He always has chosen everything just as He always will.  There never can be any reason for God to change His mind, for He will never have any new views on any subject.  The choice that constitutes election, then, must be an eternal choice.

2   Therefore, the scriptures represent election as from eternity.

a       “Just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love” (Eph. 1:4)

b       “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.”  (Eph. 2:10)

c        “Who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began” (2 Tim. 1:9)

d       “The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition.  And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet” (Rev. 17:8) 
The way it is worded here means from eternity.  

3   But the following question will arise, “in the order of nature did election come before or after Divine foreknowledge?”  In the order of nature, God must have foreseen what He could do wisely before He determined what He should do.  And what He should do must have come before He knew what he would do.  So that in the order of nature, the foreknow­ledge of what He could do wisely came before election, and foreknowledge of what He would do, followed election. 

a       In other words, God must have known who He could wisely save before He determined to save them. 

b       But, His knowing who would be saved must have been after He determined to save them, and depended on that determination. 

c        Election does not make the means that God uses for the salvation of the elect unnecessary!    

d        We have seen that God chooses the elect for salvation using means.  Since God chooses them for salvation by means, God cannot save them in any other way or without those means.  

G      Election is the only ground of hope that the means God uses will be successful.   

1   Means are useless unless God uses them effectively.

2   If God uses means efficiently, it is because He uses those means according to His election.  

3   It follows that election is the only ground of rational hope in the use of means to bring about the salvation of anyone.   

H       Election does not pose any obstacle to the salvation of the non‑elect.

1   God has taken care to bring salvation within the reach of everybody, and to make it possible for everyone.

2   He sincerely offers to save everyone, and does everything that He can wisely do to save every­one.

3   His saving some should not discourage others, but should rather encourage them to receive eternal life.

4   The election of some is no obstacle to the salvation of others.

5   Those who are not elected may be saved if they will only comply with the conditions, which they are able to do.

6   God sincerely calls, and ministers may sincerely call on the non‑elect to receive salvation.   

7   There is no harm or injustice done to the non‑elect by the election of others.  Does not God have a right to do what He will with His own?  If He offers salvation to everyone on the most reasonable terms, and if He does all He wisely can for the salvation of everyone, can anyone complain if God, in doing for all that He wisely can, secures the salvation of some and not of others?     

I           There is no injustice in election.    

1   God is under obligation to no one.  In perfect justice He could, have sent the entire human race to hell.  The doctrine of election will damn no one.  By treating the non‑elect according to what they deserve, God does them no injustice.  Certainly, His exercising grace in the salvation of the elect is no act of injustice to the non‑elect; and the truth of this we will see if we take into consideration the fact that, the only reason why God does not save the non‑elect is because they stubbornly refuse salvation.  God offers mercy to everyone.  The atonement is sufficient for everyone.  All may come, and all are under an obligation to be saved.  God strongly desires their salvation, and He does everything that He can wisely do to save them.  Why then should people think that the doctrine of election is unjust?  *[See note at end of this study.]  

2   This is the best that God could do for the inhabitants of this world.  It is reasonable to conclude from the infinite benevolence of God, that His present government will secure a greater amount of good than could have been secured under any other method of administration.  This is as certain as the fact that God’s infinite love must prefer a greater to a lesser good.  To think that God would prefer a method of administration that would secure a lesser good than could have been secured under some other method, would be to accuse god of a lack of benevo­lence.  It is true that God could so change the course of events that He would be able to save different individuals than those He does; to convert more in one particular neighborhood, or family, or nation, or at one particular time; or maybe even more souls than He does.  But, this does not mean that He would not secure the greater good as a whole. 
     Suppose there is a man in this town who has so strongly entrenched himself in error, that there only one person in the whole country who is so familiar with his refuge of lies that he can answer all his objections, and drive him out of his hiding places.  Now, it is possible, that if God could somehow bring that person into contact with this man, this man will be converted.  However if that person is working in some distant part of the vineyard, removing him from that field of labor, all the way over to this town, might not, as a whole, be what is best for the glory of God's kingdom.  Many more may never receive salvation if God brought him to this town, than would be converted if he remained where he is.  God always has the overall good of His whole universe in view when He acts.  God works on a vast and comprehensive scale.  He is not partial toward certain individuals, but He moves forward to administer His government with His eye on the general good, designing to secure the greatest amount of happiness within His kingdom that He can possibly secure by the wisest possible arrangement, and administration of His government.

3   How can we recognize our own election? 
     Those of the elect, who are already converted, are known by their character and conduct.  The evidence of their election is in their obedience to God.  Are you known by your character and conduct?  Those of you, who are unconverted, can settle the question of whether you are elected or not, so you can have the most satisfactory evidence whether you belong to that happy number.  If you will submit yourselves to God right now, you can have the evidence that you are one of the elect.  However, every hour you put off your submission increases the evidence that you are not one of the elect.
  It is within the power of every sinner, under the gospel, to accept or reject salvation.  The elect can know their election only by accepting the offered gift.  The non‑elect can know their non‑election only by the fact that they are aware that they voluntarily rejected God’s offer of eternal life.  If any one fears that he is one of the non‑elect, let him renounce his unbelief right now, and stop rejecting salvation, and the ground of fear will instantly fall away.

J        Conclusions and remarks. 

1   Foreknowledge and election are perfectly consistent with our free will.  God chose the elect to eternal life on the condition that He foresaw that, in the perfect exercise of their free will, He could influence them to repent and embrace the gospel.

2   You see why many people are opposed to the doctrine of election, and try to explain it away; 1st, they misunderstand it, and 2nd, they draw unwarrantable conclusions from it.  They think that it means that the elect will be saved no matter what happens or what they do.  Plus, they conclude from the doctrine that there is no possibility that the non-elect can be saved.  The way they understand it, the doctrine of election encourages the elect to persevere in sin, because they know that their salvation is sure, and would drive the non‑elect to despair on the ground that for them to try to be saved would be useless.  But both their understanding of this doctrine and their conclusions are false.  For election does not secure the salvation of the elect no matter what their character and conduct is; nor does it throw any obstacles in the way of the salvation of the non‑elect.   

3   The proper view of election yields no ground for either presumption or despair.  No one can justly say, “If I am to be saved I will be saved, no matter what I do”.  Nor can anyone say; “if I am to be damned, I will be damned, no matter what I do”.  Sinners, your salvation, or your damna­tion depends on your own choice, as if God neither knew nor planned anything about it.  

4   You cannot find anything in the doctrine of election that should cause you to complain about God.  Instead, election lays a broad foundation for gratitude, on the part of both the elect and the non‑elect.  The elect certainly have many good reasons to be thankful.  Oh, what a thought, to have your name written in the Lamb’s book of life, to be chosen by God to be an heir of eternal salvation, to be adopted into His family, to be destined to enjoy His presence, and to bathe your soul in the boundless ocean of His love for ever and ever!  Now, the non‑elect also have an obligation to be thankful.  They should be grateful for every one of their fellow human beings who God saved.  If everyone were lost, God would still be just.  And if anyone in this dying world receives this gift of eternal life, they should be grateful, and render everlasting thanks to God. 

5   The non‑elect often enjoy as great or even greater privileges than the elect.  Many men have lived and died under the sound of the gospel, have enjoyed all the means of salvation during a long life, and have died in their sins, while others were converted when they first heard the gospel of God.  You can see that this difference cannot be because the elect always receive more from the Holy Spirit than the non‑elect.  Many, who die in their sins, appear to have been under conviction for most of their lives and they have often been deeply impressed with a strong sense of their sins and the value of their souls.  However, they have strongly entrenched themselves under a refuge of lies.  They love the world and hated God.  They fought their way through all the obstacles that God threw around them to block their pathway to death, and they have literally forced their way to the gates of hell.  Sin was their voluntary choice.

6   Why should anyone make the doctrine of election a stumbling‑block to sinners?  The church ignores the plans and purposes of God in anything other than the subject of religion.  Yet, God’s purposes and plans are settled, and He has an absolute influence in everything He does.  God has planned the day and circumstances of your death, and whether your soul will be saved.  The Bible not only clearly declares this, but it is clearly a doctrine of our reason.  What would you say if someone called you to visit a neighbor who is sick; and, when you arrive at his house, you find that he will neither eat nor drink, and that he is starving himself to death?  When you mention this to him, suppose he calmly replies that he believes in God’s sovereignty, and in foreknowledge, election, and decrees.  He says that his days were numbered, and that the time and circumstances of his death are already settled.  He tells you that he cannot die before his time, and that no matter what he did, he would not be able to live one more moment beyond his time.  You try to argue with him, but he accuses you of being a heretic.  He says you don’t believe in Divine sovereignty.  Now, if you met someone reasoning and acting like this concerning worldly subjects, you would pronounce him insane.  If farmers, mechanics, and merchants, reasoned in this way concerning their worldly business, people would  consider them fit subjects for the asylum.  

7   The perversion and abuse of this doctrine clearly illustrates the fact that the human heart is man, and it is completely opposed to the terms of salvation!  The fact that God knows ahead of time, and has plans concerning every event, should not become an excuse for remaining idle concerning our duty to God.  But when it comes to our duty to God, many seize these scriptures, and twist them to their own destruction.  This fact impressively demonstrates how strongly sinners want excuses for disobeying God.  They want God to apologize to them because they are living in sin.  They seek a reason for waging war against their Maker.   

8   I said that the question of your salvation is open for your decision.  God leave you completely free to exercise your free will, just as if God neither knew nor planned anything concerning your salvation.  Suppose there was a great famine in New York City, and John Q. Wealthy alone had a tremendous abundance of provisions.  He was a benevolent and liberal‑minded man and he was willing to supply the whole city with provisions, absolutely free.  Now suppose there existed such a universal and most unreasonable prejudice against him that when he advertised in the daily papers that his storehouses were open, that anybody that wanted to, could come and receive provisions free of charge, they all, with one accord, began to make excuses, and obstinately refused to accept his offer.  Now, suppose that he should hire every wagon master he could find to carry those provisions around the city, and stop at every door.  Still, they united together.  They would rather die than to be indebted to him for food.  Many had said so many things against him that they were completely ashamed to feel and acknowledge their dependence on him.  Others were so much under mob influence that they were unwilling to offend them; and so strong was the tide of public opinion, that no one had the moral courage to break away from the crowd and accept this life giving food.  Now, suppose that Mr. Wealthy knew beforehand the state of the public mind.  He knew that all the citizens hated him, and that they would rather die than to be indebted to him for food.  Suppose he also knew, from the very beginning, that there were certain arguments that he could bring to bear on certain individuals that would change their minds, and that he should proceed to press them with these arguments, until they give up their opposition, most thankfully accept his provisions, and are saved from death.  Suppose he used all the arguments and means that he wisely could to persuade the rest, but that, in spite of all his benevolent efforts, they stuck to their resolution, and preferred to die than to submit to his proposals.  Suppose, further, he had perfect knowledge of who would accept and who would reject his offer from the beginning of this whole matter, would not the question of life and death be as entirely open to the decision of each individual as if he knew nothing about it?   

9   Some may ask, why does God use means with the non‑elect when He is certain they will not accept?  I answer, because He desires that they should be without excuse.  He will demon­strate His willingness and their obstinacy before the whole universe.  He will shut their mouths in judgment by a full offer of salvation.  Even though He knows that their rejection of His offer will only enhance their guilt, and aggravate their deep damnation, He will still make the offer because there is no other way which He can use to illustrate His infinite willingness to save them, and their perverse rejection of His grace.

10        Finally, God requires you be as diligent as possible to your calling and election sure.  In choosing His elect, you must understand that God has thrown the responsibility of your being saved on you; that everything depends on you consenting to His terms.  You are all perfectly able to give your consent right now and receive eternal life.  Without the exercise of your own free will, no election can save you, and no reprobation can damn you.  “And the Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come!’’  And let him who hears say, ‘Come!’  And let him who thirsts come.  And whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.”  (Rev. 22:17)  The responsibility is yours.  God does all that He wisely can, and challenges you to show what more He could do that He has not already done.  If you go to hell, you must go stained with your own blood.  God is clear.  Angels are clear.  To your own Master you stand or fall; mercy waits; the Spirit strives; Jesus stands at the door and knocks.  Do not then pervert this doctrine, and turn it into an occasion to stumble until you are in the depths of hell.   

*Note: To this paragraph came the following objection:

“Can it be said, that the only reason why the non‑elect are not saved because they reject things like salvation?  Isn’t there another reason behind this?  God does not give that gracious influence in their situation, which He does for His elect.  If the only reason why the non‑elect are not saved is because of their stubborn refusal, then it would follow that the only reason why the elect are saved, is because they accept salvation.  If these two points are true, then why all this discussion about election to salvation, and the means to that Goal, and God’s reason for electing?  The whole matter would resolve itself into free will, and God would stand quite independent of the issue in every situation.  Then would there be no such thing as election.” 

1   I say, the only reason why the non‑elect are not saved is because they stubbornly refuse salvation.  But if this is true, this person who objected says, “It will follow that the only reason why the elect are saved, is their acceptance of salvation.”  But this does not follow.  The non‑elect fail to receive salvation only because they resist all the grace that God can wisely bestow on them.  They resist this grace, and fail to receive salvation.  It is no more reasonable to say that the reason God did not convert them is because He did not give them enough Divine influence to convert them, than it would be to say that His not having restrained them from sin altogether is the reason behind their pertina­cious resistance to grace.  If the non‑elect are lost, or they fail to receive salvation, it is only because they resist all the grace that God can wisely bestow.  It would not follow that the only reason why the elect are saved is because they accept, or yield to the same measure of gracious influence that is bestowed on the non‑elect, for it often happens that God bestows more gracious influence on the elect than on the non‑elect because He can wisely do so.       

2   The non-elect fail to receive salvation, not because God withholds the grace that He could wisely bestow, but only because they reject all the grace that God can wisely offer.  

3   I believe that this objector is saying that, based on the supposition that the elect and the non‑elect have the same measure of gracious influence, the reason why the elect are saved, and the non‑elect not saved is because the elect yield to and the non‑elect resist this influence.  Therefore, the whole question resolves into free will, and there is no election about it.  Suppose God saw ahead of time that this would be true, and in view of this foreseen fact, God elected to salvation those He foresaw would yield to both the privileges and gracious influences that He foresaw they would yield to because of this influence and yielding.  And suppose He saw ahead of time that the non‑elect, although ordained or elected to enjoy the same measure of gracious influence, would resist and reject salvation, and for this reason, rejected or reprobated them in His eternal purpose.  Wouldn’t this be election?  Certainly, because, in this situation, the different results would turn on the fact that the elect yielded, and the non‑elect did not yield to the same measure of gracious influence.  But there still would be an election of the one to eternal life, and a rejection of the other.  I cannot see how this objector can say, that in this situation there could be no election, unless, in his idea of election, there is the exercise of some arbitrary sovereignty. 
     I believe that God bestows on men unequal measures of gracious influence, but there is nothing arbitrary about this.  In fact, God sees the wisest and best reasons for doing this; that because God is under obligation to no one, He exercises His own benevolent discretion in bestowing on everyone as much gracious influence as He sees is, on the whole, wise and good.  God bestows enough gracious influence to throw the entire responsibility of their damnation on them if they are lost.  But on some, God saw ahead of time that He could wisely bestow enough gracious influence to secure their voluntary yielding, and on others, He could not bestow enough to secure this result.  According to this foreknowledge, He chose the elect to the gracious influence and its results, eternal life.  In all this, there was nothing arbitrary or unjust.  He does everything for everybody that He wisely can do.  He does enough for everyone, so that no one has any excuse.  If the non‑elect would yield to the amount of gracious influence, that God can and does bestow on them, which is the best He can do without acting unfairly, they would be saved.  They could yield to this amount of influence.  They should yield to this amount of influence.  God has no right to do more than He does for them.  They have no reason to complain why they are not saved.  They have no reason to complain to God for not giving them more gracious influence than the fact that He created them, or that He made them free agents, or that He did not restrain them from sin altogether, or that He did not do anything else which would have been unwise, and therefore wrong for God to have done.  Nor is the fact that God did not bestow on them sufficient grace to secure their yielding and salvation, a reason behind their obstinacy for them to use to explain why they are not saved.  In fact, they can use none of the things I’ve mentioned as an excuse for their persistence in sin. 

This objection proceeds on the assumption that election must be unconditional to be election at all; that election must be so defined that it must be the cause of the difference in the eternal state of the elect and non‑elect.  But why could not God condition election on the foreseen fact, that the wisest possible administration of moral government would secure free acceptance by some, and rejection by others.  Once God knew ahead of time what He could wisely do, the purpose to accomplish what He could wisely do would be election.  No man has a right to define the terms election and reprobation in such a sense that it excludes all conditions, and then insist that conditional election is no election at all.