Does the Bible teach the doctrine of Unconditional Election?

Affirmative Rebuttal Statement

 

By Moses Flores

 

Due to the quantity of material I wish to present, I will simply get right into the rebuttal.

 

            First things first, concerning the charge that the Calvinistic doctrine of Election is nothing more than Fatalism:  I have to wholeheartedly disagree.  As a philosophy minor, I am well aware of the inadequacy of a mere dictionary to define fatalism and what it comprises.  Let me say first of all, that philosophical fatalism is generally based on the metaphysical principle of determinism, in particular hard-determinism, which is a belief that all choices we make are outside of our control and fully determined by an external source.  Calvinism does not believe this.  The attitude of Fatalism is summed up by Doris Day’s song, “Que sera, sera” or “whatever will be will be,” irrespective of our choices that we make.  Calvinist do not believe this, nor have any of them ever taught it. 

            Rather, Calvinist are compatibolist.  Without turning this into a philosophical discourse, a compatibolist believes that they retain a “freedom” to do what they want to do according to their nature, or desires.  It is true that Calvinist believe in the absolute sovereignty of God as the Bible so clearly teaches (Gen. 14:18; 24:3; Exo. 8:22; 9:29; 15:18; Numb. 27:16; Josh. 2:11; Deut. 4:39; 10:14-17; 32:8, 39-43; I Sam. 2:6-8; 2 Kings 19:15; I Chron. 29:11-12; II Chron. 20:6; Neh.  9:6; Job 9:12; 12:9-17; 25:2; 33:13; 36:23; 41:11; Psalm 24:1; 29:10;  47:2-8;  59:13;  66:7;  75:6-7;  83:18;  89:11,18;  93:1,2;  95:3-5;  97:1;  99:1;  115:3;  135:5;  Eccl. 9:1;  Isa. 37:16; 40:22-23; 44:6; 45:7;  Jer. 18:6; 27: 5, 6; Dan. 2:20-21, 47; 4:3, 17, 25, 34-35;  Matt. 20:15; John 10:29; 19:11; Acts 17:24-26; Rom. 9:10-24; I Tim. 6:15; Rev. 4:11; 19:6), and because of this, as the Westminster says when it is properly quoted in context, God uses man’s will as a means of fulfilling His own purposes: 

 

“God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of secondary causes taken away, but rather established.”  (WCF, III. 1)

 

            “Secondary causes” is to say that God, the Almighty and Sovereign, uses means to accomplish His will, and lest somehow we some make the will of man, in the light of God’s sovereignty, to have no liberty whatsoever, God, rather, uses the will of man to bring about His own will.  For instance, in Isaiah 10 we read of the Assyrian whom God will bring as an instrument of the judgment upon His own people (10:5-11), and yet God will punish the Assyrian for his pride against Israel (10:12-19).  Likewise, we recall the story of Joseph in Genesis.  He was wickedly persecuted by his brothers, yet when all was said and done, Joseph confesses that while they meant what they did for evil, God was ultimately using their evil intentions for His own plans, purposes and glory (Gen. 45:5, 7-8; 50:20).

 

            Next, there is the charge of eisegesis with Ephesians 1:3-4.  I was said, in regards to my comments on the text that:

 

“It is certainly reading into the text that God did not choose in accordance with the will of them whom He chose…  I submit that the verse is absolutely silent on either side of the issue as it does not address whether or not God chose in accordance with anyone’s will.”

 

            First, let me say that I take the charge of Scripture twisting very seriously and yet I would expect in Christian love, correction, (II Tim. 3:16) from the Scriptures in order to help me grow as a Christian.  Simply saying what a verse DOES NOT mean, is not an adequate hermeneutical method.  That being said, let me address, exegetically, the second assertion in the above statement.

            I was said that the verse is “absolutely silent” on the issue if God choose in accordance with anyone’s will.  We read in verse 4, that “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world…according to His will”  On a grammatical level, we should identify the subject of this verse as God, signified by the pronoun “He”.  Next, we note the verb “chose” which is the second aorist tense of the Greek verb airew (aireoo).  Third, we note the objects of God’s choosing:  “us”.  

            Now, who is the lone subject that is doing the choosing according to the text?  It is God, for there is no mention of a co-subject with God doing the choosing.  Therefore, while the verse is certainly silent on man’s will having anything to do with God’s sovereign choice, it is not silent on the fact that God’s choice is sovereign for we read that He choose “in accordance with to the good pleasure of HIS WILL.”   In fact, the subject of Paul’s whole introduction to the Ephesians is God and man is the object.

            It was also said that, “To say that God ‘alone’ made the choice does not necessitate that he made the choice without prior knowledge of man’s response to the gospel.”  In accordance with Ephesians 1:4, we are told when God chose, or elected, “us” unto salvation:  “…before the foundation of the world.”  This phrase, and its proper understanding, necessarily excludes us creatures for we were not in existence “before the foundation of the world.”  Who alone existed before the foundation of the world?  God did, and in Trinitarian fellowship He alone chose some unto the spiritual blessings of holiness, predestination, even redemption (1:7) and forgiveness of sins (1:7) “which He purposed in Himself” (1:9).  All this was “according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of HIS WILL” (1:11).  The singular pronoun “His” is referring back to God and no one else!  Again, in the entire introductory discourse (v3-14), no one but God is the subject.

            The assertion for the possibility of God choosing with prior knowledge of man’s response to the Gospel is not something supported by ANY text of Scripture.  I would challenge any who suppose that God chose in accordance with how God elected men to be saved to show from Scripture with sound exegesis that this is so.  Until then, the assertion rest on mere probability not explicitly supported by Scripture.  Scripture alone should dictate what is Christian doctrine and not “reason” of what Scripture might or might not mean by what it does or does not say. 

            Concerning Romans 9, it was asserted that “the election in question is not the election of individuals to salvation (a forced interpretation indeed), but rather the election of the Nation of Israel to herald in the coming Messiah.”  Is the salvation of individuals a “forced interpretation”?  Allow me to exegete Romans 9:1-13 in order to show that individuals are certainly in view here and that unconditional election is clearly taught here as well.

            Initially, it must be said that if a nation is in view here, how can one have a nation apart from individuals that make up the nation?  Obviously, God saves personally and not merely collectively.  Thus, individual application is unavoidable.  That being said, Romans 9 does indeed begins Paul’s discourse on Israel and why they, if they collectively are God’s chosen people, as many have believed in that time, how are they not experiencing the promise of salvation and yet the Gentiles are.  Beginning with 9:1-5 Paul shows his grief and the glory that has been Israel’s in their redemptive role in history.  But in 9:6, lest his readers think that God’s promises have become null and void, he says, “But it is not that the word of God has failed.  For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” (ESV). 

            This is to say that it was not as though God had lied or was powerless to save those whom He had promised the blessing to.  Rather, the truth was that there were some who belonged to the nation of Israel but they were not necessarily of the covenant people of God.  Verse 7 reiterates this point by continuing to say, “and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring…”  John the Baptist echoes a similar thought that descending from Abraham is nothing special before the eyes of God (Luke 3:7-8).  So what causes a person to be favored?  Is it something within man?  Obviously not, for this would make God’s favor based on the creatures performance, hence making God a respecter of persons (Deut. 10:17; 2 Chron. 19:7; Job 34:19; Acts 10:34).  Rather, God’s choice of one over the other is solely based God’s covenant promise, thus, Paul quotes Genesis 18:10 and 14:  “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.”

            To further show that this understanding is correct that children of promise are counted as the covenant heirs, Paul continues by offering another example.  He says, “And not only this, but 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.’”  Again it is not the children of the flesh who inherit the blessings, but the ones to whom God freely promises.  This is the case here for Jacob and Esau share the same Father, Isaac, and even Abraham as their grandfather.  They are pure, unlike Ishmael whom the Lord freely favored over the physical seed of Abraham.  God’s choice had nothing to do with the performance of the two, for it was before they had done good or evil, thus one cannot argue that the basis of God’s choice is foreseen actions. It is not of works, or performance, that way their inheritance would be based on God’s purposes of election for His own glory. 

            Now, these are certainly individuals.  There is no doubt that it was nations that were within Ishmael, or Esau, or Jacob, or Israel.  And those to whom God dealt with in these nations were individuals as well, and not mere “nations”.

            Here, to further God’s sovereign and unconditional election of Israel over Esau, Paul quotes Malachi 1:2-3:  “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”  It was asserted that an interpretation for unconditional election is “impossible” here because 1) Jacob and Esau are dead and 2) because no reference is made to salvation.  First, to be consistent, would that have to mean that many interpretations in the New Testament, indeed in all of Scripture, that makes reference to dead people are probably unviable? In regards to the second point, the context is explicitly dealing with the salvation of Israel and why they are not experiencing it.  Thus, though the word is not explicitly stated at that particular moment, the CONTEXT certainly demands that we understand that Paul certainly has salvation in view here.  Hence, any objection in usage of Malachi 1:2-3 and its support for unconditional election should be directed at the apostle Paul for he obviously used the Scripture to support his assertions mentioned in verses 6-13a.  There is no eisegesis, or reading into Scripture, going on here at all.

            In regards to II Thess 2:13, you said, “One must read into the text to arrive at the conclusion of unconditional election.”  Very quickly, as space is limited, “God (subject) chose (verb) you (object) from the beginning (prepositional phrase about the verb) for salvation (prepositional phrase about the object).  Syntax demands that God alone is the one who chose; no co-subject with God doing the choosing.

            In regards to the comments on “from the beginning,” you offer John Wesley’s understanding that “from the beginning” has reference to “you hearing the Gospel.”  I ask, do the words “from the beginning of you hearing the Gospel” appear in the text anywhere?  If they do not, then I ask, who is really reading into Scripture? 

            It was also mentioned, in regards to the latter half of II Thess. 2:13 : “How one can draw unconditional election by an unchangeable purpose or immutable and eternal decree from this is beyond me.”  This part of the verse was never offered as the proof of unconditional election.  However, it is worth mentioning that this phrase, understood with God’s choosing unto salvation from the beginning, that salvation will never come to anyone apart from belief in the truth (faith in God, Christ, the faith once for all delivered, etc…) and sanctification, without with no one will see the Lord ( cf. Hebrews 12:4). 

It was also mentioned that I misquoted Matthew 25:34 as “before the foundation of the world.”  Point in fact, it was not misquoted.  I think there was a simple misreading there.  In reference to the “final judgment”: you and I obviously differ on eschatological views, so that is hardly worth responding to here in this debate.

 

This rebuttal has obviously been a bit more lengthy than I wanted it to be and I still was not able to respond to all that needed to be responded to.  In my next rebuttal I will take the time to respond to John 6 in particular.  For now, it has been sufficiently proven that those who experience the salvation of God are not those whose performance serves as the ground of it.  Rather, the Scriptures infallibly and consistently assert that the true child of God, the Christian, is the product solely of divine, sovereign power and grace.  Soli Deo Gloria.

 

Moses