Does the Bible teach the doctrine of
Unconditional Election?
By Moses Flores
Well the last cross examination session was interesting to say the least, and very revealing, I think. I’m not too sure where to begin my responses but I would certainly like to reiterate some points that have been previously made that have yet to be dealt with exegetically.
First: John 6:37-65. In this text of Scripture it is grammatically clear that the “giving” of the Father to the Son precedes the “coming” of those who are given. While that was admitted in the cross examination session, I’m not quite sure how that is consistent with my opponents position now. In any case, it was pointed out that the “giving” in verse 37 is a present tense verb, and thus, it was argued that those who are coming to Christ are the ones who are presently being given. Certainly there is no qualms that the verb there is a present tense, which – taken alone – would mean “ongoing, continual action.” In other words, the understanding would be that God is always giving new people to the Son with no end in sight. It is a continual action. However, this understanding is not the correct one.
In verse 39, the we read that “this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.” Here, the verb “given” is in the perfect tense, which denotes a past action that has lasting effects to the present. Now, in verse 37 we have a present tense verb and in verse 39 a perfect tense verb. What theological understanding does this yield? To be entirely consistent in the grammatical level, it would seem to be the case that the ones that the Father is presently giving (v37) are those who the Father has already given and is still giving to the Son (v39).
If we take verse 39 and the perfect tense usage of the verb “to give”, we see that the will of the Father is that Christ raise up only those which have been given in the past and are the same ones being given and none of those will be lost. Now, if we are to take only the present tense usage of verse 37, then we cannot understand the group that is only presently being given, with no reference to being given previously, as within the will of God to not be lost or even to be raised up on the last day. Verse 37, at face value could only mean that they will “come” to Christ – the “coming” of which is NOT the resurrection.
The understanding of the “giving” must be taken as a whole and not isolated as I think it was in verse 37. There is no denial of the present tense usage, only that it should be understood with and reconciled with the perfect tense usage of the same verb in verse 39.
Concerning “coming” as a reference to the resurrection. As I understand the argument in the last rebuttal, the use of the future indicative determines a “necessary connection between those who presently believe as being raised in the future in the same sense that those who presently believe will come to Christ(your words).” In your cross examination session, you explicitly state that the “coming” refers to the resurrection as well. I think this is in error for several reasons.
First, if “coming” were to be understood as “resurrection” then our reading of John 6:35-40 would be something like this:
Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever [comes/resurrects] to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me will [come/resurrect] to me, and whoever [comes/resurrects] to me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
Concerning your argument in the connection of the future tense usage of the verbs “will raise” and “will come”, I think there is a simpler explanation, and that is the Jesus was speaking of a chronological order. In other words, Jesus was saying that those who are first “given” (perfect tense of v39) will inevitably “come” to Christ; secondly, the ones who “come” to Christ will inevitably be “raised up.” Trying to understand this any other way will only lead to confusion. For instance, if “coming” is a reference to the resurrection then the understanding now created is this: “The one who is given will inevitably be resurrecting (present active verb); and the one who is resurrecting will inevitably be raised up on the last day.”
The confusion created by the understanding is absurd! How can one be in the continual process of resurrecting (present active verb) and then be resurrected by Christ on the last day? Also, in the Scriptures, one is not resurrected by themselves! If “coming” in verse 37 is understood as “resurrecting”, and since it is an active verb, it could only mean that the one being resurrected is the one doing the resurrecting as well! But how could that be? That is not consistent with the rest of the Scriptures on resurrection. Even Christ did not raise himself but was raised by the Father! Our activity is resurrection is passive because we are acted upon. But also, we should consider that in the Scriptures, resurrection is not a continual process, which would be the understanding now created by the present tense verb. Either one is resurrected or one is not. Scripture does not reveal this as a continual process.
These grammatical and theological reasons give us sufficient grounds for rejecting the “coming” as the “resurrection.”
I would like to re-emphasize my initial argument that usage of “coming” is figurative language for “believing”. This makes the most sense of the passage as a whole (6:35-65). The “coming” “looking” “eating” “drinking” and “believing” are figuratively synonymous that emphasize different aspects of what it means to “believe” in Christ. They are all present tense, indicative verbs to show continual action of the one and the same act of believing in Christ. Again, I ask the question, if these are not figuratively synonymous, then we are left asking the questions, how does one “come” to Christ if not by faith? Is there some place that we have to go in particular? If there is, how come the Scriptures don’t say where? What does it mean to “look” on Christ (v40) if not to look upon the crucified one by faith? Is there a certain picture we must continually be looking upon? And what does it mean to continually be “eating” and “drinking” the body and blood of Christ if not partaking of Christ by faith? Should we appeal to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Mass here as the understanding of the continual “eating” and “drinking” of the body and blood? And then on top of “coming”, “looking”, “eating” and “drinking” are we also required to “believe” in Christ? What about the doctrine of justification by faith alone? Isn’t that doctrine necessarily abandoned when other conditions are added in order to be saved? But that the Scriptures remain entirely consistent with each other, it makes perfect sense to coherently understand these as figuratively synonymous for all the Christ asked of them in the first place in verse 29: “…That you believe in Him who He has sent.”
If I am correct in my understanding, then already by your own admission in the cross examination, you would have to submit to the doctrine of unconditional election as being true in this passage at the very least.
In the final part of this rebuttal I would like to show from Scripture that God does indeed have eternal and immutable decrees and those decrees even include the salvation of some and the damnation of others. My point will be to show that God has not formulated His plan in response to creation, but rather He has conformed the creation (the creatures) to respond to His eternal plan. This includes, even the salvation of some.
In Isaiah 37:26-27, Isaiah prophecies against Sennacherib, King of Assyria, who has boasted against the LORD saying that it is because of his military might that he has been able to conquer. Isaiah responds to him by saying,
“Did you not hear long ago how I made it, from ancient times that I formed it? Now I have brought it to pass that you should be for crushing fortified cities into heaps of ruins, therefore the inhabitants had little power; they were dismayed and confounded…”
Here, the LORD reveals to Sennacherib that his own success is due, not to his own power, but to the will of God that was declared “from ancient times”. And now, God is the one that takes full responsibility for using Sennacherib as instrument of His own judgement (“I have brought it to pass”). Clearly, God is the one who decreed from long before Sennacherib conquered that He would indeed be the one to conquer. Thus, this event was foreordained by God.
In Psalm 33:10-11 we read,
“The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nothing;
He makes the plans of the people of no effect.
The counsel of the LORD stands forever,
the plans of his heart to all generations.”
The Psalmist tells us here how man is fickle in their plans and often changes them. The LORD, however, is unchanging. In fact, His “counsel” stands forever. Charles Spurgeon commented on this verse saying,
He changes not his purpose, his decree is not frustrated, his designs are accomplished. God has a predestination according to the counsel of his will, and none of the devices of his foes can thwart his decree for a moment. Men’s purposes are blown to and fro like the thread of the gossamer or the down of the thistle, but the eternal purposes are firmer than the earth.[1]”
The obvious meaning of the text, as Spurgeon brings out, is that God is in charge of creation and it is running with a foreordained plan that stands “forever”, or is unchangeable. Men may plan to do thing a certain way, but in the end their plans can be foiled (eg. Gen. 11:1-9; cf. Prov. 19:21; 16:9). But the plans of the LORD, as they are determined, are everlasting; they are to “all generations”.
Isaiah is filled with references like this. For instance, in Isaiah 43:10-13 we read
“’You are My witnesses’, says the LORD
‘And My servant whom I have chosen,
That you may know and believe Me,
And understand that I am He.
Before Me there was no God formed,
Nor shall there be after Me.
I, even I, am the LORD,
And besides Me there is no savior.
I have declared and saved,
I have proclaimed,
And there was no foreign god among you;
Therefore you are My witnesses,’
Says the LORD, ‘that I am God.
Indeed before the day was, I am He;
And there is no one who can deliver out of My hand;
I work, and who will reverse it?’”
Likewise in Isaiah 48:5 we read,
“Even from the beginning I have declared it to you;
Before it came to pass I proclaimed it to you,
Lest you should say, ‘My idol has done them,
And my carved image and my molded image
Have commanded them’”
A further element that comes out in the Scriptures is that not only have these decrees been issued and prove that God is not merely responding to creation at given moments in time, but that these decrees are immutable. Isaiah 46:8-11 brings this out:
“Remember this, and show yourselves men;
Recall to mind, O you transgressors.
Remember the former things of old,
For I am God and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like Me,
Declaring
the end from the beginning,
And
from ancient times things that are not yet done,
Saying,
‘My counsel shall stand,
And I will do all My pleasure.’
Calling a bird of prey from the east,
The man who executes My counsel, from a far country,
Indeed I have spoken it;
I will also bring it to pass.
I
have purposed it;
I will also do it.”
Were God to purpose something and not do it, it would show that God is not perfect in knowledge for some contingency might have arisen that would have caused God to change his plans.
The New Testament also reveals that God is certainly directing all things according to the purpose of His eternal will. Ephesians 1:11 reveals that Christians have an inheritance in Christ because we have been “predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will.” William Hendriksen commented on this verse saying,
“Neither fate nor human merit determine our destiny. The benevolent purpose – that we should be holy and faultless (verse 4), sons of God (verse 5), destined to glorify him forever (verse 6, cf. verses 12 and 14) – is fixed, being part of a larger, universe-embracing plan. Not only did God make this plan that includes absolutely all things… he also wholly carries it out. His providence in time is as comprehensive as is his decree from eternity. Literally Paul states that God works (operates with his divine energy in) all things. The same word also occurs in verses 19 and 20, which refer to the working (energetic operation) of the infinite might of the Father of glory, which he wrought (energetically exerted) in Christ when he raised him from the dead. Hence, nothing can upset the elect’s future glory.[2]”
The assurance of salvation for Christians rests upon the eternal decrees of God to infallibly save those whom He has chosen to save. That salvation has always been within the eternal mind of God is also made clear in I Corinthians 2:7 which speaks of the Gospel, as secret and hidden wisdom of God “which God decreed before the ages for our glory.” 2 Timothy 1:9 also states that the grace we have been given by God for salvation is a grace that was given to us “not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began”
No questions from Scripture. Eternal election is necessarily true based on the fact that God has an eternal plan that He is currently working out.
Elect in Christ,
Moses