Does the Bible Teach the Doctrine of Unconditional Election?

 

Nick Norelli

 

If the question were asked does the Bible teach concerning election and predestination then the answer of course would be yes.  But once the word “unconditional” is added to election then we move away from the realm of scripture and into the realm of Calvinistic theology.  It is needful that I immediately point out that the terms “election” and “predestination” are not synonymous.  Election is the act of picking out or choosing, while Predestination refers to that which was determined beforehand.  One must commit the fallacy of equivocation to assert that these two words mean the same thing.  That being said let us now move into our examination of the Bible as contrasted with the doctrine of unconditional election. 

 

Moses provided a few definitions of unconditional election from various reformed creeds and confessions and even a couple of Bible dictionaries, and all of these served well to set forth the doctrine from the Reformed/Calvinistic viewpoint, but I fear that not one of them addresses the Biblical doctrine of election. 

 

I must mention that the Arminian position appears to have been misrepresented (Lord willing not intentionally).  While it is true that Arminians do believe that God elected according to his foreknowledge, it was implied that they believe that man out of his free will, unaided by God’s grace can believe and repent.  But as has been stated numerous times during the Total Depravity debate, this is not what Arminius believed, nor Wesley, nor classical Wesleyan-Arminians.  This is abundantly clear from their writings.  It was also stated that Arminians believe that “God elects (present tense; not elected, past tense),” but this is false as well. Observe the first article of the Remonstrance to see that this is so:

 

“…God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36…”[1]

 

The language employed here is strikingly similar to that used by the Calvinists.  But I find this view of election to be equally as flawed.  This is one reason that I stated in my opening remarks of the Total Depravity debate that I didn’t want to present Calvinism and Arminianism as the only viable systems of theology. 

 

That salvation is conditional is as clear as can be from even the most casual reading of scripture.  There is no question that we are told to repent (Acts 2:38, 17:30), believe (John 3:16, 18, Acts 16:31), and confess (Romans 10:9, 13), all in order to be saved.  Like it or not these are conditions and more so, they are the conditions that God has set forth.  Now it is common to attempt to equate conditions with works but these things are never presented as meritorious in scripture.  Faith is consistently portrayed in scripture as the anti-work and the source of good works/fruit (cf. Romans 4, James 2).  But conditional salvation is not conditional election either.  This assumes that election is unto salvation but as we will see throughout the course of this debate, election does not refer to the new birth/regeneration.

 

I agree with the comment that “the doctrine of election, according to the Bible, is not some sort of Fatalism,” but I fail to see how the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election is not “some sort of fatalism.”  Fatalism is exactly what unconditional election is.  Perhaps at this point a definition of fatalism is necessary because the comments made concerning it are contrary to what it is. 

 

1. Doctrine of fate: the philosophical doctrine according to which all events are fated to happen, so that human beings cannot change their destinies[2]

 

A doctrine that events are fixed in advance so that human beings are powerless to change them; also: a belief in or attitude determined by this doctrine[3]

 

That the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election is textbook fatalism is beyond refutation.  Fatalism is not a doctrine that teaches that things are left to chance, and that we have reason to despair due to this.  On the contrary, fatalism is the doctrine that all things are determined to happen, and we are powerless to change such.  This is what the Calvinist refers to as God’s: “Eternal and immutable decree” (Westminster Larger Catechism), “The unchangeable purpose of God” (Canons of Dordt), “Everlasting purpose of God” (Thirty Nine Articles of the Church of England), “Eternal and unchangeable counsel” (Belgic Confession).

 

The 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith as well as the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith mirror each other giving what seems to be a dictionary definition of fatalism in the third chapters of each saying,

 

“God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass…” (wcf)  

 

“God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass…” (bcf)

 

Commenting on Ephesians 1:3 it was said, “…it would be proper to imply the word ‘alone’ after this phrase. God alone choose [sic]. He did not choose in accordance with the will of them whom he chose.”  It is certainly reading into the text that God did not choose in accordance with the will of them whom He chose.  Where can one draw this thought from this statement of scripture?  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.  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. 

 

Romans 9:11-13 was cited which I anticipated, as I have never spoken with anyone of the Reformed faith who has not used this as a proof-text.  Romans 9:11-13 has to be one of, if not the most, cited passages in support of unconditional election but I have never understood why. 

 

First of all it must be stated that Romans 9 begins a three chapter discourse on the nation of Israel.  Paul is speaking concerning his “brethren [and] kinsmen according to the flesh who are Israelites” (vs. 3-4). 

 

Secondly it must be noted 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.  It was through Isaac, not Ishmael that the Messiah would come (vs. 7).  Likewise it was through Jacob’s (Israel’s) not Esau’s (Edom’s) bloodline that the Messiah would be born. 

 

Commenting on Paul’s fivefold use of the word “έκλογή” the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says,

 

“He uses it for divine selection in the history of the patriarchs, R. 9:11. The electing divine will (on κατ’ έκλογήν → Polyb., 176) ordains the destiny of the sons of Jacob to their birth or to their works (whether ‘good’ or ‘evil,’ so that there can be no question of moral process). The reference here is not to salvation, but to position and historical task…”[4]

 

Romans 9:12 then quotes Genesis 25:23 which says, “The LORD said to her, ‘Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older will serve the younger’” (niv).  Clearly nations are in view and not individuals, which is the only viable explanation as we never once see Esau serving Jacob in scripture.[5] 

 

In vs. 13 Paul quotes Malachi 1:2-3 which says, “I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.” 

 

Once again two nations are in view—the nation of Israel was the recipient of the word of the Lord (vs. 1) and the nation of Edom speaks as a collective whole during the message (vs. 4).  Malachi was certainly not making a statement concerning unconditional election before the foundation of the world.  This interpretation is impossible for a number of reasons, two of which I will set forth now.

 

1.      The first being that Esau and Jacob were both dead at the time this was spoken, hence it had absolutely no reference to God loving one and hating the other before they were born.  In fact, one must read the Romans passage backwards (vs. 13-11) to get this understanding.   

 

2.      The second reason being that absolutely no reference was made to one nation being chosen over the other for any purpose, especially salvation.  The book begins with a statement of love for Israel and a hatred of the nation of Edom, as well as a rebuke to the backslidden priests of the day.

 

To quote Norman Geisler,

 

“Malachi begins with a revelation of God’s love to Israel (1:1-5) and a rebuke to the priest’s sins (1:6-2:9); they were despising His name and polluting His altar by using sickly sacrifices rather than using the best animals as God demanded.” (Italics in original)[6]

 

C.F. Keil said,

 

“The Lord has shown love to Israel (1:2-5), but Israel refuses Him the gratitude which is due, since the priests despise His name by offering bad sacrifices, and thereby cherish the delusion that God cannot do without the sacrifices (vv. 6-14). The people are therefore punished with adversity, and the priesthood with desecration (2:1-9).”[7]

 

The doctrine of election, unconditional or otherwise cannot be found in the opening chapter of Malachi. 

 

2Thessalonians 2:13 was also cited as a proof-text for unconditional election, yet only part of the verse was quoted.  The verse in full reads, “But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:”  Once again, one must read into the text to arrive at the conclusion of unconditional election here. 

 

Paul said, that God has “from the beginning” chosen you to salvation rather than “from before the foundation of the world.”  This is a very important point to make as the same phrase (ap archV) occurs with the same construction 18 times in the New Testament[8], and never once denotes eternity past nor does it always mean the beginning of time.  The meaning of the phrase “from the beginning” is always determined by the context in which it is used.  

 

John Wesley stated in his explanatory notes that, “God hath from the beginning - Of your hearing the gospel. Chosen you to salvation - Taken you out of the world, and placed you in the way to glory.”[9]  This interpretation is certainly viable considering that Paul “[gave] thanks to God without ceasing, that having received the Word of hearing from [Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy], [they] welcomed it as of God, not as a word of men, but as it is, truly the Word of God, which also [worked] in [them], the ones believing (1Thessalonians 2:13).

 

Note also that those chosen were chosen “through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.”  How one can draw unconditional election by an unchangeable purpose or immutable and eternal decree from this is beyond me. 

 

The question was asked, “If the Bible says that we were chosen before time existed (which came into being with creation), how could we do anything ‘in the future’ when the future did not even exist?”

 

This argument is faulty for the following reason.  It holds that foreseen actions could play no role because the future did not yet exist, while maintaining that men who did not yet exist could be chosen.  Quite frankly, this lacks consistency and coherency.  Men were created in time in the same sense that their actions were committed in time.  If men could be chosen before they existed, then their future actions could have been a determining factor in God’s choice.      

 

The same equivocation from 2Thessalonians 2:13 was used again in reference to Matthew 25:34 which fails to say anything concerning being “chosen before time existed.” Matthew 25:34 does not say “before” (pro) the foundation of the world, but rather that the kingdom was prepared “from” (apo) the foundation of the world.  Obviously this is a significant difference.  On a side note, it was mentioned that this was the “final judgment” which is not accurate.  The judgment seen in Matthew 25:31-46 is the judgment of the nations, at which time the nations of the earth will be judged according to how they treated the Nation of Israel.  This occurs just prior to the millennium and the kingdom spoken of is the Messianic/Millennial Kingdom.  The final judgment in scripture would be the Great White Throne judgment which takes place at the end of the millennium. 

 

Concerning John 6:37, 39, I would make mention of the fact that the “all” that are given to Jesus by the Father are believers.  Marvin Vincent made these comments in reference to the “all that” (pan o) of John 6:37, “The neuter singular of the adjective and pronoun. All believers are regarded as one complete whole. Compare Joh_17:24, according to the correct reading, ‘that which Thou hast given me.’”[10]  A.T. Robertson agrees saying that it was, “a collective use of the neuter singular.”[11]  F.F. Bruce said, “In the first part of verse 37 the pronoun ‘all’ is neuter singular (Gk. Pan), denoting the sum-total of believers. In the second part (‘the one who comes’) each individual member of that sum-total is in view. This oscillation between the community as a whole and its individual members reappears in verses 39 and 40.”[12]

 

Stating that “coming to Christ” is the same as “believing in Christ” is without warrant from the verse.  The term “will come” (hxei) according to Vincent emphasizes the idea of reaching or arriving.  This is obviously different from belief.  One would think that the Holy Spirit would have simply said “all that the Father hath given me ‘will believe’ (pisteusomen) in me…” had belief been in view, but this was not said.  So it would seem that only the believers are the ones who come and that the Father gives only believers to Jesus.  Also, though the Father’s “giving” precedes the believer’s “coming,” there is nothing that would support his “giving” before the foundation of the world from this passage.  This interpretation has great support grammatically and contextually.  And as was pointed out which I agree 100%, the “us” in Ephesians 1 are certainly “believers.”  Well said!   

 

The comment was made that Paul exhorted the Ephesians to unity after making mention of the doctrine of election.  While this is true, it is not true that he mentioned the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election.  Such a doctrine is divisive and offensive to many.  But all emotion aside, it is simply unscriptural.  The Biblical doctrine of election which shows God electing a group of believers to be holy and without blame before God is certainly unifying. 

 

ב״ה