Does the Bible Teach the Doctrine of Unconditional Election?

 

Nick Norelli

 

Fatalism

 

I have one simple question: Can the number of people that God elected be altered?  If the answer is NO because God has from eternity by an immutable decree elected a certain number to salvation, whom He draws by irresistible grace, whose salvation He procured by a particular atonement, who will without doubt persevere unto the end because of their eternal election, then we DO have “some sort of fatalism.”  This is undeniable.  It was said, “Our salvation is not left to chance, or even our human decisions, but is rather determined by a God who decided to save.”  One may veil the belief with the label of soft-determinism/compatibolism, but the statement itself speaks volumes. 

 

I fail to see how Westminster when quoted in context shows anything other than the inconsistency of the creed.  The portion I did quote showed the blatant fatalism that is inherent within it.  “Secondary causes” do not solve the problem of fatalism for as you defined them they are “God [using] man’s will as a means of fulfilling His own purposes” and “God, rather, [using] the will of man to bring about His own will.”  We have to ask if God’s eternal and immutable decree cannot be altered in any way, shape, or form, then how is it not “some sort of fatalism?”  Were not these “secondary causes” part of the original eternal and immutable decree of God?  I would love to spend more time on this but as you said, we shouldn’t turn this into a lengthy philosophical discourse. 

 

Eisegesis in Ephesians 1:3-4

 

Well, as was stated at the end of the paper, I didn’t get to address everything that I would have liked to, nor was I able to spend as much time on each point as I would have liked to, so rest assured it was not a lack of love that kept me from dealing with the issue in more detail, it was simply a sense of fairness in length.  However, after having read your response to my remark I can only conclude that you basically agree with it.  The verse is absolutely silent on the issue of God choosing in accordance with anyone’s (obviously a reference to man’s) will. 

 

You yourself admitted this saying, “Therefore, while the verse is certainly silent on man’s will having anything to do with God’s sovereign choice…”   Where is the discrepancy?  Your original statement to which I responded was, “He did not choose in accordance with the will of them whom he chose.”  So either the verse is silent on the issue, or it is not silent on the issue and he did not choose in accordance with the will of them whom he chose—I maintain that it is (silent), and in retrospect it seems that you do as well. 

 

I would also point out that I didn’t say your belief that “God chose” was read into the text, I merely said that saying God did not choose in accordance with man’s will was.  I believe I ended my comment by saying, “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.”  And this is in point of fact true.  God can choose alone, while basing his choice on his foreknowledge. 

 

The Timing of Election and God’s Omniscience

 

You said, “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.’”

 

Now before I say anything allow me to state that I’m assuming that you believe God to be omniscient, yet this statement seems to be a subtle dismissal of His omniscience.  An act does not have to have already been committed in time for God to have knowledge of it—a perfect example of this being predictive prophecy.  That is why we refer to prior knowledge as “foreknowledge,” because God is an all-knowing being and as such He has from all eternity known everything there is to know beforehand.  This includes every single thing that would occur in time.  To deny this is to deny that God is omniscient. 

 

Secondly, the same inconsistency which I pointed out in my original paper is maintained in this response.  The argument holds that God could from eternity elect men who did not yet exist to salvation, yet it denies that he could have foreknowledge of their response to the gospel because they did not yet exist to commit any act.  If non-existent men can be chosen to be holy and without blame before God in love, then non-existent faith can serve as a reason for the aforementioned choice.  That is if we want to be logically consistent. 

 

The Treatment of Romans 9:1-13

 

The exegesis of Romans 9:1-13 failed to turn up any hint of election to salvation.  The interpretation of the text began with the assumption that salvation is the topic, and then proceeds to exegete the passage according to this unproven supposition.  This is simply a case of question begging. 

 

Also, it was stated that individuals comprise a nation which of course is true (who could deny such an obvious fact), but it seems as if my statement was either ignored or misunderstood.  Once again I said, “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.”  This is undeniable from the context as vs. 5 plainly states it!—saying, “…and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ.” (NIV)

 

Many a Calvinist writer has presented Romans 9 as dealing with the two individuals Jacob and Esau as opposed to the nations of Israel and Edom, as did the Calvinist writer to whom I was responding.  My statement was made in response to that and then supported grammatically, contextually, and reasonably.  Election to salvation was not in view. 

 

I don’t understand the objections to the points I raised regarding Malachi 1:2-3 in respect to unviable interpretations because of dead people in scripture.  Perhaps it was the wording of the objection or maybe the objection itself.  I don’t know.  But the point remains, if Paul was speaking concerning the election of Jacob to salvation and Esau to damnation before the foundation of the world by quoting Malachi 1:2-3, then it would make sense that God would have made the statement before they were both born, not after they were both dead and buried, would it not?  The fact is that God did say that the elder would serve the younger before the two men were born (once again this is speaking nationally),  but as I stated last time, one needs to read the Romans passage backwards to arrive at the conclusion that God loved Jacob and hated Esau before they were born. 

 

On a side note, “being not yet born” does not equal “before the foundation of the world” i.e. an eternal decree of election/reprobation.  The children existed in the womb before they were born.

 

2Thessalonians 2:13

 

You said, “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?”

 

And to this question I would give the same answer, the Calvinist.  1Thessalonians 2:13 was quoted to support Wesley’s idea that “the beginning” in question was the “beginning” of their hearing the gospel because Paul thanked God without ceasing for their receiving the word when they first heard it.  Philippians 4:15 speaks of the “beginning of the gospel” as being when Paul departed from Macedonia.  This was a reference to Philippi as Acts 16:12 tell us that Philippi was the “chief city of that part of Macedonia.”  We see Paul entering Thessalonica in Acts 17:1 and he immediately began to preach the gospel to them.  Acts 17:4 informs us that a great multitude of devout Greeks were being saved.  The Thessalonians were chosen from the beginning to hear the gospel message and be saved through sanctification of the Spirit and belief in the truth.   

 

And the point still stands that “from the beginning” in 15 of its 18 uses in the NT[[1]] doesn’t have reference to anything before the foundation of the world i.e. an eternal decree which must be maintained in order to accept unconditional election.  And on the peripheral issue of my asking how one could draw unconditional election from the latter half of the verse, I was actually asking how one could draw that conclusion from the entire verse.

 

Matthew 25:34

 

Actually, I pointed out the fallacy of equivocation used in reference to “from the foundation” and “before the foundation.”  I know that the text was not misquoted, it was only misunderstood.  Your exact words were, “This idea of being chosen before time existed is not a teaching that is only abundant in Paul’s writings, but comes from the mouth of our Lord Jesus Himself.”  Yet Jesus’ words have no reference to being “before time existed.”  And I agree we can save the eschatology for another debate.

 

Romans 8:29-30

 

Having gotten that out of the way, I now wish to present some comments on Romans 8:29-30 (the so-called “golden chain of redemption”).  First allow us to observe the order given in the passage:

 

1. Foreknowledge
2. Predestination
3. Calling
4. Justification
5. Glorification

 

I think every Christian can agree that believers are in view in this passage.  This is the same group whom Paul a verse earlier described as “them who love God and are the called according to his purpose.” 

 

Notice that first He foreknew them.  If believers are in view here and God foreknew them then He must have foreknown that they would believe.  This first point is also contrary to what the Westminster Confession states in saying that the effectual call is not based on anything foreseen in man (WCF X:II).  From this passage foreknowledge precedes predestination (cf. 1Peter 1:2 where election is said to be according to the foreknowledge of God the Father). 

 

Secondly, those believers whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son.  Notice that he did not predestine them to salvation or to believe.  He foreknew them as believers therefore to predestine their belief would be redundant.  And in foreknowing them as believers God knew that they would be saved since salvation is wrought through faith in Christ (Ephesians 2:8) therefore to predestine them to salvation would be equally as redundant.    

 

Thirdly, those same believers that were predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ were called, and of course they were called, how else would they believe?  We both agree that no man can come to Jesus unless drawn by the Father (John 6:44), but I would raise an objection to your view at this point. 

 

You said, “The group that is also called is the same group that is going to be justified and glorified.  That is, the group that is ‘called’ is not going to be a different group that is glorified.  They are the same.”  But then later in your opening statement you quoted Jesus as saying, “many are called but few chosen” and then intimated that God can do what he wants with mankind and salvation.  Jesus’ statement very clearly shows us that not all who are called are chosen, so the Romans passage must have a specific group in view, that group being none other than believers.  In other words, not all who are called will believe. 

 

Fourthly, the same group of believers whom were called were also justified, and we know that justification is wrought through faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 13:39, Romans 5:9), not an eternal decree of election. 

 

Fifthly, the same believers whom were justified were also glorified.  At this point it must be stated that only believers are glorified.  No one could dispute this.  Every step of the way we see that believers are in view.  What we do not see is election to salvation, predestination to believe, or anything of the sort.  We do not see an eternal decree taking place before the foundation of the world.    

 

There are also some missing links in this chain of redemption, namely regeneration and sanctification.  One may attempt to equate regeneration with justification but this cannot be for regeneration is, “the production of a new life consecrated to God, a radical change of mind for the better”[[2]]—while justification is, “the act of God declaring men free from guilt and acceptable to him; abjuring to be righteous.”[[3]]  One speaks of spiritual re-birth while the other is a legal term describing a person’s standing with God.  Sanctification is the other missing link.  Surely this should be included in the golden chain of redemption as the Bible has much to say about the saints being sanctified.  How would we expect one to be glorified who had not been sanctified?

 

Last but not least, there is the order presented.  Is the order in Romans 8:29-30 the same order presented throughout the Bible?  The answer is no, there are variations on the order of salvation in scripture so we cannot be dogmatic about one passage without taking into account all of the others.  A quick listing of them will end this response.

 

Matthew 20:16 – (1) Calling (2) Election

Matthew 22:14 – (1) Calling (2) Election

1Corinthians 6:11 – (1) Washing (2) Sanctification (3) Justification

2Thessalonians 2:13 – (1) Election (2) Sanctification (3) Belief

2 Timothy 1:9 – (1) Salvation (2) Calling

Titus 3:5 – (1) Regeneration (2) Renewal

1Peter 1:2 – (1) Election (2) Foreknowledge (3) Sanctification

2Peter 1:10 – (1) Calling (2) Election

Jude 1 – (1) Sanctification (2) Preservation (3) Election

 

ב״ה