Westminster Confession

Bible Study

 

Chapter 3 God’s Eternal Decrees, sec. 3.5:  By Grace Alone

 

 

By: Moses Flores

 

 

 

            In our last study we came to grips with the fact that God’s act of election is something that produces a certain and definite people of God which cannot be altered either by adding to or subtracting from in any way.  God has not “left the door” open to the kingdom so that whoever comes in and out as they will is added to or subtracted from the fold of God. 

            This next section of the Westminster Confession of Faith was intended to refute the Arminian idea that God’s act of election was based upon God foreseeing who would believe and persevere to the end.  In other words, for the Arminian, or Semi-Pelagian, the basis of God’s choosing is upon the person’s character and choice of first choosing Christ and then persevering in his or her faith till the end of their life or till Christ comes.  The Arminian Article known as the Remonstrants states it this way:

 

That God, by an eternal, 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 an 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 iii. 36: 'He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of god abideth on him,' and according to other passages of Scripture also. [1] (Italics mine)

 

            In essence, the logical order of election in this view places faith and perseverance before election!  In other words, in Arminianism, we are elected by our faith and perseverance which proceeds from our own autonomous free will rather than being elected for faith and perseverance accordance to God’s sovereign decrees.  The former being the most consistent with the Biblical presentation of God’s sovereignty which we have already seen and the latter being entirely inconsistent with even Theism itself. 

            The Westminster Confession explicitly rejects this view of election in section 5 of the third chapter by stating,

 

“Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them , or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto; and all to the praise of His glorious grace.”

 

            This study will provide us with Scriptural support which explicitly denies the Arminian view of election.  We will also consider a common objection to the Reformed Calvinist view as well as consider the nature of grace as we understand it in and through the doctrine of election.

 

Did God foresee anything in us?

 

            Among the most common view of election and predestination within the Christian Church is that God looked into the future and foresaw who would believe in Christ and endure in their faith unto the end of their life or until Christ returns.  These that God knew would believe and persevere were then referred to as “the elect.”  Do the Scriptures teach this?  There are several texts of Scripture that teach contrary to this understanding.  One such passage of Scripture comes from Romans 9, which is where the apostle Paul explicitly expounds the doctrine of election and predestination with particular reference to the Jewish people.        Let us explore this text of Scripture and see what it says is the basis of the election of God.

            Romans 9 shows us Paul’s shift of thinking about the glory of the Gospel and the security that it offers to all who trust in it to the people of Israel.  In particular, Paul moves to contemplate Israel and the Gospel and why they are not experiencing the power of God unto salvation like the Gentiles are.  We read in 9:1-5:

 

“I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart.  For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.”

 

The matter could be stated this way:  If Israel has long been God’s covenant people whom God redeemed from bondage, then how is it that God’s redemption of them is now seeming to falter in that the covenant people themselves have rejected the Messiah and now outside of the eternal covenant of God?  Has God failed in His promises?  Has God become powerless to save Israel in their stiffneckedness?  Paul would not have us believe that for a second!  He says,

 

“But it is not as though the word of God has failed [taken no effect, NKJV].  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).  Recall that in the time of the Old Testament, Israel was not a might nation, or even a nation at all when God chose them to be a nation.  Deuteronomy 7: 6-8 says,

 

“For you are a holy people to the LORD your God;  the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth.. The LORD did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any other people, for you were the least of all peoples; but because the LORD loves you, and because He would keep the oath which He swore to your fathers, the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.” 

 

Now, it is often supposed that this portion of Scripture deals only with the election of the nation of Israel and not with individual election of all peoples.  This objection with be deal with simultaneously with the belief of election being grounded in the one’s being elected. 

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.”

The reference here is to the promise of an heir for Abraham provided by God.  Abraham, however, attempted to fulfill this promise through his own effort by laying with Hagar, Sarah’s handmaid.  The result was a son who was called Ishmael.  Ishmael was rejected by the LORD as the covenant heir because he was not the one to whom God had promised the blessings.  The LORD had promised to give Abraham a son through Sarah.  Of course, Abraham could have reasoned that since Sarah was well beyond the age of childbearing, that Hagar, since she was Sarah’s could have been how God’s promise was to be fulfilled in a sense.

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 as Jacob and Esau share the same Father, Isaac, and even Abraham as their grandfather.  They are pure, unlike Ishmael. 

Notice that the Bible says that the children had done no works either good or evil at this point.  But if God had chosen one over the other on the basis of how they would act in the future, especially in regards to the blessing that Esau threw away for a bowl of beans, then this would have been the place for Paul to say so.  Of course, if it would have been the case that God foresaw this act, then the blessings and salvation of God really could not have been said to be based on the promises of God and unconditionally.  If the Bible did say that we are elected by our foreseen choices, this would have been the place to mention it.  John Calvin commented on this verse saying, “God…could not have had any regard to works, for they were not yet done”[2].

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.  We should also consider that if the promises were based on performance, then the outcome of the promises is also based on performance.  That is, if one acquired the status of election by their performance, then they can easily lose their status of election and justification which flows from the latter based on their performance or lack thereof as well.  

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”.  These men who contained nations within them were chosen not because of anything within them.  Theologically speaking, this is referenced in the adjective “unconditional” in the Calvinist acrostic TULIP in reference to Unconditional election.  It is said to be “unconditional” because they, as well as all the others elected to salvation, are elected unconditionally from our part.  That is, there are no conditions we have to fulfill like willing our faith or persevering in order to meet the requirement to become chosen by God. 

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.”

 

In Malachi, the prophet brings clarification to the people of God who are complaining that God no longer loves them anymore.  The prophet recounts,

 

“‘I have loved you,’ says the LORD.

Yet you say, ‘In what way have you loved us?’

 

The prophet responds,

 

“‘Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?’

Says the LORD.

‘Yet Jacob have I loved; But Esau have I hated,

and laid waste his mountains and his heritage

for the jackals of the wilderness.’

 

            When the people of Israel doubted God’s love and goodness toward them, the prophet Malachi essentially responded back to them with the doctrine of God’s free and unconditional election of their descendant Jacob, who was equally the son of Isaac as was his brother Esau.  In all truth, the blessings of Isaac belonged to Esau who was the oldest and Isaac even intended to give the blessing to him and thought he did as he was being fooled by Jacob.  How did God show His love to Israel?  By choosing them!  Thus, the prophet lays aside any accusations against the love of God with the doctrine of election based on the promises of God.

            Now, in the New Testament, Paul is using the words of the prophet Malachi to reveals God’s free love and salvation to those whom He chooses apart from their works and abilities.  Remember, that Esau “deserved” the blessings being the oldest and for all practical purposes was an upright man with only one moment of weakness that we read about.  Jacob, on the other hand was consistently a “deceiver” as his name indicates. 

            Now the objections come.  Apparently Paul has been teaching this doctrine for sometime and has encountered some objections that he wishes to deal with as he writes to the Church in Rome.  The first objection is one of the most common even to this very day.  It is the charge of unfairness with God.  He says,

 

“What shall we say then?  Is there unrighteousness with God?

 

            This is to say, if God doesn’t choose us according to our performance but still chooses some for salvation and leaves other for destruction, isn’t God being unjust?  Before moving on to the answer, we must ask another question:  Is God ever obligated to do for all people what He does for one person?  In a more practical illustration, supposing that one death row inmate were pardoned from the just penalty for his crime.  In pardoning one death row inmate, is the state obligated then to do the same for all death row inmates?  Obviously, such thinking would be obsurd. 

            With such reasoning in mind, Paul answers, “certainly not!”  Recall the scriptures in Genesis 18 where on the verge of destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham asks “shall not the judge of all the earth do what is right?” (Gen. 18:25, cf. Deut. 32:4).  Paul continues by appealing to Scripture to vindicate the justice of God:

 

“For He says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.’ 

 

            In essence, God’s mercy and compassion, by definition are not obligated to any save those whom God chooses to give them to.  In regards to the charge of injustice, were one to pay for their sins themselves, they receive justice.  Were God to ordain Christ the penal substitute to pay for their sins, they receive mercy.  No one receives injustice.  Injustice is an punitive act carried out on someone who has not merited.  Injustice would be the death penalty without having committed a crime worthy of death.  In our case, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) and the wages of our sin is death (Romans 6:23).  No injustice is taking place if God leaves one to their own sins.

            Paul furthers the point by saying,

 

“So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.” (ESV)

 

“So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.” (NKJV)

 

            In context, the “it” that Paul refers to is God’s mercy and compassion.  Those do not depend on simply willing to have it (free will decision) or on our performances and works in trying to merit those things from God somehow.  Rather, receiving these is totally up to God “who has mercy”. 

            These verses and following are really what led the writers of the Confession and those before to believe that God does not choose anybody on anything foreseen.  In fact, verse 16 should put an end to the Calvinist/Arminian debate forever.  Scripture does not get any clearer than this on the basis of election!  Paul continues again quoting from Scripture.  He says,

 

“For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, ‘for this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.’  So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.” (ESV)

 

            These verses are familiar from our encounter with the doctrine of reprobation.  The key word(s) that we need to focus on is the conclusion indicator of the words “so then” also translated “therefore” in the NKJV and NIV.  The main point Paul is trying to get across is that salvation does not at all depend our own efforts, merit, character, personality, achievements, or anything else we think we can produce of our own wills.  Rather, the focus is totally and completely to be on God’s own graciousness displayed in His mercy and compassion in the election of some to eternal life.  That is the point here. 

            It has absolutely nothing to do with us at all!  Ephesians 1:3-6 also makes this point clear that God chose us in Christ “according to the good pleasure of his will”.  I myself have debated with some who insist that this text means that God elected us with respect to our own free will choices.  However, such an understanding is not able to come from the words “of his will”.  Rather, it is a presupposition inserted into the text rather than allowing the text to speak for itself.  Similar thoughts are echoed in II Timothy 1:9, Acts 13:48, II Thessalonians 2:13-14.

            Furthermore, Scripture teaches that our good works, performances and even perseverance are the result not the basis of our election.  For instance, in Ephesians 1:11-12 we read,

 

“In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory”

 

            The idea here is that we our purpose in the predestination and working of God, we were destined, or appointed to live for the praise of God’s glory.[3]  In other words, if being to God’s glory is what we were intended to become, then it cannot be the case that it is what we were before. 

Similarly, in Ephesians 2:10 we read,

 

“For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand than we should walk in them.”

 

            Again, if we were prepared for “good works” then it cannot be the case that we were actually performing anything good before being “created in Christ Jesus”.  No one actually does “good works” until they are first chosen by God and created again, or born again, in Christ Jesus.  Then, the Bible says, they can “walk” in good works, but never as a basis for anything in salvation for salvation is all of grace.  Rather, good works, including perseverance are the inevitable result of God’s salvation (cf. Galatians 5:22).

 

Is God a respecter of persons?

 

            It is usually objected that if God were to chose anybody at all and not allow them to choose of their own will, then that would make God a “respecter of persons.”  This objection utilizes Biblical language to give force to its argument.  But is God a “respecter of persons”, something which the Scriptures clearly teach that God is not (cf. Deut. 10:17; 2 Chron. 19:7; Acts 10:34).  Let us examine the Scriptures and what they mean by “respecter of persons”.

            Now, it is assumed that to be a respecter of persons, one must be partial to that person in any way at all.  Thus, showing any favor to one over the other makes God a “respecter of persons.”  But is this what the Scripture means when it uses this language?

            In Deuteronomy 10:12-17, Israel is being exhorted, after receiving again their newly forged commandments to love God and to obey all his statutes.  Moses writes,

 

“And now, Israel, what does the LORD your God require of you, but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and to keep the commandments and statutes of the LORD, which I am commanding you today for you good?  Behold, to the LORD your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it.  Yet the LORD set his heart in love on your fathers and chose their offspring after them, you above all peoples, as you are this day.  Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn.  For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe.”

 

            As Israel is being instructed, Moses tells them that the LORD has set his heart on them through their fathers.  Now, if we are to understand that God’s being partial to any is wrong, then verse 15 would have to be rendered “inappropriate” for the character of God.  But the Scripture do teach that God has favor on some and not on others.  God obviously chose many people in Scripture for his own purposes.  In order to motivate the people of Israel to obedience, Moses appeals to God’s own graciousness in choosing Israel out of all the other nations of the earth that could have been chosen as equally, even with more reason (cf. Deut. 7:6-8; 4:32-40). 

            God’s non-partiality is not that God does not merely mean that God does not show favor, for He obviously does.  Rather, God’s non-partiality toward men is to be understood in that He does not show favor to men based on men.  If God chooses to show favor to one over another it is because it is according to the sovereign will and pleasure of God.  The idea here being that God’s favor is not earned or deserved by any.  In this sense, God is not a respecter of persons.  It is not of “him who wills or of him who runs” as the Scriptures says.

            In Acts 10:34 in the conversion of Cornelius, Peter declares that he understands now, truly, that God is “no respecter of persons.”  Recall that Peter was a Jew who had some initial trouble with preaching to the Gentiles about Christ because he was under the notion that God was only favorable to Israel.  But when Peter witnessed for himself that a Gentile had received the gift of the Holy Spirit even as the apostle did, he became truly convinced that God was not partial.  Again, this same concept comes through here as earlier, but in a different application.  In Deuteronomy, the truth about God’s non-partiality was meant to consider the graciousness of God to Israel in particular that God didn’t have to choose Israel, so they needed to show their praise and thanks to God by obeying Him.  Here in Acts, however, it is used in the sense to show again that God has no favorite race and can and does elect peoples to be His own without regards to their racial background.  In fact, it is because God is not a “respecter of persons” that we can say that God’s salvation is not limited to any type of person.  God is free to save whom He wills whether they come from a good and wholesome family background to the worst of sinners who have murdered, raped, and committed the worst atrocities on the world.  God is not a respecter of persons.

 

The meaning of grace

 

            The Arminian doctrine of election based on foreseen faith and perseverance has many implications for many doctrines.  One could argue that the doctrine of justification by faith alone is inconsistently maintained if election is based on foreseen faith and perseverance.  But even more severe is our understanding of grace. 

            Grace has been defined in many ways.  Some have used the phrase, “unmerited favor”.  Some have even used “demerit favor” to convey the idea that we receive God’s favor in spite of our demerits that we actually have.  Some have even used the acrostic “God’s riches at Christ’s expense.”  However, we define grace, the generally idea is that it is something given freely, which is to say free from our merit or in spite of our demerit. 

            Medieval theology changed the concept of grace into an opportunity to be able to work for one’s salvation.  The development of this theology was partly due to a Biblically deficient view about the radical fallenness of humanity into sin and corruption.  To this day, Roman Catholic theology still carries this sense and understanding of the word grace.  Their view, known as Prevenient grace (among other graces) is that God give opportunity to all through the sacrifice of Christ to be able to fulfill the commands of God and essentially work for their own salvation.  Semi-Pelagian and Arminian theology keeps this same notion of Prevenient grace, which to them, frees all men to be able to choose to believe or not believe in the Gospel.  Again, “grace” is the opportunity to choose.

            Romans 11, however, has something different to say about how we understand grace.  Here, Paul is ready to sum up his argument for election, especially pertaining to the Jews.  He says,

 

“I say then, has God cast away His people?  Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.  God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew.  Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying, ‘LORD, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life?’  But what does the divine response say to him?  ‘I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.’  Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.  And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace.  But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.”

 

            Notice first that election is said to be “of grace”.  It is never something we deserve.  Paul continues in verse 6 by saying that if it is by grace, then it is no longer by works.  Here Paul introduces the antithesis between grace and works.  The argument seems to be, that if “grace” is the sufficient condition for salvation, then “works” – whether actual or foreseen – have no place in obtaining salvation.  If works still have a role in obtaining salvation, then grace is no longer grace.  John Murray stated it this way: “If grace is conditioned in any way by human performance or by the will of man impelling to action, the grace ceases to be grace.”[4]

            In essence, the writers of the Westminster confession of Faith, in writing the explicit rejection of the Arminian view of election sought to preserve not only the Scriptural teaching of election and reprobation, but also to preserve, even implicitly, the Biblical understanding of grace.  While one could argue that it is gracious in a sense to be given the chance to work for one’s salvation, in the light of the true teaching of human depravity, such a chance could not exist!  The Semi-Pelagian view of grace serves as a means of maintaining human pride and foolishness into thinking that we have a hand in our own salvation; that we are worthy of it.  That God “deserves” to save us. 

            But Scripture lends no support to such a view.  Rather, it condemns it in the harshest of language (cf. Gal. 1:6-9).  The Gospel is serious business.  Grace is the key to it all.  Without understanding grace, there is no accepting or understanding the Gospel at all.  Election is of grace.

 

Conclusion

 

            Despite popular teachings that God chose us because we first chose Him, the Westminster Confession declares along with the Scriptures that God’s choice was not based on anything we have done but only on God’s grace.  Jesus Himself told His own apostles, “you did not choose me, but I choose 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 (John 15:16).”  Acts 13:48 says that when the Gentiles heard the Gospel, “they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord.  And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.”  In 2 Thessalonians 2:13 Paul gives thanks to God because “God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 

            Many more Scriptures could make it clear that our election unto salvation is not based on our foreseen works[5], faith or performances.  Let these few that have been offered suffice to show that salvation is by grace alone.  And because it is by grace alone it can be through faith alone in Christ alone and God alone may receive the glory.  Amen.