The New Calvinism- Picking Up Where I Left Off

Back in November of 2006, I began writing a series examining Arminianism vs Calvinism (Reformed) theology. At the time, I had already become convinced that the Calvinistic position was the more biblically accurate, but I was still working through all its theological implications, as well as trying to answer from scripture the Arminian objections.

So as I began writing the series, my purpose was multifold. First, I wanted to study through to solid answers and put my conclusions in writing, as I have found that putting thoughts down in words brings about greater clarity and insight. Second, I wanted to present a strong, biblical argument and to answer objections biblically. My foundation for bible study is the conviction that the Bible contains the answers to these all-important questions, it being the true revelation of God to man. Third, I hoped my writings on the topic would be helpful and even educational to others who might also be wrestling with the serious theological questions brought out by the ongoing debate between Arminians and Calvinists.

I had also come to recognize that one’s answers to these profound theological questions, in other words, one’s theology, plays a vital role in determining how one lives out their Christian faith. For myself and my family, I wanted to be convinced I had come to sound, biblical conclusions. And as one wanting to be a guide and a help to others in these matters, I knew I would need to have solid convictions, anchored in a confidence that I had come to accurate conclusions based on correct biblical interpretation. Of course I recognized that sincere and godly people have come to different conclusions on many of the questions raised in this ancient debate, nonetheless I proceeded, based on the conviction that embarking on this type of study would bear good fruit. It would challenge me to my best thinking and digging into the Bible would undoubtedly bring more light to my understanding of these things.

Yet I found the challenge of writing on these matters while answering many objections was very consuming, and about midway through the series, I set it aside. Now, 2 and ½ years have passed since I first began writing and I feel compelled again to complete it. I have read and thought more on reformed theology. I am now attending a church that is solidly reformed in its preaching emphasis. My convictions about the accuracy of the reformed theological perspective has continued to grow.

A recent article in Time magazine has also provided new inspiration, since it lists “The New Calvinism” as one of the 10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now. In fact, the new Calvinism is at #3 on the list, though I’m not sure whether the list is in order of priority. I’m challenged by this that the biblical truths Calvin and others pointed to have fresh relevance in these troubled times.

As the world economy faces monumental challenges, wars continue to rage, and famine and natural disasters plague, religious questions are naturally raised. Does God really exist? What is the nature of God— is He the personal God of the Bible or the impersonal divine force that many religions describe? If He is indeed a personal God who is completely sovereign over all things, then why does He allow such pain and suffering? These are the challenging and profound questions that thinking people have always asked. Perhaps in these tremulous days the answers presented by the great Reformed thinkers are growing attractive to many. But more important, does the reformed picture comport with the Bible, or is it merely a man-made theological system? This being also the 500 year anniversary of Calvin’s birth, I feel it is fitting to take up such questions again, and to re-post my series comparing and contrasting the answers provided by Arminian vs Calvinistic (Reformed) theology. My plan then is to re-post the original articles (with perhaps some editing), then pick up in the series where I had left off. Stay tuned for more.

Tags: Arminianism vs Calvinism, Arminian vs Reformed theology, Calvinism, The New Calvinism, Calvin, 500 year anniversary of Calvin's birth, biblical convictions

Arminian vs Reformed Theology : Answers to Objections to Unconditional Election-Pt 4

Unconditional, Individual Election to Salvation in Romans 9

In a previous article I wrote about why I believe that Romans 9, though not written to be a treatise on the doctrine of election, nevertheless teaches an unconditional, individual election that is integral to the argument being presented by Paul in the chapter. Those who believe that Romans 9 does not teach unconditional and individual election hold different interpretations, one being the idea that Jacob and Esau represent nations, and therefore that the election spoken of in the chapter has to do with the fate of nations. I think that this is incorrect and in this article will further defend my reasons for thinking that Romans 9 reveals an unconditional election of individuals.

Paul's Concerns in Romans 9

Let's examine the chapter again. Verses 1-5 begin with Paul expressing "great sorrow and unceasing anguish" over the fact that his own people, the Jewish nation of Israel, are missing salvation through Christ because of their unbelief. And yet, he immediately asserts that the "word of God (to Israel)" has not failed. Thus we learn immediately that the nation Paul is concerned with in this chapter is Israel. It is in relation to Israel that Paul frames the following problem, for which he will provide an answer:

If Israel has been elected by God, why isn't everyone in Israel responding in faith to Jesus Christ, and receiving salvation through Him? In fact, Israel as a nation seems to be missing salvation through Jesus, and therefore, it would seem that the word of God to them has failed.

So we see that Paul's concern is this chapter (and continuing into Romans 10-11) is with the salvation of Israel. It is because many of his fellow Jews are missing out on salvation through Christ that Paul feels such tremendous grief that he even goes so far as to say that he would be willing- if it were possible-- to have himself cut off from Christ, if then somehow his fellow Israelites might find salvation. But Paul will go on to show that God's word to Israel has not failed because 1) there is a remnant in Israel, chosen by grace, that is being saved; 2) God's plan for the elect nation of Israel is being carried out; 3) all who believe in Christ are "children of the promise", elected unconditionally by God. The unconditional nature of election is shown in that the guarantee of the success of God's word to Israel and also, to believers in Christ, Paul is arguing, is not based on their faithfulness to the covenant (their meeting conditions), but upon God's.

Let's see how Paul presents this argument.

The Israelites were chosen by God and are therefore a greatly blessed nation. Paul writes, "To them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises." In addition, Paul says, to the Israelites "belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, [came] the Christ, who is God over all". Yet even with these great advantages, the result of her favored status with God, Jerusalem/Israel "did not know the time of [her] visitation" (Luke 19:44)-- many Jews were not putting faith in Christ and therefore not attaining to the righteousness that is obtained through faith in Him.

So it seems as if the word of God to Israel has failed. Now if this is true, then the great promises to believers in Christ that Paul has been both enumerating and extolling (Romans 8:12-37) are likewise in danger of failing. But Paul encourages his Roman readers to remain confident about these promises concerning their faith in Christ. He does so by pointing out that God is faithful- for He has been faithful to His covenant with Israel, in preserving for Himself a remnant of believers in Israel who have been "chosen by grace" (Romans 9:29, 11:5).

In Romans 11 Paul will also explain that a "hardening" of Israel (by God) has occurred, so that the full number of Gentiles may be added in, that is, be saved, by being included in God's covenant (Romans 11:25). God's purpose in this scheme of election is that the Jews, who had always enjoyed favored status with the Lord, might be provoked to jealousy by seeing the Gentiles being "grafted in", and that they will once again return to the Lord to be shown mercy.

A Methodical Argument

Paul develops the argument methodically. In chapter 9 he explains that "not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel", and "not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring", but that the true offspring of God are "children of the promise". In other words, there is a special blessing of God that is not passed down through the bloodline or by birth, but comes to those whom God chooses by His word of promise to believe. These chosen ones therefore become His "children of the promise". Another way to describe this would be to say that there is an election within election-- that is, the nation of Israel was elected to special privileges, yet within Israel, some individuals also are elected to receive the call to salvation in Christ.

To show how this happens, Paul first gives the example of Isaac, born to Sarah by a promise of God, "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." Isaac is a "child of the promise." Now it is conceivable that one might challenge Paul by saying that the reason Isaac was chosen by God to receive the covenant blessing, rather than Abraham's first-born son Ishmael, was that Isaac was properly of the line of Abraham, (being a product of the union between Abraham and his wife Sarah), while Ishmael (conceived through Abraham's union with the maidservant Hagar) was not. But with the next example, Paul will show that the bloodline has nothing at all to do with who receives the special word of promise from God.

Paul points to Rebekah, the wife of Isaac, who was pregnant with twins in her womb. Here are two children to be born to the same mother, and having but one father (Isaac). Yet Jacob alone is chosen, while his twin Esau is not. Is this because Jacob is a better person than Esau? The biblical record of the life of Jacob reveals a cunning, deceitful man who tricked his older brother Esau out of the blessing that was due him as eldest son. Esau on the other hand is shown to be one who, by his actions, puts no value upon his birthright (Gen 25:34, Heb 12:16). Neither seems especially meritorious. Yet the question of whether the character of Jacob is superior to Esau and therefore merits God's call is a moot point. For Paul shows that when "they (Jacob and Esau) were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad— in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls", Rebekah was given the promise by God that "the older (Esau) will serve the younger (Jacob)." Therefore the election of Jacob and not Esau has nothing to do with any of their actions (including, of course, foreseen faith). To further emphasize the clear-cut nature of God's choice, Paul quotes God himself as saying, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

Nations or Individuals?

Why does Paul refer to Jacob and Esau here? Is he speaking about the destinies of the nations Jacob and Esau represent? If so, it is strange that Paul neither indicates nor develops such a line of argument. It is true that the descendants of Esau-- the Edomites-- would someday serve the descendants of Jacob-- in fulfillment of the prophetic word of God ("the older will serve the younger"). But Paul in Romans 9 is apparently not concerned with contrasting the nation of Israel against other nations. He is not arguing for the right of God to choose the nation of Israel as the vehicle through which salvation would come (God has already made Israel the vehicle of salvation, he says in Romans 9:5). Rather, Paul's point is to emphasize the independence and unconditionality of God's choices in election ("Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated"), and to show that even within the elect nation of Israel, there is a further election, made by God, of individuals to salvation. This is why God's covenant word to Israel has not failed: because God is saving specific individuals. For this reason Paul's examples throughout the chapter are of individuals (Isaac, Jacob, Esau, Pharoah)-- for he is talking about the salvation of persons, in contrast to the nation of Israel, which, on the whole, was missing salvation.

Since God's Word to Israel has not failed, we may also trust God's word to believers in Christ

Again, one of Paul's chief objectives is to prove that the Word of God to Israel has not failed, so that believers in Christ may also be assured that God's promises to them are likewise secure. Having made possibly the most sweeping promises in the entire word of God concerning the elect-- those whom God foreknew-- Paul here demonstrates that such promises are dependable, because they are based upon the trustworthiness of God, who has fulfilled, and is still fulfilling, His word to Israel. In speaking of the elect in Christ, Paul had previously written,

"And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised— who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written, “For your sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:28-39)"

Paul now argues that his listeners may indeed trust these amazing and good promises-- since God's word has not failed His chosen people the Jews, neither will it fail in regard to these great promises given to believers chosen in Christ. Notice that God's power and faithfulness is the focus throughout this great passage. Nowhere in these inspiring words do we find the implication that God's promises depend on the faithfulness of those receiving the promises. Rather it is the powerful love of God in which Paul encourages us to put our confidence.

How do Paul's examples of Isaac and Jacob show God's faithfulness to believers as individuals? Paul shows that God chooses specific individuals (Isaac, Jacob) by an election that has its basis, not in the foreseen, "free" responses of men, but in God's compassion and mercy (Romans 9:15). Election is said to be not prompted by, or dependent upon, human works or will or exertion (Romans 9:11,16). God's elective call is generative-- it does not merely foresee what those chosen will do and thus formulate an elective call in light of such foreknowledge. Rather God's elective call is the catalyst by which His chosen ones come to Him, so that His redemptive plan might fully unfold in their lives (Romans 8:29-30). Again, Paul does not say that Jacob and Esau represent nations here; his focus in this chapter is the nation of Israel alone, and the problem of why some individuals in Israel are being saved, while others in Israel are not.

Israel's Unbelief is the Result of Election

What then is the cause of Israel's unbelief? If elect, why don't they all believe? In verses 30-33, Paul describes the problem of Israel's mis-targeted pursuit of righteousness:

What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written,

“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense;
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

Note carefully that in these verses Paul does not answer the question of why Israel was unbelieving. He says that the Israelites have not attained the righteousness that comes by faith alone, because they were pursuing this righteousness as if it were based on works (Rom 9:32). But in Romans, chapter 11, Paul does explain the "why" behind the unbelief of Israel:

I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.” But what is God's reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.”

So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened,

as it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.”

And David says, “Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them; let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and bend their backs forever”(Romans 11:1-10)

Paul's explanation for Israel's unbelief is clear: it is the result of the fact that some were elected while the rest were hardened, both election and hardening being God's work. Paul even presents himself as an example of one who is a believing Israelite chosen by grace. [As an aside, it is hard to picture Paul giving an "Arminian testimony"-- that God chose him in light of his own "foreseen faith"-- for prior to being called by Christ, he was quite busy persecuting and killing Christians. Even after becoming a leader and a great apostle, Paul never forgot the evil deeds of his pre-Christian days-- this helped to keep him humble and to remember that God's grace alone had saved him and made him what he was (1 Cor 15:9-10)].

What is "it" (Romans 11:7) that Israel has failed to obtain? "It" refers to the righteousness and the salvation that comes through faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 9:30-33, Romans 10:1-4). As in Romans 8:29, we find here again in Romans 11 that God's foreknowledge of His people-- ("His people whom He foreknew" Romans 11:2)-- is personal knowledge, not merely knowledge of what the people of Israel would do. Israel as a nation was chosen (known) by God and God has not rejected Israel, yet only the elect within Israel have obtained the righteousness unto salvation through Christ that they were destined for. The rest were hardened (Romans 9:18, Romans 11:7-8).

Objections Raised Demonstrate that Paul is arguing for an Unconditional, Individual Election

It is precisely because Paul says that this election to salvation pertains to some and not to others, and is being accomplished according to the prerogative of God alone (not in response to the meeting of any conditions by human beings), that Paul anticipates and then responds to objections (as stated in verses 14 and 19). There would be no objections if what Paul was arguing for was conditional election.

Now the first objection raised is the possible injustice of God in this type of election. Paul writes,

"What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. 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 (Romans 9:14-18)."

Paul's response to the charge of possible injustice in the scheme of election he is presenting may at first seem to not answer the charge. The objection is a logical response to what Paul has been teaching, for it concludes that if God's elective choices, such as choosing Jacob over Esau, are not based on any merits within persons, but reflect solely God's choice of one rather than another, then there appears to be injustice on God's part. Notice that Paul does not correct the understanding behind the objection; there is nothing wrong with that. Paul's answer is to quote Scriptures demonstrating God's divine authority to dispense mercy or hardening just as He pleases, because of who He is. So the fact that God's elective choices are completely independent of, and not conditioned upon, human actions (verse 16) emphasizes the divine prerogative. Also, Paul describes election as dependent on God's mercy alone, which implies that all of mankind is in such a pitiful state that God's mercy alone is the only thing they must rely on.

Now Paul responds to a further objection. "You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”

Bob Deffinbaugh, in his article "Divine Election is Questioned" detects what seems to be a difference between these two objections (verses 14 and 19). The first (v14), raised by Paul himself, asks whether there is injustice when God chooses people according to His own counsel, and seeks an explanation of God's ways, rather than demanding a justification from God for His actions. But the second objection seems to have a different spirit. It is being raised, not by Paul, but by someone else ("You").

To paraphrase the objection, it states, "OK Paul, you say God can do whatever he wants and no one can stop Him. But if that's true, how can He then find fault with anyone? If God is controlling who is elect and who is not elect, if He is calling all the shots, how can anyone be held responsible? Who can fight God?" This objection, unlike the previous one, seems to challenge God and to put Him on trial, so to speak.

Take note of Paul's bold answer, which is really a rebuke. "But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles (Romans 9:20-24)"

If the Arminian understanding of election were true, one might have expected to find Paul responding to this second objection differently. He might have said, "No, no, you have misconstrued me. I am not saying that God chooses to elect people, as He did Jacob and not Esau, completely without regard to the faith He sees in advance in them. By His perfect foreknowledge, God does indeed take into account people's faith when He makes His elective choices. So you see, His elective choices are perfectly fair-- for they anticipate the choices His creatures will make and takes them into account, in accord with His wise purpose. Your accusation that God is being unfair or arbitrary then, is misguided; you have misunderstood my argument." But this is not how Paul answers! Paul does not correct the understanding behind the objection, for it has accurately grasped the basic facts of Paul's argument -- that God, completely independent of human influence, sovereignly chooses specific individuals for election to salvation, in accordance with His own good purpose, and also, hardens others. Nevertheless, Paul rebukes the attitude that lies behind the question. For by the question the objector dares to hold the Creator accountable to the creature.

As Bob Deffinbaugh writes in his article "Divine Election is Questioned":

"The question assumes that if God is sovereign and He has determined all that will happen, then men are no longer responsible. The premise is correct: God is sovereign. God does choose whom He will save and whom He will harden. The conclusion is entirely wrong. The question assumes that if God is sovereign, men are not to be held accountable for their deeds. The answer given later [by Paul] is that God’s sovereignty is such that it gives men a choice and holds them accountable for it [emphasis mine]."

The Potter and the Clay

Paul maintains that even if God chooses some and passes by others, it is His divine right to do so, and by this kind of election God is ultimately working out His own merciful purpose, one that will being the most glory to Himself.

He describes God as a Potter who has absolute rights over His creation (the clay), "to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use (Romans 9:21)." Not only that, but Paul addresses God's purpose in so doing, saying that in electing some and not others God is both "[showing] his wrath and [making] known his power (Romans 9:22)." For, Paul writes, God "has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles (Romans 9:22-24)". In other words, God endures the continual rebellion of the non-elect-- described here as "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction"-- with great patience (for if He wanted to, He could immediately destroy them). Restraining His power to execute judgment upon the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, He is calling out individuals to be saved, not only from among His chosen people of Israel, but now also, from among non-Jews (Gentiles):

"As indeed he says in Hosea,“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’” “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’” And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay.” And as Isaiah predicted, "If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring, we would have been like Sodom and become like Gomorrah (Romans 9:25-29)."

Mystery, Justice and God's Glory in Election

So we find in Romans 9 Paul describing an unconditional election of individuals from among Jews and Gentiles, one that takes place according the merciful purpose of God, and which saves only a remnant. It is necessary that such an election would be not "of works", because otherwise it would not have as its only source the grace of God given through Christ, but would depend upon the will or exertion of men (Romans 9:16, 10:1-3, 11:6). Think of how industrious Jacob was, in a fleshly way, in his attempts to obtain the blessing of God throughout his life. Yet in the final analysis, the favor he did receive was due entirely to God's grace and not his exertions (Romans 9:16).

Election must also be unconditional so that God, and no other, receives the glory from it. If man can claim even the tiniest part for his election unto salvation, God does not receive the full credit He alone deserves. Of course Scripture teaches that in any case it is impossible for men to boast that it was something in them that enabled them to choose Christ (1 Cor 4:7). Our salvation is a resurrection from the dead; we make no contribution to it (Eph 2:4-7).

Despite the fact that God is sovereign over the process of election, Paul shows that God holds the vessels of wrath accountable for their sins against Him. Clearly there remains much mystery in all of this, for Paul provides no explanation as to why some are elected to receive mercy while others are passed over, when all are equally undeserving. But surely we must not therefore conclude that God's choosing to elect unto salvation some, while passing over others, is unjust.

For if God chose to destroy the entire human race He would be fully justified, since all have sinned and fall short of His glory, and the penalty for sin is death (as Paul has argued previously in Romans 3:23,6:23). Accordingly, there is no injustice if God withholds salvation from those who do not deserve it, and certainly none deserve it. On the other hand, God demonstrates incredible mercy and grace by choosing, from among the great mass of humanity that universally rejects Him, stands condemned in its sin, and deserves nothing but condemnation, some for election unto salvation. This great salvation extends far beyond mere mercy into amazing grace, for God lavishes upon the undeserving chosen ones blessings unimaginable (1 Cor 2:9). At the same time, the justice and wrath of God against sin will be shown in the reprobation that leaves others to the just deserts for their sins, for God will not let evil nor evildoers go unpunished, but will "carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay (Rom 9:28)."

Certainly a great deal more could be said about Romans 9, for example, about the differences between the views of the Calvinist vs the Arminian in their definitions of corporate vs individual election. I direct you however, to an outstanding analysis on this very issue by Tom Schreiner:

CORPORATE AND INDIVIDUAL ELECTION IN ROMANS 9: A RESPONSE TO BRIAN ABASCIANO by Tom Schreiner

My intention had been to make this the "wrap-up" post for answering objections to unconditional election, but there are important objections I'd still like to address. I had better leave them for the next post. I hope however, that the points I've made here have helped demonstrate that there is a solid Scriptural case for unconditional election of individuals to salvation, particularly in Romans, chapters 9-11.

Resources for further study:
God's Purpose According to Election: Paul's Argument in Romans 9 by Steven M. Baugh

The Most Important Chapter in the Bible: Romans 9 by W.E. Best (free online book)

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible- Romans 9

Divine Election is Questioned (Romans 9:14-23) by Bob Deffinbaugh, Th.M.

A Reformed Response to the Comments of R. C. H. Lenski on Romans 9 by James White

Has God Failed? A bible study on Romans 9 by Lambert Dolphin
Election: Individual vs. Corporate- Links to miscellaneous articles at Monergism.com

Pastoral Thoughts on the Doctrine of Election, Pt. 1 and 2- John Piper

The Joy of Romans 9 by John Piper

The Elect Obtained It But the Rest Were Hardened, Part 1- John Piper

The Elect Obtained It But the Rest Were Hardened, Part 2- John Piper

God's 2 x 4: Romans 9 on The Dividing Line with James White (free audio)

Tags: Arminian vs Reformed theology, Calvinism vs Arminianism, Unconditional election, Romans 9, election of individuals, corporate vs individual election

Arminian vs Reformed Theology : Answers to Objections to Unconditional Election-Pt 3

With this post (together with a subsequent one) I aim to finish responding to various objections to the Reformed teaching on unconditional election. I will begin my defense with a further response to the idea that unconditional election makes God's elective choices "arbitrary".

Additionally, I will defend the Reformed position by showing that the Arminian picture of election (which is its opposite on so many issues) is seriously flawed. Arminianism downplays the awful spiritual condition of man, turns election into a reward for foreseen faith and in the process reverses its order, making man the chooser of God (who in turn "elects" man). And since it makes the destiny of men turn upon their actions and not God's sovereign plans, the sovereignty of God must necessarily suffer in its scheme.


Does Unconditional Election make God "Arbitrary"?
I will begin my defense of unconditional election by responding to a few comments reader Daniel Jordan wrote in reference to the previous post. In a discussion which took place in the comments section of the post, one question being debated was whether Reformed unconditional election makes God's choices in election arbitrary. I argued no, saying that "there is a good reason for God's elective choices: His mercy, which He bestows as He pleases."

Daniel responded,"If you equate his mercy with his election in Romans (which you seem to do) then this is highly illogical. God's mercy in election can't be the reason for God's mercy in election."

I am not trying to explain the mercy of God, but pointing to the reason given by Scripture as to why God elects anyone: His mercy and compassion (Romans 9:15-16, Eph 2:4-7). Can the mercy/love of God for sinners truly be explained? We know that God has chosen to set His love upon His elect. But is His love for anyone based on their worthiness to be loved? Every well-taught believer knows that this is not the case. It is while we were still "sinners" and "enemies" of God that Jesus died for the "ungodly"(Romans 5:6-10). Yet the Arminian point of view (which you seem to champion) turns God's election, one which Scripture declares flows from His love and mercy and compassion, into an election conditioned upon His foreknowledge of who the "good guys" are-- the ones whom God foresees displaying their own faith. But of course such a basis for election makes God's mercy and grace unnecessary. If God chooses to set His love upon those who have shown their worthiness for election, due to their persevering faith, then grace is no longer grace! God's mercy and grace towards sinners is merciful and gracious precisely because the sinner has not done anything, nor can he do anything, to merit or earn them.

During this discussion I also asked Daniel, "Why then would you not accept that God's elective decisions, made according to His own counsel alone and in harmony with His own righteous character, will produce choices that are fair and just?"

He replied as follows:
"In fact I do accept this. Here you concede that God's decisions are CONDITIONED on the counsel of his purpose and His own righteous character.

Here is my logic:
1. God's elective decisions are made according to His purpose and His character in what will amount to the wisest stewardship of the universe.
2. Part of God's purposes are future.
3. God's character includes omniscience and justice.
4. Therefore, it is not an illogical stretch to imagine God taking his foreknowledge of the future into account when making elective decisions."

How can I "concede" a point that I have not argued against? I have emphasized the difference between the Reformed view that says God elects people based on His own purpose and according to the righteousness of His own character, vs. the Arminian view, which has God choosing people according to their righteous character (and we must remember that when people choose God by faith that this is an act of righteousness, since all are commanded to believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ). The Arminian position makes the absurd claim that God is only fair (and not arbitrary) if He rewards with election those whom He foresees displaying such faith. This is what is being called "election". This is absurd for several reasons:

1. God doesn't foresee something that doesn't happen. The natural person does not hear the gospel and say "Yes, that makes sense. I will repent and believe it". Unless God has appointed or called people to eternal life, their natural reaction is to regard the gospel as folly, and to scorn, mock and reject the Christ (Acts 13:48, 1 Corinthians 1: 20-25, Luke 23:11,36, Matthew 27:29-31,41, Mark 10:34, Psalm 22:6-8, Isaiah 53:3, Matthew 21:42, Mark 8:31, Luke 9:22,17:25). In addition, as I argued in my last post, the source of salvific faith is God (see Eph 2:8:10, Phil 1:29, 2 Tim 2:25, Acts 11:18, Phil 1:29, 1 Corinthians 1:30). Therefore God does not elect those who have somehow generated faith on their own but rather gives faith to those He has chosen.

2. Moreover, there is no real choice by God involved in this Arminian "election". Whereas Scripture clearly states that God chose some before the foundation of the world (emphasizing that no human efforts are therefore taken into account in the election choice- see Eph 1:4, 2 Tim 1:9, Romans 9:11, Gal 1:15, Eph 2:10, Titus 1:2) and also ordained that His chosen would be called, justified, and glorified (this means providing all the means by which this redemption is fulfilled- see Romans 8:28-30), the Arminian view wants election to mean that God chose only those He foresaw doing something (i.e., having faith and persevering in it). According to the Arminian view it is these "doers" that are chosen and not others. Thus the Arminian view makes God's choice secondary to, and predicated upon, that of the creature, so that the Sovereign of the universe is merely ratifying the choice that the creature makes (a choice made by a sinful creature, as yet unregenerated)! This system presents then, an election not by God but by men. For in effect, men choose themselves to be elect (I choose God by my own faith. He sees it. He therefore chooses me).

3. Either God is sovereign (not only foreseeing, but foreordaining all things) and His purposes will therefore be established, or else, we all must rest our fate upon our own faithfulness. The Arminian would have us believe that God has left the outworking of His marvelous plan of redemption, His intention to have a people for Himself, up to the fickleness of sinful human hearts, and that (for the reason of maintaining "fairness") He is not to interfere with the choice-making of His sinful creatures, but only woo them by "prevenient grace". By such a scheme the Arminian claims that God will indeed have a people, and that such elective choices are fair to all. But how can the Arminian make any such claim? If God does not sovereignly act so as to bring His plans and desires to fruition then no one will come to Him and He will not have a people (Romans 10:21, Romans 11:1-7). Does His Spirit minister grace equally to all, merely waiting and hoping that a few totally depraved sinners will somehow distinguish themselves by choosing Him by their own wills? Or does He not rather give new life to His elect who were dead in trespasses in sins, this new life bringing spiritual connection to God and changed desires to beings who were totally lost and without hope (John 15:4-5, Romans 4:17, 5:10, 17-18, 6:13, 22-23, Eph 2:5, 12, 4:24, Col 2:13)?

Moreover, the Arminian view cannot assure that even after regeneration anyone will persevere in their faith. So for this reason too, Arminians can really make no guarantee that God will have a people.

4.God's promises are not dependent on man's faithfulness to the covenant (for man has shown himself unfaithful again and again), but upon God's sure word and His faithfulness to fulfill the covenant that He established by His word.

..."if we are faithless, he remains faithful (1 Timothy 2:13)"

The Arminian scheme sacrifices the sure promise of God in Romans 8:28-30-- that His chosen ones will fulfill all the purposes He has for them-- on the altar of its carnal idea of fairness. At the same time, it accuses those who would argue that God has indeed sovereignly chosen particular individuals as recipients of grace as making God arbitrary. Give me this "arbitrary" sovereignty any day over a dethroned impotence! As sinful as my flesh remains, I am most comforted in knowing that my God is indeed powerful enough to finish the work He started in me (Romans 8:31-37, Jude 1:24, Phil 1:6). I don't want God to be fair (for by justice alone I am doomed). I want Him to be merciful (thank God He is- James 2:13, Romans 5:20, 11:32). The Arminian scheme of election is not only false to the biblical record, but impugns the might, sovereignty and faithfulness of God in His dealings with man.

God is not arbitrary for choosing to save some and not others, for since all have sinfully rebelled against Him, none are due His mercy. Yet because of His great mercy, He has indeed chosen to save people, not based on anything they have done, for then mercy would no longer be mercy.

There is nothing wrong with the logic you described, if in fact God had designed election to happen that way. However, since the Scriptures clearly say that God's elective choices are not conditioned upon anything His human creatures perform (see verses mentioned above), there is no reason to "imagine" or surmise by such logic that election is informed by foresight of conditions met.

Does Perfect Foreknowledge = Conditional Election?
Daniel wrote,"If you agree that God knows the end from the beginning, why can't we accept that this knowledge may play a role in his decisions? Though it is not explicitly stated here, twice foreknowledge is used as a rationale for election.

1 Peter 1:1-2 To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,

Rom 8:28-29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

Yes I know, you think foreknowledge means 'people fore loved'. I can't help that. But even so, wouldn't 'People fore loved' include everything about them, including future faith or unbelief?"

The fact that God has perfect foreknowledge/omniscience, which includes complete knowledge of everything His creatures will do, in itself says nothing about whether or not His election of people is conditional or unconditional. If we did not have explicit statements to the contrary, one might reason that God could take such knowledge into consideration in election. However we know that His elective choices are not conditioned upon such knowledge because Scripture tells us they are not.

Problems with Arminian foreknowledge as grounds for a conditional election

Where does saving faith come from? What makes one to differ from another?
Let's say though for the sake of argument, that God does indeed use His foreknowledge of people's faith and their perseverance therein to decide whom to elect. This leaves unanswered a crucial question: what causes faith to arise in some but not others? The Arminian says all receive the same grace and have equal opportunity to respond to the gospel, but that God is not the ultimate cause of faith. The person who believes supplies his own faith, while another who receives equal grace refuses to believe. So what is the cause of faith? The Arminian is forced to admit that the difference lies within persons -- one makes themselves to differ by somehow believing and persevering in that belief.

Arminianism necessarily gives man the credit in part for his salvation
Some Arminians don't want to say this, however, perhaps sensing that such an admission seems to exalt the powers of man and give him reason to boast before God. So they claim that there is nothing really meritorious in this "yes" to God. But obviously there is, for in their system, God elects to salvation the one who says "yes", and rejects the one who says "no". There is no escaping that such a scheme rewards the one who has made a positive response and since the sinner is partly responsible, he or she must receive part of the credit. But contradicting this, the Word says, "For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not? (1 Corinthians 4:7), and also "God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. It also tells us that because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord (1 Corinthians 1:28-31)", and also, "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast (Ephesians 2:8-9)".

If what the Arminian says is true, the one who is saved may truthfully say that he is in part responsible for his own salvation. By his choice to believe and his persistence in faith, he makes himself "worthy" of election. God foresaw this choice and faith and therefore elected him and made him born-again. But if the Scriptures we have quoted are true, they starkly contradict these Arminian conclusions. They remind us that we have nothing that we have not received and that any difference between us and others is due to God alone. Since it is because of Him (God) that we are in Christ, none but God is due the glory both for our faith and for our salvation.

Arminian foreknowledge defeated by logic and the truth of God's sovereignty over all
Additionally the idea of God using foreknowledge to choose the elect is refuted by logic and the scriptural truth that God is sovereign over all things. If God foresees what is going to happen, those events must be certain. Yet if God is not the ultimate cause behind such events, then who or what is fixing them so that they will definitely happen? Behind every event there is a chain of cause and effect. Does God foresee actions and events only, but not participate causally in the chain of events that would lead to someone choosing Him? Yet the picture of God's sovereignty presented in Scripture declares that God "works all things according to the counsel of His will (Eph 1:11)".

Here again the Arminian argues that the Spirit woos and by the Word convicts, but in the final analysis admits that in his system the person must believe on their own. This leads to the problems we have described: How does the unregenerate person make the most important, righteous choice he/she will ever make? And having made this choice, how can one avoid the taking credit for that which God alone is said to be responsible? If it really is my choice, I must share in the credit for my own salvation. After all others with the exact same opportunity and equal ability to choose rightly failed to do so, while I succeeded.

In any case, foreknowledge in the verses you quoted (Romans 8:28-29, 1 Peter 1:1-2) means those "whom God foreknew", not those whom God knew something about. Even if you don't think the verses can mean "fore-loved" (which I previously argued and you conceded is a legitimate interpretation, at least in the context of Romans 8) the verses are speaking of God's foreknowledge of people, not their actions.

As Sam Storms writes in his article Election Texts- Part III,

"God's foreknowledge is an active, creative work of divine love. It is not bare pre-vision which merely recognizes a difference between men who believe and men who do not believe. God's foreknowledge creates that difference! Or again, "speaking about God's foreknowledge may be a way of expressing his eternal commitment to individuals as part of his determination to bring them to faith and to all the glories and benefits of Christ's work" (Baugh, 196)".

Conditional Mercy?
Daniel presented the following illustration to show that "God has the right to show mercy and to set the conditions of that mercy." He also made the point that the ones who merely receive mercy would not then be in a position to boast about it.

Illustration: A king decides to show mercy on murderous insurrectionists on the condition that they appear before him to lay down their arms. Those that fulfill the conditions are shown mercy. Fulfilling the condition does not make it any less merciful. The king is not obligated to show mercy. He could by the law, hang them for treason, yet he shows mercy based on his conditions.

Daniel went on to explain that the insurrectionist in his illustration could not boast, for "the insurrectionist was sentenced to die, yet was shown mercy and was pardoned by the King, from the guillotine, on the condition of laying down arms. After receiving his pardon, would he go home bragging how smart he was, or how merciful the King had been when he didn't have to be. I think the latter."

Conditional mercy is an oxymoron
The king in your illustration has made it a condition of His mercy that the insurrectionists lay down their arms. Where is the implied condition in God’s declaration “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy”? Isn't God's statement saying that it is God’s choice alone to whom He will show mercy? His mercy and grace through Christ not only forgives our sin but changes us into the people we ought to be. Your illustration fits somewhat with our situation in that, like the king in your story, God is not obligated to show mercy to man, who is a rebel against God by nature and through sin.

However your illustration falls short in describing our condition before God. For sin not only makes us guilty but also blinds us to our own guilt. The means by which we receive God’s mercy is faith in Jesus Christ, but the mercy of God extends to enabling man, who because of sinful blindness would otherwise reject this grace, to receive this faith and thus also the mercy offered in Christ.

The rebels in your illustration apparently lay down their arms voluntarily when they understand and accept the offer of mercy from the king. Yet your illustration does not show whether they are merely trying to save their own lives, or have really appreciated the gracious offer of the king and would from that point forward no longer be insurrectionists, but good citizens. Assuming it is the latter, the illustration still falls short because the Scriptures say that none will come to Christ unless God grants it, that repentance is a gift of God and the natural person regards the gospel as folly (John 6:44,63-65, 2Timothy 2:25, 1 Corinthians 1:18). It is not just a matter of being morally persuaded that the way of God is best. The Spirit must also do a supernatural work of conviction/regeneration in the soul, making the truth of the gospel intelligible. Only upon receiving this gift of faith and repentance do any become willing to "lay down their arms". Or to use another illustration, God mercifully grants life to the spiritual corpse that is the unregenerate person (pictured by the raising of Lazarus by Jesus in John 11).

In the next post I will return to Romans 9 and recapitulate my argument that it presents an unconditional election that is a crucial part of Paul's argument (that God's word to Israel has not failed).

I will also discuss the purpose of God in election, particularly the phrase "chosen in Him". Does being chosen "in Him" mean that only Jesus Christ is elect, and that those chosen in Him only partake of the benefits of being "in Him" by supplying their own faith? Or does it mean that the elect as a group cannot be thought of as separate from Christ, for He is the means by which all the purposes of God in election come to His chosen?

Finally, I would like to respond to a few other common objections: is the teaching of unconditional election a hindrance to evangelism? Does unconditional election negate the genuine or sincere offer of the gospel to all? Does unconditional election make God the "author of sin"?

Tags: unconditional vs conditional election, the mercy of God, Calvinism vs Arminianism, Reformed vs Arminian theology, foreknowledge and election, credit for salvation

For further study:
Sam Storms series on Divine Election

Ra McLaughlin Unconditional Election, part 1, part 2, part 3

Arminian vs Reformed Theology : Answers to Objections to Unconditional Election-Pt 2

Total Depravity/Inability in relation to the doctrine of Election

There is a firm, logical connection between the Reformed doctrines of total depravity/inability and election. It’s hard to get past total inability. Remember that the doctrine of total inability does not mean that people are as evil as they could possibly be, or that they cannot act in accordance with their God-given conscience. It does not mean that they do not have their own wills and cannot act upon their own desires. Total inability describes the fact that man, as a result of the sinful nature he inherited by the Fall of Adam, is not able to respond to the gospel of himself, in order to be saved. Classical Arminians acknowledge the truth of the Scriptural teaching of total depravity/inability but posit their notion of prevenient grace by which man, despite his deep sinfulness, is brought to the position of being able to respond to the gospel. We have shown however, that Arminian prevenient grace is not supportable scripturally (series posts on prevenient grace, 1 and 2). Others (Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians) claim that man is “not so dead”, and that despite the severity of man’s fallen condition, prevenient grace isn’t really necessary for man may respond to, or cooperate with, God in the salvation process.


Dead Men Walking
In part II of my article on Total Depravity, I described man’s spiritual condition before God this way (the description has been expanded here):

–- Scripture portrays fallen man as the walking dead (Ephesians 2:1-2); blinded to the truth of the gospel (2 Cor 4:4); enslaved and led by our own sinful, fleshly desires (Eph 2:3, John 8:34, James 1:4-15), and also by Satan (1 John 5:19; Eph 2:2, 2 Tim 2:26); in our consciences aware that the things we do are wrong, yet suppressing the truth of that knowledge as we progressively sink into evil (Romans 1:18-32), and store up for ourselves the wrath of God (Romans 2:5). In our unrighteousness, we are not seeking God (Romans 3:10-11) nor do we acknowledge and worship Him; rather, we worship and follow after gods we have made (Romans 1:21-23). We are alienated from the life of God; disobedient, led astray, envious, malicious, hating, and being hated (Titus 3:3); not only are we darkened in understanding and hard-hearted, but also we personify "darkness" (Ephesians 4:18, Colossians 1:13,21, Ephesians 5:8); we are separated from Christ, excluded from God's covenant promises, without hope and without God in the world (Ephesians 2:12). And unless we believe in Jesus, we remain under the wrath of God (John 3:36).

So obviously, anyone "in the flesh" (unregenerated, not "born again", not believing in Jesus) cannot and will not please God- (Romans 8:7-8). Can unbelievers do anything good at all? If we define "good" as obedience to the moral law that God has established and is universally binding, even unbelievers may perform actions of relative good. It's as if a man were saying to God, by his actions, "I know you are probably there and therefore have a claim on my life, but I want to live my life my way, so I'll try to forget that you are there. I know that there's right and wrong, so I'll do my best to appease my guilty conscience over not acknowledging you by not being as bad as others (you know, the murderers, thieves, abusers, etc.). In fact, I'll try to be much better than those guys (give to charity, give good gifts to my children, be a productive worker, etc). OK, God? So you just leave me alone, and I'll make you proud of me, don't worry." Such a person may become highly regarded in the world as a decent, moral, productive member of human society, lauded for their humanitarianism and their good works (sure, he's been divorced five times, but he has such great friendships with all his ex-wives, and always visits the kids when he's supposed to).

The standards of good according to the Lord and according to the world are completely different. Man's good deeds apart from the Lord are relatively good because the unbeliever essentially is in sinful rebellion against his Creator, refusing to honor Him as Lord. Also, man's "good" deeds don't change the fact that he is by nature a sinner whose sins condemn him before a holy God whose standard is moral perfection. How then can God be pleased with the rebel who, though not as evil as he might be and perhaps doing some acts of good, adamantly refuses to acknowledge His Creator? As the prophet Isaiah wrote,

We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment (Isaiah 64:6)

Now it is true that believers too may live "according to the flesh" (that is, live by responding to the flesh that remains in us though we have been born of the Spirit and are indwelt by the Spirit; see Romans 7:7-25), but the unregenerate have no other choice than to live a "fleshly" life. This is because until a person is born-again he/she does not possess true spiritual life (John 3:6, Romans 8:9, I John 5:12). Therefore, they live "in the flesh", which, as we have said, is naturally dominated by sin and Satan (Eph 2:3) --

If the above biblical statements about mankind's unregenerate condition provide a true picture, it must be then that our wills and choice-making faculties are also gravely affected by the Fall. Scripture describes our unregenerate condition as "dead in our sins". What can this "deadness" mean, since the unregenerate obviously are alive physically and make choices? It means that the natural person is "dead" to the things of God. 1 Corinthians 2:14 states:"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned."

The use of the word "dead" (Eph 2:1,5, Col 2:13) to describe man's spiritual condition, inspired of course by the Spirit of God, is no accident. There is an implication of unresponsiveness and inability in the word "dead". Unregenerate man is indeed dead in a spiritual sense and therefore, he cannot respond to God who is Spirit. God therefore must make people fit for the kingdom by birthing them into it.

So can those fitting the portrait of unregenerate man described above make a willing choice for God, as if their wills were free from the pervasive and deadening influence of sin? Can the man dead in sin make the most important and righteous choice he will ever make-- the choice to receive Christ as Lord and Savior? Those who downplay the state of sinful man as a result of the Fall must ignore or sidestep the Scriptures that describe how utterly without hope man is to save himself and how completely he is dominated by his sinfulness. The unregenerate cannot and do not act in such a way as to cooperate with God in their salvation.

Total Depravity Necessitates an Unconditional Election
Again, if man is really as fallen as these Scriptures describe, unconditional election is what makes salvation possible for those whom God chooses. Sinful men are not searching for God (Romans 3:11). As natural beings, they do not understand the spiritual truth of the gospel(1 Cor 2:14), and as sinners prefer the darkness of their sinful lifestyle to the light of the gospel (John 3:19). Thus only the mercy of God will convict the sinner and override his natural hostility by giving the sinner what he does not have-- spiritual life that can perceive and willingly respond to the truth of the gospel.

Due to the Fall, We Must Be Born Again
As we have said, Adam's sin had the effect of making his progeny dead spiritually. So unless regenerated, men do not have that life which is the light of men, or the light of life, dwelling inside of them (John 1:4,8:12).

If men had only been injured by the Fall, then perhaps the enlightenment and conviction brought by the Spirit of God would be enough to enable people to perceive the truth of the gospel. But man is in a more dire state than this. The Fall utterly ruined man, such that sin permeates his entire being, and such that he is spiritually dead. The fact that man must be "born again" proves that enlightenment and conviction by the Spirit is not all that is necessary to save him.

Jesus said that unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God, and also that unless one is born of the Spirit, neither can that person enter the kingdom of God (John 3:3,5). In other words, the kingdom of God is not a place for natural people, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit (John 3:6)." Jesus also says, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:53).

Again, for these reasons an unconditional election is the only way anyone may come to Christ. Man in his natural, sinful, "in the flesh" state is unable to respond to the gospel because his sin makes him a rebel who does not desire God and therefore rejects the gospel, and because as a natural man he is unable to spiritually comprehend (see) the gospel. God in His mercy has saved ungodly human beings, not because they merit anything, but because He is full of mercy and compassion. "God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved" (Ephesians 2:4). Election is not a response to a human act of faith-- for it is while people are still sinners (Romans 5:8) and dead in their trespasses (Eph 2:2, Colossians 2:13) that God saves them. The election which leads to this salvation took place in eternity past: He "chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him (Eph 1:4)".

Man's Responsibility and Man's Inability

Now in response to this the objection is raised, "If man is unable to respond, then why all the biblical commands to repent? Why would God give men commandments He knows they cannot obey, yet hold them responsible for not obeying?"

But it is a logical fallacy to conclude that because we are commanded to do certain things that we must have ability to do them. The commands do not speak to ability. For example, Jesus said, “Be perfect”— but apart from complete dependence upon Him we have not the ability to obey a single command (John 15:5), let alone be perfect.

We are responsible to obey the law of God because it is His good and righteous and holy law that He has given us for our benefit (Romans 7:12), and because as God's creatures we are under His authority. But since all are sinners by nature and by choice, mankind is incapable of keeping the law so as to be justified by it (Romans 3:9-12,20,28, Romans 5:12,19-20, Gal 2:16). The law itself is good, Paul says, but the reason the law cannot justify us is because of the weakened flesh (Romans 8:3).

Nevertheless God considers us guilty and holds us responsible for the sin of Adam, as well as for our own sins (Romans 5:12). So the critical question is this: can man obey the commands of God in such a way that he will be justified by his keeping of them? The Bible's answer to this is a resounding no, as seen in the above verses.

The law is meant to reveal sin, showing that our works cannot justify us (Romans 3:20), and pointing us to the only solution for sins God has mercifully provided: the righteousness that comes through faith in Christ. But since due to our sin we will not and cannot choose this faith, God has mercifully and graciously intervened, not waiting on sinful man to choose Him by their wills, but choosing many people and then effectively saving them.

The following chart is adapted from Greg Gibson's excellent website comparing Calvinism and Arminianism in regard to who gets the credit for salvation (I have added a verse or two to his original table):



We see from this chart that there are bible commands to repent or to believe, or to exercise one's will to do the will of God. However we also see many places where Scripture says that apart from God, man is unable to change his ways or come to God.

From such verses we may conclude that man does what it is in his nature to do. Since man's nature is set against God, only a divine act which changes man's nature will allow man to come willingly to God. In Scripture man's moral responsibility to repent and come to God are not negated by man's inability to do so, for we find that human responsibility and human inability are taught side-by-side.

Faith and Works in Relation to Election

The Reformed/Calvinist position holds that faith is a gift of God, and the Arminian view, while denying that faith is a work, nevertheless holds that faith is something that man can do; indeed, that he is responsible to do.

The origin of saving faith is a key issue in the debate between classical Arminians and Calvinists on election. Both would agree that faith is the means by which we are saved and considered righteous before God. Both would say we cannot trust in works to justify us before a holy God, for our works would then need to be perfect (of course, this is impossible for fleshly, sinful creatures to accomplish). But the Arminian claims that unregenerated man, while still a sinner, can exercise faith in Christ. The Arminian reasons that since he is commanded to have faith, it must therefore be possible for him. Yet we have shown in the sections above the fallacy involved in such a conclusion.

Is faith a work?
In a comment on my previous post on election, reader Daniel Jordan wrote:

"Faith could never be a work no matter its source. Faith is completely along a different line and has to to do with a simple heart commitment to God and His Christ".

What defines a "work"? Is it not something man does of his own accord in an effort to win God's favor? If faith were something that man is able to do of himself then it would also come under the definition of a work. The Arminian view claims that while man is influenced and wooed by the Spirit, ultimately his faith in Christ is his own doing. To label it a "simple heart commitment" does not change this. If faith is man's own doing, then by definition this faith is a work. And if, as the Arminian argument goes, this faith that is man's own doing is also the condition for being chosen by God, then it follows that in this view, man is being saved by his own work of faith.

Now Jesus said something interesting, to those who asked him the question “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”

Does Jesus mean then that faith is actually a work that all are called upon to perform? Let's try to answer this question by looking at what Paul says about the relationship of faith and works in the matter of election and of salvation.

Faith in relation to Election
In the matter of election, Paul says, "though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad— in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

We see here that election is "not because of works", but originates from "Him who calls", so that "God's purpose in election might continue". Though Jacob and Esau are twins from the same womb (that of their mother Rebekah), Jacob rather than Esau is chosen by God -- and this choice the text says is made by God prior to their birth and when neither Jacob or Esau had done anything good or evil. The faith of Jacob or Esau, foreseen by God or not, is not mentioned at all here. Why? Because election does not require it; God's choice is not conditioned upon it, since election is not conditioned on anything done by man.

The Role of Faith in Salvation
What then is the role of faith in salvation? In Romans 3:28 Paul says "one is justified by faith apart from works of the law". Paul says that “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness (Romans 4:4-5). Paul goes on to say that "the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring— not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all (Romans 4:13-16)."

Notice that Paul says "to the one who works, his wages are not counted to him as a gift but as a duty". Now if Abraham's faith was his own doing, would it not be then a work which God would be duty-bound to reward? The point Paul makes however is that Abraham is not working-- He is believing God (by a faith that is not self-generated and therefore not a work of his own).

So then, faith is the means by which we are justified before God and saved from His wrath, for by it we receive the righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ, a righteousness given to us by grace through faith and not by works of the law (See also Eph 2:8). Believers in Christ do not trust in their own works (attempts to obey God's law as a means of gaining God's favor) for salvation, but rest in faith upon the finished work of Christ. And yet, this faith is not a condition for election. For as we have seen, someone not yet born, who has done nothing either good or evil, would have neither works or faith as a possible ground upon which God would choose them.

So to return to our question, is faith a work, as Jesus seems to imply in John 6:29? As we have seen, Paul in his epistle to the Romans contrasts faith against works to make the point that human effort cannot and will not justify us with God, or bring about the righteousness that God requires. But Paul is not necessarily saying that faith is not a work-- he is concerned with whether man is relying upon his own efforts or relying upon God. If the faith to believe comes from God, then it is not a human work, but it is a work of God. Jesus' statement is actually saying something quite similar to Paul, for He is answering the question what must people do to "do the works of God" by pointing to man’s responsibility to simply believe in the One whom God has sent, rather than to do many other “works”.

However, Jesus is using the word “work” a little differently than Paul. Whereas in Paul’s argument “works” are human efforts to achieve righteousness, in Jesus' statement the work of believing in Him whom God has sent is being contrasted against the doing of many other works to please God. Yet we know from other Scriptures that this work of believing is not something man summons up from within himself. For example, Jesus commended Peter for believing in Him as the Messiah saying, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven (Matthew 16:17), but pointed out that this revelation came from God and not from man (nor from within Peter himself).

So man’s faith is the result of God’s revelatory work within the soul. It is not a work of man, but a work of God. We do the "work of God" as we believe in Him who God has sent (in other words, have faith in Jesus, John 6:29). But this work of faith is "of God", for it is generated by His power within us. It is not something we-- in ourselves-- have the capacity to do, as we will now examine further.

The Source of Faith: God Alone
So then, faith is the vehicle by which believers are saved, but it is not a condition for election unto salvation. Where then does salvific faith come from?

We find the answer in Scriptures such as these:

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed (Acts 13:48)

We see here that those Gentiles who believed (had faith) were those whom God had appointed to eternal life. This passage shows that faith is God's work in those He elects.

You do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me (John 10:26-27)

Who are the ones that believe? According to Jesus, the reason some don't believe is because they are not part of His flock. Notice that He does not say that because they do not believe, they are not His sheep: it is the other way round. His sheep do hear His voice (that is, believe) and follow Him and are granted eternal life by Him (v 27-28).

We can deduct from these statements that the cause of unbelief is exclusion from the flock of Jesus, while the cause of belief is inclusion in His flock. Since inclusion (or exclusion) in the flock is shown to be the work of the Father (v 29), we conclude that God is the source or cause of the faith of His flock.

In a famous passage, Jesus spoke these words to Nicodemus:
The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit (John 3:8)

Jesus likens the experience of being born of the Spirit to the working of the wind. The illustration shows that the Spirit of God is both sovereign and mysterious in the way He works. Like "the wind that blows where it wishes", so too the Spirit blows where He pleases, sovereignly regenerating. His work is mysterious because, like the invisible wind, the Spirit works unseen. Nevertheless, we feel and experience His effects.

Thus the faith which regenerates a person is caused by the Spirit of God working mysteriously, yet unmistakably. As we have said, it is no accident that the metaphor used for spiritual regeneration is a new "birth". Just as we have no part in our natural birth, so too we have no part in our spiritual birth. We were dead and unresponsive, but God has made us alive.

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God (1 John 5:1)

A continuous theme in this first letter of John is that the one who has been born of God, who is now a child of God, and whose very nature has been changed by God, brings forth certain fruit (such as love and ceasing the pattern of sin). In this verse, we find that another fruit of having been born of God is the belief that Jesus is the Christ. So faith is the fruit of being born again.

God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”(1 Corinthians 1:28-30)

Paul writes here that God chooses, not those who are "something" in this world-- the one who seem especially deserving of honor. Instead He chooses those who are low and despised in the world. The divine choice operates according to a different pattern, one which rejects the false values of the world. The world says we ought to pick the beautiful and reward those who show merit, but God's system doesn't play by these worldly rules. And Paul here reminds us that the reason we are in Christ is "because of Him"-- in other words, because God chose us and caused it to happen. For this reason, he says, no human being can "boast in the presence of God". The cause of our own salvation, our faith in God, is found in God alone.

Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel, and not frightened in anything by your opponents. This is a clear sign to them of their destruction, but of your salvation, and that from God. For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, engaged in the same conflict that you saw I had and now hear that I still have (Phil 1:27-30)

In exhorting the Philippians to live in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that their lives might give clear testimony of its truth to the enemies of the gospel, Paul says that it has been granted to them, for the sake of Christ, not only to believe but also to suffer. Paul does not go into an elaborate defense or explanation here of the fact that the source of belief in Christ is the granting or gift of God, he merely states it simply and clearly. We are granted faith to believe, just as also God grants suffering as part of the walk of faith.

To summarize then, in this article we have defended election as unconditional because:

1. The total depravity/inability of man that is revealed in Scripture means that man is dead spiritually and a rebel against God by nature. Unless the Lord gives the individual a new nature that will cease its rebellion against Him, man will not come to God.

2. Scripture teaches also that the source of faith is God alone. The unregenerate person does not understand the things of the Spirit and therefore does not have the capacity to self-generate faith in a gospel that is necessarily received by spiritual revelation. To see and enter the kingdom of God, man must be born again, and this is a sovereign work of God, who makes those who are dead come alive.

For these reasons man is unable to meet the condition of faith that the Arminian claims God foresees as He elects people for salvation. Contrary to this man-centered formulation, the Reformed view finds in Scripture that God has shown mercy upon individual sinners, electing those who would otherwise prefer to remain in their sin and would have no movement towards Him. His election sovereignly ordains that the means by which the sinner is called, converted, justified, sanctified and glorified will be granted to those whom He has chosen.

In the next post I hope to conclude my responses to the objections on this doctrine by further defending unconditional election as being expressed in Romans 9, and also discussing the bible truth that we are chosen "in Him"-- how this relates to the question of the whether there are conditions we must meet to be elected.

I plan also to speak again to the issue of whether the Reformed concept of election makes God arbitrary, and also show how sovereign election does not remove the motive to evangelize. I may also address a few other issues, space permitting. If anyone has any other questions to objections they would like me to address on this topic, please let me know. I will be happy to attempt to do so.

For further study and consideration:

Arminian vs Reformed theology series completed to date

Objections: Answered, Loraine Boettner

Objections to Election Answered- links at Monergism.com

Tags: Arminianism vs Reformed theology, arminianism vs calvinism, unconditional election vs conditional election, man's inability vs man's responsibility, total depravity, human inability, the role of faith vs works in election, born-again, the source of faith

Follow-up post on Election Coming Soon

Dear readers:

I expect to be posting "part 2" of the article on "Objections to Unconditional Election" either tonight or sometime tomorrow. Though time-consuming, it has been good to review the arguments against unconditional election, for in responding to such objections I'm more convinced of the strength of the argument for the reformed position on these "doctrines of grace", and their solid biblical underpinning.

My chief desire is that if these doctrines are true that they might also be preached strongly, that God might be glorified in them and through them. The doctrine of unconditional election, for example, seems to me to give all the credit for our salvation to God alone, as is fitting.

Thank you for reading, and for your support.

P.S. In the interest of keeping these posts a little bit shorter (and thus more reader-friendly?), I will include more material that is responding to objections to unconditional election in a third article. In that article I will discuss particularly the objections that have been raised in regard to my argument from Romans 9. I will try to finish off any other objections in that post as well, so that I may proceed with the next topic in this series: the nature of the Atonement.

Arminian vs Reformed Theology : Answers to Objections to Unconditional Election-Pt 1

Moses and God in Exodus 33
In producing this series it has been my aim to accurately represent both Arminian and Reformed arguments, though I'm arguing for the Reformed position. I have requested that readers point out any flaws in the arguments presented on either side. The latest article in the series generated the most passionate and numerous comments so far. I was kept busy responding to these, while at the same time I began working on a more in-depth response, which I had hoped to complete and post in one article. I prefer to have my total argument completed before posting, but rather than further delay posting, I have now divided my answers to "objections to unconditional election" into several smaller posts.

So the purpose of the present article is to begin responding to objections to the doctrine of unconditional election. I will do this in part by answering actual objections made recently by a reader, Daniel Jordan. [You may notice that we are both named Jordan. That's because Daniel happens to be my brother--in the flesh, as well as in the Lord. He's also a pastor and gifted as a skillful communicator].

Romans 9, Exodus 33:19 and the Sovereignty of God in Election

[The following argument by Daniel Jordan was presented. We had been discussing the interpretation of Romans 9, and Exodus 33:19 is a verse which Paul quotes in Romans 9.]

Daniel: Let’s start with Ex 33:19 in its context.

Ex 33:15-20
15 Then Moses said to him, "If your Presence does not go with us, do not send us up from here. 16 How will anyone know that you are pleased with me and with your people unless you go with us? What else will distinguish me and your people from all the other people on the face of the earth?" 17 And the LORD said to Moses, "I will do the very thing you have asked, because I am pleased with you and I know you by name."

18 Then Moses said, "Now show me your glory." 19 And the LORD said, "I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 20 But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." (NIV)

"First of all we must remember that this passage has ostensibly nothing to do with salvation.

Just before this statement on having mercy upon whom he chooses, God states that the reason that he will go with Moses and Israel is because he is PLEASED WITH HIM. How then can you say that this scripture proves that “no actions of men form the basis of his choices”? God says the exact opposite.

It seems to me that in this mercy passage, God is just telling Moses that he does not owe Moses this privilege but is doing it out of his own grace. The mercy God refers to is this revealing of his glory to Moses, not salvation.

Briefly, going back to the Romans 9 passage. Why does Paul quote this verse? Remember Paul is trying to answer the question of Israel in chapter 9. Why are the Gentiles now receiving salvation? In order to answer this, Paul has to show the spiritual nature of salvation. He finally talks about Jacob and Esau and shows that Jacob was shown special favor just like Moses received.

Just like Moses, we know from the Bible that Jacob prevailed with God and was called Israel. Yet the grace he received was still dependent on the mercy of God and not works. This is what God had told Moses and what Paul reminds us of in Romans 9. Paul is saying to the Jews that God doesn’t OWE them salvation by virtue of birth but that he has mercy upon whom he chooses. Yet we know that the condition of that mercy is faith in Christ from countless other scriptures. So our election is conditional."

Also, in response to me, Daniel clarified further this portion of his argument concerning Romans 9 and Exodus 33:

"The reason God says to Moses “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy” was to explain to Moses that He did not OWE him this revelation. Paul quotes it in Romans 9 for the same reason: God does not OWE the Jews salvation based on birth or works. Salvation is based on his mercy. But even this mercy is conditioned on acceptance of the cross."

My Response
Let me see if I follow your argument.

1. Exodus 33 has nothing to do with salvation, so therefore Paul quoting from it would also not be to make a point about salvation.
2. God gave Moses the special mercy of showing Moses His glory because He was pleased with him. Nevertheless His statement to Moses in v19: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and have compassion on whom I have compassion” is to explain to Moses that even though He is pleased with him, showing him this particular mercy (revealing His glory) it is not owed. God chooses to give it to Moses purely out of grace.
3. Jacob, like Moses, received special favor from God when he “prevailed with God and was called Israel”. However the grace Jacob received, like that Moses receives here in Exodus, was still dependent upon God and not upon works.
5. Therefore in Romans 9, what Paul is saying is that God doesn’t owe the Jews salvation, just as He did not owe either Jacob or Moses special favor.
6. So Paul’s argument in Romans 9 is that God doesn’t owe salvation to the Jews by virtue of birth or works, and therefore the election spoken of here is conditioned upon being “in Christ”.
7. To be a recipient of the mercy of salvation, or to be found in Christ, is based on our “acceptance of the cross", and so salvation is conditioned upon our action of "accepting the cross".

I believe this is your argument, and now will give you my answer to it.

Although Exodus 33 is not in itself about salvation, Paul quotes Exodus 33:19 as part of an argument that deals with (in part) God’s purpose of election. The topic of God's election of certain people is part of Paul's larger argument as to why the word of God to the Israelites has not failed (Romans 9:6). What does Paul mean when he says that the word of God to the Israelites has not failed?

In verses 1-5 of Romans 9, Paul begins by saying that Israel was the blessed recipient of “the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises” of God and that “from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever”. Israel, in other words, had all the natural advantages any nation could hope to have, in terms of receiving favor from God. Even so, many in Israel rejected Christ when He came, not recognizing Him as the promised Messiah, and were continuing to reject Him. This fact causes Paul “great sorrow and unceasing anguish” in his heart (v2). He wishes that somehow (if it were possible) he himself could be cut off from Christ and accursed, if then his Israelite brothers in the flesh might not remain separated from Christ (v3). But then he goes on to say that despite the fact that many in Israel are not being saved because they reject Christ, nevertheless "it is not as though the word of God has failed" (v6). Since in Romans 1-8 Paul has enumerated the great promises in store for the believer through faith, it is crucial for Paul to show that God's word/promises have not failed with His chosen nation and people Israel. For if His word to Israel had failed, there might be grounds to think that also the great promises of complete redemption that God is working out for His elect may also fail.

So Paul explains that the reason the word of God to Israel has not failed is because it is not the children of the flesh (those physically descended from Israel) who are counted as God’s offspring, but the spiritual "children of the promise". In other words, it was always God’s purpose to save, not every single person within the entire nation of Israel according to the flesh, but only those whom God called (chose), to become "children of the promise" in a spiritual sense.

Going back to Moses in Exodus 33. If you are saying that sometimes individuals please God and thus receive special favor with God, I agree. This seems to be exactly the case in Exodus 33- that Moses receives special favor because he pleased God. But then you state that God’s declaration "I will have mercy..." is God’s explanation to Moses of why He is showing him this special grace. It’s as God is communicating, “I am pleased with you Moses... and that’s why I am revealing to you my glory...BUT... don’t get the idea that I OWE you this mercy, because I have the right to dispense this mercy to whom I wish.”

Your interpretation of what God is communicating here is contradictory. Either God was pleased with Moses and that’s why He showed Moses His glory, or else, He just had mercy on Moses and decided to show him His glory.

But the real blow to this contradictory argument-- that Moses received mercy because he pleased God and yet that the mercy was not owed to him-- is that when Paul quotes Exodus 33:19 in Romans 9, he does not explain the quote by saying "this is God showing mercy to Moses and therefore we receive mercy in this same way". In fact, Paul doesn't bring up Moses at all. Why? Paul is not quoting Exodus 33:19 to show something about how God was relating to Moses in that particular episode of biblical history. Rather, Paul is focusing upon God’s statement concerning Himself ("I will have mercy and whom I have mercy and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion") to give evidence that God is the sovereign Lord, and that His having mercy on whom He has mercy and compassion on whom He will is an important demonstration of this lordship, revealing also God's sovereignty and His glory.

What's in a Name?
God previously revealed to Moses His name as “I AM WHO I AM” (Exodus 3:14), and in so doing revealed something to humanity about His nature. One of the things this name seems to show is that He has always existed. As an infinite being, even the form of His name is different from human names, which refer to finite beings.

Now here again in Exodus 33:19, God is revealing something important about His nature. He is revealing His glory to Moses, in part, through the very act of declaring this name: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion”. This name declares that it is God's glory-- part of what defines Him as God-- to bestow mercy or compassion as He pleases, because He is Lord and thus acts according to His own counsel. The implication of this revelation is that He is completely uninfluenced in the making of such determinations by anything outside of Himself.

So in what manner is Paul saying that God had compassion on Jacob? The choosing of Jacob is an example of "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy". It was God's sovereign determination, made not because of Jacob’s works, since Jacob was not yet born and thus had no works to commend him to God when God sovereignly chose to have mercy on him. Paul makes this point even more clear-- that God choosing Jacob is an act of pure divine mercy-- when he goes on to say that the choice is not dependent on "human will or exertion", but issues from the mercy of God (Romans 9:16).

Given the above, it is not because He is “pleased” with Jacob that Jacob receives special favor. It is because God is God that He has the divine right, not only to choose Jacob over Esau, but also, to harden others, such as Pharaoh.

I agree with your statements then, that God owes salvation to no one by virtue of birth or works. This is precisely why salvation comes to all by God’s sovereign, unconditional choice of particular individuals to receive His mercy, extended to us through the Cross of Jesus Christ. We cannot cause ourselves to be born into this salvation, and we also cannot perform any works that will earn this salvation. For this reason I disagree with your statement that our “acceptance of the cross” is the ultimate factor in getting us saved, since your argument is that this act of acceptance is caused by something within us, rather than by God. This view logically makes man, and not God, sovereign in his own election. But God is sovereign in election, because if sovereign at all, He must be sovereign over all. For as we have seen in Romans 9, salvation is totally of God's mercy--- some are chosen for it, and salvation happens to those who are chosen for it. It is not, because of a decision of "human will or exertion"(Rom 9:16) that we are born again, but we are "born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God"(John 1:13).

You have claimed that being found in Christ (or being "in Him"), as a result of election, is conditional. I will address this issue in the next post. But if Romans 9 is teaching unconditional election, it does not make sense to conclude that to be found "in Christ" is conditional. Again, Jacob did not meet conditions at the time he was elected by God, for he was chosen by God before his birth, apart from any works he could perform. Yet some argue that the election spoken of in Romans 9 is not of individuals to salvation. In the next section, we examine this point.

Is Election in Romans 9 Individual?
Matt Perman has written an excellent analysis of Romans 9 that examines the question "Is Individual Election to Salvation Taught in Romans Nine?"

Rather than try to reproduce his analysis here, I will quote his summary, which gives his reasons for why Romans 9 is about unconditional, individual election.

"Let us sum up the main evidence that Paul is teaching individual election to salvation throughout this whole chapter. In verses 1-5, Paul raised a problem that makes it look as if God's word has failed. But God's word has not failed, and Paul writes the rest of the chapter (vv. 6-24ff.) to explain why. Since the problem Paul is addressing concerns the eternal destinies of individuals, the solution Paul gives must also involve the eternal destinies of individuals. Therefore, we are justified in interpreting all of the references to predestination in this chapter as applying to individuals and their eternal destinies.

The specific flow of Paul's argument is this. In verses 1-5, he raises a problem. God has made promises to Israel that appear to guarantee its salvation. But the reality is that many individual Jews are not saved. Therefore it appears as if God's word has failed. In verses 6-13, we find the solution to this problem: not everybody who is a physical Jew is a true Jew. The true Jews are the "children of promise"--those whom God chooses to save. The examples of Isaac and Jacob are used by Paul to establish this the ongoing principle by which God chooses who will be a member of the true Israel. It is to the true Jews that the guarantee of salvation belongs, not physical Jews, and God makes sure that they (the true Israel) all get saved. Therefore God's word has not failed.

But this raised the objection of verse 14, which Paul answered in verses 15-18. In the course of answering this objection, Paul taught unconditional election even more clearly. But in doing so, Paul anticipates yet another objection (v. 19) which he answers in verses 20-24. Paul's flow of argument is woven very tightly, and it cannot be denied that individual election to salvation is the main theme running throughout the whole passage. One of the many reasons for this is that verses 6-24ff. are all centered around addressing, in one way or another, the problem from verses 1-5 of individual Jews being eternally lost. Therefore corporate election to historical role interpretation argues against the context of Romans 9:1-29ff.

With such clear evidence that this chapter is dealing with the eternal destinies of individuals, let us quickly review the many places in this passage where Paul teaches unconditional election--that is, predestination. First, Isaac was chosen unconditionally by God. All Christians are children of promise like him, and therefore all Christians are chosen unconditionally (vv. 7-9). Second, the case of Jacob and Esau illustrates that God chooses who is saved before they are born, before they have done anything good or bad, that His decision is not based upon any foreknowledge of their faith or works, and that God's choice cannot fail because it is dependent upon His own will, not our will (vv. 10-13). Third, God "will have mercy on whom He will have mercy" (v. 15). Fourth, election does not depend upon human will or effort, but God (v. 16). Fifth, the example of Pharaoh illustrates that God chooses who will not be saved (v. 17). Sixth, this means that "God has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires" (v. 18). Because of this, God's will is always done (v. 19). Seventh, God exercises His sovereign rights as creator to make vessels of honorable use and vessels of common use (v. 21). Eight, these vessels are chosen out of the same lump, and therefore had not distinguished themselves on their own (such as by believing) (v. 21). Ninth, verse 22 again reiterates the point that God prepares vessels of wrath, and (tenth) verse 23 reiterates the point that God prepares vessels of mercy. Eleventh, God selects these vessels of mercy by His own will out of Jews and Gentiles (v. 24). And because of Paul's flow of argument, there is no denying that this all applies to individual election to salvation. Verses 25-29 also teach predestination in several ways, but we have ended our study here.

Conclusion: Romans 9 teaches an election to salvation in Christ that is both unconditional and individual.

Why is one's understanding of election important?
Why is it important to understand that election is unconditional and individual? If we believe, as Arminians propose, that election is the result of God looking ahead via His omniscient foreknowledge to see who will choose Him and persevere in Him, we make God's choice of particular people contingent upon their choice/faith in Him. This makes election a reward or an obligation that is given in response to foreseen faith. This is not the gospel of grace. Election in this view is not God independently choosing us; rather, we are choosing Him and He is merely ratifying the choice by calling "elect" those who have chosen Him. Again, this makes man, not God, sovereign in election, and dishonors God by diminishing His sovereignty.

Such a view also leaves a pocket for pride in the human heart. Since the choice to believe is supposedly made by the sinner independently, the one who chooses to believe and respond positively to the gospel offer has proven himself more "worthy" of salvation, with all its attendant blessings, than the one who rejects the gospel. Of course, such an exalted view of man is unjustified by Scripture.

So we find that there are extremely important implications for how we see ourselves in relation to God's sovereignty, for how we preach the gospel, and what the gospel itself is, that are tied together with one's view of how God's election works. Do we believe that the gospel is given by grace alone and by God alone to unworthy sinners, or do we exalt man by saying that he makes himself worthy to receive the gospel by his act of faith? Do we believe that in election God has a purpose that He will sovereignly accomplish and which nothing can thwart, or are His omnipotent hands tied up, so to speak, by the decisions of His own creatures?

In part 2, I will continue responding to objections to unconditional election by relating the doctrine back to the teaching on total depravity/inability, which cannot be escaped when speaking on the manner in which human beings are chosen by God. For the doctrine of total depravity/inability helps us see man rightly in relationship to God.

I will also try to show that it is for the very reason that God has a purpose in election that He chooses the elect and supplies all the means of grace by which His purpose is accomplished in them and through them. Further objections to the doctrine of unconditional election will also be covered in this next post, or if necessary, a subsequent one.

Tags: Arminian vs Reformed theology, unconditional election, objections to unconditional election, Romans 9, individual election, Arminianism vs Calvinism