The New Man

Written by Alan Torres

Is a believer in Christ a sinner saved by God’s Grace while possessing a sin nature, or is the believer a new man in Christ, with a new and distinct identity, now fundamentally different from the former person prior to conversion?

A popular view among many evangelical teachers is that the New Testament terms “old man” (or old self), “sin nature,” and “flesh” are all synonymous. In this view, since the New Testament clearly teaches that the Believer still has the “flesh,” he must still posses the old man. And if this is so, the crucifixion of the old man in Romans 6, where Paul states that “our old self was crucified with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin” (Romans 6:6), can not be seen as actual, but only positional or judicial. Teachers of this view would say that the old man, which is the sin nature and the flesh, is positionally crucified, but still with us in our life, that he has only been dealt a judicial death blow by the work of Christ.

The Sin Nature

Although the origin of sin begins with Satan’s rebellion against God, sin came into this world through Adam.

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned (Romans 5:12).

Here we see that in Adam all sinned, as we all participated when Adam sinned. The Biblical principle of participation is demonstrated in Hebrews 7:9-10, where Levi the priest is said to have paid tithes to Melchizedek through his ancestor Abraham, although he was not yet born. Adam’s sin produced spiritual and physical death for all of humanity. His fall transformed him downward into a different being from the perfect being which God created. He propagated after his own kind and passed his corrupt nature to all of his descendents who are spiritually dead.

This transmission of sin and its manifested effects of spiritual and physical death, depravity, and hostility toward God, is referred to by some theologians as the “sin nature.” The term “sin nature” finds its nearest expression in the New Testament in the words of Paul describing unbelievers, “and were by nature children of wrath” (Ephesians 2:3). Though Scripture underlines the fact that believers possess the capacity to sin, it would seem to go against the emphasis of the new birth in Christ to say that “the nature” of a believer is to sin. Instead of using the term “sin nature” to describe the believer’s capacity to sin, Paul uses the word “flesh.”

The Flesh

Scripture never speaks of Believers having a “sin nature,” but refers to their daily struggle with what it calls “the flesh.”

For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so (Romans 8:5-7).

Newell explains the meaning of the word flesh when it is used to describe sin in a believer’s life: The flesh is the manifestation of sin in the as yet unredeemed body. Our “old man,” therefore, is the large term, the all-inclusive one — of all that we were federally from Adam. The flesh, however, we shall find to be that manifestation of sin in our members with which we are in conscious inward conflict, against which only the Holy Spirit indwelling us effectively wars.[1]

The Old Self (or Old Man)

The old self in Adam is presented in these verses:

Knowing this, that our “old self” was crucified with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin (Romans 6:6).

That, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the “old self,” which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit (Ephesians 4:22).

Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the “old self” with its evil practices, (Colossians 3:9).

Newell writes: This is our old self, as we were in and from Adam. It is contrasted with the “new man” (Colossians 3:9,10) — which is what we are and have in Christ. Also, we must not confuse the “old man” with “the flesh.”[2]

Believers are told to put on the new man, or self, as this is now the true identity of who we are in Christ.

And put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth (Ephesians 4:24).

And Ironside states: The “old man” is more than the old nature. It is the man of old, the man you used to be before you knew Christ as Saviour and Lord. In other words, the old man is all that I once was as an unsaved person. I am through with that man; he has disappeared, for faith, in the cross of Christ.[3]

God is indeed finished with the old man with his sin nature, He has no program to clean him up, He is finished with him! As we have seen, these three terms, old man, sin nature, and flesh are distinct from each other, so a totally different picture emerges of what the life of a believer in Christ is subsequent to salvation. A believer in Christ isn’t a sinner saved by God’s Grace while possesseing a sin nature, but a “new man,” a new creation in Christ, with a distinct identity and possessing a glorious hope.

[1] Newell, William R., Romans Verse by Verse (Chicago: Moody Press, 1938), 212.

[2] Ibid., p. 210.

[3] Ironside, H.A., Lectures on the Epistles to the Colossians (Neptune New Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers Inc., 1929), 135.

Written by Alan Torres

Doctrinal Statement

Doctrinal Statement.

Covenant theology

Covenant theology. Read Full Article
Covenant Theology differs greatly from Dispensationalism in certain key areas of prophetic theology. Two important differences are listed below:

(1) Most Reformed thinkers do not believe that the reference to a 1000-year reign of Christ should be taken as a future event (Rev. 20:1-5). They regard this section of Revelation as a symbolic “recapitulation” of Christian church history, with Satan spiritually “bound” through Christ’s resurrection, the resurrection of souls being a symbol of new birth, and so on (see Cox’ booklet Amillennialism Today, Presbyterian & Reformed Pub.; also L. Berkof’s standard Systematic Theology, A. Hoekema’s The Bible and the Future). Although this view is often called a-millennialism, this is not quite accurate. The prefix “a” means “no”. Covenant writers do believe in a Millennium; but they define it non-physically and non-futuristically. Most Covenant thinkers accept the general idea of a final period of extreme apostasy and divine wrath just prior to Christ’s return.

There has recently been a resurgence of post-millennialism in Reformed circles as well. This is the belief that all the glorious O.T. predictions of a Golden Age for Israel will be fulfilled through the Christian Church prior to Christ’s return. Post-millennialism is an essential element in the Christian Reconstruction/Theonomy movement.

A Very Short History Of Dispensationalism

Since the mid-1800s, the system of theology known as dispensationalism has had a great deal of influence on how some Christians view the doctrines of ecclesiology and eschatology. Here is some of the history of dispensationalism and a few of the key beliefs of that type of Bible interpretation. I call it a way to interpret the Bible because I believe that is what it is. I believe there are several different ways to interpret the Bible. I think you should follow the rules of Bible interpretation and not mix several ways together or you will just become foolish in your thinking. Before considering studying the Bible learn the rules of Bible study. The Granville Sharp Rules of Greek interpretation is always useful to know.

Theologians continue to argue over the origin of dispensationalism. Those who are dispensationalists contend that the basic beliefs of dispensationalism were held by the apostles and the first generation church. Those who are not dispensationalists believe that dispensationalism is a new theology that began in the 19th century. I believe  that dispensationalism, as a way to interpret the Bible, began around the mid-1800s.

1. John Nelson Darby The beginning of systematized dispensationalism is usually linked with John Nelson Darby (1800-1882), a Plymouth Brethren minister. While at Trinity College in Dublin (1819), Darby came to believe in a future salvation and restoration of national Israel. Based on his study of Isaiah 32, Darby concluded that Israel, in a future dispensation, would enjoy earthly blessings that were different from the heavenly blessings experienced by the church. He thus saw a clear distinction between Israel and the church. Darby also came to believe in an “any moment” rapture of the church that was followed by Daniel’s Seventieth Week in which Israel would once again take center stage in God’s plan. After this period, Darby believed there would be a millennial kingdom in which God would fulfill His unconditional promises with Israel.1 According to Paul Enns, “Darby advanced the scheme of dispensationalism by noting that each dispensation places man under some condition; man has some responsibility before God. Darby also noted that each dispensation culminates in failure.” 2 Darby saw seven dispensations: (1) Paradisaical state to the Flood; (2) Noah; (3) Abraham; (4) Israel; (5) Gentiles; (6) The Spirit; and (7) The Millennium. By his own testimony, Darby says his dispensational theology was fully formed by 1833.

2. The Brethren Movement Dispensationalism first took shape in the Brethren Movement in early nineteenth century Britain. Those within the Brethren Movement rejected a special role for ordained clergy and stressed the spiritual giftedness of ordinary believers and their freedom, under the Spirit’s guidance, to teach and admonish each other from Scripture. The writings of the Brethren had a broad impact on evangelical Protestantism and influenced ministers in the United States such as D. L. Moody, James Brookes, J. R. Graves, A. J. Gordon, and C. I. Scofield.3

3. The Bible Conference Movement Beginning in the 1870s, various Bible conferences began to spring up in various parts of the United States. These conferences helped spread Dispensationalism. The Niagara conferences (1870—early 1900s) were not started to promote dispensationalism but dispensational ideas were often promoted at these conferences. The American Bible and Prophetic Conferences from 1878—1914 promoted a dispensational theology.

4. The Bible Institute Movement In the late 1800s, several Bible institutes were founded that taught dispensational theology including The Nyack Bible Institute (1882), The Boston Missionary Training School (1889), and The Moody Bible Institute (1889).

5. The Scofield Reference Bible C. I. Scofield, a participant in the Niagara conferences, formed a board of Bible conference teachers in 1909 and produced what came to be known as, the Scofield Reference Bible. This work became famous in the United States with its theological annotations right next to the Scripture. This reference Bible became the greatest influence in the spread of dispensationalism.

6. Dallas Theological Seminary After World War I, many dispensational Bible schools were formed. Led by Dallas Theological Seminary (1924), dispensationalism began to be promoted in formal, academic settings. Under Scofield, dispensationalism entered a scholastic period that was later carried on by his successor, Lewis Sperry Chafer. Further promotion of dispensationalism took place with the writing of Chafer’s eight-volume Systematic Theology.

1. Hermeneutical approach that stresses a literal fulfillment of Old Testament promises to Israel Though the issue of “literal interpretation” is heavily debated today, many dispensationalists claim that consistent literal interpretation applied to all areas of the Bible, including Old Testament promises to Israel, is a distinguishing mark of dispensationalism. Dispensationalists usually argue that the progress of revelation, including New Testament revelation, does not cancel Old Testament promises made with national Israel. Although there is internal debate concerning how much the church is related to the Old Testament covenants and promises, dispensationalists believe national Israel will see the literal fulfillment of the promises made with her in the Old Testament.

2. Belief that the unconditional, eternal covenants made with national Israel (Abrahamic, Davidic, and New) must be fulfilled literally with national Israel Although the church may participate in or partially fulfill the biblical covenants, they do not take over the covenants to the exclusion of national Israel. Physical and spiritual promises to Israel must be fulfilled with Israel.

3. Distinct future for national Israel “Only Dispensationalism clearly sees a distinctive future for ethnic Israel as a nation.”5 This future includes a restoration of the nation with a distinct identity and function.

4. The church is distinct from Israel The church does not replace or continue Israel, and is never referred to as Israel. According to dispensationalists, the church did not exist in the Old Testament and did not begin until the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2). The church was a mystery not revealed until Jesus’s ascension into heaven. Revealed to Paul alone who taught others about it.

Romans 16:25 Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past,

---

Ephesians 3:3 that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly.

---

Ephesians 3:4 In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ,

---

Ephesians 3:9 and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.

---

Colossians 2:2 My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ,

---

Colossians 4:3 And pray for us, too, that God may open a door for our message, so that we may proclaim the mystery of Christ, for which I am in chains.

Old Testament promises to Israel, then, cannot be entirely fulfilled with the church. Evidences often used by dispensationalists to show that the church is distinct from Israel include: (a) Jesus viewed the church as future in Matthew 16:18; (b) an essential element of the church—Spirit baptism—did not begin until the Day of Pentecost (compare 1 Cor. 12:13 with Acts 2); (c) Christ became Head of the church as a result of His resurrection (compare Eph. 4:15; Col. 1:18 with Eph. 1:19-23); (d) the spiritual gifts associated with the church (cf. Eph. 4:7-12; 1 Cor. 12:11-13) were not given until the ascension of Christ; (e) the “new man” nature of the church (cf. Eph. 2:15) shows that the church is a NT organism and not something incorporated into Israel; (f) the foundation of the church is Jesus Christ and the New Testament apostles and prophets (cf. Eph. 2:20); (g) the author, Luke, keeps Israel and the church distinct. On this last point, Fruchtenbaum states, “In the book of Acts, both Israel and the church exist simultaneously. The term Israel is used twenty times and ekklesia (church) nineteen times, yet the two groups are always kept distinct.”6

5. Multiple senses of “seed of Abraham” According to Feinberg, the designation “seed of Abraham” is used in different ways in Scripture. First it is used in reference to ethnic, biological Jews (cf. Romans 9—11). Second, it is used in a political sense. Third, it is used in a spiritual sense to refer to people, whether Jew or Gentile, who are spiritually related to God by faith (cf. Romans 4:11-12; Galatians 3:7). Feinberg argues that the spiritual sense of the title does not take over the physical sense to such an extent that the physical seed of Abraham is no longer related to the biblical covenants.

6. Philosophy of history that emphasizes both the spiritual and physical aspects of God’s covenants According to John Feinberg, “nondispensational treatments of the nature of the covenants and of Israel’s future invariably emphasize soteriological and spiritual issues, whereas dispensational treatments emphasize both the spiritual/soteriological and the social, economic, and political aspects of things.” 7

Other significant, although not necessarily exclusive features of dispensationalism, include: (1) the authority of Scripture; (2) belief in dispensations; (3) emphasis on Bible prophecy; (4) futuristic premillennialism; (5) pretribulationism; and (6) a view of imminency that sees Christ’s return as an “any-moment” possibility.

Variations Within Dispensationalism (I refer to myself as a Classic Pauline Dispensationalist)

The above features characterize the beliefs of those within the dispensational tradition. However, as Blaising writes, “Dispensationalism has not been a static tradition.” 8 There is no standard creed that freezes its theological development at any given point in history. Blaising offers three forms of dispensational thought:

1. Classical Dispensationalism (ca. 1850—1940s) Classical dispensationalism refers to the views of British and American dispensationalists between the writings of Darby and Chafer’s eight-volume Systematic Theology. The interpretive notes of the Scofield Reference Bible are often seen as the key representation of the classical dispensational tradition.9

One important feature of classical dispensationalism was its dualistic idea of redemption. In this tradition, God is seen as pursuing two different purposes. One is related to heaven and the other to the earth. The “heavenly humanity was to be made up of all the redeemed from all dispensations who would be resurrected from the dead. Whereas the earthly humanity concerned people who had not died but who were preserved by God from death, the heavenly humanity was made up of all the saved who had died, whom God would resurrect from the dead.” 10

Blaising notes that the heavenly, spiritual, and individualistic nature of the church in classical dispensationalism underscored the well-known view that the church is a parenthesis in the history of redemption.11 In this tradition, there was little emphasis on social or political activity for the church.

Key theologians : John Nelson Darby, C. I. Scofield, Lewis Sperry Chafer

2. Revised or Modified Dispensationalism (ca.1950—1985) Revised dispensationalists abandoned the eternal dualism of heavenly and earthly peoples. The emphasis in this strand of the dispensational tradition was on two peoples of God—Israel and the church. These two groups are structured differently with different dispensational roles and responsibilities, but the salvation they each receive is the same. The distinction between Israel and the church, as different anthropological groups, will continue throughout eternity.

Revised dispensationalists usually reject the idea that there are two new covenants—one for Israel and one for the church. They also see the church and Israel as existing together during the millennium and eternal state.

Key theologians : John Walvoord, Dwight Pentecost, Charles Ryrie, Charles Feinberg, Alva J. McClain.

3. Progressive Dispensationalism (1986—present) What does “progressive” mean? The title “progressive dispensationalism” refers to the “progressive” relationship of the successive dispensations to one another.12 Charles Ryrie notes that, “The adjective ‘progressive’ refers to a central tenet that the Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants are being progressively fulfilled today (as well as having fulfillments in the millennial kingdom).” 13

“One of the striking differences between progressive and earlier dispensationalists, is that progressives do not view the church as an anthropological category in the same class as terms like Israel, Gentile Nations, Jews, and Gentile people. The church is neither a separate race of humanity (in contrast to Jews and Gentiles) nor a competing nation alongside Israel and Gentile nations. . . . The church is precisely redeemed humanity itself (both Jews and Gentiles) as it exists in this dispensation prior to the coming of Christ.”14

Progressive dispensationalists see more continuity between Israel and the church than the other two variations within dispensationalism. They stress that both Israel and the church compose the “people of God” and both are related to the blessings of the New Covenant. This spiritual equality, however, does not mean that there are not functional distinctions between the groups. Progressive dispensationalists do not equate the church as Israel in this age and they still see a future distinct identity and function for ethnic Israel in the coming millennial kingdom. Progressive dispensationalists like Blaising and Bock see an already/not yet aspect to the Davidic reign of Christ, seeing the Davidic reign as being inaugurated during the present church age. The full fulfillment of this reign awaits Israel in the millennium.

Key theologians : Craig A. Blaising, Darrell L. Bock, and Robert L. Saucy

1. See Floyd Elmore, “Darby, John Nelson,” Dictionary of Premillennial Theology, Mal Couch, ed., (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1996) 83-84.

2. Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago: Moody, 1989) 516.

3. See Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Wheaton: Victor, 1993) 10.

4. These essentials of Dispensationalism are taken from John S. Feinberg’s, “Systems of Discontinuity,” Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg (Wheaton: Crossway, 1988) 67-85. At this point we acknowledge the well-known sine qua non of Dispensationalism as put forth by Charles C. Ryrie. According to Ryrie, Dispensationalism is based on the three following characteristics: (1) a distinction between Israel and the church; (2) literal hermeneutics; and (3) A view which sees the glory of God as the underlying purpose of God in the world. See Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995) 38-40.

5. Feinberg, 83.

6. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology. Tustin: Ariel, 1994) 118.

7. Feinberg, 85.

8. Blaising and Bock, 21.

9. Blaising and Bock, 22.

10. Blaising and Bock, 24.

11. Blaising and Bock, 27.

12. Blaising and Bock, 49.

13. Charles C. Ryrie, “Update on Dispensationalism,” Issues in Dispensationalism, John R. Master and Wesley R. Willis, eds. (Chicago: Moody, 1994) 20.

14. Blaising and Bock, 49.

The Five – FoxNews.com

The Five – FoxNews.com.

Fired Up! Top Five Stories on Fox Nation

• January 12, 2012
  

  Palin Rips Michelle Obama

  Sarah Palin Rips Michelle Obama: ‘Are We Just A Bunch Of Numbskulls?’ by James Crugnale | Mediaite, January 11th, 2012 Appearing …

• January 12, 2012
  

  CEOs Blow off Obama Meeting

  The Gateway PunditWhen Barack Obama invited several CEO’s to his Wednesday jobs summit discussion and photo-op he didn’t expect this…They …

• January 12, 2012
  

  Obama Plans to Create Internet ID for All Americans

  Obama Administration Reportedly Plans to Create Internet ID for All Americans Published January 08, 2011 | FoxNews.com President …

• January 12, 2012
  

  Bankrupt Solyndra Handing Out Bonuses

  Bankrupt Solyndra seeking to pay bonuses Court’s OK sought for ‘incentive plan’ By Jim McElhatton – The Washington Times Now …

• January 11, 2012
  

  Republican Destroys NBC News Anchors On Live TV

 

Deployment of thousands of U.S. troops in Israel, a start of war against Iran?

Deployment of thousands of U.S. troops in Israel, a start of war against Iran?.

Sunday, 08 January 2012
Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most important choke point for oil shipments, has become a contentious issue between the U.S. and Iran. On Sunday, the U.S. warned that there will be consequences if Iran to close Strait of Hormuz. (File Photo)
Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most important choke point for oil shipments, has become a contentious issue between the U.S. and Iran. On Sunday, the U.S. warned that there will be consequences if Iran to close Strait of Hormuz. (File Photo)
inShare21

By Dina al-Shibeeb
Al Arabiya

The Middle East roils in crisis as a U.S. aircraft carrier entered one of the world’s most important choke point for oil shipments, the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has threatened to close if the United States raises sanctions against the Islamic Republic. The deployment of thousands of U.S. troops in Israel has raised speculation of an imminent war.

On December 20, the Jerusalem Post reported that Lt.-Gen. Frank Gorenc, commander of the U.S. forces based in Germany, said that there will be a deployment of several thousand American soldiers in Israel.

An Egypt-based military expert, major general Jamal Mathloum, said that “there is a military strategic cooperation between the U.S. and Israel since the 1980s and there is definitely mutual understanding.” He added that the U.S. troop deployment might not necessarily mean a direct signal of war, but that it could be read as Israel and U.S. readiness in case of a conflict arising in the region.

“There is already a U.S. radar station in southern Israel, and might contain from 500 to 700 American soldiers operating there,” Mathloum said.
But for Abdulaziz Sager, chairman and founder of the Gulf Research Center in Dubai, the deployment of U.S. troops in Israel is “definitely to send a clear signal to Iran.”

Sager said that there is a U.S.-Israel defense agreement that makes defending the Jewish state an obligation to the United States. In addition to that, U.S. President Barack Obama said in his last AIPAC meeting that the United States does not rule out any option against Iran.

According to debka.com, an Israeli website that provides political and security analysis, about 9,000 U.S. soldiers have already arrived in Israel. But Mathloum said this figure remains insignificant compared to the more than 100,000 American soldiers dispersed in 1,000 U.S. bases worldwide.

Lt.-Gen. Gorenc’s announcement came as he was visiting Israel to finalize plans for the upcoming drill. There will also be an establishment of American command posts in Israel and IDF command posts at EUCOM headquarters in Germany – with the ultimate goal of establishing joint task forces in the event of a large-scale conflict in the Middle East, the newspaper reported.

But according to Elias Henna, a Lebanon-based expert in military issues, the deployment of 9,000 U.S. troops in Israel goes back to the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and to support U.S. presence in the region and not to leave the “Arab field” open to further Iranian influence.

Asked why the United States did not increase its troop numbers in its military bases in the Persian Gulf, Henna said that both countries [Israel and United States] have far more compatible militaries, are bound with military agreements and that the United States has more freedom in Israel.

“Israel does not mind even if one million U.S. soldiers to be deployed in the Jewish state,” he added. As the U.S. and Israel continue their cooperation in light of the crisis looming around Iran, the Islamic Republic appears to remain unyielding.

On Sunday, head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization Fereydoun, Abbasi Davani, reportedly said that Iran’s underground uranium enrichment facility will go on stream soon. Davani said that the Fordow nuclear enrichment plant will be operational in the near future and that around 20 percent, 3.5 percent and four percent enriched uranium can be produced at the site.

“There is no third party to verify about the site [Fordow] and truth about the announcement,” said Sager, adding “they can say all they want to say but there is no confirmation or verification.”

Chapter Two – Predestination and Election

1. INTRODUCTION TO SOME IMPORTANT TERMS

1.1 Predestination

Protithemi (to set forth beforehand) and prohorize (to determine beforehand) are synonymous Greek terms, which translate into the verb form “predestine” or the noun form “predestination” in English. In Scripture both events and people are predestined. For example, in Acts 4:27-28 Herod, Pilate, and the religious leaders did to Jesus whatever God’s hand had “predestined” to occur. In Roman 8:29 believers are “predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son,” and in the next verse the word is used in connection with their calling, justification, and glorification, relating ultimately to election. In Ephesians 1:11 “all things” are predestined according to the counsel of God’s will. The concept is comprehensive in scope and does not allow us to speculate that anything happens apart from the eternal plan of God. Simply stated, when God predestines He makes certain to happen whatever He plans or decrees, and everything is thus predestined.

Does this make history merely a series of “programmed” events and all people robots? The answer is NO. “Predestine” does not always mean an event was directly caused by God. For example, God foresees the sins of men and allows them as part of His eternal plan or predestination. He predestines by permission all things which are contrary to His holy character.

On one hand, all that occurs is certain to occur according to God’s predestination. On the other hand, sinful deeds and good acts of obedience on the part of human beings are not caused directly by God. Sin is permitted, while believers’ obedient acts are prompted and encouraged by the Holy Spirit (they are also empowered by the Spirit, but the decision to obey is truly that of the believer).

To deny predestination is to think of God inadequately and will eventually lead to humanistic thinking, the deification of man himself. But fully understanding predestination is an impossible task. One hazard to avoid in coming to terms with predestination is denying human responsibility in decision making. God regards men as responsible creatures – that is clear.

1.2 Election

Election is part of the larger concept of predestination. Wherever the word is used in Scripture it applies to the eternal choice by God of those whom He eventually calls and justifies. It is never used directly in connection with those who ultimately are lost, yet many believe that election to salvation implies an “election” to damnation (strict Calvinism). Such passages as Romans 9:6-18, which we will examine, are cited as evidence for this election to damnation, usually referred to as “reprobation.”

A more moderate Calvinistic view is that all men are alienated and lost as a result of the Fall. Furthermore, God eternally chooses to bestow special grace on a few to be softened and turned to faith while He merely allows the rest to continue in their rebellion. This view is called “preterition.”

At the other end of the spectrum are Arminians, who believe that God elects only those whom He knew through His foreknowledge would believe. They base their view on such passages as 1 Peter 1:1-2, which says believers are “chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.” Such a view assumes something most Calvinists would deny: some people, apart from any intervention by God to change their predisposition to rebel, will believe and turn to God.

Either position, Calvinist or Arminian, is faced with a similar problem. The Calvinist faces the problem of why God did not elect all mankind when He was able to do so, and the Arminian is faced with the problem of why God did not make those who reject God’s mercy inclined to accept it when He was able to do so.

The only altenative to either of these positions is that of universalism, which teaches that all mankind is elect. The problem with this position is that part of the Bible must be rejected as true, for the Bible clearly teaches that some will ultimately be condemned to hell.

2. THE DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEWS OF THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION

2.1 The Meanings of Election

Election is:

A sovereign act of God.
God is under no obligation to elect anyone, since all have lost their standing before God.
It is not due to any contraint laid upon God.
It is an act of grace, in that He chose those who were unworthy of Salvation.
God chose to save them “in Christ” (Ephesians 1:4).
God chose those whom He foreknew.

But how do foreknowledge and predestination relate to election? Scripture indicates that election is based on foreknowledge (1 Peter 1:1f; cf. Romans 8:29), but the actual meaning of foreknowledge is debated:

Is it merely prescience or foresight?
Does it relate more closely to actual choice?
Does God, in His foreknowledge, perceive that each man will do in response to His call and then elect Him to Salvation in harmony with this knowledge?
Does foreknowledge mean that God, from eternity past, looked with favour upon some and then elected them to Salvation?

2.2 The Debate of the Actual Meaning of Foreknowledge

We have different perspectives concerning the definition of election:

Is election the sovereign act of God whereby He chose some to Salvation solely on the basis of sovereign grace apart from the merits or acts of the individual? or
Is it the sovereign act of God whereby He chose those whom He foreknew would respond to His gracious invitation?

Both of these positions are set forth in the following paragraphs with arguments for and against:

Election based on prescience; and
Election based on the choice of God.

2.3 Election Based on Prescience

In this position, God in His foreknowledge foresaw those who would respond to His offer of Salvation and actively elected them to Salvation. That is, election is that sovereign act of God in grace whereby He chose in Christ for Salvation all those whom He foreknew would accept Him. The repeated teachings of Scripture that man is responsible for accepting or rejecting Salvation suggest that it is man’s response to the Gospel that is the basis of the God’s election. The elect are those whom God foresees will respond personally to the Gospel. In this position, the role of God is quite passive, His action of election is purely based on the choice of human beings.

Closely related to election is predestination or foreordination. The Greek verb occurs several times in the New Testament (Acts 4:28; Romans 8:29f; 1 Corinthians 2:7; Ephesians 1:5, 11). It carries the idea of appointing beforehand. Though election and predestination are similar in meaning, they may be distinguished in this manner:

In election God has intended to save those who accept His Son (first step).
In predestination God has accomplished that purpose (second step).

In other words, the God has elected those who accept His Son (i.e. the elect or called true Christians) and then He has predestined to give Salvation to all the elect.

Thus Paul writes, “Whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son” (Romans 8:29) and “He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself” (Ephesians 1:5; cf. v.11).

2.3.1 Biblical support for this view of election

The Bible supports this position in the following ways:

Scripture teaches that God’s Salvation bringing grace has appeared to all men, not merely the elect (Titus 2:11). Though mankind is hopelessly dead in trespasses and sins and can do nothing to obtain Salvation, God, by His grace, has restored to all men sufficient ability to make a choice in the matter of submission to God. That is to say, the God has restored to the sinner the ability to make a favorable response to God. Thus God, in His grace, has made it possible for all men to be saved. There is no merit of any human efforts in this transaction; it is all of the grace of God.

The Bible clearly teaches that Christ died for all (1 Timothy 2:6; 4:10; Hebrews 2:9; 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 2:2; 4:14). God does not desire “for any to perish but for all to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9; cf. Ezekiel 18:32). The invitation to Salvation is to all, to “whoever” (John 3:15f; 4:13f; 11:26; 12:46; Acts 2:21; 10:43). It is difficult to conceive of a universal invitation to which only the few have the ability to respond.

There are numerous exhortations to turn to God (Isaiah 31:6; Joel 2:13f; Matthew 18:3; Acts 3:19), to repent (Matthew 3:2; Luke 13:3, 5; Acts 2:38; 17:30), and to believe (John 6:29; Acts 16:31; 1 John 3:23). Paul writes, “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing Salvation to all men” (Titus 2:11). This results in the freeing of the will in the matter of Salvation. In this way man can make an initial response to God, as a result of which God can give him repentance and faith. If a man is willing to turn to God, then God will turn to him (Jeremiah 31:18ff) and grant him repentance (Acts 5:31; 11:18; 2 Timothy 2:25) and faith (Romans 12:3; 2 Peter 1:1).

Scripture bases upon on foreknowledge (Romans 8:28-30; 1 Peter 1:1f), and to say that God foreknew all things because He had arbitrarily determined all things is to ignore the distinction between God’s efficient and His permissive decrees. God foresaw that sin would enter the universe but He did not efficiently decree it. Surely He can also foresee how men will act without efficiently decreeing how they will act. God knows how man will respond to the Gospel invitation, but He does not arbitrarily necessitate that response.

The justice of God must also be considered. Is it fair for the God to choose some from the mass of guilty and condemned men, provide Salvation for them and efficiently secure their Salvation, and yet do nothing about all the others? God would not be partial if He selects some from this multitude of men and does things for them and in them which He does not do for others. Common grace has been extended to all, and everyone has the ability restored to Him to be “willing to do His will” (John 7:17). The Salvation bearing the grace of God has appeared to all men; but some receive the grace of God in vain. Only if God makes the same provisions for all and makes the same offers to all, is He truly just.

Acceptance of this view of election tends logically to great missionary endeavor. Christ sent his disciples into all the world, and He instructed them to preach the Gospel to every human beings. If election means that all those whom God has arbitrarily chosen will certainly be saved and that all those whom He has not chosen will not be saved, why should the Christian be overly concerned about preaching the Gospel to every human beings? But the knowledge that Salvation is available to all stimulates and motives missionary activity.

2.3.2 Some objections to this view of election

Certain objections have been raised against this understanding of election. These objections must be answered:

There are statements that the Father gave certain ones to Christ (John 6:37; 17:2, 6, 9), and it is assumed that this was an arbitrary act of God by which the rest were left to perish. But it is more probable that He did this because of what He foresaw they would do, than merely to exercise sovereign authority.

Christ said, “No one can come to me, unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44). This verse, however, must be read in light of another statement by Christ, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself” (John 12:32). There issues a power from the Cross of Christ that goes out to all men, though many continue to resist that power.

Paul writes that God works in us both to will and to work for His good pleasure (Philippians 2:13). It is assumed that there is nothing a sinner can do until God does these things in him. But this text is not addressed to unbelievers, but to believers. Jesus plainly said to some of the Jews, “You are unwilling to come to me, that you may have life” (John 5:40), clearly implying that they could if they would.

In Romans 9:10-16 God is said to have chosen Jacob rather than Esau, even before they were born and before they had done either good or bad. But two things should be noted. Though it is said that they had not yet done either good or bad, it is not said that God did not know who would do the good and who would do the bad. Esau consistently chose the profane things of life, and Jacob, though far from constant in the things of God, chose the more spiritual things. Further, the choice of Jacob rather than Esau was a choice to outward and national privilege, not a choice to Salvation directly. Scripture declares that not all the descendants of Israel (Jacob) are Israel, and not all the children of Abraham are children of promise. A descendant of Esau can be saved as readily as a descendant of Jacob.

Acts 13:48 reads, “As many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.” That this cannot refer to an absolute decree is evidenced by the fact that in v. 46 Paul had already declared that the Jews by their own personal choice rejected the message. Thus God had ordained to Salvation those whom He foresaw would believe.

Again, Ephesians 1:5-8; 2:8-10 represent Salvation as originating in the choice of God and as being all of grace. But this does not contradict the view being presented. God must take the initiative, and He does in grace. If it were not for the operation of His grace upon the heart of the sinner, no man could be saved. But this grace does not save the man, it merely enables him to choose whom he will serve.

Scripture teaches that repentance and faith are gifts of God (Acts 5:31; 11:18; Romans 12:3; Ephesians 2:8-10; 2 Timothy 2:25). But it would seem very strange if God should call upon all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30; 2 Peter 3:9) and believe (Mark 1:14f) when only some may receive the gift of repentance and faith.

Finally, some claim that if predestination is not unconditional and absolute, then God’s whole plan is uncertain and liable to miscarriage. But this could only be true if God had not foreknown the outcome and had not adopted it as His plan. God has foreseen all that will happen and has accepted these eventualilties into His program. His plan is certain though not all the events in it are necessitated.

2.4 Election Based on the Choice of God

The second approach to election is to understand foreknowledge as the God is actively looking with favor upon some and then He is electing them to Salvation. In this approach foreknowledge is not mere prescience, but more closely related to the God’s actual choice of God. His foreknowledge is His choice.

Further, the term “know,” often carries the idea of “to know with appreciation,” and “to know lovingly.” Examples of this can be found in both the Old and New Testaments. God declares, “You only have I chosen (known) of all the families of the earth” (Amos 3:2). Keil suggests that the term “acknowledge” be used in this verse. He writes, “Acknowledgment on the part of God is not merely taking notice, but is energetic, embracing and penetrating with divine love.” He continues by saying that it “not only includes the idea of love and care, as in Hosea 13:5, but expresses generally the gracious fellowship of the Lord with Israel, as in Genesis 18:19, and is practically equivalent to electing, including both the motive and the result of election.” (Keil, The Twelve Minor Prophets, I, p.259).

The sons of Eli “did not know the Lord and the custom of the priests with the people” (1 Samuel 2:12f). Surely this does not mean that they were unaware of God or His Levitical regulations; rather they did not acknowledge or have proper respect and appreciation for God and His regulations. The verb “know” is used in similar fashion in the New Testament. Paul writes of our obligation to know (appreciate) our spiritual leaders (1 Thessalonians 5:12). John writes, “By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments” (1 John 2:3). Surely this is more than to be aware of God; it is rather to have a loving relationship with God, to acknowledge Him. With this in mind, can we not interpret God’s foreknowledge as God, in eternity past, looking with favour upon some and then electing them to Salvation? Foreknowledge is preceding to election, and both are determinative acts of God. In this position, foreknowledge is not passive knowledge, but active.

2.4.1 Biblical support for this view of election

Ultimate reasons for election are beyond the scope of the human mind. We finally leave the understanding of it with a wise, sovereign, and loving God. We rest ourselves in the words of Deuteronomy 29:29, “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.” But there are several arguments which can be given in support of this doctrine:

There are clear Biblical statements in support of election. Acts 13:48 reads, “As many as had been appointed to eternal life believed” (cf. Romans 8:27-30; Galatians 4:9; Ephesians 1:5, 11; 1 Thessalonians 1:4; 1 Peter 1:1f; 2:9).

The whole process of Salvation is a gift of God (Romans 12:3; Ephesians 2:8-10). Granted, man must respond to the Gospel, but even His ability to respond is a gift of God. To the Philippians Paul wrote, “God … is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure” (2:13).

There are verses which speak of men having been given to Christ (John 6:37; 17:2) and of the Father drawing men to Christ (John 6:44).

There are examples in Scripture of the sovereign calling of God upon individuals, such as Paul (Galatians 1:15) and Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1:5; cf. Psalm 139:13-16). It is possible that the God foreknew that Paul and Jeremiah would respond to His calling.

It is on the basis of election that the appeal to a godly life is made (Colossians 3:12; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Peter 2:9).

Election is portrayed as being from all eternity. God “has saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity” (2 Timothy 1:9).

Christians pray to God for the Salvation of others and by giving thanks for Salvation, Christians everywhere acknowledge and confess God’s sovereignty in Salvation. If the God’s election is passive, then it is meaningless or invalid for Christians to pray to God for the Salvation of others. In all of this, we recognize a mystery in God’s sovereign working in the free will of man.

2.4.2 Some objections to this view of election

Several objections may be raised to this view of election:

It makes foreknowledge and election virtually the same. It is argued that to foresee is merely to know beforehand. God foresaw that sin would enter the world, but He did not necessitate it, He merely permitted it. In the same fashion, God foresaw how man would respond when presented with the Gospel, and then elected those whom He foresaw would respond favorably. It has been demonstrated that for God to know someone is often more than just to have a knowledge of the person. Rather, it speaks of having a personal relationship with. Thus, foreknowledge is active, not passive. Further, the doctrine of election retains the sovereignty of God. He can determine to save whomsoever He will. Luke reports of the response to the Gospel at Antioch of Pisidia, “As many as had been appointed to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:38).

It is argued that if election is limited by God, surely the atonement must be limited as well. This is contrary to the many Scriptures which teach unlimited atonement (John 1:29; 3:16; 1 Timothy 2:6; Hebrews 2:9; 1 John 2:2). Man remains responsible for rejecting the atonement. It is available to all, but man willfully turns aside from it. That some men reject it, limits the effectiveness of it, but not its availability. An illustration could be used of those who crucified our Lord. It was ordained by God that Christ be crucified, but the men who actually did it will be held responsible (Acts 2:23; 4:27f). Jesus said, “It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes” (Matthew 18:7). Salvation is available for all, it is unlimited. But it is effectively limited by man’s rejection of it. Ryrie counsels: “Balance is the great need in considering this doctrine. While one must not lose sight of the reality of responsibility, that responsibility must not obscure the full meaning of grace. Grace concerns origins, responsibility concerns reactions. God originated His plan of Salvation and based it entirely on grace yet man is entirely responsible for acceptance or rejection of God’s grace” (Ryrie, The Grace of God, p.85).

It makes God responsible for reprobation. Why God did not elect some to Salvation is a deep mystery. But let us remember that election deals not with innocent creatures, but with sinful and guilty human beings. That any should be saved is a matter of pure grace (Ephesians 2:8). Those not included in election suffer only their due reward. We should rather praise God for saving any, than charge Him with being unfair in saving just the few. God does not delight in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11), and He is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9), but man’s iniquities have brought him separation from God (Isaiah 59:2). The decree of reprobation, if it indeed can be spoken of in that fashion, is a decree to do nothing, a decree to leave the sinner to himself, to his own self-hardening and self-destruction. It is not correct to say that God elects some to hell. When Peter writes, “They stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed” (1 Peter 2:8), his teaching is that they were appointed, not to disobedience, but to stumble because they are disobedient. In like manner Paul’s conclusion, “So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires” (Romans 9:18), must be understood. God leaves man to his own destructive and self-hardening ways, and in that sense He hardens man’s heart.

Election discourages evangelism. It is asked, if only the elect will be saved, why evangelize? Those who are elect to Salvation will be saved; those who are not elect will not be saved; therefore, why evangelize? Several things should be noted: (a) The last command of Christ was to communicate the Gospel to the world (Acts 1:8). This command is our mandate. God has chosen evangelism as the method through which His election finds its fulfillment (Acts 13:48; 18:10). (b) This doctrine gives the Christian encouragement as he shares his faith. Paul writes, “For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, that they also may obtain the Salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory” (2 Timothy 2:10). (c) The child of God who begins to comprehend the great love of God toward him in choosing him for Salvation has renewed motivation to share this great truth of Salvation with others. Paul declares, “The love of Christ controls us” (2 Corinthians 5:14), and he continues a few verses on, “We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were entreating through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (v. 20).

It portrays God as partial and arbitrary. Perhaps on the surface this objection seems valid, but two things must be noted: (a) It has nothing to do with partiality, because there is nothing in man which commends him to God. (b) To speak of election as arbitrary, indirectly accuses God of not being wise, free, and loving. Election is done by a wise and loving God.

This view of election instills pride within the elect. But surely this is not so. Human works and effort bring about pride (Luke 18:11f; Romans 4:2; Ephesians 2:9); the sovereign grace of God causes worship.

Whichever of these two approaches to the doctrine of election might seem more appropriate and Biblical to us, our response should be that of the apostle, “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfaithomable His ways!” (Romans 11:33). We conclude with Paul, “To Him be glory forever. Amen” (v. 36; cf. Isaiah 55:8f).

3. EXAMINING CRUCIAL PASSAGES RELATING TO ELECTION

We want to be fair in presenting all the points of view about the doctrine of election. Let’s examine some crucial Biblical verses in-details:

3.1 Romans 8:28-30

This passage is a description of election from the strictly divine perspective. The word elect does not appear, but the term predestined does, and those who are believers are clearly involved:

“And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son … and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”

The most striking feature about this message is the sovereignty of God and the certainty of the ultimate outcome in the process from divine election to the final consummation in glorification. Everyone of those who was “foreknown” and “predestined” is finally “glorified” (Note: the certainty implied in the use of the past tense). The unalterable process begins in the eternal counsel of God (past) and reaches to the eschatological culmination (future).

Eternal Counsel of God

Human History

Eschatology

foreknew

called

glorified

predestined

justified

“Called” is usually used of those who have believed, and thus it implies a call that has been effective, not rejected. This is referred to as “efficacious call” or “efficacious grace.” “Justified” means “declared righteous through faith, though yet a sinner.” “Glorification” is being “conformed to the image of His Son,” according to verse 29.

To summarize:

Foreknowledge and predestination are closely connected.
God is absolutely sovereign in election.
The outcome of election (glorification) is certain.
God guarantees this outcome by calling and justifying those whom He has predestined, and the “call” is always effective; that is, it always produces belief.

3.2 2 Peter 1:10

The word election is used in 2 Peter 1:10 in the context of its effect on Christian behaviour:

Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble.

At first glance, it may appear that Peter is implying that one’s “calling” and “election” are not secure and must be made certain by adding human obedience as a requirement for maintaining it. The Biblical teaching about grace as well as passages like Romans 8:30 make this interpretation unlikely.

I believe that calling and election are inevitably manifested in one’s life, because the one who is genuinely called and elected has been generated and possesses the gift of the indwelling Holy Spirit. One therefore must “make certain” of such a calling, not before God, as though it is a human work to supplement the divine, but to himself and before others. Though it is “inevitable,” Peter nevertheless makes it a command, and obedience to all commands is both motivated and enabled by the Holy Spirit (Philippians 2:12, 13).

The context is the key to this interpretation. According to 2 Peter 1:4, believers become “partakers of the divine nature” (regeneration), “having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.” Verses 5-9 describe the character qualities that result. By demonstrating this kind of character, the believer “proves” he has truly been called and elected.

In summary:

One “makes certain” his election to all who observe his life by living out the “divine nature” that is in him.

3.3 Romans 9:6-23

3.3.1 Background

Why did the nation of Israel reject Jesus as their Messiah? Romans 8 stresses the sovereignty of God in Salvation, especially in verses 29 and 30. Paul says whomever God elects, He ultimately saves. Why was the call of Jesus and the apostles for repentance and faith rejected by Israel?

3.3.2 Paul’s answer to the problem of Israel

Paul gives a concise answer: “But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel” (v.6).

The “word of God” – God’s covenant with Israel through Abraham – had not failed. Not every Israelite is really a son of Israel. True Israelites are those who trust God. Among the chosen people is a select remnant of Israelites to whom God is able to carry out His covenant promises. In other words, God is sovereign and unfailing in Salvation. To be among the chosen nation is not necessarily to be “chosen” as an individual. There is a corporate election (the nation of Israel) and an individual election (the believer). Through the latter, the God perfects His covenant promises.

3.4 Some Difficulties with Election

Romans 9 alludes to some difficulties that have perplexed theologians or ages. Such questions have been stated in the following ways:

Isn’t election arbitrary favoritism by God?
Doesn’t election make us mere robots without responsibility for decisions?
Can those who are not elect be saved if they turn to God?
How can God judge those who are not elect, since God does not effectively “call” them as He does the elect?

3.4.1 Isn’t election arbitrary favoritism by God?

Statement in Romans 9:13 and 18 seem to imply arbitrary favoritism on the part of God: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (9:13); and “So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires” (9:18). These verses also have been cited as evidence that God “reprobates” (elects to hell) some men. The first of these, concerning Jacob and Esau, is quoted by Paul from Malachi 1:2-3. It is an assessment of God’s feelings toward the descendants of Jacob (Israel) and the descendants of Esau (Edom) based on the fact that Jacob loved the birthright and Esau despised it (see Hebrews 12:16-17). Therefore, it is not a statement of God’s eternal elective choice of one above the other. Paul’s use of it here could mean that God rejected Esau because he never sought Him through repentance, nor did his descendants, as a consequence of God’s leaving him to his own inclinations.

The second statement about God’s hardening whom He desires might be interpreted, in light of Pharoah’s actions, as a judicial hardening in response to Pharoah’s own self-hardening. See Exodus 4:21; 7:3, 13; 8:15, 32; and 9:34 where it could be interpreted that Pharoah first hardened his own heart.

In summary:

Reprobation is not taught in these passages, though some people may assume that if God chooses some to be saved He, in effect, condemns or reprobates the rest. We might better apply the doctrine of election to the saved alone and merely answer the question, Why do some go to hell? It is because they reject the truth of the Gospel provided to save them.

3.4.2 Doesn’t election make us mere robots without responsibility for decisions?

Romans 9:19 implies another perplexing question about election: Does election make us mere robots who really should not be held responsible for our choices, since we merely choose as God has “programmed” us? Paul puts it this way: “You will say to me then, ‘Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?’” His answer seems to be, “Who are you to challenge the justice or rights of God, considering who God is? God can do as He pleases!” Then in verses 22-23 Paul implies that no one is really “programmed.” He refers to “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,” which God “endures” (suggesting permission to sin, not causing to sin). The word prepared here means “prepared by a process” – not by divine decree – and could be translated “self-prepared.” Only in verse 23 are the “vessels of mercy” (believers) “prepared beforehand” (a different word meaning “prepared by appointment”). The “vessels of wrath” (those ultimately lost) are responsible for their own choices.

3.4.3 Can those who are not elect be saved if they turn to God?

These same verses also answer the question, Can a person who is not elect turn to God and be saved? The answer is that the non-elect do not or will not turn to God and be saved. They harden themselves.

3.4.4 How can God judge those who are not elect, since God does not effectively “call” them as He does the elect?

The “vessels of wrath” (those ultimately lost) are responsible for their own choices. The God has already endured them and has provided the Gospel for them. They first hardened their own hearts to reject the truth of the Gospel provided to save them, therefore they are deserved to go to hell.

4. EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FOREKNOWLEDGE AND ELECTION

First Peter 1:1-2 says election is “according to the foreknowledge of God the Father.” Does this mean that God simply knows who will believe and who will not and thus “elects” those who He knows will someday believe? This is possible, depending on the meaning of “foreknowledge” as it is used in this context. If foreknowledge only means that God knows what will happen in advance (because He is omniscient), it is reasonable to interpret here that election is based on the foreknowledge God has of who will believe.

4.1 Problems of Election Based on Prescience

This view is not without its problems, though. Some see a possible contradiction in basing election on foreseen faith with Romans 9:11-12. Election, in this passage, is according to God’s choice, not man’s choice. For faith would be a “good work” if it arose solely within that individual apart from God’s help. But in Ephesians 2:8 faith is described as a “gift of God.”

Furthermore, it is possible that “foreknowledge” in 1 Peter 1:2 goes beyond simply “knowing ahead of time.” In Romans 11:2 foreknowledge takes on the Old Testament meaning of “loved beforehand,” a predetermined covenant relationship such as God had with His chosen people, Israel. Note the meaning of the word know in the following passages: Genesis 4:1; Hosea 13:4; Amos 3:2 (“chosen” in the NASB is the Hebrew word known); Matthew 7:23; and 1 Peter 1:20. More than simple knowledge is involved in these texts. Intimate love and covenant relationship is the distinctive meaning.

4.2 The Meaning of Foreknowledge Depends on the Meaning of Total Depravity

“Foreknowledge” is the basis of election, but this may mean either:

foreseen faith; or
predetermined covenant relationship.

One’s view of the depravity of man will ultimately determine which of these two possibilities he chooses. If man is not the object of total depravity, and is able to have faith apart from a gracious intervention of God, then election is based on the foreknowledge of God, or simply foreseen faith.

However, if total depravity means unalterable rebellion against God, and faith is not possible until God softens the heart of the sinner, then foreknowledge depicts a predetermined covenant relationship, whereby God, in His mercy, grants a man the ability to have faith. Foreknowledge, then, is more than foreseen faith; it is God choosing man, not man choosing God.

5. THE DOCTRINE OF VOCATION

This is the doctrine of God’s call. The grace of God is magnified not only in the provision of Salvation, but also in the offer of Salvation to the undeserving. We may define God’s call as that act of grace by which He invites men to accept by faith the Salvation provided by Christ.

5.1 The Persons Called

The Scriptures indicate that Salvation is offered to all. It is offered to the “predestined” (Romans 8:30), to “all who are weary and heavy-laden” (Matthew 11:28), to “whoever believes in Him” (John 3:16; cf. 3:15; 4:14; 11:26; Revelation 22:17), to “all the ends of the earth” (Isaiah 45:22; cf. Ezekiel 33:11; Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:15; John 12:32; 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9), and to “as many as you find” (Matthew 22:9).

At this point two questions arise:

If some are elect and others not, is the call of God sincere for all? If the call of God is sincere for all, is it compatible with the doctrine that the sinner by nature is unable to obey? It must be remembered that the inability is a moral inability, not a physical inability. Man’s inability is because of his own evil will, for which man himself is responsible. The question is further asked, how is this call compatible with election? But the difficulty is the same whether we speak of God’s permitting men to reject the call or whether we speak of God’s foreknowing that some would reject it.

A second question relates to the efficacy of the call. Is the call irresistible? This term might leave a wrong impression of God bringing outside pressure on the human mind. But surely we acknowledge that God works in man to do His will (Philippians 2:13). God is able to work sovereignly in the hearts of men to cause them to respond personally and by their own volition to the call of God to Salvation. The coming together of sovereignty and free will as they relate to the call of God are shown in an amazing way by John, “He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:11-13). In other words, the God actively invites human beings to respond His call to Salvation but He will not force any men to accept His call. It doesn’t mean that the God is not powerful enough. It is simply because the God respects the free will of men.

5.2 The Object of the Call

The things to which He calls men are repentance (Matthew 3:2; 4:17; Mark 1:14f; Acts 2:38; 17:30; 2 Peter 3:9) and faith (Mark 1:15; John 6:29; 20:30f; Acts 16:31; 19:4; Romans 10:9; 1 John 3:23).

5.3 The Means of the Call

God has a variety of means by which to call men:

He calls men through the Word of God (Romans 10:16f; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Thessalonians 2:14).

He also calls men by His Spirit (John 16:8; Hebrews 3:7f; cf. Genesis 6:3). The Holy Spirit urges the sinner to come and accept Christ.

God uses His servants to call men (2 Chronicles 36:15; Jeremiah 25:4; Matthew 22:2-9; Romans 10:14f). Jonah is a good example of God’s use of human messengers to bring a city to repentance. The Word of God must be brought to the unsaved by regenerated persons, persons who can testify to the power of the Word and the Spirit in their own lives (1 Thessalonians 1:5).

God calls by His providential dealings with men. His goodness is intended to bring men to repentance (Jeremiah 31:3; Romans 2:4), but if that does not succeed, then His judgments are to do it (Psalm 107:6, 13; Isaiah 26:9).

6. MY FINAL CONCLUSIONS ON THIS CHAPTER

After examining all the above mentioned points of view about the doctrine of election, I would like to draw my own conclusions in this chapter:

God foresaw that sin would enter the world, but He did not necessitate it, He merely permitted it.

God has taken the initiative to provide Salvation. The whole process of Salvation is a gift of God (Romans 12:3; Ephesians 2:8-10). Even man’s ability to respond to the Gospel is a gift of God. But this grace does not save the man, it merely enables him to choose whom he will serve.

God’s Salvation bringing grace has appeared to all men, not merely the elect (Titus 2:11). God has restored to all men sufficient ability to make a choice in the matter of submission to God.

The God is truly just because He makes the same provisions for all; but some receive the grace of God in vain.

God foresaw how man would respond when presented with the Gospel, and then elected those whom He foresaw would respond favorably. The God is having a personal relationship with the man. Thus, foreknowledge is active, it is more than foreseen faith.

The logical steps in the God’s election is as follows: (a) In the first beginning, the God has provided all men the sufficient ability to accept the Gospel. (b) And then, some men will accept the Gospel while other men will reject the Gospel by their own free will. (c) The God elected all those whom He foresaw would respond favorably. (d) The God has entered a personal relationship with the elect and has provided personal care and eternal security to them. (e) The God still has the sovereignty to elect the other sinful men in order to achieve His Eternal Plan. Therefore, the whole election process is both “man is choosing God” and “God is choosing man.”

The doctrine of election retains the sovereignty of God. He can determine to save whomsoever He will, therefore it is valid for Christians to pray to God for the Salvation of others. We recognize a mystery in God’s sovereign working in the free will of man.

Christ died for all (1 Timothy 2:6; 4:10; Hebrews 2:9; 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 2:2; 4:14). Scriptures teach unlimited atonement (John 1:29; 3:16; 1 Timothy 2:6; Hebrews 2:9). Man remains responsible for rejecting the atonement. It is available to all, but man willfully turns aside from it. That some men reject it, limits the effectiveness of it, but not its availability.

The outcome of election (glorification) is certain. God guarantees this outcome by calling and justifying those whom He has predestined. The “call” is always effective as it always produces belief.

Election is not arbitrary favoritism by God. We should apply the doctrine of election to the saved alone. Why do some go to hell? It is because they reject the truth of the Gospel provided to save them.

Election doesn’t make us mere robots without responsibility for decisions. No one is really “programmed.” Those ultimately lost are responsible for their own choices. The God has already endured them and has provided the Gospel for them. They first hardened their own hearts to reject the truth of the Gospel provided to save them, therefore they are deserved to go to hell.

The non-elect do not or will not turn to God and be saved. They harden themselves.

The God’s call is irresistible from the divine sense (as the God is Almighty) but He allows human beings to resist His call. God invites human beings to respond His call to Salvation but He will not force any men to accept His call. It doesn’t mean that the God is not powerful enough. It is simply because the God respects the free will of men.

In summary, in treating election and calling as the application of Christ’s redemption, we have observed the following order. God decreed:

to create man;
to permit the fall;
to provide in Christ redemption sufficient for all;
to elect some to Salvation; and
to send the Holy Spirit to secure the acceptance of redemption on the part of the elect.

In addition, I believe that the logical steps in the God’s election is as follows:

In the first beginning, the God has provided all men the sufficient ability (i.e. prevenient grace) to accept the Gospel.
And then, some men will accept the Gospel while other men will reject the Gospel by their own free will.
In general, God elected all those whom He foresaw would respond favorably (i.e. election dependent upon divine foreknowledge).
God has entered a personal relationship with the elect and has provided personal care and eternal security to them.
In some cases, God still has the sovereignty to elect the other sinful men in order to achieve His Eternal Plan (i.e. election is of no foreseen merit).

Therefore, based on God’s wise and holy counsel, the whole election process is both “man is choosing God” and “God is choosing man.”

More information on the topic of “Predestination and Atonement” can be found at theBiblical Studies Foundation, Internet Edition.

7. REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER STUDY

Survey of Theology II, Lesson 1, Moody Bible Institute, 1990, by William H. Baker.
Lectures in Systematic Theology, Chapters XXI and XXVIII, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1992 Edition, by Henry C. Thiessen.
The Extent of the Atonement: Limited Vs. Unlimited (Part 1), Biblical Studies Foundation, Internet Edition, 1996, by Dr. Ron Rhodes.
The Extent of the Atonement: Limited Vs. Unlimited (Part 2), Biblical Studies Foundation, Internet Edition, 1997, by Dr. Ron Rhodes.
Predestination and the Atonement Debate, Biblical Studies Foundation, Internet Edition, 1995, by Dr. Stephen Lewis.

Return to Table of Contents

Go to Chapter Three

A TIME TO DISCERN

A TIME TO DISCERN.

Extreme Theology: Beth Moore’s Dangerous Bible Twisting

Extreme Theology: Beth Moore’s Dangerous Bible Twisting.I recently reviewed two segments of Beth Moore’s “Bible teaching” on my radio program and I must admit I was bowled over by just how bad and dangerous her teaching really is. I know she’s popular but this woman is NOT rightly handling God’s word. Instead, she is twisting the scriptures to her own destruction and the destruction of her hearers.

Take a listen for yourself. Not only is this bad, its downright dangerous false teaching!

Eastern Regional Watch

Eastern Regional Watch.

Ezekiel 33:7
So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and warn them from me.

I understand completely that Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:2) but in His Word He does warn us of the many dangers that we face as we walk with Him (Matthew 24:4-5). The Apostle Paul also warns us of dangers that face us from within the church itself and how often there will be other spirits trying to seduce us away from our relationship with the real Jesus Christ to follow after another Christ or other spirits seeming to be the Holy Spirit. (2 Corinthians 11:2-4) Read The Full Article Here http://www.erwm.com/