A Brief Study of Election and Predestination

Edward Byrd

Romans 11:7 - "What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the ELECTION hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded."

A constantly recurring "problem" with many brethren is the age-old question of God's decrees as against man's "free agency." The extremes of these positions run all the way from what is called "Sovereign grace" (according to which the whole course and every act is circumscribed by God's "foreknowledge" in such a way that there is no changing it) - - this on the one hand - - to what is called "free agency" on the other hand, frequently strained to mean that the whole matter of man's destiny rests with himself, as though his salvation, his keeping himself saved, etc., ultimately depended on himself and his strength of will. Such extreme positions are the natural product of "human reasoning," running to avoid a difficulty on the one hand and anxious to accept what seems most "reasonable" on the other. One group is anxious to give the man as much credit as possible, so he takes an "Arminianism" position which actually embraces salvation by works. The other is anxious to give God His full credit. They are just as radical in their views, blindly accepting all that they cannot understand as being part of God's plan and purpose and even hastily condemning as "Arminianism" all those who are not willing to over-look some clear things which are revealed. Our seeking the Truth on any theme should not be based on simply overcoming difficulties in logic or apparent contradictions. It should not be based on simply finding a solution that seems to be most humiliating to man. Such is monkish. Man's humiliation, pain, or disappointment is no credit to him - - NOR is it any merit of God's. A matter is not true simply because it contradicts human feelings. It is true that sinners are mostly, almost entirely, contradictory to God. But that does not make right what simply opposes man's desires and feelings. Nor is a matter right simply because it satisfies or appeals to a man. Truth must be arrived at from a search of God's revealed Word - - no less - - and it behooves us to search it with prejudice or preconceived ideas aside. This is not easy. We are all creatures of prejudice and it is almost impossible for us to fairly weigh any thinking which contradicts our natural feelings or inclin-ations or that which we have been taught by good people to be the Truth. Simple honesty would seem like an easy thing, but it takes a real man to be honest in matters of religion and politics. We do not mean to be dishonest but we just cannot see some things because prejudice has blinded our eyes. This principle is demonstrated in the habitual practice of every religious group or denomination. All believe they are right, though most all will admit that there is some truth in all others. But with few exceptions all think themselves to be completely right or nearer right than any other. This feeling can easily become high-mindedness in the best of us. Our denominational pride (and this may grow out of pride of ancestry, no less) soon blinds us to consideration of the thinking of all others and, what is sadder still, to what God Himself has to say in His Word. There is a practice - - habitual with all denominations - - of settling down on certain collations of texts, certain stereotyped arguments, and accepting these conclusions blindly without due consideration of a broad or perspective view of the Word which allows it to contribute its full testimony to the theme. May we illustrate? The "Church of Christ," so-called, has collated a standard set of passages to "prove" baptismal salvation, a set to prove salvation "in the body of Christ," and sets for other purposes. They have arrived at a position, thoroughly "logical" to them which means that there is no salvation for any outside their denomination. They even deny they are a denomination (a good argument too, if it were true, as it literally is true of the Scriptural body of Christ). The members of this "denomination" are thoroughly schooled in these stereotyped arguments, using these "collations" of Scriptures. They furnish powerful logic that will overwhelm different kinds of people. (1) The well-informed who are taught the true, perspective of the teachings of the Word may avoid it. (2) Those barricaded behind their own brand of stereotyped thinking and different collations of Scriptures will not. (3) Those not affected by any "proof," being themselves convinced that Scripture contradicts itself are the truly blind. They see one collation pitted definitely against another and both came from the same Bible. This demonstrates the folly of human logic or argument as the avenue to any heart! This thing is repeated in the case of the "Jehovah's Witnesses" so-called. It is seen again in the Mormons, again in the "Landmark Baptists," and again in almost every group in the world today. Each group has its own stereotyped arguments and a collation of passages to prove their points. Some are not near the Truth, others are close to it. But there is error in all of those who must depend on such dubious means of knowing God's will. Logic or argument ought not to be the evidence for the Truth. Truth does not need literary or educational bolstering. It only needs believing and the testimony of application in a faith-walk. There is no gainsaying the testimony of a life that manifests the power of the Holy Spirit and the presence of the indwelling Christ. But logic hurriedly excuses the rebelling heart with the unanswerable plea that one cannot believe what is illogical or inexplicable. Surely no one should be called on to believe something he does not understand! Thus Satan successfully keeps God's Truth in his own realm (he is an "angel of light"). Few people know or remember the Bible tenet that "the things of the Spirit are spiritually discerned" and only the man with "ears to hear" can possibly receive them. But it is true, nonetheless. Both the Arminian (from Arminius) and the hyper-Calvinist, or "Calvinist," if he pleases, have these stereotyped arguments and the "proof" in a certain collation of Scripture passages. How blind each one is no one can ever show him, for few of them are willing to take the time or the trouble to examine any other thinking or to question the proof he thinks he has for his own position. And his own satisfaction in his position is even greater after he has heard the stereotyped arguments of the opposing group and sees the fallacy in them. Thus, instead of measuring his own position by the Word of the Lord, he bolsters it against the weaknesses of his stereotyped opponent. Consequently he is further from having ears to hear than ever before. Landmark Baptists have deepened their convictions for years by watching the stereotyped arguments of Campbellites or others “fall” before their own stereotyped arguments plied with skill by a skilled debater who calls it “Fun.” Question one of them about the Word on any subject and you get no answer (for he never heard of it) or you get that particular stereotyped answer which comes closest to sounding like the right one, in his judgment. He knows these answers well and when questioned on any point of his doctrine can tell you what he believes (though with few Scriptures) and frequently also knows the stereotyped answers of his opponents. This same debacle faces other groups of Baptists. And the stereotyped answers are remarkably stable, or uniform, varying only slightly according to geography. One section, influenced by one “debater” will differ from another, however. Thus “denominational lines” grow sharper as these stereotyped proofs “mow down” the opposition. All this is evidently most delightful to our enemy the devil, and certainly most confusing to lost men. How can we ever appeal to men’s hearts when we are weighed down with the philosophy that we must appeal to their reasoning minds with arguments? The fact that certain doctrines have become “sectional” or “geographic” in their acceptance and emphasis is evidence of this stereotyped method of argument in preaching and teaching the “set collations” to “prove” specific doctrines. One would wonder if one county or state or area had a “corner” on the Holy Spirit. If He must “open the eyes of our heart” before we can understand His Word then surely one does not have to move to the Southland to become a “Landmark” Baptist, if that is His Truth, nor would one have to go to Kentucky to learn of “Sovereign grace.” It is not argued that these tenets have not been taught in other places. But the way they have “caught on” in certain sections of the country raises the observation. One can easily draw “fire” to his position by taking one of these stereotyped arguments and sounding off in the area of his stereotyped opposite. But let him sound forth with the simple Word, nowadays, and there seems to be no stereotyped “answer”, so the silence of contempt or the retort of “who-ever-took-such-a-position-as-that?” is his answer. The stereotype advocate is either too busy or feels that the doctrine is too insignificant to notice, or else he relegates it to the area of his stereotyped “opposite” and handles it according as circumstances may suggest. What I have said above applies to all arguments and logic, but it is particularly applicable to arguments on “Sovereign grace”. No group so contemns logic, yet resorts to as much logic, as the advocates of this theory. No group speaks more of God’s right to do as he pleases while bemeaning men who disagree with them. They boast of humility in willingness to accept God’s decrees and condemn others as though others were vaunting themselves against God and they alone had the Truth. A strange contradictoriness is seen in their “humility” of “boasting” in the Truth. Such a high-mindedness was anticipated in the Word (Romans 11:20) relative to this very matter of the election, and its consequences are set forth just two verses further down. None of the things which I have said are designed to disparage any individual, whatever might be his beliefs, but I desire to awaken hearts - - to challenge hearts - - to think from what God says in His Word just as though there had been no advocate of ANY position before. It is difficult to lay down all of our preconceived ideas long enough to fairly evaluate what we read, even when we are reading the Bible itself. What I have said about “stereotyped” arguments is not meant to convey the idea that Truth is mobile and developing. On the contrary, Truth is stable, the only unchanging element in a high-speed world. Any “new” thinking must be error, for God’s Truth is not “new.” But a thing should not be branded as “new” merely because it is new to some of us. Many talk of “Old-fashioned Baptists.” But by this they mean all the way back to their parents and grandparents, or as far back as the beginning of associations, (say) at the close of the 17th century. But God’s Truth is much older than these purported “Old-fashions.” Far better than the “Puritan fathers” is the authority of the so-called “Apostolic fathers.” Better than the “Apostolic fathers” is the New Testament itself. A thing is not old, as Truth is measured, simply because it can be traced back to John Calvin. The influence of Calvin, though he was not a Baptist, has had a definite weight from his day. His thinking, translated into the theology of Baptists of the day, helped to produce that thinking which divided Baptists into two camps, the Particular Baptists and the General Baptists. Such teaching also produced the extreme of “missionary” and “anti-missionary” thinking among Baptists. Finally, in America, after many years, the “anti-missionary” thinking culminated in another split among the Particular Baptists giving rise to the “Old School” Baptists (as they are pleased to call themselves), or “Hardshells.” Many of the less “anti-missionary” “Particulars” actually effected a coalition with certain General Baptists and called themselves “Regular Baptists”. Till this day many “Missionary Baptists” are called “Regular Missionary Baptists.” Other Particular Baptists, though not still calling themselves “Particular” did not go to the extremes of the “Hardshells,” rather blindly accepting the “means” involved in the preaching of the Gospel, etc., and continuing with certain other “progressive” practices (Sunday Schools, mission societies, boards, conventions, associations, etc), continued to do mission work, though avowing a certain fatalism in the plans or purposes of God. While there is no unanimity of any degree among them, generally they hold to an “unconditional election,” and, frequently, to a “limited atonement.” It seems to me that these last are more consistent, though some of them claim to believe in a limited atonement while believing that Christ died for all. A few have “watered down” the whole doctrine by basing the “in-the-counsel-halls-of-eternity-election” on a fore-known faith. Others pass it by as simply the product of “Sovereign grace,” “the counsel of (God’s) own will.” These last do not pretend to vindicate God in anything he might choose to do, nor in any way soften the harshness of this matter of “Divine fiat.” They would accept it by “blind faith,” but one wonders if it is faith so much as blindness. Still, it is commendable that one would actually believe what the Word says, or at least what he thinks it says for such is far safer than “reason” on the matter. But just here we run into their “reasoning” too. And any reasoning is only as sound as the premises on which it is based. It is upon the false premise of what constitutes salvation that both the “Arminian” and “Calvinistic” thinkers (as we shall refer to them) reach a false conclusion. Calvinistic thinking would repudiate that “evangelism” which places responsibility squarely upon the individual sinner, for, indeed, a man can never lift himself from the mire of sin by “decisions,” “works” self-abnegation, or any other energy of the flesh. Arminian thinking would pass off as “evangelism” that kind of preaching and teaching which would put the individual sinner squarely “on the spot.” Calvinists go on to an extreme of calling even repentance and faith “works of man” that cannot come before regeneration and emphasize the deadness of the sinner so that he cannot hear preaching, repent, or believe until after he has been “changed” in heart, or, as they say, "saved." Arminians go to the opposite extreme of “working up” conviction, and reasoning the sinner into repentance and faith (?), and, among Pedo-baptists, making salvation the product of the church’s (or preacher’s) ministrations (in baptism, etc) plus the individual’s efforts to quit sin and do right. So far as I am acquainted with Missionary Baptists none may be properly called “Arminians”. Name calling never won a heart nor an argument. They all believe in salvation by grace through faith. But many, I dare say “most”, of them have no full or clear ideas about salvation. The whole emphasis is placed (by Baptists, and even the “free-moral-agent Baptists”) on a point-in-time salvation or regeneration which most all would call “the new birth.” The majority would admit that there is yet the salvation of the body that goes with it, but they would speak as though this is an automatic and inseparable part of that one point-in-time operation. It is my conviction that these views definitely limit or restrict “salvation” far beyond anything the Bible teaches and allows an “evangelism” which stops far short of God’s purpose in SAVING men. With this rather lengthy introduction I would set forth some positive thoughts on the subject under the following numbered heads: 1. God’s purpose, though some would call it selfish, is to promote His own honor and glory - - not merely man’s salvation or happiness. Surely it is not ours to question His right to do so. His heart, according to the Word, yearns for communion. He desires the company, praise, respect, and honor of His creatures. Whether or not He can get along without such is not the question, but that He desires such is evident. Therefore His purpose has for its goal the “taking out” of such a people as may be worthy and “fit” to render and receive that communion which God'’ heart desires. 2. Repeating: Getting men saved from hell, then, is only incidental. The “good pleasure of His will” must embrace something far more significant than my missing torment or, as we say, “going to heaven.” 3. A “people for His name,” then, means more that a people merely saved from hell. Salvation from hell, the “goal” of so-called “evangelistic” preaching, is NOT God’s goal, but only an incident in it. And considering the amount of space given over in the Word to this feature of His redemptive purpose we might conclude that, while it is an essential incident, it is a comparatively insignificant one otherwise. I am convinced that more Scripture is taken out of context and applied to this incident than is perverted in any other way. The nature of salvation in the Bible sense will ALLOW the application of the word to that which occurred at the first point of faith, but this is far from all it includes or from what was in God’s purpose in effecting saving grace. The Calvinist likes to speak of what went on “in the mind of God” back in eternity or even now, but he seldom envisions the scope of such “thinking” relative to salvation, for his own reasoning limits to a point-in-time those elements of God’s salvation which definitely extend into an endless eternity. This will receive further attention as we continue with the study. 4. Salvation, in the Bible sense, is NOT that incident, whatever it is considered to include which occurs with (or before) the first exercise of faith, NOR at any point in time. Salvation is an inclusive word and embraces ALL which God’s redemptive purpose envisions as necessary to maturing a special people, a people fit for that kingdom in which His will shall be done “on earth as it is in heaven.” One might seem at first inclined to deny this broad, general assertion about salvation, pointing to uses of the word which declare that salvation is a present possession or fact for believers, for example, Ephesians 2:8. But I venture to suggest that such passages can only properly be understood in the light of that truth given in Roman 4:17: God "calleth those things which be not as though they were.” Salvation, the inclusive work, like some of its elements (adoption, redemption, glorification, etc) must be considered as ours by a faith-reckoning, not a present reality. I am not questioning that certain believers have “the earnest” which is the Holy Spirit, Who makes certain qualities which belong to salvation - - as peace, joy, fellowship, love, etc - - experimentally real NOW. But I am accepting the record which makes clear that God “calleth those things which be not as though they were” that we may rejoice in the certainty of them and “might have hope.” “We are saved by hope.” This is stated for a purpose. If men have (possess now) the salvation here referred to then they are not saved by hope for why does one hope for that which he already sees? Paul’s epistles (especially) are filled with references to paradoxes: men saved, but hoping for salvation; men dead to sin, but very much alive; men buried with Christ, but never having been actually buried; men raised from the dead, but not really raised; men glorified, but still in natural bodies actually; men righteous, but not really righteous; men adopted as sons, but who are far from actually set as heirs; men who are neither male nor female, Jew nor Gentile, bond nor free, but there are no such men in reality; “new men,” he calls them, but we are still the same “old men.” How can this be? Because God “calleth those things which be not as though they were.” He calls us saints but we are far from separated from sin. He calls us chosen but we are not even acceptable until something more is wrought in us and on us. We are merely “reckoned” or “counted ”as being all these things - - “in Him.” Much error fills our preaching when we actually place these things at some point in time, as though grace had already wrought them IN us, instead of accepting them by faith as “accounted” to us in the Person of the Christ. We preach the doctrine of substitution, a vicarious atonement, in which God deals with One, even Christ, as though He were dealing with us, yet we cannot remember that the “dealing” is still only a matter “wrought” in Christ and not fully effected in us. We only have the “earnest” now of the inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession. Thus we are saved by hope. In the Old Testament days men did not even have the joy, peace, and other fruits of the Spirit in their lives which we have by this “earnest,” but God accounted their faith for righteousness just the same. Preachers have taught people that salvation is in the spirit, (as they say, “soul”) overlooking the fact that “soul” in the Bible means the “life” and includes the whole man, body and all. Only in this understanding can we appreciate our present status in the world, facing temptations, dealing with sin in our members. 5. If this purposed salvation reaches beyond the incident which “evangelists” emphasize what does it include? Is it not “salvation of the life” in this world (sanctification) and an inheritance (glorification) in the age to come, with all the privileges that these involve? And does not this salvation then envision those provisions which grace affords by which God brings these conditions to pass? Is not the sending of the Holy Spirit the means by which sanctification is wrought - - and the body resurrected to glory? 6. Now comes a very ticklish phase of the study: Does God use means in the accomplishing of His purpose in effecting this complete salvation? The question is not: Does He need means? But, Does He use means? I am not questioning God’s ability, for He is neither crippled,helpless, nor unable. He can do, and does, as He pleases to do and as He has purposed to do. He pleases to use a prophet or a priest. He pleases to separate a people (like Israel). He pleases to graft in nations to this “stock of Israel.” This was purposed from the ages but not revealed till Paul. 7. Israel was an ELECT nation. This national election was God’s Special People. But for them to be special - - a peculiar people above other nations - - required that they be more, or different from others. But the nation did not continue essentially different. They worshipped the gods of other nations, committed spiritual fornication, and rebelled against the very COVENANT that had been given to make them different. As a result the “ELECTION” became LESS than the nation in its reach (the individuals it included), for many individuals were cut off and the rest were the elect remnant (Romans 11:7). Is it not, then, a fact that the “election” and the “nation in the flesh” are NOT now the same thing? If not, why not? But what makes the difference? “What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the ELECTION hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded . . .(judicially)” (Romans 11:7-8). This “election” must be the “remnant” (which) shall be saved” (Romans 9:27). But why were some saved and others not? “But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law” (Romans 9:31-32). Without going into the matter just now as to WHY they (some) had faith and others did not, we see in this connection “that the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith”. Were not those Gentiles “elect”? Yes. Were they not the ones which God “grafted” into the “root: of the tame olive, the “stock of Israel,” and who stand by faith (Romans 11:15-20)? 8. So election now embraces Jews and Gentiles of faith. If not, why not? But wait: The “nation” which was chosen (elect) did not continue, as such, to be “the elect,” but the election became merely the “remnant” which sought righteousness by faith, so that individual branches of the olive tree” were broken off. These (branches) are not the election any more, though they once were. Why does Paul bring this theme up? Is it not to teach Gentiles the danger of “high-mindedness” and not “continuing in His goodness,” a danger of being “cut off” from the “stock of Israel,” the “Israel of God” to which they have been “engrafted”? But who may be “cut off”? Tradition says it is “Gentile nations”, but does God say that? He DOES NOT. He clearly indicates that none were grafted in who do not have faith and they stand by faith, yet they may be cut off if they do not continue in His goodness. Is it not ridiculous to say that unbelieving Gentile nations are “grafted into” this tame olive (stock of Israel) when unbelieving Jews were being broken off? (Romans 11:20). No, unbelievers are NEVER grafted in, but tradition had to invent this theory to “explain” this passage, not being able or willing to believe what it says. They suppose that to admit faith in the engrafted one would be to admit his salvation (which is right) and that such admission, in the face of the obvious danger of being “cut off” would teach a “falling from grace” and a losing of salvation. They cannot imagine any cutting off from salvation, because they imagine all the blessings of salvation to be inalienable to him who has once believed. For this reason they cannot admit the ones cut off from the vine (John 15:6) being saved. They know the believer is secure, never to be lost in hell (which is correct), so they cannot countenance any thought of his losing anything. They even teach a “perseverance,” not distinguishing between perseverance and preservation, so that they actually deny those passages which teach one being saved as by fire and not receiving “all things.” Preservation is a fact for all who once believe, but perseverance is not true of all who once believe (CF 2 Peter 2:1:9; 1 Corinthians 3:15, et al). 9. Tradition may dictate, at this point, that I be condemned for teaching a man once saved may be lost. But just here is the most ticklish (because of traditional thinking) of all the ticklish points. The subject is salvation, but it is NOT mere salvation from hell, that first-claimed acquisition of faith. It is that salvation, that very righteousness, which only the “election hath obtained”. Gentiles grafted into this POSITION may lose the position if they do not continue in His goodness, just as Jews were “broken off” because of their unbelief. I insist that you think of “belief” in the Bible sense, NOT (as Protestantism dictates) as one act of faith, or trust, but as a “continuing in His goodness,” a “walking in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham” (Romans 4:12). It is only with this understanding that one has any privilege of making his calling and election sure. This word “sure” is not “sure of,” so the passage (2 Peter 1:10) cannot mean “make sure of.” 10. Repeating: So far we are asserting that “election” has one meaning in both the Old and the New Testaments. As will be further shown later this election was “unto salvation” or maturing of a special people which, in Old Testament days, was the nation of Israel. This “election” was the whole nation so that all IN the nation were “elect” by position but Individuals who were not “of faith” were not the actual election, hence they were cut off because of their unbelief. Then God, by a mystery not revealed till the New Testament, began to make Gentiles “of one body” with Jews and “partakers of His promise in Christ by the Gospel” (Ephesians 3:6), grafting them into the “stock of Israel” or “tame olive.” This “stock” or “tame olive” is the “election.” Only believers are so grafted in and there they “stand by faith” (Romans 11:20). But they may be broken off for “high-mindedness” (that is, thinking they have, inalienably, all the blessings of salvation, as the Jews thought they had by virtue of being seed of Abraham in the flesh), and not continuing in his goodness (Romans 11:22). The chosen (elect), or choice people is the election; their complete salvation, including their maturity and qualification in glory to reign, is God’s goal. Later we shall trace those things to which the election looks, but we are asserting now that it is NOT merely to “salvation from hell” or that point-in-time salvation to which it is traditionally limited. 11. Minds accustomed to run in a certain groove will be violently objecting at this point (if they have not laid this down before now) that “God does the electing in eternity according to His Sovereign will and Sovereign grace, therefore there is NOTHING that man can do to make it sure”. Such objectors must explain the command to “give diligence (“brethren”) to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall” (2 Peter 1:10). Individual Jews DID fall, because they did not seek righteousness by faith. The election did not fail, but the matter of WHO constituted that election was definitely conditional. If not, why not? Please remember the “salvation” we are considering. Remember, we are not talking of being lost and going to hell. Remember the repeated warning to BELIEVERS in the New Testament against FALLING. Do not let a stereotyped thinking on security relegate these passages to some remote corner, only to be brought forth by those who believe one must work to be saved or he loses salvation and goes to hell. These passages are IN THE BIBLE and a part of God’s Truth, not merely to be sidestepped, or dodged around. There IS a definite POSSIBILITY of some sort of falling (1 Corinthians 10:12; Jude 24; Revelation 2:5; Galatians 5:4; Romans 14:13; Hebrews 4:11; James 5:12; 2 Peter 1:10; 3:17; Luke 8:13; Hebrews 6:6; 1 Corinthians 9:27; Matthew 5:15; I John 15:6; Romans 11:22; I John 2:28, et al). I sincerely suggest that this “falling” is the same as that in Romans 11:11, applicable to Israel, and explained in verse 17 as resulting in “some of them” being “broken off” from the true Israel (for not all are “Israel,” Romans 9:7), that is, broken off from that chosen race or nation - - the election (Romans 11:7). 12. I would not array Scripture against Scripture, seeming to suggest that since election is conditional that God did not elect according to His will. God did make His choice (elect) in eternity (“before the foundation of the world” Ephesians 1:4) and He did “predestinate” that election - - NOT to be saved from hell, but - - to “adoption,” to calling, justification, and glorification (Ephesians 1:5; Romans 8:30), even to be conformed to the image of His Son (Romans 8:29), so that “all things work together for good” to this election, to the called according to His purpose (Romans 8:28). Any Jew cut off from that election might wonder how that could be good for him, but it is only the “foreknown” who are individually predestinated and they are NOT cast away (Romans 11:2). It is just this “foreknowledge” which the “unconditional electionist”, the self-confessed Calvinist, fails to take into consideration or misunderstands. ONLY the foreknown are predestinated (Romans 8:29) and elected (1 Peter 1:2). The fact that ALL are not elected is proof that God does not “foreknow” all men. So this “foreknowledge” is limited to “knowledge” of a certain people, as He said of Israel, “You ONLY have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities” (Amos 3:2). God knows all men, and all his works in advance (Acts 15:18) but He declares He has “known” Israel only. Others will be punished, but His knowledge of Israel calls for a special treatment in judgment (cf. Romans 2:9). No, all are not foreknown, for all will admit that such ones as perish were not foreknown. But, following the traditional thinking that “salvation” is a point-in-time matter which inalienably guarantees al the rest which grace affords, most believers assume that all others are “foreknown.” But this is contrary to the Word. The “believer”, saying “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works?” was informed by the Lord (will be in the future judgment), “I never knew you, depart from me, ye that work iniquity” (Matthew 7:22,23). But does this application conform to the purpose of Jesus in giving this illustration? Is He speaking of “salvation from hell” or is His subject perseverance, steadfastness, and fruit-bearing? It seems obvious that these last are the proper theme, especially from verse 15. The word “therefore” (verse 24) connects the matter of building on the right foundation with the whole theme. So “building” is included. Just saying “Lord, Lord”, is not the guarantee of “entering the kingdom”, but “doing the will of the Father” (verse 21). And this is the theme in the connection - - NOT the matter of salvation from hell. Again, the foolish virgins (Matthew 25:12) were told by the Bridegroom, when they had gone to buy oil and returned to the marriage, that He did not know them. There is no evidence at all that the theme of this parable is salvation from hell, but it pertains to entrance to the kingdom at the coming of the Lord (Matthew 24:50 – Matthew 25:13). This is not to be construed as meaning these were not saved from hell, but the Bridegroom claimed not to know them. He knows all things as God (Acts 15:18) but His knowledge of a Special People in such intimacy is limited to those who love Him (1 Corinthians 8:3). And it is just this very people who love Him who are the foreknown and predestinated (Romans 8:28-29). Is there any wonder that the Word so regularly and insistently pleads for love, continuance, faith, persever-ance. 13. God made a covenant with “Abraham and his seed”. Jews used this “objection” to Jesus” teachings that they were slaves, saving, “Abraham is our father,” as though they could thereby claim all that the covenant promised. He answered, “I know that ye are Abraham’s seed . . ., (but) if ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham” (John 8:37-39), and he concluded by telling them they had Satan as their father. Thus he denied that they were Abraham’s children. But the promises are only to Abraham’s children! WHO those children are is determined, as we have seen, on condition. Those “children” are the elect of the Old Testament. Today that election includes Gentiles who have been engrafted into the same stock and shall partake of the “root and fatness of the olive,” the very same covenant promises. The election itself is SURE, for God can raise up children to Abraham of the very stones, if need be (Matthew 3:9), but WHO comprises that election is conditional. It has always been so. That is the avowed purpose of the Mosaic law, particularly that portion given in Moab (Deuteronomy 29:1) which some call the Palestinian Covenant (erroneously): “Keep the words of this covenant, and do them, that ye may prosper. That thou shouldst enter into covenant with the Lord they God and into His oath, which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day: That he may establish thee today for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy father, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob” (Deuteronomy 29:9, 12-13). What is the avowed purpose of this covenant? “That he may ESTABLISH thee today for a people unto Himself.” But did not the Abrahamic Covenant do that? It unconditionally declared who should receive the promises: Abraham and his seed. But the later covenant was to the end that they might be ESTABLISHED (confirmed) in this covenant. But because they did not measure up to the standard set in the law they were “broken off,” hence, not “established . . . for a people.” Moses expressly told these people that the requirements of the law were “not hidden” from them (Deuteronomy 30:ff), literally, “not too hard” for them, and Paul explains this language in Romans 10:5ff, the very context which we have been studying (Romans 9 – 11) which explains this matter of “election.” He said that by faith men attain unto the righteousness which the law required. And the clincher for us (as to conditions) is seen in that “the righteousness of the law” is required of us and provided for us “who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit” (Romans 8:3,4). Here we are back to that walk of faith again. (Let me repeat for emphasis just here: a walk of faith is no more attainable nor any more a merit of the man than the first act of faith. Both are the same faith and neither is natural with man in the flesh or attainable through the merits of man, but only by and through the grace of God. But this does not deny the responsibility of a man to submit to God and rejoice in His grace, whether to believe the Truth when he first “hears” it or to “continue in” the faith. This is man’s condition (or conditions) and he can meet them as God enables him. Nor can any man excuse himself by saying that he did not have a chance.) 14. Please do not interpret me to have said that salvation form hell, or any phase of salvation, is attainable by our works. But understand me to say that complete salvation belongs ONLY to those who walk by faith. All believers do NOT so walk. The heresy of “perseverance”, falsely so-called, can never be proved from the Word, for it expressly declares that many believers DO “fall”, do not continue, are “cut off”, are not steadfast, and may even forget that they were “once purged from their old sins”. PRESERVATION from hell of any who has once trusted and been purged is an undeniable fact of Scripture, but that all who do not continue in faith and godliness never really trusted is a denial of 2 Peter 1:9 and many other passages. Such believers are saved from hell but they do not persevere; they fall, and they are “cut off” from the “root”, or “stock of Israel”, which is the ONLY ELECTION God ever made - - the ONLY one in the Bible. They do not make their calling and election sure (2 Peter 1:10). The election is not “unto salvation from hell”, (for these “fallen believers” have that), but it is “unto salvation. . .the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ” 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14, that “salvation which is in Christ with eternal glory” 2 Timothy 2:10. Such “salvation” (full and complete) called for the toil, afflictions and labors of a Paul. Let Baptists, at least, not to mention all believers, quit perverting 2 Timothy 2:10 by making it applicable to men who have never heard the Gospel or believed. Let them quit using the word “elect” as applicable to those not believers yet, not members of His body, not a part of the Israel of God. It is “adding to the Word” to force words into applications NOT made in the Bible. 15. The “conditional” element in election is that which sets forth the church’s place in God’s purpose, for that “body” is the Special People, God’s Israel, today (Galatians 6:16). That body only has partaken of the “circumcision of Christ” in baptism (Colossians 2:12-13). That “circumcision”, not outwardly, but of the heart, is symbolized in baptism, and is the work of God in the heart. No Jew, with outward circumcision, was really a Jew unless he had this heart circumcision (Romans 2:28-29). No believer immersed for baptism is truth baptized unless his heart be right. And just as that Jew’s circumcision might become “uncircumcision” so may one’s immersion (though Scriptural) become “unbaptism” if one does not “continue in faith”. See Colossians 1:23; Hebrews 3:6, 12 (in fact the whole book of Hebrews), et al. I am not arguing that all the saved are a part of the church any more than I would argue that all the saved obey or persevere or walk by faith. They do not. If all persevere, then all are a part of the church, for perseverance in faith means yielding to Him in His body. This would be a universal church. Those who teach perseverance (not preservation only) of ALL believers and an election covering the whole scope of faith are declaring a universal church. But every context plainly shows that ONLY those identified with Christ today, those “marked” as covenant sons, those who have “put on Christ”, those with the “circumcision of Christ” - - these only - - fare the election, the Special People, the chosen Bride (CF Galatians 3:26-29; Colossians 2:9-13; Romans 6:1-5). It is as wrong to say that all the saved from hell are elect as it would have been to say that Gentiles (who believed) in the Old Testament were elect. Many saved then existed who were no part of the election. It is presumption to say that God has dropped one election and begun another or has had two all the time. I have carefully weighed every argument which I ever heard on the subject and I find that not one will stand against this Truth. I am willing to weigh them again, and before anybody, to show what I mean. 16. I have said that the election is “in Christ” and have given some indication of what this means (#4 above), but it is only fair, that I may be helpful, that I just here point out something more about what “in Christ” means. Most all agree that only those “in Christ” are elect - - at least that the election is “in Christ”, - - and that God made this choice “in Him” from (or “before” if you please) the foundation of the world. What does the term mean? How does one get to be “in Christ”? Traditionally, it means all the saved. This will not fit the contexts of every passage, or of most of them when properly considered. That it seems to fit a part of the time is only co-incidental. Note, particularly, that every use of the expression to describe any people is found in those passages addressed to members of true churches, Scriptural baptized, and so having “put on Christ”. They are members of the church, “of his body, of his flesh and of his bones,” Ephesians 5:30. This is the church, without a doubt (Ephesians 5:32). “One flesh with him”. None outside a true church can be “one flesh” with Him. Since His “flesh” is the “new and living way” into the holiest, none have such access outside the body. None others are priests; none other can claim Him as their High Priest. No others have the indwelling Spirit which came upon the church and dwells there as His habitation. To be in the body of Christ is to be in the church. We are clear on that, I trust, but remember I am not saying that one cannot be a believer and thus “saved” from hell without having all these things. But such are “saved . . .as by fire”. But is all this the same as being “in Christ”? It is a matter which must be understood in the light of God’s reckoning, according to which He calls things which be not as though they were (Romans 4:17). We are not literally “in Christ”, so there must be another sense. God “reckoned” Abraham righteous because of his faith, but Abraham was not sinless or even righteous in many things which he did. This reckoning (Genesis 15:6) came years and years after Abraham first had faith in God and was “fulfilled” many times follow that (CF. James 2:23 with Romans 4:3). God today “reckons” certain (like Abraham) who walk by faith as being righteous. His reckoning goes much farther and includes all the elements of complete salvation, to those who “walk by faith” (Romans 8:4). It is not the “walk” which determines the “reckoning”, but the reckoning is void (lacking) when the walk is not evident. I am commanded to reckon myself “dead to sin”, because God so counts me (following baptism) (CF Romans 6:2-4). I am to reckon myself “alive from the dead” (Romans 6:11, 13), because God does. But does He reckon this true of all those who trust Him to save them from hell? No, only such as are “buried with him by baptism into death” and “are raised with to walk in newness of life”. To such, likewise, He reckons justification, sanctification, resurrection, adoption, and glorification. These are “new men”. Am I actually any of these things? No, but remember, God “calleth those things which be not as though they were”. Hence He tells me to “put on the new man”, or (literally) “you have put on the new man”. These Ephesians had (Ephesians 4:24). Who is this new man? Christ. He is dead, buried, resurrected, glorified, citizenship in heaven, firstborn (from the dead), etc. And I can be these things ONLY as I am reckoned as He, “of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones”. To be a member of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12; 6:15) is to be counted as his literal body, flesh, and bones, hence a “new man”. But such language CANNOT fit all who trust God or all who profess to. It is limited to the church (Ephesians 5:32). Nobody else is “in Christ”. Nobody else has Christ (by His Holy Spirit) DWELLING in himself. But the election is “in Him”. So only those who have "put on Christ" in baptism, who are members of Christ, of His body, of His flesh and of His bones are “in Christ”. For no others are “reckoned” to be Christ. (This explains the meaning of “body of Christ”, as no other language can. A church is not a body in the sense of a corporation with a president as head. But a church is reckoned to be the very flesh and bones of Christ, His very body of flesh. This is a matter of reckoning and when understood by believers it will explain the manner of “being dead indeed unto sin”, “freed (justified) from the law (in the body, Romans 7:4), made a “new man” having “put off the old man”, and how it can be said that we are justified, adopted, sanctified, and glorified when we are actually NOT any of these things. The traditional explanation of these terms applied to the “spirit” or inner man is erroneous. It is not the spirit which is baptized. It was not Christ’s spirit only which died, was buried, was raised, etc. It pertains to the whole man, body and all. The whole man (“in Christ”) is reckoned as Christ, hence its “citizenship is in heaven”.) This reckoning further explains how God can call us “elect” (chosen or choice) when only His Son is “Elect”. We are chosen “in Christ”, and since God had manifested this choice first “in Abraham” NONE are actually “in Abraham” who are not engrafted into the “stock of Abraham” or Israel and are His seed. But only those who are “of the faith of Abraham” - - explained as a faith that walked - - are seed of Abraham (CF Romans 4:11-12). Such persevering, walking faith is evident only in that obedience which submits to identification (circumcision of old - - baptism today) and thus is willing to “put on Christ"”(Galatians 3:27). We ought not allow any Campbellite “collation” of Scriptures or stereotyped thinking to stand us off from these marvelous truths. 17. The use of such terms as “holy nation” (as against “nations”, “heathen”, Gentiles), sheep, sons, election, firstborn (ones), Bride, “My people”, Israel of God”, “peculiar people”, “brethren”, and others are all applicable only to such a Special People as are His “purchased possession” and shall “obtain the inheritance”. These terms are always contrasted with terms which refer to others who believe but are not this special people. God’s call (“in one body”, Colossians 3:15) is a limited thing. It does not apply to all men or to all saved men. I would challenge Bible lovers to lay aside tradition and argument long enough to re-examine their Bible in this light to see that “election” is not what most people seem to think. 18. “Conditional” promises may also be “unconditional”. This seems contradictory, and as a matter of “logic” it is. But just here is illustrated how that our logic concerning what God purposes and foreknows and predestinates is bound to break down. Logic, as in a syllogism, is only as true as its premises. A premise may be true, but may not be the whole truth. But if the application of a premise assumes that premise to be the whole truth the conclusion will be false. The Bible says, “God is not a man. . . that he should repent”, Numbers 23:19. He says again, “then I will repent”, Jeremiah 18:10, CF vv. 7-10. Note also I Samuel 15:29; John 10:35. God knows the end from the beginning (Acts 15:18) and predestinates according to His foreknowledge. Sure He is consistent with His unchanging nature (Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 13:8), so that He can rebuke the inconsistent, changing people (Jeremiah 2:36). The UNCONDITIONAL promises of God reflect His purpose and nature in a direct manner, as He is sovereign. The CONDITIONAL promises reflect His consideration of changing circumstances, so the same promises may be both conditional and unconditional. As regards the PERSONS to receive the promises they are all CONDITIONAL. It was to Abraham and his seed that the promises were made (in that covenant). That is UNCONDITIONAL. But the CONDITION is seen in WHO THOSE SEED ARE. Individual Jews (because of unbelief) were cut off and did not obtain the promises (Romans 11:15-17) and the CONDITION which brought this cutting off is stated (Romans 9:31-32; 11:20). So these were “seed of Abraham” (John 8:37) and NOT seed or “children of Abraham” (John 8:39; Romans 9:6-7). But the purpose of God was not defeated; the ELECTION hath obtained what they sought (Romans 11:7) because they were of the faith of Abraham (Romans 4:12-13). But the promise is SURE to all the seed (Romans 4:16). That is an unconditional promise. But who those seed are is an “open” matter, so that God is free, if He pleases, to cut off all and raise them up in one man (Numbers 14:11-12) of them or even to raise them up by converting stones of the dust (Matthew 3:9) if He pleases and must. God predestinates whom He foreknew, but His foreknowledge embraces all the elements of that future which is our “present” life. His “sovereign grace” could choose those whom He pleased - - and did. But the same Bible which reveals His making such a choice also reveals His will to conform a people who would walk by faith. Surely, He must supply the faith, but the man who receives it must be willing to receive it. God quickens the man by His Spirit and leaves him to do with Him just what he will, but at the same time moving upon and before him with love and goodness “in hope” (Romans 8:20) that each one may yield. But must we say, “Poor God; He couldn’t save some, so they had to perish”. Some may blasphemously thrust aside these considerations with such language, but God cannot save those who will not be for He had DETERMINED to save only such as will. Why else did Jesus weep over Jerusalem? Why else does God speak of pleading with Israel and they “would not…regard”? It is not my business to force a harmony into the Word, but I believe all these passages. And they do not contradict - - except foolish, human logic - - and that ought to be contradicted and destroyed. 19. To what are men elected or chosen? Is it salvation from hell? No passage says so. Election is always with a view to a destination and that destination is clearly specified as “glory” (Romans 8:30). Between the lost sinner and that glory are many hindrances which must be spanned by God’s so-great salvation. Noting a few uses of the word “elect” or “election” , “chosen”, etc, in the Bible we mark those things TO WHICH the choice looks: An inheritance for Israel (Deuteronomy 4:37-38; Isaiah 65:9; Ezekiel 20:6); Israel as an inheritance (Psalm 33:12; Psalm 2:8); a special, holy people OF Israel, above other people (Deuteronomy 7:6-7; Deuteronomy 14:2; Psalm 135:4) - - many such instances could be cited, indicating that the election was not merely unto salvation from hell - - ; then this election was to make Israel God’s “servant” (Isaiah 41:8-9) and a “witness” (Isaiah 42:1; Isaiah 43:10; Isaiah 44:1, 2; Isaiah 49:6). Election of Israel was “in affliction” (in order to their affliction) because thus does God work His purpose in men (Isaiah 48:10-11). It was to raise up kings and princes who would worship God (Isaiah 49:7). It was to produce those who would bear fruit which would ABIDE (John 15:16), so He had to engraft such a seed since the natural seed would not produce such a fruit (as a nation) as God “foreknew” that Abraham and his family would do (Genesis 18:19). The election was to raise up a “generation” which would show forth His praises (1 Peter 2:9) and finally obtain the glory salvation (2 Timothy 2:10). Endurance is set forth as essential in the obtaining of this glory (Romans 8:17; 1 Peter 1:4; 2 Peter 1:3-4, et al.). Election is particularly said to be “unto obedience and the sprinkling of the blood of Christ” (1 Peter 1:2). A careful study of the sprinkling of blood - - indeed, of all the sacrifices and ceremonies of the law - - will be seen to reveal that God was “saving His people” and that is what Jesus came to do (Matthew 1:21). It is not salvation from sin but salvation of lives and the producing of a holy, peculiar, and worthy people which is in view. A mature, holy, “fit”, people is in view in election every time, and this explains the frequent connection of “glory” to election (CF 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Timothy 2:10-12; Romans 8:17; Romans 9:4; etc). 20. Men do have to trust Christ, making a decision, yielding in faith, in order to be saved from hell, but, as of a Bride, it is the Groom’s choice which determines the rulership, inheritance, glory, and honor in the age to come. (CF John 15:16). Is it any wonder that lost sinners are never referred to as “elect” in the Bible? Even the “lost sheep” is a term referring to God’s Special People who were wandering away from God and needed to be brought back. It is NOT a term for Gentiles or sinners who had never had any relationship with Him. 21. The idea that man has nothing whatever to assume in the way of responsibility regarding this election has made 2 Peter 1:10 difficult indeed, for while the verse says “Make your calling and election sure”, we have had to read it “make sure of your calling and election”. Making sure one is saved from hell is not enough to insure that one “shall never fall”. An abundant entrance is ministered into the kingdom for that one who supplies the named Christian attributes in his faith (2 Peter 1:5-8), who is not barren in his knowledge (or of knowledge) but truly knows the Lord and is “known of Him”, and who has made his calling and election sure by giving diligence (2 Peter 1:11). Abraham did not choose to be the “father of the faithful”, that is he did not elect himself, but God knew that he would be faithful and obedient (Genesis 18:19) and chose him on that basis. So it is with our election today. I would challenge every brother, as the writer to the Hebrews does repeatedly, not to slip away, fall, fail, stand off, or neglect what God’s grace affords. 22. The covenant with Abraham (into which we must come to inherit the promises), a covenant which holds promises for a seed (which seed we are reckoned in the Seed), is a covenant providing an inheritance and rest, a kingdom and everlasting righteousness - - not mere salvation from hell. Abraham had faith while still in Ur (Hebrews 11:8), hence, was saved, but the covenant was not made till he entered the land of Canaan - - at least not till after he had manifested faith, therefore, the covenant is not a covenant of salvation from hell but a covenant of blessings, of an inheritance, of glory, etc. Election looks to the inheritance, the reward, the reign - - therefore does NOT pertain to all who believe, for not all shall reign. Conclusion
I would close this brief study on such an extensive theme with some recapitulation and admonition: 1. Election is not (as man selfishly imagines) to get man redeemed from torment. It is in view of a Special People, hence all saved are not elect and never shall be. 2. None are called “elect” apart from this Special People. 3. Israel was this people in the Old Testament; the church is that Special People today. 4. Election is co-relative with glory, adoption, justification, sanctification, and other terms applicable only to a Special People (Romans 9:3-4) 5. Election is always said to be “in Christ”, thus explaining it as a matter according to which men are “reckoned” to be Christ - - members of Christ. Today, this is true ONLY in true churches. 6. Election, then, is conditional, so far as any individual man must conform (grace will enable anyone to do it) to God’s prescribed limitations. It is unconditional on God’s part as regards the raising up of a Special People. 7. There are not two elections, one in the Old Testament, the other in the New Testament. The Bible harmonizes and does not have an arbitrary break between Malachi and Matthew. While I am not so presumptuous as to suppose this answers all questions or disposes of all problems I feel sure hear” among those who look into this theme. If other questions occur to the reader which are not here answered I shall be happy to hear from him and will do my best to deal with each one by the Scriptures.

Articles

Articles