Chapter 5:

The “Elect”

 

 

 

“Except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved; but for the elect’s sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days…  False Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall show signs and wonders to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect…  Then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost parts of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven”  (Mark 13:20, 22, 27).

 

Now, if only it were true that the Word of God was out to deceive us all, then we could ignore the one interesting word that this section of scripture holds.  This word has sparked debates throughout the centuries.  It inspired Luther to write “The Bondage of the Will.”  It fueled his debates with Erasmus.  It underpinned the arguments that Augustine used in his refutations of the doctrines of Pelagius.  It has divided denominations, lay at the very core of the Puritans’ faith which later motivated them to separate from the Church of England and thus, journey to the New World on the Mayflower.  That one word is “elect.” 

The problem is that the Word of God does not deceive men and also it is true that this is but one place in scripture that the word “elect” is used as a synonym for God’s people.  Observe just a few of its occurrences in scripture.

 

Shall not God avenge his own elect, who cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?  (Luke 18:7)

 

Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect?  It is God who justifies.  (Romans 8:33)

 

Therefore, as the elect of God, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering, bearing with one another…  (Colossians 3:12)

 

Paul, a bondservant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect and the acknowledgment of the truth which accords with godliness…  (Titus 1:1)

 

To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.  (1 Peter 1:1-2)

 

To the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth…  (2 John 1)

 

The children of your elect sister greet you.  (2 John 13)

 

Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation, which is in Christ Jesus with eternal joy.  (2 Tim. 2:10)

 

Now, it appears that there must be a reason that believers are also referred to as “God’s elect.”

The word “elect,” is derived into the English from the Greek word eklektos meaning “chosen, select, elect, or favorite.”  Now, this word is partially derived from another word, eklegomai meaning “to select, make choice, chose (out), chosen.”[1]

Here, before even journeying into the depths of the actual theology of Calvinism, the question must be raised to someone who holds to point of view of man’s choice of his eternity rather than God’s choice:  Why, if God does not choose, is God referred to by sacred, inerrant scripture, as choosing his people?  It would appear that if someone is referred to as “chosen” or “elected,” that would connote some form of action on the part of God, an act of selecting.  On this point alone, one could ponder for quite a while and, be he a reasonable man, come only to the conclusion that scripture does not deceitfully refer to believers as “chosen” because the apostles wanted to send their readers into a quandary of questions and ponderings with no true answer in sight.  A first glance reading of the name “elect” immediately speaks volumes.

In the English language, the most popular usage of the word “elect” comes during times when the American people are about to vote for their President.  Now, although the candidates may do their very best to become the new president, not every candidate is able to become the President.  The American people elect a new president every four years.  During the time before the new President takes office, he is referred to as the “President-Elect.”  This is because he has been chosen.

The Arminian or Semi-Pelagian will argue, “But this is a bad example, for in Christianity, many are called but few are chosen.  There are many more who become Christians than just one man.”  This is true, but in reality, it is much the same as God’s election of men, only on a more limited scale.  More importantly and purposefully, it demonstrates the common usage of the word, showing that even common man knows what the word means.  He does not need a concordance, a Greek dictionary, or a Thesaurus to discover this word’s meaning.  Instead, he simply reads the word and it immediately is recognizable to his heart and mind.  Why do the Arminians twist and turn, avoiding this word in reference to God’s people?  Neither Paul nor Peter hesitated to use such a name for believers.  Even if this were just a “nickname” for God’s people as some may say, why do they avoid using this name to refer to Christians?  I believe it is because they know deep down the true meaning of the word and wish to ignore it.

If God does not choose in some way, why use the word?  The simple point of this is to point out to the reader that in many places in scripture, the very same Greek word eklektos is used to refer to God’s people and that not in vain.

First, I want to point out to the reader that this question of God’s election is one that is very difficult to both comprehend, and explain in our humanness.   To solve a mystery or a crime, one must examine the evidence, look at the suspects, and find the criminal who committed the crime.  The doctrines of grace (election) are much the same.   In order to solve this or at least come to an informed decision, we must examine the evidence (the Bible), look at the suspects (differing views of election), and find the guilty one (in this case, the truth about election).

 

A Brief History

In the third and fourth century, a British monk named Pelagius popularized a view of man that we today refer to as Pelagianism.  From the start, it must be said that his teachings are heretical and have always been viewed as such by the Christian Church.  The disagreement sprung from a prayer that Augustine once wrote that said, “Grant what Thou dost command, and command what Thou dost desire.”  Pelagius disagreed with the first part of that prayer, saying that that statement, “Grant what Thou dost command” had to do with obedience to God (which it did) and that it showed an inability on the part of man to obey without God’s allowance (grace).  This set in motion one of the most important controversies in church history that even to this day rages on.

What Pelagius said is that man does not actually have inborn sin but that our sin is learned by example from generations before us, clear back to Adam and Eve.  He believed sin did not leave any remnant or scar on the human mind when committed.  His views stemmed from an idea that man is entirely capable of obedience to God and many, he argued, have totally obeyed God.  He believed that this obedience was entirely apart from the grace of God and that man did not need grace in order to obey or please God.  We earned our way into heaven on our own merit and not on that of Christ.  Christ simply came as an example and an aide to the rest of us who also desire to go to Heaven.

The church, of course, rejected this view entirely, with many thanks to Augustine who stepped in and took on the Pelagian Controversy for many years of his life.  Although the controversy was not solely argued by Augustine, he was a strong opponent of Pelagius.  Augustine argued with Pelagius that man is born with sin and that he cannot obey God at all apart from His grace.  Jesus said, “Without me you can do nothing” (John 15:5).  Augustine argued with Pelagius that nothing doesn’t really mean just a little something, but that Jesus really means it when he says man can do nothing without God.  These arguments are actually part of the total picture which forms moral inability.  (Jesus says in John 6:44, “No man can come to me unless the Father who sent Me draws him.”)  This included the act of having faith in God and receiving salvation.

This view of a necessity for God’s grace stemmed from Augustine’s views of the fall and its affects on man, which says that man is entirely lost and without God’s efficacious grace turning the heart of man, he cannot be morally inclined to receive Christ into His life and actually be saved.  Furthermore, Augustine taught that not all men receive this grace; otherwise all men would believe and be saved.  Augustine asserted that this was not a teaching that He just dreamed up because he felt like blaming God for man’s unbelief (which is not what he was doing.  He was actually giving credit to God for man’s believing at all) but was instead based on careful exegesis of the scriptures.

Centuries later after this debate had seemed to have died down; a student of Theodore Beza, (Calvin’s son-in-law and predecessor) by the name of Jacob Armenius was suspected by many in Geneva of turning from the doctrines of grace.  Armenius pinpointed his objection to one aspect (which incidentally affected all aspects) of Calvinistic/Augustinian thought.  He said that man is elected.  He agreed with Calvin, Augustine and Luther and all the rest on that.  What he disagreed with was the nature of the election.  What he said was that man has the final say, because God’s election is not unconditional.  Instead, it is conditional because God uses his foreknowledge to determine who would believe in the gospel if all humans were given the same portions of grace and ability to either choose or reject God.  Whereas Calvin made the point to say, “it is not of him or wills or of him who runs, but on God who give grace,”[2]  Armenius said that if all human beings are to have an equal chance (to make it fair), everyone must have received an equal opportunity from God.

Because of these new doctrines, a synod (assembly) was convened where the religious authorities were to either affirm or reject the teachings of Armenius.  The Synod of Dort rejected Armenius’ teachings because they felt it harkened back to the heresy of Pelagius, which placed the work of faith in man’s court of accomplishment.  The Synod reaffirmed what they already believed.  Here are some passages from that synod:

 

…that others who are called by the gospel obey the call and are converted is not to be ascribed to the proper exercise of free will, whereby one distinguishes himself above others equally furnished with grace sufficient for faith and conversion (as the proud heresy of Pelagius maintains); but it must be wholly ascribed to God, who, as He has chosen His own from eternity in Christ, so He calls them effectually in time, confers upon them faith and repentance, rescues them from the power of darkness, and translates them into the kingdom of His own Son; that they may show forth the praises of Him who has called them out of darkness into His marvelous light, and may glory not in themselves but in the Lord, according to the testimony of the apostles in various places.[3]

 

“What is probably most interesting about the Synod’s statement is that The Canons relate the rejection of this monergism (work of man alone) to the heresy of Pelagius.” Says R.C. Sproul in his historical overview of predestination.[4]

Later on Sproul expounds on this point by saying, “Is not this charge overly severe and unfair?  Both Arminius and the Remonstrants sought to distance themselves from pure Pelagianism.  Arminianism is often said to be semi-Pelagian, but not, strictly speaking, Pelagian.  What the fathers of Dort probably had in mind is the link between semi-Pelagianism and Pelagianism that renders the semi-Pelagian unable to escape the fundamental thesis of Pelagianism” (Sproul 140).

Here was the reasoning behind Dort’s decision to condemn Armenius’ theological concept.  If equal grace is given to all men, but not so much that they will actually believe, it still places the decision of whether to be saved of not in man’s court.

 

An Analogy

If I were brought to the window of a burning building so I could jump into the safety net below, I would still have to make the decision of whether to jump or not.  Now, the problem with that idea is that scriptures point to a lostness within man that is so far gone that, if brought to the window, I would need pushed out of the window in order to be saved because in essence, we are paralyzed and unable to move closer to the window or the net far below.

What Armenius was doing was saying that it is God who drives us through the burning house, it is God who puts me up on the window, but it is I who must jump to the net below on my own strength.  I would argue that it would be cruel to carry a paralyzed man to the window, teetering on the edge and tell him to jump.  He is paralyzed!  He can’t jump!  No matter how enticing the net below or the EMS workers who will rush him to the hospital to save his life, he is unable to save himself.  Someone who is capable of saving must save him.

 

The Danger of Analogy

There is an inherent danger in using analogies like this.  The overall danger is that there is no human institution or activity that can be used to accurately portray all aspects of Calvinistic thought.  This analogy is solely supposed to represent the Arminian concept that God brings a person to the brink of salvation and then leaves it up to the person to decide.

The analogy itself falls apart almost immediately if extended to any other areas of theology.  For instance, what firefighter would not save all of the people that he possibly could in a burning house?  Is that what God is like?  Of course not.  In the analogy, all the people deserve to be saved, but in real life, we perish because we deserve to perish.  If anyone is saved it is because God chooses to bestow grace and mercy.  He is not required to.  “For I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.”

Also, the analogy misrepresents the doctrine of Irresistible Grace.  A person does not believe against his will.  In the analogy, a man could (although we would wonder why) desire not to be saved or fall into the net.  If the firefighter pushed him to safety it would be against his will.  But when a person is regenerate and is saved, he believes because he wants to believe.  The act of believing is not against the tendencies of his will.  He desires to be saved.  The fact is that before God changes the will, all man desires is sin and the death that accompanies that sin.

As I said before, the analogy only represents the Arminian concept of prevenient, resistible grace, not an entire theological system.

I have been speaking of man’s sinful nature in accordance with a concept called Moral Inability or Total Depravity, which we will explore more in depth in the next chapter.  But you see once again that it is difficult to speak of one of the doctrines of grace without referring to other aspects of the doctrines of grace.

According to Calvin, here is how God chose who would be saved:

His decision about the elect is based on his free mercy with no reference with no reference to human deserving…  Many people would deny all the points I have made, especially the free and undeserved election of believers, but it is irrefutable.  They imagine that God makes distinctions according to merit: from foreknowledge he gives the adoption of sons to the worthy and condemns those who are bent on evil.[5]

Here are some of the verses Calvin has found the doctrine of Unconditional Election taught in:

Eph. 1:4; Col. 1:12; Eph. 4:1-5; 2 Tim. 1:9; Eph. 1:9; John 15:16; Rom. 11:35

 

Practical Application

            Some readers may say, “But what does this have to do with me?  Even if I am chosen by God, I’m still a Christian.  How does the doctrine of Sovereign Election affect me, my life, and my walk with the Lord?”

            We are eternally grateful in ways that words cannot express, for we have truly received a grace that God was never required to dispense in the first place.  “But God demonstrates His love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us…  And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through the Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.”[6]

The entire necessity for a rescue by God and not simply a belief in Him on our own centers around an evil in our lives; a moral inability: an inability to truly please God.  We will venture on to inquire more of this in the next chapter.

Next Chapter