This may be one of the most controversial doctrines of the gospel. It rubs against our natural thinking and common sense; election says that the Lord has chosen some for mercy (cf. Rom. 9) so that His glory would be displayed to all creation. This means that we do not come to faith in Christ of our own accord; rather, He draws us to Himself. Natural thinking says that we put faith in Jesus, and that this is a decision, a choice, which we freely make. But, we must disregard all philosophy and human tradition (cf. Col. 2:8). Instead, we must read the Word of God and discern the message of the Scriptures. And when discussing election, we turn to Ephesians 2:1-10.
The first point which Paul presents to us is the total incompetency and impotency of humanity in its natural state. He tells his audience: “you were dead in your trespasses and sins;” and for the sake of clarity he says, “we too all previously lived among them [sinners]…and we were by nature children under wrath as the others were also.” All men are dead in sin, naturally; we are born into it (cf. Ps. 51). And Paul does not use words haphazardly. We are born dead. We are powerless, doomed to condemnation, and void of life. You see, the punishment for sin is, and always was, death. And we are born with sin. So even though we physically live and move and breath, we are under a death sentence from which we cannot of our own escape. The only way to fulfill the punishment is death: so we cannot pay off our debt to God’s justice. This is the first point in the proof of election: man’s total inability to save himself.
Rembrandt’s “The Ascension.” Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father, where our life is hid.
But, glory be to God, we are not left there! Paul’s second point is the atoning work of Christ Jesus our Lord. God, “rich in mercy,” loved us ere we loved Him (cf. 1 Jn. 4:10) and made us alive with Jesus. How? By His death – which atoned for sin – and His resurrection (His coming again to life) – which bestowed life onto and into us. God “raised us up” with Jesus and “seated us in the heavens” so that we are no longer enslaved to our sins and bound in the chains of this temporal, fallen life. Why? So that He could display His glory and His riches in us because of the work Jesus did on our behalf. Dead men do not bring themselves to life: Jesus, with His spilt blood and His resurrected life, brought us to life of His own power. How can one obtain this life? That is Paul’s third point.
We “are saved by grace, through faith.” So, the method for obtaining grace is faith: faith in the promise that the blood of Jesus is enough to atone for sin. ”And this is not from yourselves; it is God’s gift.” This faith which obtains grace, says Paul, does not come from you. You cannot summon faith in Christ. You are dead. In order for you to come alive, you must have faith, but dead men cannot do anything. God has to give you even this faith: “it is God’s gift.” Why would God make salvation possible in this way? ”So that no one can boast. For we are His creation, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared ahead of time so that we should walk in them.” Our salvation is not primarily for our benefit. Our salvation is all so that “He might display the immeasurable riches of His grace.” We are about the glory of God, not ourselves. And that is the purpose and beauty of the doctrine of election, that is its great comfort. It puts all attention, all focus, all glory, and – most comforting – all work on God’s shoulders, where it rightly belongs.
Just to offer a contrary opinion, let me do offer this: 1) How do you reconcile this interpretation of election with 2 Timothy 2:10, especially where it says “for the sake of the elect, that they also might obtain the salvation…”? It’s a subjunctive aorist, meaning they might obtain it (as a point in history) but that the matter is not settled (i.e. they might not).
2) The OT understanding of election was vastly different than the Dortian Calvinist interpretation. There a group was elected (Israel) for a task (not to a status). If we take the New Perspective Seriously (which, at the very least, we need to account for the theology of first century “Palestinian” Judaism as described in the NPP), the new covenant is the expansion of that election to include the gentiles through different means (on the more conservative readings), the election has changed in scope, nothing else (i.e. it includes Jew and Gentile but does not exclude anyone). This may have been the point Karl Barth tried to make by suggesting that everyone is elect while saying that this does not amount to universalism. In other words, election is a calling.
3) The acceptance or answer to a calling does not mean that faith originates with the individual, nor does it amount to a work. In the same way that a drowning man who is rescued by either, grabbing hold of a life preserver or (better yet) simply refusing to fight or try to save himself (if you know about lifeguard technique, you know it is better for them to do nothing and let you drag them in; or that it is better for them to not try to save themselves so they might be rescued); in the same way that such a person could not claim any part in saving themselves, so someone accepting the call of Christ (which initiates from God) cannot claim any credit. There is no “I knew what to do” pride there. Only gratitude.
Thus I don’t need to ascribe to this particular view of election that came about more as a reaction to 16th century Roman Catholic abuses than to any actual biblical doctrine. Just my thoughts. Take ‘em or leave ‘em.
I think these are some excellent points! Thanks for bringing them up! Just to warn you, I just got off work, so if I don’t make sense, I apologize in advance!
As to your first point. Paul was writing to Timothy (who was basically a pastor at a Gentile church) in order to encourage him in the ministry. Now, taking Paul’s statement in context, it seems to me that he is suffering “for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also might obtain the salvation….” Okay, so by suffering, Paul is talking about being arrested/persecuted for the sake of the gospel. In other words, while he is advancing the gospel – bearing the good news to the Gentiles – he is being persecuted. That’s why he says “for the sake of those who are chosen.” Now, in Romans 10 Paul says that people have to hear the gospel from someone in order to be saved. He says in verse 14, “How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?” So, Paul, in advancing the gospel “so that they also might obtain the salvation…” suffers “for the sake of those who are chosen” of the Gentiles.
As to your second point, I would say that the foundation is off. In the Old Testament, as far back as Abraham (Genesis 17:7-8), the covenant which God makes with Israel concerns their status as His unique people, set apart from the other nations: “I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.” God’s covenant is one of status: He will be their God and they will be His people.
Lastly, I would totally agree with you. Answering the call of God does not mean that faith originates in the individual. It is a product of faith. A drowning man (to use your example) wouldn’t grab anything that floats his way – like a shark or what have you. He would grab at something that he believes will save him. It’s the same concept. We run to Christ out of faith in His promise. So faith comes first. And Paul says that faith does not come from us.
That, anyway, is how I would answer your points. What do you think? What’s your opinion about election?
Age old debate of Soteriological debate that will go on forever. Calvinism vs Arminianism. I’m actually looking for a good book on Calvinism to eventually read. I’ve always been Arminianist asI feel it matches the character of God.
I’d be happy to recommend one to you. It’s called “What is Reformed Theology” by R.C. Sproul. Another excellent resource is found here: http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/topic-index/the-doctrines-of-grace-calvinism Desiring God is a ministry started by John Piper (you probably have heard of it or him), and an excellent resource for those wanting to live more like Jesus.
Thanks