Election
The Scriptures also speak of the “elect.” Many of the passages in Isaiah speaking of the “chosen” use the same word translated “elect” in the New Testament.
Speaking of the Kingdom, Isaiah says,
(Isa 65:9 ESV) I will bring forth offspring from Jacob, and from Judah possessors of my mountains; my chosen [elect] shall possess it, and my servants shall dwell there.
And then there’s —
(Psa 105:5-6 ESV) 5 Remember the wondrous works that he has done, his miracles, and the judgments he uttered, 6 O offspring of Abraham, his servant, children of Jacob, his chosen [elect] ones!
(Psa 105:42-43 ESV) 42 For he remembered his holy promise, and Abraham, his servant. 43 So he brought his people out with joy, his chosen [elect] ones with singing.
But it’s an unusual usage that becomes usual in the New Testament —
(Mat 24:22 ESV) And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.
Here, the “elect” is plainly a reference to Christians, who are under God’s watchful protection. They are the new chosen ones, the new Israel.
Thus, when we read —
(Rom 8:33 ESV) 33 Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies.
— we have to take “God’s elect” as a reference to the church as the spiritual Israel. We are “elect” in the very same sense that Israel was. Indeed, the Gentiles have been grafted into the olive tree that is Israel. Christians are not so much the “new Israel” as “the faithful remnant of Israel with faithful Gentiles annexed in.”
Hence, Jesus and Paul aren’t merely borrowing an Old Testament term. They are saying that we are elect because we are in fact Israel. And so we are elect — not in a similar sense — but elect because we are part of Israel.
And, plainly, this election is unchangeable at the cosmic level.
(Rom 11:5 ESV) 5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace.
God will, if necessary, allow the vast majority of his people to rebel and be lost, but he will always preserve a remnant. That’s how he dealt with Israel in the Old Testament. There’s no reason to suppose that the rules have changed just because the Gentiles have been grafted in! Rebellion has the same consequence for the chosen now as before.
(Rom 11:17-23 ESV) 17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you.
19 Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.
22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. 23 And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.
To modern, Reformation-shaped ears, this sounds as though God’s choosing and election are merely the results of human free will. We choose to have faith and we choose to repent, and therefore God chooses us and elects us. But that’s not entirely the Scriptural view of things.
Rather, the Scriptures recognize that we who’ve heard the gospel are a precious few. Not everyone receives this opportunity. Once, only the physical sons of Abraham were the elect and chosen — an election that could be rejected or accepted and later lost, but plainly an election of eternal, cosmic value. Now, all to whom the gospel is preached may be among the elect — but only those to whom the gospel is preached.
And when this is understood, the necessity of evangelism and missionaries becomes plain — not merely to obey a command but to imitate God in sacrificially bringing the gospel to those who need it desperately.
(Rom 10:14-17 ESV) 14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
This passage only makes sense under the orthodox view — that salvation comes only by faith in Jesus and that faith in Jesus comes only from the preaching of the gospel.
It’s unfair, but only because those blessed to hear the message get far, far more than they deserve. No one earns God’s choosing. No one has a right to be elect. That’s not how it works.
It’s unfair, but those who never hear the gospel are treated very fairly — perfect justice by a perfect, righteous, just judge. And how could we have faith in God and believe otherwise?
The gospel is good news indeed! It’s the opportunity escape justice and receive mercy, to escape law and receive grace. It’s the hope of life eternal — a promise given only to the elect.
But the elect — the children of Abraham — include all with faith in Jesus. And the more Jesus is preached, the more faith will come, and the more elect there will be.
Bobby Valentine’s most recent post on his blog – http://stoned-campbelldisciple.blogspot.com/ Alexander Campbell – “Hermeneutier” of the Word – Rough Thoughts – may be of interest to you and your readers. Not just b/c of its relevance to this series but b/c of its relevance to nearly all CofC theology whether “conservative” or “progressive.” Here is a quote that I thought was rather telling:
Richard Lints has noted well the irony of the inductive Bible hermeneutic … the illusion of reading only the Bible while setting ourselves up as the real authority.
“The inductive Bible study approach may encourage individuals to read the Bible as they never have before, but it will also encourage them to read the text according to their own subjective interests. The Bible becomes captive to the whims of the individual freed from external constraints, and in such a situation the individual can imagine the text to say whatever he or she wants it to say. If our central concern in approaching the text is how it makes us feel or what it seems to be saying to us, then the church is doomed to having as many interpretations of the text as their are interpreters. In banishing all mediators between the Bible and ourselves, we have let the Scriptures be ensnared in a web of subjectivism. Having rejected the aid of the community of interpreters throughout the history of Christendom, we have not succeeded in returning to the primitive gospel; we have simply managed to plunge ourselves back to the biases of our own individual situations” [24].
I hope some will read his entire post.
Hesed,
Randall
Jay,
I am having a hard time believing more people are not commenting on these latest posts. I do not want to be a post hog, but what do you mean in the last sentence of your post …
But the elect — the children of Abraham — include all with faith in Jesus. And the more Jesus is preached, the more faith will come, and the more elect there will be
In your understanding, does God know the number of elect, or is it a variable that God is waiting to find out, or something else, or did I read more into the sentence than you meant?
While I prefer Jay’s take on the concept of “fairness” here to what I otherwise read, it still reflects our own democratic concept of human equality. My friends, it is the Constitution, not the scriptures, which tells us that “all men are created equal”. The idea that we are all somehow entitled to equal treatment is actually a fairly recent notion, in historic terms. The Greeks experimented with it, but the Americans were first to build an entire major nation upon this construct. That there should be an “elect” chosen by God so offends our cultural mind that we immediately seek to dig under it to establish some “fair” basis for such election in the mind of God. We seek to find some explanation which allows us to reconcile divine election with our own egalitarian values. We will spend a thousand hours trying to get these ideas to fit together for every one hour we will spend considering that our own view might be seriously flawed.
The “foreknowledge” card is a fallacious argument, for it presupposes that our own actions (or our own decision to believe) actually “elect” us, and all God does is record such an election in advance. This theory is a simple denial of divine election which offers a fig-leaf by including God tangentially in the process .
The “arbitraryness” argument, by which we so generously allow that God can “do what He wants”, attributes a capriciousness to God which does not seem to do justice to His character. This argument finds its most common expression in the “exceptions” so necessary to keep CENI from bursting its logical seams. We find a pattern (or that which we think is a pattern) and then when an inconvenient fact runs counter to what we have derived, we set it aside as a divine caprice, a celestial hiccup for which no further explanation is offered or needed.
I find it instructive that when faced with this conundrum of divine sovereignty, Paul does NOT do what we do. We seek to explain it, indeed we demand that there be an explanation offered for its application, and we fill that demand with our own speculations. Paul, OTOH, simply challenges the idea that we have standing to either call for or offer such judgments.
This has happened before, in Job’s case. Would that we could respond with the faith and wisdom that Job finally exhibited, rather than our more common response, mimicking the long-winded counselors who spoke loud and long before God cleared His throat.
Charles states, “[m]y friends, it is the Constitution, not the scriptures, which tells us that ‘all men are created equal’. The idea that we are all somehow entitled to equal treatment is actually a fairly recent notion, in historic terms.”
Actually not.
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians3:28.
Christianity, properly understood, has always been about community of equality in Christ, “for the Bible tells me so.” It is those who are enthusiastic about inequality who are troubled about “egalitarianism.” Nonetheless, after all, we enter this world with exactly what we brought into it – nothing.
Bob notes: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Indeed. Context, please. This sentence specifically speaks to believers (not unbelievers) and to their position in Christ. This is not speaking about human equality, rather, this is a declaration that we in Christ now have the same identity. One glass of water is not “equal” to another glass of water. It is the same exact substance in a different container. This is what Paul is trying to get across. That we are no longer “different” from one another, no matter which aspect you choose to view: gender, nationality, status. We are ONE -that is far beyond equal- in Christ.
Paul is not saying that women are just as tough as men, and Greeks are just as devout as Jews, and slaves are just as smart as freemen. Or vice versa. He is not saying “a Greek is just as good as a Jew” or vice versa. This is not a human comparison at all, but an attempt to END such comparison. (The phrase “there is neither” is the giveaway.) Egalitarianism, OTOH, is wholly dependent upon human comparison. It does not say “you are not male or female”, but can only say “you males are just as good as the females”. Which was not Paul’s point at all.
Bob correctly points our that we all entered this world with nothing. But some have received more than that now. I suppose there is some egalitarianism in the fact that all who are outside Christ are currently lost. But it’s not very comforting.
HistoryGuy,
I do not believe in Open Theism. I think God knows the future but not cause the future. That seems illogical to many, but it makes perfect sense when you realize that God is outside the created universe and therefore outside of time as we experience it — as time is a part of the fabric of Creation. Stand outside the cosmos and you are no longer bound by human time. That’s just good science — and good theology that goes back to at least Augustine and, I think, a number of authors of the scriptures.
“Elect” is therefore not purely God’s sovereign choice, as the Calvinists would have it. Nor is it entirely human choice, as most others would have it. Rather, it was God’s choice to choose Abraham and then Isaac and then Jacob and then the nation of Israel. And it’s God’s choice to send Jesus to Judea in the Roman Empire in the First Century. And it’s God choice to invite the Gentiles in and to exclude those Jews who reject Jesus. After all, in so doing, they’ve rejected the very image of God.
These choices dramatically impacted who would have initially have the benefit of special revelation about God.
Finally, it was God’s choice to equip and task believers to spread the gospel throughout the world.
It’s our choice whether to spread the gospel and the choice of unbelievers whether to believe what they hear.
Our choices are influenced by the Spirit but not dictated by the Spirit. And the choices of those who hear are also influenced by the Spirit (although they do not possess the Spirit) and not dictated by the Spirit.
That interpretations is consistent with the narrative of Scripture from Torah to Apocalypse, avoids the need to impose a whole new theology of election at the coming of Jesus, and is consistent with life as we experience it.
Finally, it can be argued that God’s future knowledge is not contingent, that is, that he only knows the results of reality as it exists before he intervenes, but that he can’t perfectly predict the outcome of his intervention. We can talk about that one day. I can go either way.
Charles,
In my view (mostly Classical Arminian), foreknowledge is not of actions only, but also an intimate loving relationship with a person; it is individual and comprehensive. More importantly, regardless of tradition (Pelagian, semi-Pelagian, Calvinist, Arminian, and variant forms), foreknowledge is really about how God knows the elect, as well as part of the debate as to whether faith is a response to God’s grace or something implanted by God (why does a believer believe?). It does not settle the question of election, namely why did God choose believers instead of everyone, nobody, or unbelievers? I don’t know your view and would not say “foreknowledge” card is a fallacious argument, but I agree with you that, at some point, we all have to face the fact that election is according to God’s pleasure and will (Eph 1:5).
Jay,
I think I was posting as you were posting. Interesting views, indeed. Thank you for sharing. I would propose that God’s foreknowledge is exhaustive and actual, rather than open or potential. I’ll look forward to that conversation sometime.
Charles seems to endorse the notion that inequality now is something devoutly to be wished. In this life. Not that it matters in the long run, as we all know.
Where do you think the West gets the notion of egalitarianism if not from the Bible? What Paul is saying is that all of the distinctions that anyone could make about anything based on race, economic status, and gender are meaningless in the real world that really matters: the Kingdom of God. If it is meaningless in the Kingdom, why give it any meaning anywhere?
This attitude on Charles’ part, while widespread not just in much of our society but in the Churches of Christ, is essential to the crippling of our presentation of the gospel to the rest of the society here or any society elsewhere. Our fellowship is eaten up with this nonsense. Outsiders too often – or perhaps always often – see the distinctions presented as gospel when they are but filthy rags. And they equal this ersatz gospel with the real thing, and many want them to do exactly that.
Good luck with that evangelism strategy.
Jay:
I read that you have restated your long-held view regarding baptism as other than being a saving action by God: “But the elect — the children of Abraham — include all with faith in Jesus.”
Let me approach with a simple, straightforward question out of my current study of Colossians: Jay, how does Paul say that we are made alive with Christ? (Col. 2:9-15)
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Jay writes: “I do not believe in Open Theism. I think God knows the future but not cause the future…”
Therein lies a distinction without a difference. Free will leaves room for a liberty without restraint. A God who knows the future (which means, in this case, knowledge of a virtual infinity of multiple universes based on – as of now, for instance – billions of individual choices by the minute) without causing it is a God who still doesn’t know what decisions men and women will make. He simply knows all the possible options. Now I prefer to believe that God could know – He can do anything He wants, after all (my favorite line from Holy Grail: Arthur, helpfully: “Good idea, Lord!”; God: “OF COURSE IT’S A GOOD IDEA…!”) ‘- but in creating mankind, He has apparently elected (no pun intended) to waive that authority. Open theism gives us permission to let God room to live in a far simple universe, as it were.
Like we really know anyway, that is. Insider discussions like these aggravate outsiders; they’re wondering what earthly good we are.
Bruce,
I recently exegeted that very passage in reply to a comment by Grizz at /2012/02/acts-238-my-reply-olan-hicks-comments-on-baptism/#comment-312642
Bob,
My views on Open Theism as spelled out in two posts —
/2011/08/searching-for-the-third-way-open-theism/
/2011/08/searching-for-the-third-way-open-theism-part-2/
These two posts are particularly relevant to the current conversation.