Does God choose us, or do we choose Him?

Election, Salvation and Free Will

(This is an excerpt, slightly modified to accomodate an article format, from the book 85 Pages In The Bible.)

Ever since 16th century theologian John Calvin introduced his doctrine of divine election in his famous magnum opus, Institutes of the Christian Religion, controversy has raged in Christendom over the issue of whether human beings are involuntarily chosen by God to salvation, or rather choose God by an act of their own voluntary will. Calvin of course believed the former, and his doctrine became the basis of what is known as “reformed” or “covenant” theology.

In our quest to discover the truth concerning this—are we chosen, or do we    choose—let’s begin with Calvin himself, what he and those who followed after him taught concerning this issue, and the scriptural basis upon which it rests.

John Calvin: The Father Of Reformed Theology

John Calvin was born July 10, 1509, in Noyon, France. Calvin, like Martin Luther, had a lucid mind and was an accomplished scholar and writer, publishing his first book at the age of 22. By this time the Reformation, begun by Luther ten years earlier, was in full swing. Calvin, claiming to have had a conversion experience in his teens, threw himself into the study of theology and the Bible, threw off the Catholicism he had been raised in, and eventually became known as a follower of Luther and expositor of reformed theology. He later formed a Christian community in Geneva, Switzerland, where he became known as the “Pastor of Geneva.” He produced a number of theological works, including commentaries on the Bible, but his defining work was his “Institutes of the Christian Religion.” From “Institutes” came his doctrine of election/predestination, and after his death, “T.U.L.I.P,” which is a brief summation of his major doctrinal positions.
The Arminian Controversy And Its Result: TULIP.

The acrostic, TULIP, stands for: T = Total depravity; U = Unconditional election; L = Limited atonement; I = Irresistible grace; P = Perseverance of the saints. These five phrases have come to be known as “five point” Calvinism, which came about as a result of a dispute among 17th century Dutch Calvinists:

“In the early seventeenth century, Jacob Arminius, professor of theology at the University of Leiden, came under suspicion by the more orthodox Dutch Calvinists. Arminius was viewed to have seriously deviated from the orthodox doctrines of justification and election. Charges of Pelagianism were made, and the matter quickly escalated. In retrospect, Arminius’ views were not, strictly speaking, Pelagian. He did, however, differ from Calvinist orthodoxy on a number of issues. He denied the doctrine of perseverance and questioned whether grace was necessary for one to come to faith. He also challenged the Calvinist doctrine of predestination. The desire of Arminius was to uphold the goodness and mercy of God. He was concerned that Calvinist doctrines made God the author of sin, and wanted to stress the importance of faith and holiness in the Christian life.”

The Armenian Position

“His (Arminius’) untimely death provided only a temporary reprieve. The fires were soon rekindled by his followers. Under the leadership of John Uytenbogaert, the Arminians met in 1610 to draw up what was called a remonstrance It was simply a petition for toleration and a summation of their views in five points. They modified the doctrine of unconditional election, asserting that God did not elect individuals. They argued that God’s election was more general and had reference to that group of men who exercised faith. Like Arminius, they also denied perseverance of the saints, saying God’s gift of faith could be resisted by man. Finally, the Arminians affirmed that Christ died for the sins of every man.”

“The orthodox Calvinists responded with a seven-point statement called the counter-remonstrance. The government tried to settle the controversy with a series of ecclesiastical conferences, but matters only grew worse. Riots actually broke out in some areas of the Netherlands. Finally, amid a battle between political rivals, Prince Maurice and Oldenbarnveldt, a national synod was called to settle the controversy. The synod convened in 1618 in the Dutch city of Dordrecht [Dort]. To insure fairness, the Dutch Calvinists invited delegations from Reformed churches throughout Europe. Simon Episcopius represented the Arminian position at Dort. The rejection of Arminian theology was unanimous. Five theological points were formulated to answer the Remonstrants.”¹

Although these five “points” were not created by Calvin himself, I think they are probably a fair assessment of what he believed. They are explained as follows:

1. Total Depravity. This is the belief that man is so depraved he is totally incapable of believing in God apart from God regenerating his spirit, and until this occurs man cannot even seek after God, much less believe in him.

Calvin:
“When the will is enchained as the slave of sin, it cannot make a movement towards goodness, far less steadily pursue it. Every such movement is the first step in that conversion to God, which in Scripture is entirely ascribed to divine grace.”²

2. Unconditional election or unmerited favor in grace. This is the position that before the foundation of the world God chose or elected—by his sovereign grace—and predestinated certain people to be saved and the rest to be damned, i.e., if you are one of the “elect” you will be saved, if not you will be damned—no one has a choice in the matter:

Calvin:

“It is certainly easy to prove that the commencement of good is only with God, and that none but the elect have a will inclined to good. But the cause of election must be sought out of man; and hence it follows that a right will is derived not from man himself, but from the same good pleasure by which we were chosen before the creation of the world.”³

The Westminster Confession⁴ gives further support to this:

“…Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.” (my emphasis)

In other words, man must first be spiritually regenerated before he can believe the truth.

3. Limited Atonement. This position asserts that if only the elect are to be saved, then Christ’s atoning death on the cross was limited to only (that he died only for) the elect.

The Westminster Confession says this concerning limited atonement:

“Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam, are redeemed in Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only. It will be seen at once that this doctrine (of limited atonement) necessarily follows from the doctrine of election. If from eternity God has planned to save one portion of the human race and not another, it seems to be a contradiction to say that His work has equal reference to both portions, or that He sent His Son to die for those whom He had predetermined not to save, as truly as, and in the same sense that He was sent to die for those whom He had chosen for salvation. These two doctrines must stand or fall together. We cannot logically accept one and reject the other. If God has elected some and not others to eternal life, then plainly the primary purpose of Christ’s work was to redeem the elect”

4. Irresistible grace. It is contended in this doctrine that the elect or chosen will respond positively to the gospel when they hear it because the Holy Spirit will “regenerate” their spirit (make them “born again”), thus making it possible for them to receive it (the gospel). Without this spiritual regeneration—reserved only for the elect—man (unregenerate) will never receive the truth, no matter how many times he hears it.

Calvin confirms this:

“Therefore, though the effulgence which is presented to every eye, both in the heavens and on the earth, leaves the ingratitude of man without excuse, since God, in order to bring the whole human race under the same condemnation, holds forth to all, without exception, a mirror of his Deity in his works, another and better help must be given to guide us properly to God as a Creator. Not in vain, therefore, has he added the light of his Word in order that he might make himself known unto salvation, and bestowed the privilege on those whom he was pleased to bring into nearer and more familiar relation to himself. If we were persuaded of a truth which ought to be beyond dispute, viz., that human nature possesses none of the gifts which the elect receive from their heavenly Father through the Spirit of regeneration, there would be no room here for hesitation. For thus speaks the congregation of the faithful, by the mouth of the prophet: ‘With thee is the fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light,’ (Ps. 36: 9.) To the same effect is the testimony of the Apostle Paul, when he declares, that ‘no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost,’ (1 Co. 12: 3.) And John the Baptist, on seeing the dullness of his disciples, exclaims, ‘A man can receive nothing, unless it be given him from heaven’ (John 3: 27.). That the gift to which he here refers must be understood not of ordinary natural gifts, but of special illumination, appears from this – that he was complaining how little his disciples had profited by all that he had said to them in commendation of Christ. “I see,” says he, “that my words are of no effect in imbuing the minds of men with divine things, unless the Lord enlighten their understandings by His Spirit…. This was also clearly confirmed by our Saviour when he said, ‘No man can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him,’ (John 6: 44.) It thus appears that none can enter the kingdom of God save those whose minds have been renewed by the enlightening of the Holy Spirit. On this subject the clearest exposition is given by Paul, who, when expressly handling it, after condemning the whole wisdom of the world as foolishness and vanity, and thereby declaring man’s utter destitution, thus concludes, ‘The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned,’ (1 Cor. 2: 14.)”⁵

6. Perseverance of the Saints. This is drawn directly from Calvin’s doctrine of “effectual perseverance,” which says that those who are truly “born again” will reflect this condition in their behavior, i.e., they will not “continue” in sin.

“When the Apostle says to the Philippians, ‘Being confident of this very thing, that he which has begun a good work in you, will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ,’ (Phil. 1: 6,) there cannot be a doubt, that by the good work thus begun, he means the very commencement of conversion in the will. God, therefore, begins the good work in us by exciting in our hearts a desire, a love, and a study of righteousness, or (to speak more correctly) by turning, training, and guiding our hearts unto righteousness; and he completes this good work by confirming us unto perseverance. For he says in Jeremiah ‘I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever;’ and a little after he says, ‘I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me,’ (Jer. 32: 39, 40.) Again, in Ezekiel, ‘I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh,’ (Ezek. 11: 19.) He could not more clearly claim to himself, and deny to us, everything good and right in our will, than by declaring, that in our conversion there is the creation of a new spirit and a new heart. The Apostle’s doctrine is not, that the grace of a good will is offered to us if we will accept of it, but that God himself is pleased so to work in us as to guide, turn, and govern our heart by his Spirit, and reign in it as his own possession. Ezekiel promises that a new spirit will be given to the elect, not merely that they may be able to walk in his precepts, but that they may really walk in them, (Ezek. 11: 19; 36: 27.) And the only meaning which can be given to our Saviour’s words, ‘Every man, therefore, that has heard and learned of the Father, cometh unto me,’ (John 6: 45,) is, that the grace of God is effectual in itself. And from the words of John, (6: 44,) he infers it to be an incontrovertible fact, that the hearts of believers are so effectually governed from above, that they follow with undeviating affection. ‘Whosoever is born of God does not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him’ (I John 3: 9.) That intermediate movement which the sophists imagine, a movement which every one is free to obey or to reject, is obviously excluded by the doctrine of effectual perseverance. (everything in italics is my emphasis)⁶

In summary, here is what I believe Calvin and his followers present in these five points:

By our nature—because of Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12)—we are all depraved, and because of this, utterly incapable of accessing God or accepting the salvation he freely offers (total depravity). If this be the case who, then, can be saved? Only those who God himself regenerates—the elect/chosen—by his Spirit, individuals selected arbitrarily out of the general human race (unconditional election). How does one know who the elect are, or more importantly, is he indeed one of the elect? A) When one hears the gospel he will—because he has been regenerated (born again)—receive it (irresistible grace). The unregenerate—those not elected—will reject it and be damned; and B) “You shall know them by their fruits.”(Matt. 7:20) According to Calvin, the elect will produce “fruits meet for repentance” (Matt. 3:8) since they now possess the “divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4); in effect—according to 1 John 3:9—they will not “continue in sin” (perseverance of the saints). And finally, since God is only going to save the elect, then—according to Calvin’s logic—he could have only died for the elect. (limited atonement).

TULIP: Considered And Answered

The word “elect” is found in both the Old and New Testaments as well as Paul’s epistles. In all applications, both Hebrew and Greek, it means, simply, to “select.” Webster defines it more elaborately:

“In theology, chosen as the object of mercy; chosen, selected or designated to eternal life; predestinated in the divine counsels; chosen, but not inaugurated (my emphasis), consecrated or invested with office; as bishop elect; emperor elect; governor or mayor elect.” ⁷

Notice the highlighted phrase, “but not inaugurated.” When a government official is “elected” to an office, before he (or she) can occupy or take possession of that office, he must be inaugurated. Everyone is familiar with the inauguration of U.S. Presidents. Does the one “elected” to become president have no choice in whether or not he accepts the office? What if he refused to submit to his inauguration? Could he still possess the office? Absolutely not! The election only selects a person for the office; it doesn’t place them in it. They must accept the result of the election by submitting to the inauguration process. Thus, the “elect” definitely must make a choice, and it is within their power to reject what they have been elected unto.

Moreover, was Christ’s atoning work on the Cross limited to only the “elect,” or was it extended to everyone? This depends on the dispensation. In Mark 10:45 it says: “For the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.”  “Many” could only be referring to  “the” Israel of God he said he came for (Matt.15:24). In this context, it is clear that the atonement was only for them and their allies (those Gentiles who were in the covenants of promise). On the contrary, in the grace dispensation, the atonement is for everyone:

“For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; Who will have all men to be saved, and come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.”  1Tim. 2:3-6.

In 2 Co. 5:19 it says: “…God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them…”

One message clearly says it to a select group (“many”) and the other just as clearly says it’s to everyone (“all”)^*

Is this a contradiction? No, but it is a contrast. It is the same messenger preaching two different messages, to two different groups, in two different dispensations, for two different purposes. Things that differ are not the same.

Calvin obviously does not see this distinction because he refers in “Institutes” to the present dispensation as “the New Testament dispensation,” therefore combining everything together, from Matthew to Revelation, as one cohesive doctrinal statement, leads to his error. If we were in the New Testament he would be correct. The fact is, we aren’t. This failure to make the distinction between the present dispensation (grace) and the New Testament drives the next error.

Notice that every Scriptural reference, save for Philippians 1:6, Calvin gives, in defense of his doctrine of effectual perseverance, is drawn from either the Old Testament, the “gospels,”* or the Hebrew epistles, all of which are written to or about New Testament Israel. Out of the Old Testament he quotes Jer. 32: 39, 40: “I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me,” and Ezekiel 11:19: “I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh.” Jer. 31:31 identifies “them” as Israel under the new covenant, and says in verse 33,34: “I will put my law in their inward parts; and write it in their hearts…..and they shall teach no more every man his neighbor…” This is almost perfectly matched in Hebrews 8:10,11 ((For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people; And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.)) in the New Testament epistles, and it’s no mystery because it is not “unsearchable” ( Eph. 3:8,9), but very much a part of OT prophecy.

Finally, in the New Testament doctrine of 1 John 3:9 (another of his corroborating verses), it says: “whosoever is born of God, doth not commit sin.” Calvin believed, as did Luther, that being “saved” and being “born again” are the same thing. He and Luther both use the two interchangeably (as do modern Protestant Evangelicals). Paul never refers to either the phrase “born again” or “born of God” in any of his 13 epistles. The closest he gets to a similar meaning would be in Titus 3:6 (which Calvinists like to uphold as proof for this doctrine), where it says we are “…saved… by the washing of regeneration,” and 1 Cor 4:15 where Paul says: “…for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.” If we consider the whole counsel of Paul’s revelation we understand this can’t mean the same thing as what “born again” or “born of God” means in John’s writings because Paul admonishes us to “study…the word of truth,” (2 Timothy 2:15), and to submit ourselves to teachers ((Eph. 4:11,12)). This would be unnecessary if we were truly “born of God” because it (the word) would be supernaturally written on our minds (hearts), which explains why John told those Israelite saints he was addressing in his letter, “ye need not that any man teach you…” ((1 John 2:27))

This brings me to my final point concerning this. According to 1 John 2:20,27, these New Testament saints to whom it is written have an “unction” , viz., “the anointing” that empowers them to perform 1 John 2: 3, i.e., “keep his commandments,” and by this they will know who they are and who others are. They will bear the fruits of repentance (Matt. 7:16), the mark of one who is truly “born again”. This is about identification, not justification. None of this can be applied to the body of Christ in the present dispensation (grace), because no one in it possesses this anointing/unction—everyone must be taught.

I think it is more than an oversight that Calvin never mentioned the dispensation of grace, or referred to Paul’s gospel as “a mystery.” ((Romans 16:25; Eph. 3:2-6; Col. 1:25,26)) His claim that God is presently ruling the earth shows he firmly believes we’re in the New Testament “age.” How could anyone who lives in this world and is aware of what goes on in it, believe that a righteous, just God would be in control of it? In Calvin’s case it may very well be because living in the Christian commune he had created in Geneva, he was in complete denial of what was going on in the outside world. Moreover, because he didn’t see Paul’s epistles as distinct from the writings of the other apostles, I am convinced he never knew what the real gospel message was—it’s certainly never mentioned in “Institutes.” Equally disturbing is his conversion testimony:
“God drew me from obscure and lowly beginnings and conferred on me that most honorable office of herald and minister of the Gospel …What happened first was that by an unexpected conversion he tamed to teachableness a mind too stubborn for its years—for I was strongly devoted to the superstitions of the Papacy that nothing less could draw me from such depths of mire. And so this mere taste of true godliness that I received set me on fire with such a desire to progress that I pursued the rest of my studies more coolly, although I did not give them up altogether. Before a year had slipped by anybody who longed for a purer doctrine kept on coming to learn from me, still a beginner and a raw recruit.”⁸

He apparently counts his great zeal and change of heart as evidence of a true conversion. No doubt Calvin was a brilliant scholar and eloquent writer, but what does that have to do with being saved or knowing the truth? Wasn’t Saul, before his Damascus road experience, a learned Pharisee who had sat under the teaching of the Jewish sage, Gamaliel? ((Acts 22:3, Philip 3:5)) Indeed, Paul said that the unbelieving and unsaved Jews to whom he was sent had “…a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge” ((Rom. 10:2)). In making this statement, he could have only meant by this the knowledge of the truth of his gospel.

TULIP is driven by wrongly mixing Scripture to the Church, the body of Christ, with that written to the Kingdom church.

While Calvin mercilessly lambastes the Roman Church (and anyone else who disagrees with him) throughout “Institutes,” he builds all his positions upon the very same foundation they do, i.e., the “gospel of the kingdom.” As I have clearly shown heretofore, the kingdom gospel and the gospel of Christ are two distinct gospels. Paul made it very clear in Galatians 1 & 2 that he did not get his message from any man, and that he and Peter were given two different gospels: he, the gospel of the uncircumcision; Peter, the gospel of the circumcision (Gal. 2:7,8). Yet Calvin uses the two interchangeably throughout “Institutes.” Never once could I find in this comprehensive work any mention of “the dispensation of the grace of God,” or “the mystery” revealed to Paul by the Lord from heaven. No doubt he peppers the work with passages from Paul’s letters, where they are of aid to him in establishing his positions, but fails to make any distinction—like his Roman Catholic predecessors—between the church, the body of Christ, and the new nation (the “lost sheep of the house of Israel”) being formed by the 12 in the first part of the Acts. He, therefore, makes the erroneous assumption that Paul is merely a successor to the 12, carrying on what they started in the first 8 chapters of the Acts. This causes him to declare Christ as “Prophet, Priest and King” to the body of Christ when these designations are found only in the “Hebrew” portion of the New Testament (the four gospels and the Hebrew epistles), not in Paul’s epistles. ((Paul refers to Christ as our “head.” Eph 1:22,23))

Though he acknowledges that the “ordinances” are abolished, ((Ref. Ephesians 2:15 and Colossians 2:14)) he—like his predecessors—finds that he can continue some of them (communion, baptism, confession) by continuing the Catholic tradition of calling them “sacraments.” His assessment of water baptism firmly establishes the Roman Catholic belief that it is what secures us, rather than trusting Christ for salvation:

“We ought to consider that at whatever time we are baptized, we are washed and purified once for the whole of life. Wherefore, as often as we fall, we must recall the remembrance of our baptism, and thus fortify our minds, so as to feel certain and secure of the remission of sins. ((Mat. 26:28; Mk 1:4; Lk 1:77; 3:3; 24:47; Acts 2:38; 10:43)) For though, when once administered, it seems to have passed, it is not abolished by subsequent sins. For the purity of Christ was therein offered to us, always is in force, and is not destroyed by any stain: it wipes and washes away all our defilements.”⁹

He acknowledges that the abolishment of the ordinances produces the “one new man,” ((Eph. 2:15)), and then contradicts this by devoting an entire section to the “visible” church that he calls “our Mother,” :

“But as it is now our purpose to discourse of the visible Church, let us learn, from her single title of Mother, how useful, nay, how necessary the knowledge of her is, since there is no other means of entering into life unless she conceive us in the womb and give us birth, unless she nourish us at her breasts, and, in short, keep us under her charge and government, until, divested of mortal flesh, we become like the angels, (Matt. 22:30.)”¹⁰

Of course, a dictatorial personality like Calvin ((It is a well known historical fact that Calvin, known as “the Pastor of Geneva,” to many became the “dictator of Geneva.” He kept himself heavily entangled in the political affairs of this city he ruled in for over 20 years. Geneva was a model of a true Christian theocracy where unbelievers and “heretics” were not welcome. Calvin even devised a “Confession of Faith,” which every citizen had to sign off on and abide by. All who “swerved” from the accepted beliefs were considered criminals. This led to the arrest of one man in 1550, and the execution, in 1553, of Michael Servetus for the crime of heresy (disagreeing with Calvin’s doctrine), with Calvin’s complete consent (see Acts 8:1).)) would never let go of a control mechanism like the power of absolution (to forgive or retain sins), contained in the office of the “keys” (Matt. 16:19; John 20:23), reserving it for the “ordained” clergy. Nor could he restrain himself from hanging the Mosaic law and the Ten commandments on the recipients of “grace,” by devoting an entire section of “Institutes” to it. He also looked upon and treated the church as a governmental body (which the kingdom church will be), penning numerous confessions, rules, and lengthy instructions to the laity for their strict obedience.

Conclusion

If TULIP is wrongly driven by the misapplication of Scripture, does that make everything in it wrong, scripturally speaking? No. Of course, the doctrines of the wickedness of human nature, election, predestination, limited atonement and perseverance are Biblical. They’re all Bible doctrines and integral to the preaching of the whole counsel of God. I believe that has been made very clear in this book. These are facts that aren’t in question. The question is, rather, are they being defined and applied correctly? One of the cardinal rules of right division is that one is not to “lift” from its context scripture that is particular to a dispensation, and arbitrarily apply it to another. This, I believe, is what Calvin (indeed all the creators and purveyors of man-made religions) is guilty of.

In summary, here is what I believe the Bible—rightly divided—teaches concerning election, predestination and salvation:

Mike Schroeder

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture references are taken from the King James Bible.
Are you saved? Jesus Christ—“who knew no sin”—and his sacrificial death on the Cross, has made the way for “everyone that believeth…to be reconciled to God. History has shown that whatever peace man has achieved in the world can only be temporary. The Bible says that individual men and women can know, beyond a doubt, that they are saved and bound for heaven, and therefore have absolute and permanent peace, regardless of what is going on in the world, by trusting Jesus Christ and his death on the cross for their eternal salvation. “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved…Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” Have you done this? If not, why not now?

Notes

Other suggested reading on Calvinism and the TULIP theology:

The Other Side of Calvinism, by Laurence M. Vance