In the last chapter I began to show how
Augustine tried to be more precise than the early Church Fathers
in their discussions about "the basis" of God's choice of those
He saves. Part of the reason why he wound up with his wrong
conclusions had to do with a misunderstanding of how Bible
authors had used certain words like" elect", "call", "foreknow",
and "predestine". Even some of the Fathers who were closer in
time to the Bible writers seem to have misinterpreted them in
some ways. Our biases tend to put a certain spin on the words we
choose to use. To correct the early Fathers without being
charged with "linguistic revisionism" by the traditionalists
will require more expertise than I can provide. Therefore, to
explain the use employed by these words and their authors, I
will draw heavily on Forster and Marston.
THE GREEK WORD "EKLEKTOS" (ELECT)
"Eklektos" which is translated either as
"chosen" or "elect" refers primarily to an office that God has
conferred on a person (or body). That "someone" may have been a
Judas who failed to live up to his calling (
Acts 1:17,25;
Mk 3:14), or it may have been a nation such as Israel among whom
were those who fell away from God's purpose for them (
Rom 11:22). Or, in some passages, that Someone, who is a chosen
one, may be Christ (
Is 42:1). The fact that God's elect was Christ reveals not that
our Lord was a selection, as though there were other candidates,
but that He was God's "choice one" in the sense of His being
God's precious one, valued one, or treasured one. We shall see
later that this is how New Testament authors took the meaning of
"elect" from Isaiah.
With both the early Fathers and with
Augustine the selection aspect of "elect" dominates the meaning
they give the word, though, certainly a selection is implied.
The word, "elect", however, is used more as we would use a noun
than as we would use a verb. But, because of the "selection"
aspect of the word "election" (c.f.
Rom. 9:11;
11:5, 7, 28;
1 Thes. 1:4; and
2 Pet. 1:10), the word, "elect", too, is understood as a verb.
Having given the implied meaning of "selection" to the word
"elect", attention is often mistakenly focused on the singular
individual and the basis of God's selection of him from eternity
past. "Election" (God's choice) does have the "selection" aspect
to its meaning, but more so the "thing" aspect than the "action"
aspect of the meaning of the word.
In the last chapter I showed from Ephesians 1
how the Church is elect because it is in Christ who is the elect
One. Because of this we have been made "coheirs" of the same
office as the chosen One of God. As part of His body we share in
His choseness. As
Isaiah 49 sees Christ, "a light to the Gentiles", so are we the
light of the world (
Matt 5:14). As Isaiah 49: 3 sees Christ, the One "in whom I will
be glorified", so
Ephesians 3:21 includes the Church: "unto him be the glory in
the church and in Christ Jesus..." As He reigns, we reign with
Him (
Rev 2: 26, 27). We are individually elect only because we have
been identified with Christ through faith; a fact that only
comes into being in our life-time.
Individuals, then, are not in the church
because they are elect, but rather they are elect because they
are in the church, which is the body of the elect One.
THE GREEK WORDS FOR "CALLED" OR "CALLING" (a
word they use correctly)
Another Greek word, "Kletos", means "called"
or "calling" (depending on which of the "kletos", "kaleo",
"kaleomai", or "lklesis" forms is used).
I first discussed "Eklektos" which is an
office of a person, persons, or thing (i.e. the Church). We are
now discussing "kletos" which has verb characteristics. "Kletos"
has a two meanings. It can mean "invited" or "named". "Called"
in English can also mean "invited" or "named". Very often when
the New Testament uses the word "called" (kletos) it means
"named". For example, "...he should be called a Nazarene" (
Mat 2:23). Or, in the setting of Peter's vocation: "you shall be
called Cephas." Likewise we read that Paul was "named an
apostle", that we are "named saints" and "named children of God.
Many are sincerely invited (to be named with
"the elect"), but few were actually becoming elect ones as Jesus
plainly states in
Matthew 22:14; "Many are called but few are chosen."
The terms "chosen/elect" (eklektos) and
"called" (kietos) are not normally opposed to each other, but
are rather to be identified. Sanday and Hedlam say that
by reading into "kletos" the implication that
the call is accepted, Saint Paul shows that the persons of whom
this is true are also objects of God's choice. By both terms
Saint Paul designates not those who are destined for final
salvation [though it is true that believers are headed for that
destiny], but those who are "summoned" or "selected" for the
privilege of serving God and carrying out His will. If their
career runs its normal course it must issue in salvation, the
"glory" reserved for them; this lies as it were at the end of
the avenue; but "eklektos" only shows that they are in the right
way to reach it. At least no external power can bar them from
it; if they lose it, they will do so by their own fault. (note
p. 149 Forster and Marston)
Therefore, we Christians are the ones who
have been both "invited" and "named" as well as having been
commissioned to an office having a task to perform. If New
Testament authors used the words "elect" and "called" as Forster
and Marston have urged, then interpretations that would suggest
selection from eternity past should be treated guardedly. We
should ask ourselves if our "hermeneutical circle" of
presuppositions and resulting conclusions is reinforcing an
interpretation of Scripture that is not explicit and likely not
even implicit. Augustine and Calvin (following some of the early
Fathers) interpreted these words with the idea of
selection-from-eternity-past as foremost in their minds, even
when applied to specific individuals. I think it is plain to see
that this has led to undue support of the Calvinist's doctrine
of salvation.
SPECIAL AND PRECIOUS
I conclude that the sense of the Holy
Spirit's design in letting Peter and Paul use the words "elect"
and "called" was to get across the meaning of "specialness" to
those who are in Christ. We have been made special. We are the
special ones. This is in line with the constant association of
"belovedness" with references to Christ being elect.
This is seen most clearly in the way Gospel
writers translate into Greek the words which God spoke during
the transfiguration of Christ. Matthew renders it: "This is my
beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear you him." Mark is
similar: "This is my beloved Son; hear you him." Luke, however,
renders the same words using the Greek word for chosen: "This is
my Son, my chosen, hear you him." We thus see that when the word
"elect" or "chosen" is applied to Christ, its primary meaning is
not one of selection, but one of belovedness.
The point may also be illustrated from
Matthew's rendering of
Isaiah 42:1. The Hebrew of Isaiah reads: "Behold my servant,
whom I uphold; my chosen, in whom my soul delights." The LXX
[Septuagint version] quite naturally renders the word "chosen"
by the Greek "eklektos", but Matthew does not follow the LXX in
this instance. Instead he renders the Hebrew using the Greek
word "agapetos" (beloved), thus: "Behold my servant whom I have
chosen; My beloved in whom my soul is well pleased." Matthew,
therefore, uses the word "beloved" as a substitute for the word
"chosen" in this context.
In two other verses the connection with
belovedness is marked. Thus in
1 Peter 2:4 we find that he is: "a living stone...with God
elect, precious" and in
1 Peter 2:6 that he is "a chief cornerstone, elect, precious."
The double linking of the election [state of being sense] of
Christ to his preciousness to God shows us the connotation of
the term. (Forster and Marston, pp. 129, 130)
Since the Church is elect in Christ we too
share in the preciousness or specialness that being "elect"
implies.
Colossians 3:12, for example, says that we are "...God's chosen
ones, holy and beloved ... " (c.f.
1 Thes. 1:4).
FOREKNOW
Next time you read
1 Peter 1:1,2 try substituting "special" for "chosen" ("elect"
in some versions): "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to
[those] ... who are special according to the foreknowledge of
God the Father..."
How is it that in a manner consistent with
(or, in a manner depending on) God's foreknowledge, we are
special? I submit that it is because we are His, and there is a
mutual love in existence. We are not His from eternity, but we
are His because He has decided that those responding to Him in
faith should be His. In this sense, God planned from ages past
that such as responded this way would be special. As stated
thus, there is not a necessity for God to have predetermined
which individuals should so respond. The early Church Fathers
had decided this much (as I have shown).
Many of these Fathers, however, had decided
that "foreknow" implied that God knew from eternity, certain
facts about each individual without determining these facts. I
have tried to show this as an impossibility because it is a free
agent who ultimately determines what facts shall be. If facts
exist they ultimately have to be caused by someone.
The Calvinist presupposes that God determines
the response that we make to Him if we are among those who
become believers. It would therefore be consistent for the
Calvinist to understand that certain people are special because
from eternity, and in God's foreknowledge, they are designated
to become believers. That is, He knows the fact ahead of time
because He determines that it will be. I have tried to show,
however, that both the early Fathers were wrong in saying that
God knows in advance, independent facts, and that Calvinists
(though being consistent) are, nevertheless, wrong in saying
that God merely knows in advance that He will cause a certain
response in certain selected people.
WHO OR WHAT GOD KNOWS IN ADVANCE
Since Scripture speaks of those whom God
foreknew (c.f.
Rom. 8:29;
1 Pet 1:1,2), people, themselves, seem to be in view rather than
facts about people. From the Calvinist point of view this
reinforces the notion that God (for His glory) selects certain
people before their actual existence, to favor with salvation.
This possibility may grammatically be conceded, but the fact
that it is people who are in view also reinforces my argument
that it is those who begin having faith in Him that God
foreknows -- and He does so at the time of their having faith.
[1] In both cases it is people whom God foreknows. In my case it
is actual people; in the Calvinist's case it is potential
people.
At first it may seem unnecessary for St.
Peter and Paul to use the word "foreknow" concerning God's
knowledge of those who merely begin having faith in Him. Why
couldn't he just say, "know"? That is, "...to those who are
elect according to the knowledge of God the Father...". Why say,
"according to the foreknowledge of God the Father"? It is
interesting that St. Luke (quoting Paul) gives us a usage of the
word "foreknow" that shows this understanding and use of
"foreknow" to be on good standing in a place such as this where
the word "know", alone, seems like it would be suitable.
Acts 26:4,5 says, "The manner of life I [Paul] have lived from
my youth upward among my own nation and at Jerusalem, all that
early life of mine, is well known to all the Jews; foreknowing
me from the first if they are willing to testify, how that
according to the strict sect of our religion, I lived a
Pharisee." Paul, it seems, could have used just the word
"knowing" here. Why didn't he? Forster's comment on this is
instructive:
Paul's manner of life was well known to all
the Jews. He adds, therefore, "pre-knowing me from the first ...
how that...I lived a Pharisee." He does not here, of course,
imply that all the Jews knew him in the sense Of being on
personal terms. Indeed, since he was brought up in Tarsus it is
not likely that all the Jews at Jerusalem would have known him
personally! The point was that they knew all about him. Here
foreknowledge implies knowledge about the manner of life he
lived from his earliest days. (Ibid. p.195)
[2]
Paul's use here brings out a meaning of
"foreknow" that might be expressed as a thorough understanding
of a person and knowledge about him in advance of the present
situation. When used in this sense the object of the word is a
personal one but there may be no relationship necessarily
involved [3] (c.f. this sense of the
word "know" in
Matt. 25:24,
Jn. 2:24,25;
Jn. 1:47,48;
Jn. 5:42).
This blending of people being the subject of
foreknowledge with facts-about-the-people being the subject of
foreknowledge is strikingly brought out
in 1 Peter 1: 18-20.
Literally the Greek reads: "were ye redeemed
with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and unspotted --
Christ's -- foreknown, indeed, before the foundation of the
world, and manifested in the last times because of you ."
Peter's grammar here is not entirely consistent, and his exact
meaning is unclear. From the sentence structure it would seem
that the "foreknowledge", would naturally refer back to the noun
"blood"; but in fact Peter makes its Greek form agree with the
word Christ's! Does he mean, then, that God foreknew Christ
before the world began? The Father did, of course, have a
relationship with the Son before the creation -- and to
interpret Peter to mean this would be quite consistent with the
present word study. It does seem, however, that there would be
little point in Peter stating this truth here.
The context of his words may help us. He has
been saying that the suffering and death of Christ (which
achieved our salvation of faith) was something that prophets of
old dimly saw and sought to understand (v. 10, 11). Even angels
desire to look into such matters. It is with this in mind (he
says) that we should set our own aim and hope -- knowing that we
were redeemed by Christ's blood, for which the Old Testament
sacrificial lamb was merely a picture. He follows this with the
words: "foreknown, indeed, before the world, but manifested in
these last times for you." God foreknew the redemptive function
of the Messiah before history began, but its actual
manifestation did not come until the New Covenant. This we take
to be Peter's meaning. [4]
The scriptures cited tend to support the
definition of "foreknow" that I have given above; that is, "a
thorough understanding of a person and knowledge about him in
advance of the present situation (i.e. the situation and context
in which the word, "foreknow" is used).
PREDESTINE
With the word "predestine", the Calvinists
are prone to have three faults concerning its usage. First, they
tend to view the Bible as describing a person's regeneration as
predestined whereas the Bible speaks of the end result in a
person who is already converted as being predestined.
Second, they are often confused about the
words, "elect" (or "election") and "predestine" as having the
same meanings. And, they tend to use them interchangeably.
A third fault is that they ignore that
certain conditions could affect the seeming inevitability in the
idea of "predestine".
Regarding the third fault: conditionality in
the concept of "predestination"; there is the whole subject of
apostasy which is falling away from the faith. How Calvinists
are not completely right about "apostasy" is well presented in
other works so I will refer you to a few of them:
Robert Shank's _Life in the Son_,
Guy Duty's _If Ye Continue_, and
Jeffery J. Meyers' (Scroll about 85% of the way down the page to
a seminar on "Coming to Grips Honestly With The "Arminian"
Language In The Bible", available in taped form from Biblical
Horizons, P.O. Box 1096, Niceville, FL 32588). Meyers is a
Reformed pastor whose argument concerning the biblical view of
apostasy is very telling. He admits that people who have been
made alive in Christ may fall away eternally, but that God has
determined that this is how it should be with some believers
because they are not among the elect. Such believers have
apparently been given the grace to be made alive in Christ but
have not been given the grace to persevere. Such a view brings
into question the Calvinian doctrine of Limited Atonement. If
the atonement is only for the elect, how is it that this
un-elect-one's sins were originally atoned for? I think Meyers'
work also forces other questions for which _Ten Little Reasons_
has some worthwhile answers.
Regarding the second fault: confusing "elect"
and "predestine"; I think the rest of this chapter will help to
clarify the confusion caused by Calvinian interchangeable usage.
Now, regarding the first fault: viewing a
person's conversion as predestined; it is wrong to think of a
person's conversion as predestined when the Bible focuses on the
final glorification of those already regenerated, as the thing
that is predestined. I can see how, from the long, "run-on"
sentence in
Ephesians 1:3-14, one might easily assume that the
"predestinating" of verse 5 had taken place with the "choice" of
verse 4. Since the "choice" took place "before the foundation of
the world", and since it is the main verb of the sentence, then
it might be natural to think that the predestination of
individuals to glory and to conversion might have taken place
before creation. [5] Two things weigh
against this understanding. First, the Bible nowhere makes it
explicit that our conversion is predetermined, and, second, it
is evident that Paul is not concerned with making everything in
this sentence agree with the time of the "choice" in verse 4.
Verse 9, for example, would then read: "He chose us in Him
before the foundation of the world...making known to us the
mystery of His will ... The "making-known" is a contemporary
action as "predestinating-us-to-adoption" would be. From the
text we could conclude that "predestination" is not necessarily
an action limited to the time before creation, just as "making-
known-the-mystery" is not. What God did do from the foundation
of the world was set His intention for every individual, even
though this intention is only actualized for a particular
individual upon his conversion (and , of course, completed in
their glorification).
The misunderstanding brought about by this
text is probably the origin of making "election" and
"predestination" the same thing, as far as meaning is concerned,
with Calvinists.
An appeal to the "before the ages" aspect of
the predestination found in
1 Cor. 2:7 also fails to make a person's conversion predestined.
There it is God's wisdom that is predestined before the ages for
our glory. The fact that something is predestined before
creation, though, may tend to slant peoples' thinking toward
believing that their individual conversion was also
predetermined in the sense of being inevitable. Even though the
Bible does not explicitly teach this, I believe that in a sense,
everyone's salvation was a predestined thing. The sense I am
speaking of has to do with God's intentions. God intended a
great destiny for all those He created in His image. Since these
were intentions before creation, they may be spoken of as "pre"
intentions or "pre-set" horizons, or, predestination.
Forster and Marston do a good job of showing
that words like "foreknow" and "predestine" pertain in a special
way to believers but technically would include unbelievers:
The Greek word "proorizo" (predestine) does
not mean an inevitable fiat. It may be a predetermination in the
sense of a "marking out beforehand." Beet has remarked, "The boy
marked out for one trade may enter another," and such a meaning
is not precluded by the word "predestine" in this context.
Second, when Paul makes a statement in a context of speaking of
the church, he does not necessarily mean that it may not apply
to unbelievers also. Thus in
Romans 3:23 he says: "All have sinned..." meaning all those who
are justified. But we know that all those outside the church
have sinned as well. Likewise when Paul says that God foreknew
those who love him, he does not mean that God did not foreknow
others also in a similar fashion. Moreover, when Paul says that
God had marked out a destiny for those who love him, he need not
necessarily be saying that such a destiny was not intended for
all men. Indeed we have seen how Luke tells us that God did have
plans for a group of unbelievers, which they rejected for
themselves (
Luke 7:31). Perhaps these plans included the marking out of a
destiny in Christ, which they failed to obtain because they
rejected Christ. Paul does not specifically say this, for he
rarely uses the word "proorizo", and only in a context of
believers. But his words by no means rule it out (pp. 203,4).
Having qualified the meaning of "predestine" to something not
necessarily inevitable, we could, with that understanding, go
back and state, concerning the scriptures that teach
predestination, that our individual conversions were
predestined. [6]
All men's conversions were intended! And,
certainly, all people who continue in faith are destined for
glorification!
SUMMARY
I have overstated this chapter's title in
claiming errors in word meanings. Calvinists know that
"predestine" means to predetermine the ends; that "foreknow"
means to know in advance; that "election" can mean to choose;
and that "elect" is the choice.
The trouble for me comes with the way they
apply these meanings to our salvation. Theological words can be
used like slogans that promote a popular meaning that glosses
over the original intentions of the authors. "Predestine", for
example, is made to seem an inflexible necessity to which
"irresistible" notions are attached (TULIP).
When applying the meaning of these words to
our salvation, I have shown that we should:
1. Realize that the passages we are dealing
with have primarily in mind a corporate body --the church-- in
union with Christ. They (plural) are the elect; they (plural)
are predestined.
2. Realize that those who cling to God's
"Beloved" are also "beloved". They who cling to the "Elect One"
are "the elect" also. They are not lucky humans who have been
picked out by God before the ages to be favored with the ability
to have faith.
3. Realize that God "foreknows" us in the
sense of knowing how it will be for us who cling to Him in
faith. He pre-set our destiny in spite of His foreknowledge of
us. He made His plans for us in full knowledge of all our
weaknesses. He foreknows us. He knows what He will make of us
faith- havers.
4. Realize, finally, that God predestines
believers to glory with Him and also realize that He predestines
that none should perish if they respond to Him in faith.
Biblically it may be said that He is not willing that anyone
should not respond to Him in faith (
2 Peter 3:9;
1 Timothy 2:4). Because this is an intention for everyone, it is
a destiny that God would have for everyone.
NOTES
Broadly speaking He foreknows from eternity
what believers will be like as believers.
I can imagine a parallel here between the
Jews foreknowing Paul from the first and God foreknowing us from
the first of our becoming believers. Or, even a usage of
"foreknow" that was similar to the contemporary medical usage of
"prognosis" to which I made reference in Chapter Five.
But, of course, there is a relationship
involved with us as believers!
ibid., p. 193
In a certain sense all individuals are
predestined to be converted, as I will show in Chapter Nine.
Our conversions were predestined on the
condition that man would fall into sin and need conversion.