Default: nkjv niv

Exodus 33:19

When quoted in the course of a discussion about Calvinism, these texts are intended to silence all opposition. Calvinists believe that their understanding of the biblical text is the only proper understanding, and if people disagree, it is because they don’t want to submit to God’s revelation of Himself in Scripture. So when the Calvinist states what he believes the Bible teaches, and you disagree, he quotes Exodus 33:19 and Romans 9:20, implying that if you disagree with Calvinism, you disagree with God. In other words, God has the right to do whatever He wants, and if He wants to elect some to eternal life while condemning others to eternal damnation, who are we to talk back to God?

The Calvinist is right: God is God and He can do what He likes. If God is as the Calvinist insists, then they are right: we mere humans cannot question God’s judgment or challenge His choices from eternity past to choose some for redemption and others for reprobation. For as God says in Exodus 33:19, He will be gracious to whomever He desires, and will show compassion to whomever He wants. And if this is the way God is, then, as Romans 9:20 says, who are we to argue?

The problem, of course, is that when non-Calvinists disagree with Calvinism, they are not arguing against God; they are arguing against the Calvinistic understanding of God. The two are very different. We must all be aware that there is a difference between what God is really like, and what we believe God is really like. There is a difference between what the Scripture really says about God, and what we think the Scripture says about God. No person (or system of theology) is 100% correct in their thinking about God or in their grasp of all the Bible teaches about God.

Like the Calvinist, the non-Calvinist also believes that his or her understanding of God is accurately derived from Scripture and what God has revealed about Himself on its pages and through Jesus Christ. Therefore, the non-Calvinist has just as much right to say “Who are you, O man, to argue against God?” as does the Calvinist. And how much right is that? None at all. The debate between Calvinism and non-Calvinism is not a debate about whether or not we believe what the Bible says, for we all believe it. No, the debate is about what it is exactly that the Bible says. In such a debate, it is unhelpful for one side to claim that the other side doesn’t believe the Bible.

So what then is God saying about Himself in Exodus 33:19? First, it is important to note that in the surrounding context, there is nothing anywhere about some sovereign decree of God regarding whom He has chosen from eternity past to redeem and reconcile to Himself in eternity future. People’s eternal destinies are not the subject of God’s statement in Exodus 33:19.

In the context, God has become frustrated with the sinful and rebellious ways of His people, Israel. While Moses is on Mount Sinai with God, the people have made for themselves a golden calf to worship (Exod 32:1-6). This event sets off a minor debate between God and Moses about what God should do to the people of Israel in response to their idolatry. Initially, God proposes that He will destroy all the people of Israel and start over with Moses (Exod 32:9-10). But Moses disagrees and tells God that such an action will bring shame upon God’s name (Exod 32:11-13). God agrees with what Moses says, and decides to not destroy the Israelites (Exod 32:14).

Following this exchange, Moses returns the people of Israel, and rebukes them for their behavior (Exod 32:15-29). They repent, and so Moses returns to speak with God and plead with Him to forgive the people (Exod 32:30-32). God says He will forgive them, but that He will not go with them to the Promised Land because His holiness would consume them in their sin (Exod 32:33–33:6).

Moses, however, continued to intercede with God for the people of Israel. He tells God that if God does not go with them to the Promised Land, then they should not go at all (Exod 33:12-16). Finally, God agrees to go with the Israelites to the Promised Land, as Moses has requested (Exod 33:17). In response, Moses asks to see the glory of God, and when God’s glory passes in front of Moses, it is then that Moses hears God’s statement that He will be gracious to whom He wants and will show compassion upon whom He desires (Exod 33:18-19).

It is extremely ironic that a verse which Calvinists use to tell people not to disagree with God is found in a context in which Moses is doing exactly that. Furthermore, Moses is praised and blessed for doing so! Far from being a text which tells people not to talk back to God, Exodus 33:19 is a text which invites people to enter into genuine dialogue with God about His character, actions, and behavior. Yes, God exerts His right to be gracious and compassionate to whom He wants, but He is not talking about determining people’s eternal destinies; He is talking His right to bestow blessings and favor upon certain people for certain reasons. In this case, God decided, as a result of His friendship with Moses, to bless Moses with a special revelation of Himself.

The whole context of these words, then, is not one of some despotic puppeteer, who predetermines everything and applies “might is right” principles. It is of a loving personal God, interacting with and answering the prayer of a person in faith-relationship with him, but reminding the person that God knows best how and to whom to distribute blessing.⁰

God is not a God who wants to rule with an iron fist and quell all dissent so that His people are mindless drones who do whatever He wants out of fear for the repercussions if they don’t. Yes, God wants obedience, but He also loves it when His people engage Him in reasonable discussion and dialogue about His actions and decisions. Moses did this with God, and far from proving that Moses was a rebellious idolater who didn’t want God to be God, such intimate dialogue with God made Moses more of a friend to God.

So, far from being a God who does not want to dialogue with us about His plans and purposes, God is a God who loves to reason with us, debate with us, and even "argue" with us about how He is running the world and what decisions He is making. Exodus 33:19 does not teach us that we should not question God's actions because "God is God and He can do what He wants." Far from it! Exodus 33:19 teaches exactly the opposite. It is stated at the end of a very long debate between God and Moses about God's plans for the people of Israel. At the end of this discussion, God shows Moses that He has no desire to kill and destroy His people, for His character is centered on mercy and compassion.

God is not a deity who rules with an iron fist. He rules with mercy and compassion, and always takes into considering the input and needs of His people. This is the God revealed to Moses. This is the God revealed in Jesus. This is the God of the Bible.

Jeremiah 1:4-5

Though this text does not use the words “choose” or “elect,” it is plain to see why it is a favorite verse for those who want to defend the Calvinistic understanding of Unconditional Election. Clearly, before Jeremiah was even born, God “knew” him, “sanctified” him, and “ordained” him.

Several things about this text, however, indicate that something else is being taught in this text than the Calvinistic doctrine of Unconditional Election. The first and most important thing to notice about this text is that even if God did elect or foreordain Jeremiah, it was not to eternal life, but rather, to be “a prophet to the nations.” In other words, if election is being taught in Jeremiah 1:4-5, it follows the same theme of election we have seen so far in this chapter. Jeremiah’s election was not an election to receive eternal life, but an election to perform a specific service.

Once we recognize this, the rest of what God says to Jeremiah become clear. When God says that He “knew” Jeremiah before he was born, it means that God understood everything about Jeremiah. This is a text which teaches about the foreknowledge of God as being comprehensive and complete. God knew everything there was to know about Jeremiah, and on the basis of this foreknowledge, selected Jeremiah to be a prophet to the nations.

This is what the word “sanctified” means as well. Though we often think of the word “sanctified” as a reference to the “second stage” of salvation, so that after a person is justified, they then become sanctified, we must remember that the most basic meaning of the word “sanctified” is “to set apart.” When believers who have been justified then go on to sanctification, they are being set apart from the world of sin so that they can better serve God. So also with Jeremiah. It is not that he was becoming more holy before he was even born—that makes no sense. Instead, God had “set apart” Jeremiah by choosing him to be a prophet to the nations. He was a special man with a special message.

Finally, the context of Jeremiah 1:4-5 make it abundantly clear why God is saying these things to Jeremiah at the outset of his prophetic ministry. After God says that He has known, set apart, and ordained Jeremiah to serve as a prophet, Jeremiah basically says, “But God, I am not a good speaker! I am too young!” (Jer 1:6). God knew of Jeremiah’s doubts about his own ability to serve as a prophet, and so indicated to Jeremiah that God knew him better than Jeremiah knew himself.⁰

So while foreknowledge and election are certainly taught in Jeremiah 1:4-5, it is not an election to eternal life, but an election to service. God, knowing what kind of man Jeremiah would be, set him apart from his mother’s womb, and ordained him to be a prophet to the nations.

Matthew 11:27 (Luke 10:21-22)

Those who seek to prove the doctrine of Unconditional Election see evidence in this statement by Jesus that only certain people are given revelation about God. The implication is that those who receive revelation about God are elect, while everybody else who remains ignorant about God are non-elect.

Yet notice that although Jesus does say that no one knows the Father except “the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him” there is nothing in the text which indicates that this is a select group of people which excludes others. Quite to the contrary, the people to whom Jesus reveals the Father seems to be the same people Jesus mentions in Matthew 11:28, the people who “labor and are heavy laden.” Who is this? It is potentially everybody. Though not everybody receives this revelation about God in Jesus Christ, it is available to all.

The key to understanding what Jesus us talking about is to see that in Matthew 11:27, Jesus is describing the intimate communion He shares with the Father. Jesus then goes on to say that He shares this communion with whomever He wills. And to whom does Jesus reveal the Father? To all those who come to Him and take His yoke up them. As many commentators point out, this is a call to discipleship. Jesus is saying that if someone wants to become His disciple, then He welcomes them, and will reveal the Father to them so that they can share in the friendship which Jesus has with the Father. What Jesus is saying here is nearly identical to what John writes in 1 John 1:2-3. John says that his fellowship is with the Father and with Jesus, and what he is about to write in his letter is an invitation to other believers to also share in this fellowship.

Further proof that Jesus is speaking about an invitation to friendship and deeper understanding about God is found in Matthew 11:20-25. There, Jesus indicates that revelation about Him is given to babes but hidden from the wise and the prudent (11:25). This is not because God has not revealed Himself to the wise, but because they depend upon their own wisdom and reject what is clearly revealed to them (11:20-24). Those who are wise in their own minds (whether they are “educated” or not makes no difference) often depend upon their own wisdom; whereas those who are know they have much to learn (that is, they are “babes”) are willing to accept what Jesus reveals to them about the character and nature of God.

This revelation is not something that precedes the reception of eternal life, but follows. In other words, this revelation of God in Jesus Christ is not the same thing as choosing some individual people to receive eternal life. Instead, this revelation of God in Jesus Christ is an invitation to enter into a deeper fellowship and relationship with God. The “wise” of 11:25 are those who refuse to accept what Jesus reveals about God, and the “babes” are those who accept it. In fact, there is nothing in the context to say that the “wise” could not be genuine believers who think they have God all figured out. There are countless numbers of Christians who have believed in Jesus for eternal life, but who refuse to enter into deeper fellowship with God because they refuse to believe what Jesus reveals to them about God.

Prior to the coming of Jesus Christ, no one truly understood what God was like, but when Jesus came, He revealed God to us (John 1:18). In Jesus, we have the fullest and most complete revelation of God’s character that exists. But this revelation to all is not the same thing as God unilaterally choosing or electing some to receive eternal life. There is no hint of this sort of idea anywhere in the text. Learning about God in Jesus is not the same thing as being chosen by God to receive eternal life. Now that Jesus has come, all people are invited to see and understand what God is really like because Jesus has revealed Him to us.

So here we do not have some sort of theological litmus test for how to determine who is “in” and who is “out,” who is “elect” and who is not. “We detect here no evidence that in the secret counsels of the divine will the Father and the Son chose only some to whom to reveal the truth about salvation.”⁰ Jesus wants all to understand the Father through what He reveals to them. But many prefer to depend upon their own wisdom and knowledge about God, thereby refusing to depend upon what Jesus reveals to them about the Father. In so doing, those who are “wise” lose out on the intimate relationship which Jesus shares with the Father and with us.

Matthew 20:16; 22:14

This text is a tricky passage for Calvinists to explain because on the one hand, Calvinism often equates “calling” with “election,” and here Jesus seems to indicate that not all who are “called” end up being “chosen.” So for this reason, Calvinists often talk about a “general” universal call to all people and an “effectual” call to some. John MacArthur, for example, in his commentary on the Bible, explains Matthew 22:14 by saying this:

The call spoken of here is sometimes referred to as the “general call” (or the “external call”), a summons to repentance and faith that is inherent in the gospel message. This call extends to all who hear the gospel. “Many” hear it; “few” respond. Those who respond are the “chosen,” the elect. In the Pauline writings, the word call usually refers to God’s irresistible calling extended to the elect alone (Rom 8:30), known as the “effectual call” (or the “internal call”).⁰

Due the Calvinistic understanding of Total Depravity, the general call to all people cannot be heard or heeded by any person, which is why God must then issue an “effectual” call, which is really just God specifically choosing to unilaterally redeem some people through Irresistible Grace. Only those who are called with the effectual call of God are thus understood to be God’s elect. Given the Calvinistic system, there is no other way to understand Jesus’ words in Matthew 20:16 and 22:14.

But once Calvinism is set aside, and the words of Jesus are reexamined in their contexts, we see that Jesus is not referring at all to the calling or election of some to eternal life. Instead, Jesus is teaching the consistent biblical message about the call and choice of God, namely, that while God desires that all people will serve Him, not all do, and so God chooses to work with those who participate with Him in what He is doing in the world. The calling and choosing of God is not to eternal life, but to service in this world. This explanation makes much more sense of the surrounding context of Matthew 20:16 and 22:14 than does the contrived theological distinction between a general call and an effectual call.

So what is Jesus teaching when He says that many are called but few are chosen? To understand Jesus’ words we must begin by seeking to understand His immediately preceding statement (in Matt 20:16), that “the last will be first, and the first last.” And this statement, of course, can only be understood in light of the parable of the workers in the vineyard that precedes it (Matt 20:1-15). In this parable, the owner of a vineyard must harvest his grapes. So early in the morning he goes to the marketplace where day laborers waited to get hired, and hired those he found there. He offered them a denarius for one day’s work. It soon became obvious that those he hired would not be enough to bring in the full harvest, so he went back to see if any others had shown up for work. Indeed, there more, and so he hired these as well. He did this throughout the day until the last group hired had only one hour of work left to do before dark.

When the work was complete, the workers lined up to get paid, and the owner paid first those who had been hired last. He gave each a denarius. Seeing this, those who had worked the entire day thought that when they were paid, they would receive more. But they too received a denarius. When they complained that they had worked all day and received only one denarius when those who worked only one hour had also received a denarius, the owner told them that they were paid what they had agreed to, and it should not matter to them if he was generous with those who worked less.

Following this, Jesus makes His two statements, that the first shall be the last and the last shall be first, and that many are called but few are chosen. What do either of these statements have to do with the point of the parable?

First of all, it is important to realize that this parable is not about how God makes a general call to everyone to receive eternal life, but then specially selects and chooses some to actually receive it. Such an idea is found nowhere in the parable of the workers in the vineyard and cannot be taught in any way, shape, or form from this story. In fact, the story teaches the exact opposite. When the landowner goes to the marketplace to hire workers, He hires everyone who is there. He does this all day long, going back at the third, sixth, ninth, and eleventh hours to see if any more workers have shown up. He hires all who are there. We do not see the owner making a general calling to see if anyone wants to work, and when nobody does, he goes around specially selecting some. No, the text pretty clearly indicates that every time the owner goes out to hire workers, he hires all the workers that he finds. The point of the parable is not that the owner calls all but selects only some; the point is the exact opposite: that he treats all equally.

But if the equal treatment of all by God is the point of this parable, why doesn’t Jesus say something to that effect in Mathew 20:16? The reason is because Jesus is not exactly summarizing the parable, but is instead responding to the unspoken objection that most people have to this parable. And what is that objection? When the vineyard owner pays those who worked only one hour the same amount that he paid those who worked all day, the natural human response is, “But that’s not fair!” While we agree that it’s fine for the owner to be generous with those who worked only an hour, we think that if he was going to be both genera and fair, then he should also be generous to those who worked all day. Sure, they got paid what they agreed to, but if the owner is going to be generous, he should be generous to all. It’s only fair.

You see, in human ways of thinking, fairness trumps generosity. It’s okay to be generous, if you are generous equally to all. But in God’s way of living, the values are reversed. God values both fairness and generosity, but in the Kingdom of God, generosity trumps fairness. God’s way of acting toward others seems terribly unfair at times because He decides to be generous, loving, forgiving, gracious, and merciful to those who didn’t earn it, work for it, or deserve it. When we cry out for justice, God cries out for forgiveness. When we remind people of their duty, God seeks to show them love. When we demand that people be held responsible, God extends more grace. If any human business operated the way God runs His business, it would be bankrupt within a month. God hires those He shouldn’t, pays more than He can afford, and gives away all His merchandise for free.

This is what Jesus means in the first part of Matthew 20:16. When He says “the last will be first, and the first last,” He is saying that those who are winners in the worlds eyes, turn out to be losers in God’s. Those who have it all figured out about getting ahead in this life, are way behind in God’s life. From the world’s perspective, God’s way of doing things is upside down and backwards. But Jesus is saying that once we step back and see things the way they really are, we discover that God has been right-side-up all the time, and it is we who are all turned around.

Jesus’ first statement in Matthew 20:16 is a statement about reversals. God does not work the way the world works. The Kingdom of God is upside down when compared to the rules and ways of men. It is not “fair” according to worldly standards that those who enter last end up on equal footing of those who entered first. But that is how it works in God’s world. Yes, this is not “fair,” but it is generous. And in God’s world, generosity comes before fairness.

There are a wide variety of applications that this sort of truth might take in the life of the believer. Some among them include how we view those with money, position, power, prestige, and popularity. Though these may be “first” in the eyes of most, God’s eyes cannot look away from the underpaid but humble janitor in the back of the room. When all is said and done, and we stand in line to receive our “denarius” in heaven, many will be shocked to discover that we all stand equally before God.

I appreciate that it may be hard for some to come to terms with this, but in the light of the most basic and central Christian gospel, the message and achievement of Jesus and the preaching of Paul and the others, there is no reason whatever to say, for instance, that Peter or Paul, James or John, or even, dare I say, the mother of Jesus herself, is more advanced, closer to God, or has achieved more spiritual ‘growth’, than the Christians who were killed for their faith last week or last year. Remember the workers in the vineyard (Matthew 20:1-16). Those who worked all day thought they would be paid more, but those who came at the last hour were paid just the same. Is the vineyard owner not allowed to do what he likes with his own? Are we going to grumble because he is so wonderfully generous?⁰

But the parable of the workers in the vineyard does not speak only to the equality we all share before God in the afterlife. The parable also speaks to the way we participate with God in this life. Yes, all are on equal footing before God. And yet, inexplicably, some seem to have a greater role and purpose than others in God’s plan for this world. If the unspoken objection to the parable was “But that’s not fair!” then the unspoken objection to this statement is, “But that’s not how God works!” God isn’t equal to all, even in His own Kingdom. Some are given greater blessings and honors than others. To this second objection, Jesus says, “Many are called, but few are chosen.”

This second statement is not a contradiction of the first, but a qualification. It explains why God, who values generosity over fairness, appears to be more generous to some than others. And this too, relies upon the reversals that become evident when comparing the Kingdom of God with the kingdoms of men. In the human world, bigger is better; more is best. In God’s world, it is the opposite: smaller is better; less is best. God calls and invites everyone to participate with Him in what is going on in the world, and in some ways, every person does play a part. But in God’s way of working, He often selects and chooses a few individuals for special purposes and tasks. And what are these special purposes and tasks for which God chooses some? To serve, suffer, and die. God’s “choosing” is not a choice to honor, position, and power, but to suffering and service. There is no teaching here about an election until eternal life of some. Instead, Jesus is teaching that God is generous to all, and while all are called to serve Him, true service to God is not an easy thing to bear, which is why most don’t want it. Yet God does choose some to serve Him in these difficult ways.

That this is exactly what Jesus means is indicated by the following sections of Matthew 20. First, in Matthew 20:17-19, Jesus shows what it means to be chosen by God, for Jesus Himself has been chosen. What for? To be betrayed and condemned to death. He will be given over to the Gentiles to be mocked, beaten, and crucified. This is not usually what people think of when they speak of being “chosen” by God, and yet this is the sort of thing that happens to those who are “chosen” in God’s economy. It is being chosen to service, suffering, and death (1 Pet 2:21).

The disciples don’t quite get the connection, for they, like all of us, still look at things from the world’s perspective, and so think that being “chosen” by God refers to receiving special blessings, honor, privilege, and power. So, in Matthew 20:20-24, two of the disciples get their mother to go ask Jesus if He will choose them to sit on His right and His left when He enters into His Kingdom. The other disciples are indignant when they hear about this, for they themselves wanted to be chosen for this special honor. Jesus, however, rebukes them all and says that this is not what it means to be given positions of greatness in God’s Kingdom. Those who are great will be last, will serve others, and will give their life for others (Matt 20:26-28). Though lots of people interpret Jesus’ words to mean that if someone wants to be great they must begin by serving others and then God will raise them up and make them great, this is not what Jesus is saying at all. That’s how “greatness” works in the human world. Those who are respected and revered started at the bottom and worked their way to the top. But in God’s economy, those who are great either go in the opposite direction, or simply stay at the bottom their entire lives. Those who are “first” in God’s economy work are found at the bottom of the pecking order. The winners of “the race set before us” are last in the rat race.

So Matthew 20:16 contains two general principles about how the Kingdom of God works. Both principles emphasize the reversals that are inherent within the Kingdom of God. These two general principles of the Kingdom of God are that God values generosity more than fairness, and that those who are chosen for “greatness” in God’s Kingdom are chosen for service, suffering, and death, which is why not all are chosen. From our human perspective, these principles seem backwards and upside down. In human society, we boast about equality and fairness while living lives of extreme inequality, thinking that those who are at the top deserve to be there. In Jesus’ economy, those who are at the top of the human world may actually be at the bottom in His, and those at the bottom may actually be at the top.

Furthermore, though God calls all to serve Him in His Kingdom, it is not the sort of service that has us all jumping up and down and waving our arms while we cry out “Pick me! Pick me!” No, God’s choosing is to a life of service, suffering, and death. God chooses only those who are willing to walk that hard road.

In Matthew 20:16, Jesus is saying that it is we who are upside down and backwards, and if we let Him, He will turn our world right way around for us so that we can see the truth and beauty that is God’s Kingdom. But it will not come without pain and hardship, as well as a complete reversal of our worldly value system.

Two chapters later in Mathew, Jesus tells another parable, and concludes it with a similar point. This parable in Matthew 22:1-14 is sort of two parables in one. In the first half of this parable (Matt 22:1-10), a king prepared a wedding feast and invited many people to the feast. When the day of the feast arrived, the king sent out servants to remind those whom he had invited that the day had come. Such double invitations are not uncommon in honor-shame cultures, for they allow the invited guests time to look over the preparations for the feast and who else is invited so that they can decide whether or not they will attend. In this case, all the guests decided to stay away, and provided their token excuses, which indicated their disapproval.⁰ Also, many of them sized the servants of the king to beat them and kill them, which was a direct affront to his honor. So the king sent out his servants again to find anybody he could who would attend his wedding feast. They gathered whomever they found, both good and bad, and brought them to participate in the joy of the king.

This first part of the parable is primarily about how Israel as God’s chosen people had been invited to participate in the party that accompanied the arrival of the Messiah. But when Jesus arrived, most of those in Israel wanted nothing to do with Jesus. So Jesus invited the sinners, tax-collectors, and prostitutes instead. The chief priests and Pharisees obviously did not like to hear this sort of message from Jesus and sought for ways to arrest and kill Him (cf. Matt 21:45-56; 22:15).

The second half of the parable, which is almost a separate parable itself, is about a man who shows up at the feast without the proper wedding attire (Matt 22:11-13). The king asks how the man got into the wedding without the proper clothing, and when the man is unable to provide an answer, the king has him thrown out of the wedding hall and into the darkness outside. This seems strange to modern hearers, for what else could the king expect from people he had rounded up from the streets and back alleys? Why would a homeless man have proper wedding attire? The answer is that in such situations of the Mediterranean culture, the king would make sure to provide proper wedding clothes to all of his guests as they arrived.⁰ So the king’s question to the improperly dressed man is not so much, “Why aren’t you wearing the right clothes?” but rather, “How did you get in here? If you had come in by the front gate, you would have been given proper clothing. The fact that you are wearing improper clothing indicates you came in by some other way.” This is reminiscent of Jesus’ earlier statement that only thieves and robbers enter a sheepfold by coming over a wall (John 10:1). Everyone else comes in through the front gate. The implication is that this man who was in the feast without the proper clothes was a thief who climbed in over a wall. Most ironically, of course, is that there were likely many thieves in the wedding feast, but they had come in through the front door and so were given proper wedding attire.

Following the conclusion of this parable, Jesus once again makes the statement, “For many are called, but few are chosen” (Matt 22:14). As with the previous usage of this summary conclusion, Jesus is not saying anything one way or another about how God sovereignly chose some people to go to heaven while others go to hell. In fact, though many read “hell” into Jesus’ statement in Matthew 22:13 about the outer darkness and the weeping and gnashing of teeth, this imagery has nothing to do with hell at all, but simply portrays the profound regret which is experienced by those who are outside the hall of the wedding feast. They are not inside, with the food, the light, and the dancing, but are in the darkness outside. The weeping and gnashing of teeth is a Middle Eastern way of expressing regret and shame. The bottom line, of course, is that there is nothing in Matthew 22:1-14 about Unconditional Election. Many were invited to participate in the feast, but only those who showed up got to join in the celebration.

This sort of a statement would have been offensive to many Jews at the time, for they considered themselves to be God’s only chosen people. Jesus is not denying their “chosenness,” but is saying that if they do not live up to the reason they were chosen by God, which is to serve others and be a blessing to the world, then God will simply choose others, such as the prostitutes, thieves, and cutpurses. And if it is argued that they are not worthy, that they are not clothed in righteousness, Jesus says, “Don’t worry. They’ll be given the proper attire as they enter into the wedding hall.”

In the end, Jesus is saying that while many people were called to participate in His Kingdom, only those who show up are “chosen” to join in the festivities. But you have to come in the right way, which is through the front door, for only in this way will the guests be properly attired to live, serve, and function within God’s Kingdom.⁰ “There is nothing here to portray either calling or election as some kind of irresistible decree that a person should repent and believe.”⁰ Many of those who were invited (called) to the wedding resisted the invitation, and those who came were given the proper clothing so that they might be full participants in the wedding celebration of the Kingdom of God. To participate in the Kingdom, you must be wearing Kingdom clothes.

The condition of the wedding garment is given as solid interpretation [cf. 21:31, 21:43], but because he brings disobedience to the wedding, and does not have the conduct which corresponds to blessing, he cannot be a real participant. Election is fulfilled only in obedience. Hence we do not have here a static doctrine of election but a dynamic theology which is oriented to the right attitude of the elect. To receive gifts is of no avail if there is no readiness to obey. Thus the concept of election is set in living history. It demands responsibility and decision.⁰

In summary then, when Jesus says in Matthew 20:16 and 22:14 that “many are called, but few are chosen,” He is not laying out the doctrine of Unconditional Election, but is saying that when God invites all to participate with Him in His rule and reign on earth, He does so without partiality or favoritism. All are invited, and it does not matter who shows up first or last, all will be welcomed. Those who accept the invitation, however, must recognize that while they will be given blessings and benefits from the overabundance of God’s generosity, these blessings and benefits are to be used in the service of others.

Notice what would happen if we take these texts as references to receiving eternal life. ⁰ First, there would be great confusion about the differences between “the kingdom of heaven” and heaven itself. Both passages are about “the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 20:1; 22:2), not about how to enter heaven or how to receive eternal life. If we confuse the two, we confuse the gospel. The kingdom of heaven is about the rule and reign of God in heaven and on earth. Those who live in the kingdom of God/Heaven must live according to its rules, principles, and values, so that we may live on earth as it is in heaven. Heaven itself is the dwelling place of God. Eternal life, of course, is distinct from both, in that it is the free gift of God to those who believe in Jesus for it.

If we take these two parables as references to how a person receives eternal life, then we would have to conclude that eternal life is something we work for, as the laborers worked in the field (Matt 20:1-16). Second, we would have to conclude that eternal life is primarily given to ruffians and street people, for this is who primarily receives it in the second parable (Matt 22:1-14). But we know that the Gospel is for the rich and the poor, the slave and the free (cf. Matt 22:10). The point of the parable, however, is that the elite find it harder to live within the kingdom of God than do the non-elite, for they think they have more to lose. Again, the distinction between eternal life and the kingdom of God is essential for understanding this parable.

Finally, it is important to note that those who are “chosen” in both parables are those who are accept the invitation. Again, since these parables are not about how to receive eternal life, then there is no merit or work involved in accepting God’s invitation. God calls all join Him in spreading His kingdom upon the earth, and those who participate with Him in His work in this world are chosen by Him for specific tasks and purposes.

Matthew 24:22, 24, 31

Klein, 66-69

John 6:37, 39, 44, 65, 70

Vance 91, 341-344

Klein, 129, 135-148
Spencer does not mince words regarding his belief about what Jesus is saying:

It is tantamount to blasphemy for anyone to argue that man is capable, of his own free will, to make a decision for Christ, when the Son of God says in words that cannot be misunderstood, “No man can come to me, except the Father … draw him.”⁰

It is clearly seen that those who will be raised up at the last day—all true believers—are given to Christ by the Father. And only those whom the Father gives to Christ can come to Him. Salvation lies entirely in the hands of the Father. He it is who gives them to Jesus to be saved. … This is nothing else than unconditional election.⁰
Interestingly, immediately after Jesus emphasizes that He chose all twelve of them, He immediately goes on to say that one of them is the devil (John 6:70). If election is to eternal life, then we have the strange teaching in this text that Jesus elected Judas to eternal life, knowing that Judas was (or will be) controlled by the devil. Very few Calvinists would like to admit that Judas was elect, yet here we have Jesus saying that He chose all twelve, including Judas (cf. Luke 6:13). It makes much more sense to realize that election is not to eternal life, but to purpose and to service. Only in this way can we allow for Judas to be chosen, or “elected” by Jesus, for Judas did in fact serve a very special role and purpose within the ministry and mission of Jesus. All the apostles were chosen for a vocation—including Judas. “Unquestionably Judas shared the election of the other eleven (Luke 6:13; John 6:70).”⁰

Jesus does not say, “I have chosen eleven of you but the other is a devil.” The election of Judas was no different from that of the others. … Election was not about whether a person went to heaven or to hell; it was the bestowal of an office and a task.⁰

John 10:14-16, 26

Vance 338

Klein, 127

We believe because we are God’s chosen sheep, not vice versa.⁰

John 15:16

Klein, 131

The bluntest affirmation that man does not do the choosing of God, since his depraved nature is capable of being “positive” only toward Satan, is that of Jesus…⁰

Christ’s negative remark is just a forceful way of saying that although a Christian may think that he is the decisive factor in choosing Christ, the truth is that ultimately it is Christ who chose the believer. And then, after that, the believer chose Christ.⁰

1. 
   Some Calvinists (and Augustine) have argued that this a proof text for unconditional election, emphasizing the irrelevance of human choice.
   
2. 
   Arminians point out that the statement is made to the disciples with reference to their apostleship, not to their salvation. This interpretation accords well with the next phrase "that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should remain." See also Jn. 6:70 referring to the same choice. Judas was chosen but not saved.
   

Acts 13:48

Klein, 108, 1121

Shank, 184-188

http://www.faithalone.org/magazine/y2004/04C1.html

Many have argued that this word “appointed” might be better translated “disposed.”⁰ Not only does the Greek allow for such a translation, but other uses of the same term in Acts support this translation as well. Aside from Acts 13:48, the word is also used in Acts 15:2, 22:10, and 28:23. In Acts 15:2 and 28:23, the word is clearly referring to the actions, attitudes, and decisions of people, rather than to some divinely-ordained predisposition to the Gospel which was unconditionally granted by God.

Outside of Acts, Luke (who also wrote acts) uses the word in Luke 7:8 to refer to human authority and control, while in 1 Corinthians 16:15, Paul uses it to is connection to Christians who have devoted themselves to a particular ministry.
Fisk, Divine Sovereignty and Human Freedom, 109-112
“Acts 13 is a study in contrasts in how different people prepare themselves to hear the gospel.”⁰ In the beginning of the chapter, the contrast is between Bar-Jesus and Sergius Paulus. One man was open to the truth while the other was full of deceit (cf. Acts 13:7, 10). Later in Acts 13, on group in Pisidian Antioch was opposed to the things Paul spoke (Acts 13:45), while a second group begged to hear more (Acts 13:42). Interestingly, it was the Gentiles who wanted to hear more while the Jews opposed Paul. And why was there a difference between the two groups? The author of Acts says that it was because they were “appointed to eternal life” (Acts 13:48). If we allow the meaning which is used in the other uses of this word in Acts, then this text means that much like the noble Bereans of Acts 17:11, these Gentiles in Antioch were better prepared to receive the Gospel because they were seeking the truth.

"And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed."

1. 
   The Calvinists argue that this verse teaches unconditional election, because it would have been easy to say "as many as believed were appointed eternal life" but the reverse is stated.
   
2. 
   The Arminians point out that the participle translated "were appointed to" (tetagmenoi) is in the middle-passive voice. This means that the same form is used in Greek to designate both the middle voice and the passive voice. The NASB has translated it in the passive voice. However, if it is translated in the middle voice, the passage would read ". . .as many as set themselves to eternal life believed" (cf I Cor. 16:15 where the same participle is translated in the middle voice).
   

Romans 8:28-30

Marston and Forster, God’s Strategy,240-247

Vance, 384-397

Olson chapter 7

Klein,163. 176, 185, 201f

Shank,205--215

The word translated by the older versions as “foreknew” is a Hebrew and Greek idiom meaning “love beforehand.” … Paul is using the Biblical idiom of “know” for “love,” and he means “whom God loved beforehand, he foreordained.”⁰

R. C. Sproul also notes this difficulty in Romans 8:29-30, and tries to explain it away by stating this:

We notice in this text that God’s foreknowledge precedes his predestination. Those who advocate the prescient view assume that, since foreknowledge precedes predestination, foreknowledge must be the basis of predestination. Paul does not say this. He simply says that God predestined those whom he foreknew. Who else could he possibly predestine? Before God can choose anyone for anything, he must have them in mind as objects of his choice. … [So] in actuality Romans 8:29-30 militates against the prescient view of election.⁰

I am not sure if “militates” is the right word, as Sproul’s argument is much weaker than he admits. Nevertheless, I actually agree with Calvinists on this point that God’s foreordination cannot be based upon His foreknowledge. Calvinists criticize Arminians for saying that God looks down through the halls of time to see who will believe in Him for eternal life, and then He elects, chooses, or predestines those people to be the objects of His grace and love. Calvinists say that this makes God subject to the will of human beings, and in fact, puts the whole plan of salvation at risk. I agree.

After all, what if God, in looking down through the halls of time to see who would choose Him, discovered that, much to His dismay, nobody had chosen Him? God would have been bound by this foreknowledge to do what He foresaw; otherwise His foreknowledge would have been in error. If God only looks forward in time to see what it is that He should be doing in regard to human salvation, then God is bound by what He foresees to carry it out, even if He defeats Him and His purpose.

***Greg Boyd quote on this somewhere

What Paul is saying in Romans 8 is that there is a golden chain of salvation that begins with the eternal, electing love of God and goes on in unbreakable links through foreordination, effectual calling, justification, to final glorification in heaven.⁰

Romans 9:10-24

See Piper, 5 points, 54-56

Boice and Ryken, 92-98

AW Pink, Sovereignty of God (old book) 85-98

Marston and Forster, God’s Strategy, 260f

Klein,166f, 173f, 185, 197, 202

Shank, 113-145

This chapter is about corporate election to service, not individual election to eternal life.⁰

The point of Romans 9–11 is not about some strange act of God whereby He chooses some to receive eternal life while others get damned to hell by God’s sovereign eternal decree. No, the point of Romans 9–11 is that God sought to bless the entire world by raising up Israel to be a light and a blessing to others, but Israel failed in this task. Israel’s failure, however, did not mean the failure of God’s plan. God, in His wisdom and resourcefulness, was able to bring Gentiles to Himself even through Israel’s failure.

When the elect nation stumbles and falls, God puts aside the elect and then does the unthinkable. He elects the non-elect, that is, the Gentiles.⁰

Why does God do this? According to Paul, so that the Gentiles may now be a blessing to the Jews! This is Paul’s point in Romans 11:13-24. Israel, the elect nation, became non-elect through her disobedience, and in so doing, the non-elect Gentiles became elect. But just as Israel was set aside, so also, the Gentiles must be careful less they too are set aside. Note that none of this has anything whatsoever to do with people’s eternal destinies. Paul is not talking about whether or not people can lose their eternal life. He is talking about positions of service in God’s plan for the world. God wants to bless the world, and while He chose Israel for this purpose, He now seeks to do it through the Gentiles, until ultimately all will be blessed by God (Rev 21:23-26; 22:2).

The Jews believed election was according to the flesh.

But election is not according to the flesh, but according to the promise (v. 8)

Both Isaac and Ishmael were both children of the flesh, but only Isaac received the promise (v 9).

Again, both Jacob and Esau were children of the flesh, but the promise came through Jacob (v 11)

These choices are not about eternal life, but about God’s plan to bless the world (vv 12-13; cf. Gen 25:23; Mal 1:2-3)

We cannot object to God. He will bless whom He will bless.

And who does He seek to bless?

Jews say, “Us!”

No, God seeks to bless all, both Jews and Gentiles (vs 24-26)

And how are all blessed? By becoming children of the promise through faith (vv 30-34)
Election is generally corporate, but carried out by individuals who are part of the corporate whole. Of course, this means that some individuals within the corporate identity do not fulfill their corporate election, that is, they do not contribute to the purpose for which they were elected.
When this happens on a large scale, God’s purposes are not thwarted. He simply finds another way. In the case of Israel not fulfilling her corporate calling, God pursued multiple options.

First, many within Israel are still fulfilling their elected purpose. The prophets (vv 2-4) and Paul are examples (v 5). Such Jewish believers are “elect” within the “elect.”⁰ They are the elect according to grace (Rom 11:5-7; cf. 4:14-16) who are also part of the elect according to the flesh. It is important to note as well, as Robert Shank does in his book Elect in the Son, that while Romans 11:5 certainly teaches that election is not of works, this does not prove that election is unconditional. All it establishes is that election is by grace, and not by works.⁰

V 28 sums up from v 13f.

What was the nature and purpose of this divine election of Israel? I answer that Paul conceives of it as a historic action of God in setting apart the Jewish nation to a special mission or function in the world as the bearer of his revelation to all mankind. … These chapters (Romans 9–11 treat of election to a historic function or mission, not of election to eternal destiny. … Theology has often applied these ideas to the subject of man’s final destiny. Whatever may be the logic of such an application, it is exegetically unjustifiable.⁰

1. 
   The Calvinist position is that Romans 9 teaches unconditional election and double predestination. This is because:
   
   • 
     Vs. 16
     

• 
  Vs. 18
  

• 
  Vs. 22, 23
  

• 
  The election involved is not a national election, because vs. 24
  

2. 
   Arminians argue that the first part of Romans 9 deals with God's choice of nations and their roles in his plans.
   
   • 
     Vs. 1-5
     

• 
  Vs. 16
  

• 
  Vs. 18
  

• 
  Vs. 22,23
  

3. 
   Any interpretation of Rom. 9 must account for the transition that Paul makes from national choice in vss. 1-5ff. and individual salvation in vss. 24-33. Therefore, neither view can claim that the other is completely out of context. The question becomes one of which transition is more believable, and makes the most sense of the Old Testament quotations.
   

1 Corinthians 1:27-29

Klein,177, 204

Galatians 1:15-16

Klein, New Chosen People, 194, 271

1. 
   Calvinists interpret this passage to mean that God irresistibly called Paul because he was elected to salvation. They further argue that Paul's salvation is typical of all Christians in this regard.
   
2. 
   Arminians would point out Paul's election and calling were based on God's foreknowledge of Paul's decision to believe. Some Arminians acknowledge that Paul may have been unconditionally elected and irresistibly called by God, but point out that this does not prove that God deals with all people in this way. There is no reason to think that God cannot deal differently with some people than others. Arminians would argue that the burden is on the Calvinist to demonstrate not just that God elected someone unconditionally, but that he elects all in this way.
   

Ephesians 1:4-5

Vance 357, 383

Cf. also http://www.tillhecomes.org/Text%20Sermons/Ephesians/Eph%201%203-4.htm

See Piper, 5 Points, 56-57

Klein, 1658-169, 179, 186

Notice how strongly Paul speaks of election. He says that God “chose us,” not that we chose God. Then he adds that God “foreordained us.” Moreover, the sovereign choice is emphasized by the statement that God chose us “in Christ”; that is, He chose us not because of ourselves but because of Jesus Christ.⁰

This is a large part of Paul’s point in Ephesians 1. These opening paragraphs of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians contain a long tally of all the blessings we have as believers in Christ. Yet this impressive list of spiritual riches is not so that we can gloat over others who have less than we, but rather so that we can use our riches and blessings to serve and bless others in this world. While Ephesians 1–3 recounts all the riches and rewards that God has given to all believers, Ephesians 4–6 informs believers about our responsibilities as recipients of these riches.

1. 
   Calvinists cite this passage as teaching unconditional election. God "chose us. . .before the foundation of the world." He "has predestined us to adoption as sons. . .according to the kind intention of His will." These phrases are taken to mean that God has sovereignly decided in advance who will be saved, completely irrespective of human choice.
   
2. 
   Arminians agree that vs. 4 is teaching God's election of the believer to salvation. However, they call attention to the significance of the phrase "in Him." This phrase, it is argued, means that Christ was the chosen one (Is. 42:1), and that believers participate in his chosenness because they are baptized into him when they believe (Eph. 1:13). Arminians also insist that God's election and predestination are based on his foreknowledge of our choice to believe in Christ (I Pet. 1:1,2; Rom. 8:29).
   

2 Thessalonians 2:13-14

Marston and Forster, God’s Strategy,158

Klein,182, 208

The term “loved by” is never used of the unbeliever, the world, in any passage of the Bible. God never calls Judas or the rejecting world the “ones loved by the Lord.”⁰

1. 
   Calvinists interpret this passage to refer to unconditional election.
   
2. 
   Arminians refer the term salvation to either glorification (see vs. 14) or maturity (I Thess. 5:23). Otherwise, why would it be "through sanctification"?
   

1 Timothy 5:21

Klein,184

1 Peter 1:1-2

Vance, 375-379

Klein, 236f

If you have etgernal life by faith, you are elect.

1 Peter 2:8-9

Vance, 311, 352

Klein, 231, 241f

Shank,188-190

1. 
   Some Calvinists find support for double-predestination in this passage. God appointed certain people to "doom" and therefore they rejected Christ.
   
2. 
   Arminians point out that the specific cause for their stumbling is not God, but that "they are disobedient to the word." Since the noun "doom" is not found in the Greek text, it would be better to see stumbling as the antecedent. It is clear that they were appointed to stumble because they were disobedient in the same way as those who were hard of heart in the time of Isaiah (Is. 6:9,10). God veils his truth to those who stubbornly disobey his word (Mt. 13:12; Amos 8:11,12).
   

Jude 4

Vance 314

Klein, 254

Shank,190-191

1. 
   Calvinists hold that this passage teaches double-predestination. The false teachers were "long ago marked out [by God] for... condemnation."
   
2. 
   Arminians point out that the participle "previously marked out" (progegrammenoi) can also be translated "previously written about." Since Jude goes on to cite several recorded examples of the destruction of ungodly persons (vss. 5-18), this translation is seen as preferable.
   

Revelation 13:8; 17:8, 14

Vance, 336-337

Klein,152

Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2014
2014 -> For want of a nail
2014 -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014
2014 -> Ihbb asian Championships 2014 middle school bowl Round 4 First Quarter
2014 -> Ihbb european Championships 2014 Bowl Round 4 First Quarter
2014 -> International History Bee and Bowl 2013-14 Asian Division Question Set Bowl Round Six
2014 -> United states patent and trademark office
2014 -> Coffs harbour eisteddfod vocal syllabus
2014 -> Listen News Programs Schedule pledge now
2014 -> Slow club announce third album complete surrender

Download 0.79 Mb.

Share with your friends: