The first objection that I want to tackle in my series on “Objections to Calvinism” is that of Election and Pride. Now this is not an objection that has personally been raised to me. No one has actually said to me, “I am not a Calvinist because it makes you prideful and arrogant.” But I have heard of people raising that issue with others and so I’d like to tackle this issue first before getting into some objections that have been raised to me personally.
First before going to the answer, I want to kind of identify this objection as I have heard it raised. It stems from election, God’s choice of man for salvation. In Reformed soteriology, election is unconditional. But this can have and adverse effect. Namely, a person can become prideful in thinking that God chose him over all of the reprobate, thus that makes him or her a wonder to marvel at, someone that must be looked up to, this person becomes arrogant in their election.
Now I cannot say that I don’t understand how this happens, how this objection is raised. I can see this very easily. As I reflect upon my theological growth over the last eight years, this might have been one reason that I rejected the doctrines of grace at first: pride and arrogance. It does make sense for a person to see election as a point of pride in thinking that a person will hold themselves on a pedestal because God chose them and not someone else, like they earned their election or something. I do see how one could arrive at this line of thinking.
Having said that I would respond by saying that this line of thinking is not biblical, holding oneself on a pedestal because of their election to salvation, nor does it understand the whole point of unconditional election. I will argue from two passages of Scripture to show that this line of thinking is unbiblical and missing the point: Romans 9:11 and 1 Corinthians 1:20-31. You can use the following website to help understand the Greek that I use in this post, Studylight.org.
Paul writes in Romans 9:11, “though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls.” This text is part of Paul’s defense of the Word of God not falling as a result of Israel’s apostasy and failure to recognize Jesus as the Messiah/Christ. The issue at stake in this is: can the Gentiles, the large majority of Paul’s audience in Rome, trust the promises of God in Scripture that the Messiah will save them? If God’s covenant people, Israel, are not being saved but going to hell (Compare Romans 9:3, “For I could wish that I myself were accursed [anathema] and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh,” with 1 Corinthians 16:22, “If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed [anathema]. Our Lord, come!”), then how can they know that the gospel of Jesus Christ will save them? So Paul is arguing that there is two Israels. One is of a physical decent from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (whose name was changed to Israel), and one is of a spiritual decent from Abraham–namely those justified by faith (Romans 9:6-7). To prove this point, Paul reaches back into the Old Testament and uses Ishmael/Isaac and Jacob/Esau as illustrations that their is the physical decent and spiritual decent. Now Paul’s argument does not center around faith but rather being born of a promise made by God. Ishmael was born first, but God promised that through Isaac Abraham’s offspring will be named. Isaac was born because of the promise of God (Romans 9:9). But the objection to this argument that Paul anticipates is that Isaac and Ishmael have different mothers, Ishmael the son of Hagar and Isaac the son of Sarah. So he turns to Jacob and Esau, to whom God promised to Rebekah that Esau would serve Jacob before they were born (Romans 9:12), who were twins. They had the same birthday (separated by mere seconds as Jacob was born holding Esau’s heel) and the exact same parents, Isaac and Rebekah (Romans 9:10).
This brings us to the text of Romans 9:11. Let us read Romans 9:10-13 to get the flow of Paul’s thought in using Jacob and Esau,
10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’ 13 As it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’”
The language of election is a parenthesis of Paul to explain why Rebekah was told by God before the twins were born that Esau would serve Jacob, why God said in Malachi 1:2-3, “Jacob I loved, Esau I hated.” You can see that in the “in order that” clause. In Greek the word is ina, it is a word to indicate purpose. So what is the purpose of God, according to Paul, in telling Rebekah before the twins were born? Why did God reveal his predetermined, predestined, plan to Rebekah at this time? To rule out their birth as a factor in why Jacob was chosen. But why rule out birth? Paul says, “in order that God’s purpose of election might continue.” I like the Greek here and how it connects purpose and election. This literally reads “the according to election purpose of God (h kat’ ekloghn prothesin tou theou). The closest parallel to this construction is found in Romans 11:21 where Paul says, “For if God did not spare the natural branches (twn kata fusin kladwn), neither will he spare you.” The Greek construction makes the accusative “nature” (fusin) and makes it an adjective of the genative “branches” (kladwn). So in Romans 9:11, election would become an adjective of the purpose, thus making it God’s “electing purpose.” The purpose accords with God’s election. God’s purpose is an electing purpose.
Back to the text at hand. The reason why God said this, the ina (if you will) for God predetermining it this way was so that God’s electing purpose “might continue.” The Greek word for “continue” is menw, which means to remain or to abide. The present tense aspect of the verb, continuous and unending action, reinforces the idea that God worked to ensure that Esau served Jacob so that God’s purpose in choosing Jacob and rejecting Esau would not come to an end. God sovereignly worked to protect his purpose.
But the question becomes, “On what basis does God’s electing purpose stand or continue?” The answer Paul gives is in a negative-positive manner, “not because of works but because of him who calls.” The basis, the ground, of God’s choice was not found in any work of Jacob or Esau. He did not look down the proverbial hall of time and see what each would do and then made his choice. Their works had no influence as to which one God would choose. Rather, to keep the election of God intact, he refuses to make his choice of Jacob and Esau on those grounds. Rather, Paul grounds the choice within God and his purpose by using the present aspect, substantive adjectival participle, “him who calls” ( tou kalountos; “of-the of-calling one”). Couple this with Paul’s earlier statement rejecting the birth of the twins as a ground and you have Paul ruling out any human merit to God’s election of that person, namely Jacob over Esau. It was not Jacob’s birth nor his actions in life that granted him God’s election. Instead, it was the sovereign work of God to choose Jacob over Esau. There is no room for pride in this verse in regards to election.
Now look at 1 Corinthians 1:20-31 as Paul writes,
20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
Paul here is rebuking human wisdom by showing its folly compared to God’s wisdom revealed in the cross (1 Corinthians 1:18). God chose a foolish message, a crucified Messiah and Christ, to save a world. There is no wisdom in this, this does not compute with the leading philosophers of Paul’s day (nor today for that manner). God hid himself from man’s wisdom so that he might reveal himself through Christ and him crucified (1 Corinthians 1:20-21). Why is this message foolish and so rejected by men? Paul says that the “Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom” (1 Corinthians 1:22). But Christ preached to these Jews and Greeks Christ crucified. And the Jews stumbled over him and the Greeks thought him folly (1 Corinthians 1:23). “But to those who are called (klhtois), both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Corinthians 1:24). Now notice what Paul did in this text and what was done to the Jews and Greeks in this text. Paul preached the gospel of Jesus Christ to both Jew and Greek. The Jews and the Greeks rejected the message, except for one particular group: “those who are called.” It is a simple Greek adjective that Paul uses to describe these Jews and Greeks who found the message of Christ the power and wisdom of God, klhtos. It means to be invited or divinely appointed. But which one? It seems evident from 1 Corinthians 1:23 that this is not just some invitation, like at the end of a Billy Graham sermon. In this sense all of the Jews and Greeks are called to Christ. But the group in 1 Corinthians 1:24 are called in an effectual manner. They are different because they accepted the message and did not stumble over it or find it foolish. Thus Paul calls them klhtois.
It is this “calling,” this effectual call to faith by God, that Paul is wanting to consider in 1 Corinthians 1:26. Paul calls these “called” foolish and weak and not of a noble birth in the world’s eyes. They were low and despised by the world. And it was for this reason that God called them. These weak and ignoble fools were called by God to shame and despise the wise and powerful and noble. God chose the humble to humble the proud. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:29, “so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.” Election and effectual calling is not to give a cause to pride and arrogance but to destroy pride and arrogance. To become prideful is to defeat the very purpose of the election and effectual call of God. I would argue that your pride is evidence of either ignorance, sin, or that you are not truly of the elect for they would be humble if they understood their election.
I will conclude on the ultimate purpose of God in election and the irresistibly beautiful call of God. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:30-31, “And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, ‘Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.’” The beginning of 1 Corinthians 1:30, “And because of him you are in Christ Jesus,” literally reads like this, “out of/from him but/and you are in Christ Jesus” (ek autou de umein este en Christw Ihsou). The NIV reads, “It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus.” The NASB reads, “But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus.” The emphasis is how we got to be united with Christ by faith, namely it was not by human effort but a work of God. We are in Christ by God’s power and work. The question becomes, why? 1 Corinthians 1:31 gives us the answer in the “so that” (ina) clause. The answer is “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord,” which Paul quotes from Jeremiah 9:23. Election and effectual calling is not to bring honor and glory to man, it is to manifest and declare the glory of God! It takes the honor from man and places it squarely and solely upon God in Jesus Christ. We get to declare the honor of God in our election, but we take no honor because our boast is to be in the Lord, Yahweh, Jehovah, Jesus Christ. That is why God elected us, so that his honor and glory might be made manifest to all. Isaiah 48:11 says, “For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another.” God does all things for the sake and honor and glory of his name. If God were not to unconditional elect men to salvation, he would not be acting for the glory of his name (I know I sound an awful lot like Piper, but he is so right on this issue).
Cross posted at Think Wink.
10 Comments
wow hank! wonderful exposition. i’m with you on this!
Some translations say Paul is citing Jeremiah 9:24 instead of Jeremiah 9:23. I’m guessing that he is using the LXX or something else because it doesn’t match up with the Hebrew of Jeremiah 9:23-24.
I agree with Brad, this is impressive Hank. It is obvious you spent some time on this. If we really understand our election it should serve to abase us not stoke our pride.
BTW I tought of a pop cliche often used to retort at Reformed theology. “Irresistable grace is Divine rape.”
I might have to make that part six of five. This might just be a continuing work in progress that never truly ends.
And by the way, thanks for the compliment. To be honest, I read this post and do not believe that I wrote this. I must truly say that the Holy Spirit himself was working through me, giving me the exegetical insight and the words to write.
Like all of the other commentors, this was an exquisite post. I do have several questions, being the (ignorant) Arminian.
Calvinists most definitely should not be “prideful” (I almost hate using that word because of Xian subculture lingo) because there is nothing that sets them apart besides of God’s favor that is completely unmerited. Good work showing that. Now, if a Calvinist becomes conceited because s/he believes himself/herself to be one of the elect, that is simply a error in behavior, not a flaw of the system itself. I think that people need to realize this, one cannot hold the system accountable for the misuse of the system by individuals.
You make the jump from calling to effectual calling when speaking on the Corinthians passage. Where is the justification for two types of calling there? There are not a litany of types of call in Restorationist Theology. Instead, there are five different meanings, but for our purposes, I will highlight two - vocation and invitation. The vocational call is what most would call a call to ministry, or other occupation. This definition is demonstrated seen from passages such as 1st Corinthians 7:20 and Romans 1:1 and is markedly different than the second type of call, the invitation to believe. In the Restorationist framework, the call to believe is made through the gospel, see 2 Thessalonians 2:14.
It is the very hearing of the Gospel that allows a person to respond to it. Thus there is only one type of call. Effectuous and Ineffectuous only refer to the effects of the one type of call. Jesus himself explains that there is one call, the hearing of the gospel does not depend on the type of call given, but on the person that hears in Matthew 13:18-23, the parable of the Sower. This is the explanation to Jesus’ statement in Matthew 22:14, “For many are called, but few are chosen. Which ones are chosen? Those that understand and believe.
I understand that the basis for the types of calling (the type that calls but purposefully (?) fails and the type that works) might be reserved for another post in this series. If you address everything, this would be a book! If that is the case, just let me know you will get to it and we will take it up then.
One last minor question, the Isiah passage is referring to the rescuing of the house of Jacob from Babylon. What are the steps or jumps taken to apply it to a) all of God’s works, and/or b) all of the rescuing ever done by God. I am just not sure how the exact phrasing of the passage can be applied to spiritual salvation in the new covenant when the context is the physical and political condition of the old covenant.
Honzo,
You asked this question,
Let us go back to 1 Corinthians 1:22-24 where Paul writes,
Paul preaches Christ crucified to both Jews and Greeks. He gives them all the same gospel to respond to. But there are two groups of people that respond different. Group A. responds with disbelief (Jews see a weak Messiah and stumble, resurrection is foolish to the Greek and they stumble). Group B. responds with acceptance of the gospel and faith. The only thing in this text that allows for those responses: those who believed were called. You don’t see in this text the called rejecting the message. The called accepted it. This call did something to cause belief. It effected belief in the Jews and Greeks who believed. There is the call of a preacher at the end of a sermon and then there is the call of God that causes a person to respond to the gospel with saving faith. That is what I am saying. This text isn’t trying to speak about the condition of the people hearing the gospel. It is saying that only called accept the message that is preached. So if the called accept the message, then those who are not called do not accept the message.
Consider also Romans 8:30 where Paul says,
What we have here is Paul linking together predestination, calling, justification, and glorification with a series of aorist verbs, thus denoting the occurrence of the action with no aspect. Thus those predestined are called, Paul leaves no room for doubt in the certainty of the calling of the predestined. They are linked together. The same is true for the rest, Paul is linking these events together. Thus the predestination secures the call, the call secures the justification, the justification secures the glorification.
Now if the call secures justification, then what about faith? Galatians 2:16 and Romans 5:1 says that we are justified by faith. But if the calls results in justification, how then can faith result in justification? Somehow the call must result in faith that justifies. That is the only way to maintain both texts: the call justifies and faith justifies.
But also notice that only those who are foreknown (in a Jewish sense of knowing a person, not a philosophical sense) are predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ. Only those who are predestined are called by God. Only those who are called by God are justified. And only those who are justified by God are glorified by God. This call is a unique call to only those who are justified by faith. This further evidences that the call produces and secures that faith. Paul is not referring to some call that is a general invitation but something for powerful and effective. And I believe this is the same thing about the call in 2 Thessalonians 2:14 as well. This call was not made to unbelievers but only to those who were chosen for salvation, through sanctification and faith, so that they may obtain the glory of Christ. Paul was very clear about saying “It was for this He called you.” This was not a general call but a specific call that is to give them the glory of Jesus.
I could go on more, but I feel that would need another post and I want to focus on this series. So I hope this at least clarifies my position on Paul’s view of the call of God in light of salvation.
One last thing in your Matthew work. I agree with what you said but I want to add one more text to answer “Which one’s are chosen? Those that understand and believe.” Look at what Jesus said of Peter’s confession of Jesus as Christ (Matthew 16:16) in Matthew 16:17, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” The understanding of the gospel is not a work of man. Man does not understand the gospel with their own intellectual powers. Instead, Matthew says that it is an understanding given by God the Father through God the Spirit about God the Son to the person who is to believe. So again, without this special work of God (1 Corinthians 1:24 is an act of God based upon 1 Corinthians 1:30), no one would believe.
Thus I would end on Jesus’ statement in Matthew 11:25-27, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; 26 yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. 27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.” Jesus is rejoicing in the fact that God does not reveal the truth to everyone, but rather only to those whom Jesus has chosen to reveal himself to. Thus in Matthew 11:28-30 when Jesus says come to me, he is speaking to those who he has revealed himself to, not just everyone. It is those who know Jesus and understand his yoke as easy. But this understanding is not of man and his intellect, but rather a revelation of God.
I will come back and answer about Isaiah later.
I hope we are not getting too far off of topic here. About Matthew 11. It is true that the light of the world come first through those the world despises. However, Jesus since that prayer, commanded the Church to reveal himself to everyone. So, I am not sure how that helps your case.
In regards to the calling question, I don’t think that you have addressed Jesus’ statement about many being called and few being chosen (those that hear the word and believe of their own accord, as indicated by the teachings of Jesus’ parable of the sower) speaking against the idea of different types of callings. Jesus himself seems to indicate that come are called and do not respond. They reject the calling of God. I don’t see where you have treated Jesus’ words in Matthew that I asked about except by saying you agree with them, but they speak against your post and comments.
I think I have demonstrated in Matthew that the understanding of the word does not come from within the hearer of the word, but is given by God above. So I don’t see how one can maintain your parenthetical statement about hearing and understanding and believing of their own accord. In order for the Word that is heard to take root and to yield fruit, God must make it grow (1 Corinthians 3:6). I do not see how the people who heard the word believe of their own accord when Jesus is plainly teaching that a saving understanding of the gospel comes only from God.
Now to the wedding feast and “many are called but few are chosen.” I must first laugh about this in that this is a text Calvinists use to teach election and you are using it to refute effectual call–ironic. The call here is no different than that of Paul preaching the gospel to both Jew and Greek in 1 Corinthians 1:20-31. This is not speaking of God’s inward call to the soul that removes the heart of stone and replaces it with a heart of flesh and is filled by the spirit of God to obey. If the king had personally appeared to the guests,they would have come.
I wanted to respond briefly about the "glory of God" issue, as I promised. The question is what steps are taken to justify using Isaiah 48:11 to all of God's acts and, given the rescue of Israel from Babylon context, apply it to spiritual salvation.
First I wanted to say that this is a sample of all of the multitudes of texts that say that the motivation for God's actions, primarily or ultimately, is for the sake of his glory, his honor, his name. The reason the Old Testament gives for God's actions is usually not for any other reason other than to declare his glory. Isaiah 43:7 says that God created Israel for his glory. But all through the major prophets, especially, and the Psalms, God is seen to act for the sake of his name.
Now you are right in noting that the context is that national salvation and not spiritual salvation. The Psalms speak in more salvific terms. One example is Psalms 23:3 where God leads us in the paths of righteousness "for his name's sake." Another example from the Psalms is Psalm 79:9 where God forgives sin for his name's sake.
God reveals Ezekiel 36:22-23, "Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord God: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. 23 And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the Lord God, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes." Now the reason why I bring up this text is because in Ezekiel 36:26-27 we have Ezekiel's prophetic promise of the new covenant. The reason for why God enacts the new covenant that Jesus purchased is that his name was profaned by Israel and he will vindicate it by gathering them from the diaspora, cleansing them, and turning their stone hearts to hearts of flesh and put his Spirit in them to cause them to obey (cf. Jeremiah 31:33-34; 32:38-40). Thus, in Old Testament terms, God saves his people not for their sake, but for his own sake. As he staked his name on Israel in the Old Covenant and his honor depended their spiritual well-being, so it is with the New Covenant church.
I just received my copy of The End for Which God Created the World by Jonathan Edwards. He goes into this with more depth and I look forward to reading it. You might check it out, it is at CCEL.org. I am not trying to be exhaustive in these comments but just wanted to show that salvation in both national and spiritual contexts are performed by God not for the sake of those being saved but for the sake of the glory of God.