The Biblical Doctrine of Election

Transcription

1 1 The Biblical Doctrine of Election By: Bishop Barrington C. Hibbert, PhD Introduction The doctrine of election has been a subject that has occupied the thinking of many for many years, and with good reason; nothing less than our eternal destiny depends on it. Both the Old and New Testament affirm the concept of election. F. H. Klooster identifies five kinds of elections found in Scripture; (1) reference to his elect angels (1 Timothy 5:21); (2) election to service or office in God s choice of David as king of Israel (1 Samuel 16:7-12) and Jesus choosing of the disciples and apostles (Luke 6:13; John 6:70); (3) the election of Abraham s descendants to form the nation of Israel (Deuteronomy 4:37; 7:6-7; 10:15; 1 Kings 3:8; Isaiah 44:1-2; 45:4; 65:9); (4) the election of the Messiah (Isaiah 42:1); and (5) election to salvation. The doctrine of election is of importance to theologians of all stripes. For whether one believes in human freedom in choosing the offer of salvation as do Arminians, or in a strict form of election as Calvinists adherents do, it is recognized that God is sovereign and has the right to elect, or predestine persons for salvation. So whether or not God, by his foreknowledge of what one will do, chooses one for salvation, or whether he elects one without regard for the choice one will make in the future, the subject of election looms large in theological discourse. Karl Barth argues that election must take precedence over every doctrine except Christology it is the ultimate divine self-determination that frames the entirety of dogmatics, indeed, the entirety of the biblical revelation. So for Barth, theological discourse is of little value unless we consider the subject of divine election. From the doctrine of redemption (Soteriology) to the doctrine of last things (eschatology) divine election forms the backbone of one s understanding of God s redemptive program in Christ. Yet despite the importance of this doctrine, or perhaps because of its importance, it is not without its detractors. Robert Hann argues that even some Reformed Christians have become uneasy with the doctrine of election. Hann cites two main objections to the doctrine. First, some object to the notion that God would choose some for special treatment, because this seems contrary to human understanding of "fair play." And, second, when election came increasingly to be discussed in terms of God s decrees before creation, and the fates of both the saved and the lost were thought to be equally the direct outcome of the will of God, this became uncomfortable for many even within their Reformed Christian tradition. The argument is that if God already decree from before the creation of the world who should be saved, and who should be lost, then what is the whole point about grace, forgiveness, the preaching of the gospel, or even church membership, for that matter? Hann points out that the earlier Reformed confessions contain a more satisfactory approach to election. He observes that one example is the Second Helvetic Confession of 1566, which quotes Ephesians 1:4 and affirms that election is not based on God s decrees nor to reprobation but to Christ: God has elected us, not directly, but in Christ, and on account of Christ.... Let Christ, therefore, be the looking glass, in whom we may contemplate our predestination. This early approach to election which sees our election in Christ, and on account of Christ, makes room for the centrality of the preaching of the gospel. This earlier approach says Hann, does not relegate election to a side issue to Christian theology but an essential part of the way salvation is applied to the believer. The doctrine of election, no matter the arguments and controversies that may surround it, is an important matter worthy of our keenest attention.

2 2 Thesis Statement This paper will be guided by the proposition that God s election of us is unconditional, irrevocable, individual and corporate, and includes both Jews and Gentiles. The Research Question To what extent can biblical support be found for unconditional, irrevocable, individual and corporate election of both Jews and Gentiles? The Doctrine of Election Defined It is clear from the amount of attention the subject of divine election has received that it is important to Christian belief and conduct. But how is election defined? Chapter III, Item 3 of the Westminster Confession of Faith states: By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death. Chapter 8 of the Scottish Confession of Faith states: For that same Eternal God and Father, who of mere grace elected us in Christ Jesus his Son, before the foundation of the world was laid, [1] appointed him to be our Head, [2] our Brother,[3] our Pastor, and great Bishop of our souls. According to Klooster election is defined as the unchangeable purpose of God whereby, before the foundation of the world, out of the whole human race, which has fallen by its own fault out of its original integrity into sin and ruin, he has, according to the most free good pleasure of his will, out of mere grace, chosen in Christ to salvation a certain number of specific men, neither better nor more worthy than others, but with them involved in a common misery. This definition is a distilled version of that contained in the Canons of Dort, and demonstrates that our election is initiated by God alone. By contrast the traditional Arminian view on election is the polar opposite of the Reformed view. Earle Ellis states that the Arminians argue that each one in one's 'free agency' chooses to accept or to reject Christ. The Arminian view amounts to conditional election. While John Wesley, an Arminian, agreed with Calvin that salvation is by grace, how that is applied differ quite a bit from John Calvin who held that God unconditionally elects those he has determined from before the foundation of the world to be saved. But perhaps the best definition of election came from the Bible itself. For example, Jesus told his disciples You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit (John 15:16). We observe from the pen of the apostle Paul that we blessed with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ; that God s election of us was before the foundation of the world; that God predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself (Eph 1:3-5). As has been made clear, not everyone is in agreement with this view. In the Arminian view the idea of human freedom is pushed to the point where it would appear that man s freedom overrides God s choice. Election Based on Foreknowledge All sides in the divine election debate agree that salvation is by God s grace because it is recognized that no one can save himself. It takes the finished work of Christ on the cross to bring about salvation. But how is election to be conceived? Gerald McDermott states that Wesley for example, agreed with Calvin that salvation is by grace, but when Wesley affirms this he meant a free will supernaturally restored to every man, not just to the elect. Wesley rejected Calvin s notion of unconditional election. He preferred the idea that God s salvation of us is based on the condition of faith which he sees from all eternity. According to this view, God does elect, but such election is conditioned on a person s faith and free will.

3 3 Todd Mangum offers that an Arminian doctrine of redemption regards the atonement as universal. In this view the work of the Spirit is to draw a person to God. According to Mangum, Arminianism holds that since Christ s atonement on behalf of everyone (universal atonement) humans are in a very good standing with God from a redemptive standpoint, so that the likelihood is that humans will be eternally accepted by God unless they reject the abundant mercy he has displayed and continues to display towards them. So, according to this view, while Christ atonement is universal, its application depends, not on God s sovereign choice of individuals to be saved, but on man s acceptance or rejection. Gary Shultz quotes Milliard Erickson as saying: Christ died for all persons, but his atoning death becomes effective only when accepted by the individual. Election Based on God s Sovereign Will By contrast, Calvinism, or the Reformed tradition teaches that salvation is by divine unconditional election, and not a result of human choice. Robert Picirilli observes that human freedom is entirely subject to God's government of all things for the accomplishing of his will. This does not mean that in all things God dictates our actions, because as God s image bearers mankind is free to make real moral choices and are responsible for such choices. Nevertheless, because of man s fallen state he is incapable of any good that would justify him before God, or of responding in faith to the offer of salvation in Jesus Christ. Therefore, God s election of those to be saved is not only unconditional, but even one s response to this offer of salvation is a gracious act of God. Thomas Schreiner summarizes the Calvinistic view on election by saying that Calvinists cite Romans 9 as evidence to bolster their doctrine of divine election. From this chapter they conclude that God unconditionally elects individuals to be saved. This means that God, in eternity past, freely chose specific individuals whom he will save, not based on any foreknowledge of effort on their parts. Calvinists hold that it is the work of grace that helps the elect to overcome his or her resistance to God. Calvin teaches that God foreordains and determines that those who have been chosen will exercise faith. According to the Calvinists then, God s election of those to be saved is unconditional, and based only upon his sovereign will quite apart from any foreknowledge of faith or obedience that one may exercise. Even our ability to resist God has been rendered null and void by God s preordination. Those who are the elect will eventually respond to the gospel call and will persevere to the end. Biblical Teaching on the Doctrine of Election The Bible is rich with evidence of divine election. We observe this in God s choice of Abraham to be the father of the faithful. God s choice of the nation of Israel to be his set-apart possession is perhaps the Old Testament s best example of divine election. In the New Testament too, there is evidence of divine election. The choice of Mary to be the mother of Jesus, Peter s election to be the apostle to the Jews, and the election of Paul to be the apostle to the Gentiles evidenced divine election. Even the choice of Judas Iscariot to be the son of perdition was God s election. Finally, the election of the church, a body of believers of all races, to be the bride of Christ is a gracious act of God. One central element that seems to bind all these incidences of election is that they were all unconditional. None of these agents that God elected to fulfill a purpose did anything to merit it, nor were they anticipating or actively pursuing their call. I would argue that most of them were not aware that they had a call on their lives. The Old Testament Teaching

4 Examples of Old Testament usage of this word bachar is found in Deuteronomy 7:6 where the Lord says: For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. In 1 Kings 3:8 when Solomon prayed: Your servant is in the midst of your people which you have chosen, a great people who are too many to be numbered or counted. And in 1 Kings 8:16 when the Lord said: Since the day that I brought My people Israel from Egypt, I did not choose a city out of all the tribes of Israel in which to build a house that My name might be there, but I chose David to be over My people Israel. While these verses may not contain the word elect, it is clear from the context that when God chose Israel or David, it was not on the basis of their goodness, but entirely upon his sovereign will. Both Israel and David proved themselves altogether unworthy, therefore God s choice of them was not based on any foreknowledge of any good they would have done. The New Testament Teaching In the New Testament the Greek word translated elect or chosen is ἐκλεκτός transliterated eklektos. In the NIV it appears 12 times as, elect, chosen, the Chosen One, and 10 times as elect. According to the same source, the Greek word translated election is ἐκλογή transliterated eklogē. In the NIV it appears 3 times as election, choice, selection, chosen, and 3 times as elect. In Matthew 24:22 and Mark 13: 20 our Lord seems to be teaching that the elect will be afforded special protection. In Matthew 24:31 and Mark 13:27 God s elect in the end will be gathered from the four winds of the earth, meaning that his people are everywhere (color, creed, nationality). In Romans 9:11 Paul drives his points home about unconditional election by pointing to the unborn children in the womb of Rebecca. Without condition, God made choice between Jacob and Esau. He indicates that these twins, yet unborn, did no good or bad nevertheless God chose or elected Jacob so that God s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls. In Romans 11 the apostle Paul argues that God has not rejected his people Israel. Notwithstanding their present situation, God has, according to his gracious choice (election) preserved a remnant (v 5). In verse six he declares that this election is not by works but by grace. And then in verse seven the apostle made the following statement: What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened. In Ephesians 1:4 the apostle Paul indicates that we have been chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. Here he used the Greek word εκλεγομαι transliterated eklegomai. There is a broad semantic range of this word; to pick out, choose, to pick or choose out for one s self; choosing one out of many, i.e. Jesus choosing his disciples. And in Ephesians 1:11 he used the Greek word προορίζω, transliterated proorizō which translates to predetermine, decide beforehand, of God decreeing from eternity, to foreordain, appoint beforehand. The apostle Peter writing to those saints scattered abroad in the first century assured them that they were the elect according to the foreknowledge of God (1Peter 1:2). The biblical data suggest that the concept of election, whether of individuals or of a nation, is the sovereign act of God. It would appear that such election is not based upon any good works that one has done, or on any foreknowledge of any good work that one will do, or any exercise of faith that one may demonstrate in the future. Certainly, God s election of Israel is a 4

5 5 classic example of his sovereign choice quite apart from any good thing that Israel did. Indeed, the history of Israel is one of rebellion against God, yet God s covenant faithfulness to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, demonstrates that his election is without condition. Conditional and Unconditional Election Defined As has been intimated earlier, conditional election is the Arminian view which holds that God s election of persons to be saved is based upon his foreknowledge of their future actions or exercise of faith. Conditional election is grounded in human free will. John Boykin summarizes the essence of the conditional election view: God created us with a free will to make our own choices, to obey or to disobey. God holds us accountable for our choices, but does not coerce us in the choosing. Those who advocate free will use John 3:16 to support their argument. Romans 10:13 is also often cited: Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved (KJV). In this view God s election of us is conditioned on our response to him and is not effective unless we accept the offer of salvation. Unconditional election on the other hand is quite different. It emphasizes God s divine freedom and prerogative in choosing those he wishes to save. Perhaps the best definition of unconditional election is provided by Calvin. Nigel Wright, quoting from the Institutes of Christian Religion III.21.5.: We call predestination God s eternal decree, by which he determined with Himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others. Therefore, as any man has been created to one or the other of these ends, we speak of him as predestined to life or death. Unconditional election emphasizes about all, the sovereignty of God. God initiates the redemptive process by his divine election of persons to be saved. Such election is not based on any condition, nor is it dependent on God s foreknowledge. That God has foreknowledge is a given, since one of his divine attributes is omniscience. God elects those he wishes to save in spite of his foreknowledge of the many rebellious decisions his elect will take before, and even after they respond to the gospel call. God is sovereign and can, and does choose those he wishes to save without having to comply with human s sense of fairness, and without having to explain his actions to anyone. The apostle Paul makes this point abundantly clear in Romans 9:20-26 in which he suggests that the thing formed cannot question the one who formed it. Neither can the clay tell the potter into what vessels he should make it. Likewise, God has the right to elect some for honor and others for destruction, and to regard those who were not called his people in times past as his people. That is God s sovereign choice. This is God s prerogative. Unconditional Election Defended It is the thesis of paper that God s election of us is unconditional, irrevocable, individual and corporate, and includes both Jews and Gentiles. It appears intuitive to this student that mankind in his fallen state lacks the ability or the inclination to make a choice respecting his eternal destiny. The biblical data affirm the helplessness of mankind. Jeremiah 17:9 tells us that the heart is desperately wicked. Jeremiah 31:31-34 declares that it would be necessary for God to write a new covenant in the heart of his people. Although he was like a husband to them, they broke the first covenant. That first covenant was conditioned on man s obedience, and since no one was able to fulfill the terms of that covenant, it shows the utter helplessness of mankind to make sensible choices respecting his eternal salvation. The apostle Paul, in his indictment of humanity, observes that there is none that seeks God; there is none that does righteously, and there is none that is good (Rom 3:9-15). In his own autobiographical confession Paul observes:

6 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not (Rom 7:18). So, in the matter of choosing one s salvation, even if one has the desire to do so, one lacks the ability. Therefore, it is God who chose us to be saved (election) before the foundation of the world, without conditions. Irrevocable God s election of individuals, or the nation of Israel to be his people is not only unconditional but it is irrevocable. Even when Israel seemed to have been rejected because of her disobedience and rebellion against God, the Bible affirms that she was not totally a castaway. God s election of her still stands. The apostle Paul addressing this issue in Romans 11 indicates that for the Gentile s sake Israel became enemies (v. 28). That is, Israel was temporary put aside that the promise made to Abraham that God would bless the nations of the world through him, might become effective. But Paul goes on to assure his readers that although Israel was set aside, it was not permanent for he observed but from the standpoint of God s choice [election] they are beloved for the sake of the fathers (v. 28). Italics added. In verse 29 the apostle Paul makes the unequivocal statement that the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. George Lindbeck states that the unconditionally of grace, is nowhere more clearly demonstrated as in God s choice of Israel. He states that: It has two aspects: first, there was no reason for the choice and, second, it is irrevocable. When God made promise to Abraham to bless him and his descendants, he swore by himself therefore, he cannot break his promise. Since wrapped up in that promise to Abraham is a blessing of the world, both Jews and Gentiles, it was necessary that the Messiah come and suffer and die to give to Abraham s heirs the covenant blessings. Lindbeck observes that the necessity in question, does not diminish God's utter freedom in sending the Son precisely because it is dependent on prior, on Old Testament, gratuity. Fully unconditional grace is not only uncaused; it is irrevocable. Individual and Corporate It is here argued that God s election is both individual and corporate. Corporate election as used here however, applies only to national Israel. There is no evidence that God has chosen any other nation, or group of people for corporate salvation. It must also be further clarified that corporate election does not mean that every member of the nation of Israel will be saved. But it does mean that the nation of Israel was elected to be God s son and as such was given the responsibility to be a light to the nations. It also means that Israel will be saved, albeit through Jesus Christ. Why was Israel corporately elected? Robert Saucy highlights four views of Israel s status; (1) that Israel s mission ended when she rejected Jesus; (2) that Israel will be saved and play a role in God s salvation for the world; (3) there is a present revelatory, as well as future role of Israel in bringing salvation to the world; and (4) that Israel presently functions as God's conduit of blessing to the world. Israel s present rejection is no indication that they are cast off forever. In Romans 11 the apostle Paul addressed the question as to whether or not Israel was castaway. He concludes that by no means were they castaway, but that their setting aside was to benefit the Gentiles. Paul wrote: I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. 12 Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be! (Rom 11:11-12). Although Israel as a nation is elected, not every person in the history of that nation will be saved, so it is appropriate to speak of individual election even when referring to Israel. For non-israelites, we can speak of election only as applied to individuals. Brian Abasciano rejects 6

7 that view and argues instead that individuals were elect, but only as members of the elect people. Even if such a case can be made for Israel, it becomes more problematic to apply this to Gentiles. In discussing election as Paul addressed it in Romans 9 11, Thomas Schreiner argues for both corporate and individual election. He writes: The recipients of God s electing work are often referred to in the singular in chap. 9, and the selection of a remnant implies that some individuals were chosen out of a larger group. That is true of Israel because of her special role in God s economy of salvation. When it comes to the church however, God individually chose persons to be saved. No one church denomination, organization, or any nation could claim that they corporately have been elected by God to salvation. Includes both Jews and Gentiles God s election of persons to be saved includes both Jews and Gentiles. Bruce Longenecker correctly observes that as regards to God s elect the question that is always present is whether or not the church has replaced ethnic Israel, or is ethnic Israel on a separate salvific path by way of her covenant election. Corporately, he elected the nation of Israel as his special representative on the earth. It is through that nation that we have the Messiah. And it is through that Anointed One that we received the atonement. As God did in the Old Testament when he elected certain persons for special activities, he has, from among the nation of Israel chosen those to be saved individually. God has also individually chosen from among the nations of the world persons to be saved. This election of them was before the foundation of the world; individual, and irrevocable. Schreiner argues that Romans 9-11 concerns the reality that most Israelites in his day were unsaved. He states that the original promise given to Israel (Romans 8) applies to those who put their faith in Jesus Christ. When Paul wrote to the believers in Rome his recipients were predominantly Gentiles. The Gentiles having received the gift of the Spirit indicates that the age of promise had arrived (cf. Rom 8:9-10). He wrote: The new covenant promise that God s law would be kept was being fulfilled in Gentile Christians (Rom 8:4; cf. Ezek 11:18-19; Jer 31:31-34). Believers in Jesus Christ are "sons of God" (huioi theou, Rom 8:14,19), God s children (tekna, Rom 8:16, 17, 21), and adopted (huiothesia, Rom 8:15, 23). They are God s elect (eklektoi, Rom 8:33) and heirs (klëronomoi, Rom 8:17) and are assured of future glory {doxa, Rom 8:17, 18, 21). Those who believe in Jesus Christ are foreknown, predestined, called, justified, and glorified (Rom 8:29-30). At the time when Paul wrote to the church at Rome, it would appear that the covenant promises God made to his elect, the Jews, was being fulfilled predominantly in Gentiles who put their faith in God. This raises the question as to whether or not God s election of the Jews was nullified by their rejection of his Son Jesus Christ. This according to Schreiner is the question Paul addresses in Romans Although Schreiner believes that the church is God s elect and is benefiting from the covenant promises made to Israel, he also sees a future fulfillment of these promises made to Israel. Since God s election is unequivocal and irrevocable he will in the future fulfill them to the people to whom he made it, that is, to Israel. Schreiner writes: We have compelling evidence that the issue in Paul s mind throughout Romans 9-11 is the salvation of Israel, and he affirms emphatically that God will fulfill his saving promises (Rom 9:6). Jeremy Cohen believes that God has set aside his election of Abraham s physical descendants; Israel, but with a caveat. He cites Isaiah 10:22-23 as evidence: Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved; for the Lord will execute his sentence upon the earth with rigor and dispatch" (9:27-28). He writes: Although 7

8 8 Paul's reference to this prophecy of Isaiah suggests that most of the Jews, labeled the children of Israel, would forfeit their elect status, some would be saved. This does not seem to comport with Paul s and so all Israel will be saved affirmation of Romans 11:26. We may quarrel about who constitute the all, here, but the context of Romans chapters 9 to 11 seems to be referring to the Jews, and that in great numbers. Conclusion God s election of us is unconditional, irrevocable, individual and corporate, and includes both Jews and Gentiles. B. J. Oropeza argues that a faithful remnant will be joined with Gentiles in God s plan of salvation at a future time. God s election is based on his freedom to choose, and not on man s ability to choose God. As uncomfortable as it may be for those who hold human freedom to be paramount, the weight of Scripture indicates that God sovereignly chooses those who he desires to save. He has chosen Israel as a nation to represent him to the world. Israel was rejected because of her disobedience, but not permanently. God s election of Israel stands, and at a future time all Israel shall be saved. This all does not mean every single individual who now considers himself or herself a Jew will be saved. Instead, God will save his elect (individual election) from among the nation of Israel who is his corporately elected people. Gentiles are the recipient of God s covenant promise made to his elect. We have been engrafted to use a Pauline phrase into God s elect family. So in effect God s elect includes both Jews and Gentiles. Israel has not been replaced by the church as some assert. Gary Derickson observes that supersessionism, also known as replacement theology, affirms that the church is now the center of God s redemptive program because it has replaced Israel in God s program and that there is no future for Israel in His plans. This view is here rejected based on the biblical evidence. Picirilli observes that God knows the future certainly because he first unconditionally foreordained it. This in effect makes foreknowledge and predestination synonymous and thus makes foreknowledge an active cause. If Picirilli s thus makes foreknowledge an active cause phrase means that God s election is based upon his foreknowledge of what we would do, then this must be rejected, for God sovereignly chose those whom he would save. The initiative is God s, and he is the sovereign one. If our choice could negate God s election, then that gives mankind more power in his own salvation than God. That seems logically inconsistent and cannot be supported by the facts. Michael Vanlaningham critiquing N. T. Wright s view that there is no future for national Israel observes: Wright is correct in drawing attention to an inconsistency if 11:25-27 says the Jews are saved because they are Jews. But he is wrong in overlooking the possibility that this mass salvation of all Israel could be accomplished totally through God s gracious election of an enormous number of individual Jews, no different in manner from the salvation of individual Gentiles. Likewise in discussing the application of Romans 11:25-26 H. Wayne House writes; However, all in verse 26 means that the entire nation of Israel will come to faith in Jesus at a time in the future. House also believes that Israel s salvation will come through their acceptance of Jesus Christ at a future time. I concur. While a large number of Jews will be saved, they must he saved by accepting the finished work of Christ on the cross. The apostle Peter correctly states that there is no other name [the name of Jesus] under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12). I have argued also that God s election is irrevocable. What he has promised to the nation of Israel will come to pass. Israel will be saved by putting her faith in Christ. The model of what

9 9 constitutes salvation is not carnal Israel s response. Rather, the model is Abraham s faithfulness. When God made promise to Abraham he swore by himself (Hebrews 6). When Israel turns to Christ by faith they will be saved. Gentiles have been deemed part of the elect not by virtue of works, but by our faith in Christ. The apostle Paul wrote: The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, all the nations will be blessed in you 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer (Gal 3:8-9). So Gentiles became part of God s elect by putting their faith in Jesus Christ, the seed of Abraham. Furthermore, God s election stands because God is faithful to his word. God s election of us is unconditional based on God s grace, love, and divine sovereignty. Mankind s rebellion against God in the Garden of Eden rendered every man guilty before God and worthy of death. That God has elected to save some should not expose him to the charge of unfairness. Rather, since we were all destined to die, his election of us to life is evidence of his love. Rather than assailing God for not living up to our notion of fairness, we should rather break forth in doxology; Praise God from whom all blessings flow.

10 10 Bibliography Abasciano, Brian J. Corporate Election in Romans 9: A Reply to Thomas Schreiner. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49, no. 2 (June 1, 2006): Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics, 4 vols., ed. G.W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, Boykin, John D, Sr. The Predestination Principle: A Bible Study. Evangelical Review of Theology 33, no. 3 (July 1, 2009): Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics. The Westminster Confession of Faith. Last modified February 1, Accessed April 28, 2014, documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html. Cohen, Jeremy. The Mystery of Israel's Salvation: Romans 11:25-26 in Patristic and Medieval Exegesis. Harvard Theological Review 98, no. 3 (July 1, 2005): Derickson, Gary W. The New Testament Church as a Mystery. Bibliotheca Sacra 166, no. 664 (October 1, 2009): Ellis, E Earle. "God's Sovereign Grace in Salvation and the Nature of man's Free Will." Southwestern Journal of Theology 44, no. 3 (June 1, 2002): Goodrick Edward W. and John R. Kohlenberger. The Strong Exhaustive Concordance. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, Hann, Robert R. Election, the Humanity of Jesus, and Possible Worlds. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29, no 3 (September 1986): House, H Wayne. The Future of National Israel. Bibliotheca Sacra 166, no 664 (October- December 2009): Klooster, F. H. Elect, Election. In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company, Lindbeck, George A. The Gospel's Uniqueness: Election and Untranslatability. Modern Theology 13, no 4 (October 1997): Longenecker, Bruce W. On Israel's God and God's Israel: Assessing Supersessionism in Paul. Journal of Theological Studies 58, no. 1 (April 1, 2007): Mangum, R Todd. Is there a Reformed way to get the Benefits of the Atonement to Those who Have Never Heard? Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 47, no. 1 (March 1, 2004): McDermott, Gerald R. The Emerging Divide in Evangelical Theology. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 56, no 2 (Jun 2013): Oropeza, B. J. Paul and Theodicy: Intertextual Thoughts on God's Justice and Faithfulness to Israel in Romans New Testament Studies 53, no.1 (Jan 2007): Picirilli, Robert E. Foreknowledge, Freedom, and the Future. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43, no. 2 (June 1, 2000): Presbyterian Heritage Publications. Scottish Confession of Faith. Last modified. Accessed April 28, ScotConf.htm. Saucy, Robert L. A Rationale for the Future of Israel. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 28, no. 4 (December 1, 1985): Schreiner, Thomas R. "Does Romans 9 Teach Individual Election Unto Salvation? Some Exegetical and Theological Reflections." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36, no. 1 (March 1, 1993):

11 Schreiner, Thomas R. Corporate and Individual Election in Romans 9: A Response to Brian Abasciano. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49, no 2 (June 2006): Shultz, Gary L. God's Purposes in the Atonement for the Nonelect. Bibliotheca Sacra 165, no 658 (April-June 2008): Vanlaningham, Michael G An Evaluation of N. T. Wright's View of Israel in Romans 11. Bibliotheca Sacra 170, no. 678 (April-June 2013): Wright, Nigel G. "Predestination and Perseverance in the Early Theology of Jürgen Moltmann." Evangelical Quarterly 83, no. 4 (October 1, 2011):