Sermon Tone Analysis

II.

THE TERMINOLOGY OF ELECTION

II.

THE TERMINOLOGY OF ELECTION

A proper understanding of a number of terms that are directly and indirectly related to election will help to formulate the concept more biblically.

Often the chief problem in understanding this doctrine is not including enough facets of it.

No human mind will ever harmonize sovereignty and free will, but ignoring or downplaying one or the other in the interests of a supposed harmony will solve nothing.

A. Background Terminology

Certain terms and concepts form the backdrop against which election must be viewed.

1. Omniscience.

This means that God has innate knowledge of all things actual and possible.

Thus God’s choices were made with the greatest knowledge possible.

2. Decree, design, drawing.

The decree of God is His plan for everything.

The decree contains many decrees.

Decreeing and foreordaining are synonymous theological concepts, but they obviously emphasize the sovereignty facet rather than the free will aspect.

The word “design” is less weighted toward sovereignty, while the word “drawing” seems almost neutral.

Scripture teaches clearly that God’s plan includes all things (), but it also reveals that the degree and directness of God’s relationship to specific events is varied.

Sometimes He directly ordains something (; ).

Almost always He works through the natural laws He has ordained and does not lift them to make exceptions even for believers ().

Sometimes He decides to allow people to give full expression to their sinful natures almost without restraint (, , ).

Sometimes He expects us simply to make choices on the basis of what seems right or what we desire to do ().

In the light of this variety, I personally think a word other than decree could better express all these aspects.

Design may be satisfactory.

Drawing may be too neutral, as if God did the initial work and then gave up control.

And yet design brings the word “architect” into view, which does serve as a helpful concept in this doctrine.

God is the Architect of a plan, which does include all things but includes them in a variety of relationships.

Architects’ plans are detailed.

So is God’s plan.

In the process of constructing a building, experts can predict that so many workers will be injured and in some cases that some will lose their lives.

Such grim statistics are included in the planning of the building, and yet we would not hold the architect responsible for the injuries and deaths (assuming proper safety measures).

Carelessness, indifference to rules, even violation of safety restrictions are usually the causes of accidents.

But whose fault are they?

The individuals who are careless or indifferent.

So God’s plan has been designed so that the responsibility for sin lies with the individual, even though God knowingly included sin in His plan.

3. Sovereign, free.

These synonymous words can only refer to God in the absolute sense.

He alone is sovereign and free.

Exactly how He exercises that sovereignty and freedom we know only through the revelation of His plan as discussed in the preceding paragraph.

Of course when He chooses to restrict Himself, that in no way makes Him less sovereign or free.

Sovereign means supreme, and God always was, is, and will be the Sovereign who freely chose the plan He did.

B. Direct Terminology

1. Election.

Election emphasizes God’s free choice of individuals to salvation (the election of Christ, Israel, or angels are not under consideration here).

When Paul uses the verb, he uses it in the middle voice, indicating that God’s choice was made freely and for His own purposes (; ).

Individual Thessalonians were chosen (); as many as were set (previous to their believing) in the group of those who would have eternal life did believe (); Paul was a chosen instrument (for salvation and service, ; ); and some individuals’ names were not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world (; ), which must mean some were.

Election is unconditional and individual.

God’s elect in this age have not been chosen from the spectacular people of this world (; ).

They were chosen before the foundation of the world (), and because they are elect they are to live godly lives (; ).

2. Predestination.

To predestine is to preplan a destiny.

The word proorizō means to mark off beforehand.

The death of Christ and its meaning were predestined by God (; ).

God’s elect are predestined to adoption (), to an inheritance (v.

11), and to ultimate conformity to Christ ().

Biblically, predestination is limited to the elect people and assures their present position and future destiny.

Theologically, the term has been used to include all things, that is, as a synonym for the total plan of God.

From this theological definition it is an easy step for some forms of Calvinism to use predestination in relation to the destiny of the nonelect.

Thus there arises a doctrine of double predestination.

However, this is a logical assumption, not based on biblical texts.

The Bible is clear that the elect are predestined, but it never suggests that there is a similar decree to elect some to damnation.

The Scriptures seem content to leave that matter as a mystery, and so should we.

3. Foreknowledge.

The word proginoskō is used (a) of prior, temporal knowledge (; ); (b) of God’s relation to Israel (); (c) of Christ’s sacrifice (; ); and (d) of God’s people today (; ).

The debate centers around the question of how much relationship exists in the word “foreknowledge.”

Does it mean merely that God foreknows in the sense of foreseeing without any relationship?

Or, a variation of this, does it mean He foresaw faith and not people?

Or, as Calvinism holds, does it mean that He related Himself to people before time in some way so that there is a causative connection that makes foreknow practically equivalent to predestine or foreordain?

Clearly people are foreknown, not their faith ().

Clearly too foreknowledge as mere perception is not the basis of election, for includes a decision on God’s part.

Election is in harmony (kata) with foreknowledge, and that foreknowledge included the procedure used in working out the choice.

Therefore, there is some relationship and/or decision inherent in the meaning of foreknow.

Certainly verse 20 includes those ideas or it would assure nothing about the sacrifice of Christ.

Likewise there is decisiveness and certainty in and .

An apocryphal use of the word also includes certainty: “And Thy judgments are in Thy foreknowledge” ().

To be sure, the word does not say “elect,” but neither can it be reduced to a neutral concept of perception only.

It does include decision that in turn has to involve an assurance that comes from certainty.

C. Opposite Terminology

By this I mean the ideas involved in retribution and preterition.

Retribution means deserved punishment, while preterition is the passing over of those not elected to salvation.

Both terms avoid the concept involved in double predestination or reprobation, which means foreordination to damnation.

None of these terms appear in the Scripture, though the idea is clearly taught in , ; ; and .

Therefore, the Scriptures do contain a doctrine of preterition, though there is not a decree to condemn in the same sense that there is a decree to elect.

Obviously the very idea of election has to include the idea of the greater number out of which they were chosen, and those who were not chosen were certainly passed by.

This in no sense implies that God delights in the destiny of the wicked, or that they are driven against their wills, or that the doctrine of election nullifies a “whosoever” Gospel, or that any individual can know he is not elect and thereby try to excuse himself for rejecting Christ.

All are accountable to God for their attitude toward Christ.

Ryrie, C. C. (1999).

Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (pp.

359–362).

Chicago, IL: Moody Press.