What I Believe

In my study of Scripture I cannot find the slightest reference to an election of God whereby one person is chosen to be saved and another is not. Such an arbitrary selection is totally out of character with a God of love and justice – certainly out of character with the God I know and love! There is no teaching that a man is saved because of God’s choice alone; there must also be the choice of the individual to meet God’s terms of salvation. It is the plan of God that is elected, chosen, foreknown, and predestined, not the individual choice of man to conform to that plan. The plan is the same for all alike, and everyone is invited, chosen, elected, foreknown, and predestined to salvation, without exception, on the sole basis of the individual’s choice and total conformity to the gospel, to the end of life; otherwise, one will be lost, and there is no exception, nor can there be an exception to this, the divine plan. Salvation is for all, even though all may not accept it.

God’s part in salvation for all men has been completed, and whoever meets His terms will be saved. The whole programme of salvation is simply that of becoming born-again, becoming a new creature in Christ Jesus. Jesus said, “I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greater in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:2,3). That word whosoever makes a mockery of election as defined in The Interpretation – and so does the phrase, Except ye be converted. That was not qualified by Jesus adding, “Except ye be converted, and provided you are elected…”

Paul writing, “If any man be in Christ” (no mention here, “providing he is elected”) “he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all thing are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation”  (2 Corinthians 5:17,18). The phrase that God “hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ” does not place limitations on that reconciliation to an elected few, otherwise the statement would have read, “And all things are of God, who hath reconciled the elected only to himself by Jesus Christ…”

Here are some Scripture verses that deal a death-blow to this business of election as defined in The Interpretation. “Whosoever believeth in him” (that is, Jesus) “should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:15-18). That word whosoever suggests freedom of choice, which is backed up strongly by the alternatives given (i.e. “He that believes…is not condemned…he that believeth not is condemned…”). There is no suggestion, not even a hint, of election there, with salvation only for a chosen few. In no way can we make whosoever spell out the word elected!

Paul writing about “God our Saviour” speaks of Him as One “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all to be testified in due time” (1 Timothy 2:4-6). Again, no hint of the restrictions imposed by election as defined in The Interpretation – “Who will have all men to be saved” (not that all will be saved because not all will choose to accept Christ – they believe not and are condemned, as John wrote); “Who gave himself a ransom for all” (not a selected few, elected before the world began, so that those who are un-elected have no hope). All means all! If it were not so, verse 6 would read, “Who gave himself a ransom for the elect” – or – “Who gave himself a ransom for a chosen few.”

Peter writing about the Lord, that He is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9) really makes a nonsense of election as defined in The Interpretation – if God is not willing that any should perish, even though some will by their own choosing, then it is obvious that He is willing, in the next phrase of this verse, that all should come to repentance. If He has elected only so many to be saved, then He cannot be willing for all to come to repentance. Either the Bible is wrong or our definition of election is wrong – the Bible is definitely not wrong, so we can draw our own conclusions!

The meaning of the word “election” is simply “selection” or “choice”. God purposes to save all who conform to His plan of salvation – and this is His choice or election in the matter. By grace, men who conform will become the elect and be saved, while those who do not will be damned. The choice was first on God’s part; and it must be accepted by men for them to receive the benefits and become a part of the elect or chosen ones of God. Men must make their calling and election sure, as stated in 2 Peter 1:10.  If election, as defined in The Interpretation is true, man has no say or choice in the matter – it was all fixed before time began – then why does the Bible exhort man to make his calling and election sure if it is out of his hands? If God has made it sure, what has man got to do with it? The definition in The Interpretation causes the Bible to contradict itself!

In writing to the Church at Rome, Paul speaks about “the word of faith which we preach” – this is the message preached by himself and his companions, and places no restrictions on it as far as election is concerned. Indeed, if we accept the definition of election as in The Interpretation, this passage in Romans is not only false teaching, but the hearers of this message are being swindled, duped, conned…strong language? I think not! In Romans 10:9-14,17, Paul is setting out in some detail “the word of faith, which we preach” (v.8) and it is, “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?…So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”

This passage raises a number of questions if we accept the definition of election as detailed in The Interpretation. If we confess and believe we shall be saved, this is the message preached, but how can such a message be preached to all if it is only a chosen few, the elect, who can be saved? It is raising false hopes. A loving God becomes a cruel God! Whosoever believes, no difference between any, the Lord is rich unto all who call on Him; but this is not true if we accept the definition of election in The Interpretation. This is a lie! How can Paul write, “whosoever believeth” or that the Lord is “rich unto all that call upon him”, if these privileges are for only the elect, the chosen few? The responsibility of preaching this message is placed upon preachers, so that all can hear about Jesus and His salvation blessing, because faith comes by hearing; and hearing by the Word of God from which the preacher is preaching (or should be!); but the preacher is holding out a false hope. How can he preach freely to all if the message is really only for a chosen few, the elect? It is unfair and unkind, and totally unscriptural, to say he must preach faithfully because he is not to know who is elect and who is not. What an insult to the love and justice of God and the sacrifice of His Son for all mankind!

 Indeed, if we are to believe that God has elected to save only some and condemn the rest, and this was all planned before time began, then this Bible verse is a barefaced lie!  “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”  What can be plainer or simpler than that? If we are to accept the verse as true – and indeed we must, or the whole of Scripture becomes untrustworthy – then we must reject the definition of election as detailed in The Interpretation. Whosoever means whosoever, not chosen few or elected. Let us not read into Scripture what is not there!

Those who accept and teach the definition of election detailed in The Interpretation often quote another passage in Romans which appears to contradict the one studied above in Romans 10:9-14,17. But, does it contradict? We shall see! The passage in question is Romans 8:28-34. “We know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.”

This passage does not contradict the previous study from Romans. It is God’s plan of salvation that He has foreknown and predestinated, and not the individual conformity of free wills to the plan. He has called all men (and women, of course!) and all are free to accept or reject the call. (“For God so loved the world” – not the trees and flowers, hills and mountains, but people is meant here by the word “world” – and note, too, that it does not say, “For God so loved a chosen few, only the elect” but the “world”, all people everywhere) “that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). At the risk of being repetitive – although it cannot be repeated enough – that word “whosoever” suggests freedom of choice, no one excluded by God, definitely not a selected few.

 As we briefly discussed earlier, Paul, referring to God our Saviour, “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4), raises the question, why doesn’t this verse read, “Who will have a chosen few, the elect, to be saved”? Because the definition of election as detailed in The Interpretation is wrong!! Again, Peter, referring to the Lord, who is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9), although acknowledging that not all men will come; man is free to accept or reject; one cannot escape the fact that this verse, whilst confirming freewill in man, at the same time denies election, a chosen few. How can the Lord be willing for all to come to repentance if He has elected only a few to be blessed that way? If it were so, Peter would have been writing a lie!

Man is free to accept or reject God’s offer of salvation in Christ. All who do accept, He has foreknown and predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son that His Son might be the first-born among many brethren. Those who reject the plan, He has foreknown and predestinated to be consigned to eternal hell as an everlasting monument of His wrath on rebels. This is the sum of foreknowledge and predestination. To put any other interpretation on it is detrimental to the character of God. “Whom he (God) did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified” (Romans 8:30). God has foreordained, determined, and predestinated that all men be called to salvation, but that only the ones who accept become genuine called ones to be justified and glorified. None are glorified, but those who, according to His purpose, meet the terms of the gospel. Who they will be is left to the individual. All things depend upon meeting the conditions of the gospel. All men (and women!) are called to become God’s elect or chosen ones, and can be if they will choose God.

This is not in conflict with the sovereignty of God, nor does it infringe upon that sovereignty. God is only God because He is supreme; He is absolute sovereign in His world. All is working according to His plan. Nothing takes God by surprise. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to accept that man’s free will is according to the sovereign will of God. If God chooses to give man a limited measure of free will within His divine plan, who is man to try and twist this revelation of Scripture, and deny God’s right to grant such freedom? Such denial infringes more on God’s sovereignty than acceptance of the fact – even though it may conflict with cherished ideas of election! “Many be called, but few chosen” (Matthew 20:16). All are called to salvation, but few will be finally saved. This is not because God has only chosen a few, the elect, but because many will reject the gift of salvation. “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” (John 1:12). “Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (John 6:37). The restriction of election, as defined in The Interpretation, is not imposed on these verses, the second of which is a promise of Jesus Himself. If Scripture does not impose it, what right has man to impose it?

We frequently read in literature written by exponents of this  doctrine that election has often been rejected, even by Christians, sometimes because it has been wrongly or coldly presented, sometimes because it has been misunderstood, and frequently because of the pride of man. Before moving on to the next section, What Others Believe, I want to make it quite clear that I do not reject the doctrine of election; what I reject is the interpretation of that doctrine as outlined in The Interpretation. As aforementioned, having approached the subject with an open mind, searching the Scriptures like the Bereans, I do not believe I have misunderstood the teaching given; my rejection is certainly not based on pride! This only leaves the possibility of the subject being presented wrongly or coldly, although I do not hold out much hope of this when immediately following the quotation given above, and in answer to the question, “What does the Bible teach?” the first Scripture given is John 15:16, “You did not choose me, but I chose you…” This is not election to salvation but election to office, in this case to Christ’s choice of men to become His disciples – the original twelve. So this cannot be quoted as a “proof” text for election as defined in The Interpretation. Yet, often it is!

Before moving to the third and final article there is one more very important point to establish. When I said in the Introduction in the first article that I had been greatly troubled in my spirit over the teaching emanating from some of our evangelical churches these days, and at one time from one Baptist church in particular, making it necessary for me to prayerfully and systematically study the Scriptures for myself, the results of my studies, set out in this section, What I Believe, were arrived at and written down before the resources were made available to me which form the basis of the next article. In other words, the contents of What Others Believe have in no way influenced my studies; what they have done, however, is confirm beyond doubt that I am not alone in what I believe concerning election and the freewill of man. That, in fact, men far more eminently qualified than me to expound on Scripture, and on the doctrine of election and freewill in particular, the majority of whom are Baptists, have also confirmed my earlier statement as being correct – that the teaching emanating from some of our evangelical churches these days on election and freewill is not “standard” Baptist doctrine – nor many other “main-stream” Christian denominations, I suspect!

It is proposed to present What Others Believe with the minimum of personal comments. However, where comments are made, they are necessary only to clarify why some of the quotations are included in the article.