from John MacArthur’s commentary on Ephesians
This does not speak to whether the converse is true -- i.e., whether there are those who are "called" or "drawn" who do not come to Christ. That must be found elsewhere. His definition of "drawn" to connote "irresistibility" seems flawed or overly relied upon and, most importantly, doesn't appear to be derived from Scripture or the context of the surrounding text. Basically, I think there's too much emphasis being put on this definition of drawn. From a quick word study of actual Scriptural usage of the term, it is clear that the term is used most commonly in its general sense. Actually letting Scripture inform Scripture, the same word "Helkuo" is used in John 12:32, for example, in this very context is used with respect to all men:***
The third kind of election is salvational, the kind of which Paul is speaking in our present text. “No one can come to Me,” Jesus said, “unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44). Helkuō (draws) carries the idea of an irresistible force and was used in ancient Greek literature of a desperately hungry man being drawn to food and of demonic forces being drawn to animals when they were not able to possess men. Salvage yards use giant electromagnets to lift and partially sort scrap metal. When the magnet is turned on, a tremendous magnetic force draws all the ferrous metals that are near it, but has no effect on other metals such as aluminum and brass. In a similar way, God’s elective will irresistibly draws to Himself those whom He has predetermined to love and forgive, while having no effect on those whom He has not.
Jn 12:32 "And I 2504, if 1437 I be lifted up 5312 from 1537 the earth 1093, will draw 1670 all 3956 [men] unto 4314 me 1683."
He clearly was lifted up. He does draw all men to Himself -- not all respond because "draw" doesn't mean the irresistible force he suggests it does.
This verse doesn't necessarily say that -- it says we were chosen "in Him." The non-Calvinist understanding is that being "in Him" and what that would mean was what was elected before creation. This doesn't necessarily relate to individual election.From all eternity, before the foundation of the world, and therefore completely apart from any merit or deserving that any person could have, God chose us in Him, “in Christ” (v. 3). By God’s sovereign election, those who are saved were placed in eternal union with Christ before creation even took place.
I have no problem with "mystery" when it's called for. But, these two positions are logically inconsistent and provide an un-necessary tension and reliance on "mystery" that would be easily resolved if they would just let go of their presuppositions. It's especially telling that he string-cites this one -- this is exactly the point where the debate exists and his failure to explain how these verses are exegeted does a dis-service to the debate.Although man’s will is not free in the sense that many people suppose, he does have a will, a will that Scripture clearly recognizes. Apart from God, man’s will is captive to sin. But he is nevertheless able to choose God because God has made that choice possible. Jesus said that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16) and that “everyone who lives and believes in Me shall never die” (11:26). The frequent commands to the unsaved to respond to the Lord (e.g., Josh. 24:15; Isa. 55:1; Matt. 3:1–2; 4:17; 11:28–30; John 5:40; 6:37; 7:37–39; Rev. 22:17) clearly indicate the responsibility of man to exercise his own will.
Yet the Bible is just as clear that no person receives Jesus Christ as Savior who has not been chosen by God (cf. Rom. 8:29; 9:11; 1 Thess. 1:3–4; 1 Pet. 1:2).
The non-Calvinist sees Rom. 8 and 9 to deal with Israel corporately or his wrath against those who purposefully chose not to follow him.
1 Thess. 1 uses the term "choice" could well refer to his "plan" for them as being examples as a church to the world (the task God chooses for his whole church and all believers) and does not suggest in any way that they were chosen for salvation, but for their service (as is true of all believers). He chose the church to glorify Him through their service and love. That could well be all this is suggesting.
1 Pet. 1 : As the verse says "elect according to the foreknowledge of God." It is his seeing who would be saved not his requiring it. Wesley says thus: The true predestination, or fore-appointment of God is: (1) He that believeth shall be saved from the guilt and power of sin. 2. He that endureth to the end shall be saved eternally. 3. They who receive the precious gift of faith, thereby become the sons of God; and, being sons, they shall receive the Spirit of holiness to walk as Christ also walked. Throughout every part of this appointment of God, promise and duty go hand in hand. All is free gift; and yet such is the gift, that the final issue depends on our future obedience to the heavenly call. But other predestination than this, either to life or death eternal, the scripture knows not of.
Each of these is dealing with Israel or the church (and their purposes) -- which are precisely the "objects' that the non-Calvinist would suggest are the subjects of God's eternal "choice."
John 6:37 All that the Father gives to me will come to me. The one who comes to me I will in no means cast out.Jesus gives both truths in one verse in the gospel of John: “All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out” (John 6:37).
This is true -- all that the Father gave to Jesus did come to Him -- the question is "who are those people"? Who "did" the Father give to Him? That answer is elsewhere in Scripture.... In John 17:6, Jesus is praying about his disciples and he says to His father "I have manifested your name to the men whom you have given to me out of the world." So, these are those who the Father had given to Him.
He says "they were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word." When he talks about these people (frequently), he's talking about people who were "ALREADY" the Lord's people. Now, Jesus did NOT believe that all the jewish people were God's people. (e.g., "you were of your Father, the devil -- you're not God's people, you're the devil's people.") Jesus does NOT indicate that God took some of the devil's people and gave them to Jesus. Before Jesus arrived, the faithful remnant was God's people. God took these and gave THEM to Jesus. They were already committed to God, and it is natural that they (the true remnant) would believe in the Messiah when he was announced -- those who were still alive in fact did, and Jesus is just stating that he already knew that they would.
Again, I have no problem with antimony where it is needed -- the problem here is that there is a good and reasonable interpretation of these texts that doesn't require these mysteries, though some do still remain. His translation of "chose" here is fine -- we have no problem with his choosing something before the foundations of the world -- the difference is "what" was chosen (the "object" and "nature" of the choice). We agree that believers and the church were chosen for His glory -- that doesn't require that they were chosen for salvation, but could mean that the purpose and plan with which those who would be saved would participate and the end he had in mind for whomever would believe was chosen. The "choosing" God does in the bible seems to always be related to a purpose. However, even that choice can be thwarted -- for instance, if a given believer (who is chosen to glorify God in his salvation) fails in measure to live according to the Spirit in everything he does, he doesn't glorify God in that measure. God saves us from the slavery of sin for a purpose (to live for His glory)-- I believe it is that purpose which is what is important to Him -- not who fulfills it (in most cases). This purpose is rarely debated; however, the Calvinist typically even sees this a bit differently as a result of their theology. The Calvinist usually believes that the main plan is to show how Holy He is in that He can make these choices and nothing can thwart them. The non-Calvinist believes that His purposes relate more to his desire to be glorified when people who are led by the Spirit reveal the love and holiness of Himself through their sanctified lives.God’s sovereign election and man’s exercise of responsibility in choosing Jesus Christ seem opposite and irreconcilable truths—and from our limited human perspective they are opposite and irreconcilable. That is why so many earnest, well–meaning Christians throughout the history of the church have floundered trying to reconcile them. Since the problem cannot be resolved by our finite minds, the result is always to compromise one truth in favor of the other or to weaken both by trying to take a position somewhere between them.
We should let the antimony remain, believing both truths completely and leaving the harmonizing of them to God.
Eklegō (chose) is here in the aorist tense and the middle voice, indicating God’s totally independent choice. Because the verb is reflexive it signifies that God not only chose by Himself but for Himself. His primary purpose in electing the church was the praise of His own glory (vv. 6, 12, 14). Believers were chosen for the Lord’s glory before they were chosen for their own good. The very reason for calling out believers into the church was that “the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places” (3:10).
I have no problem with that -- they were chosen for a particular purpose -- which was not individual salvation. Moreover, Paul makes it clear in Romans that even this "elect" group was defined by their belief and obedience in Him. There were non-Jews in "chosen Israel" and there were many Jews who were not "chosen." Even their chosen-ness was based on their response to His call. There is nothing to suggest He decided which individuals made up the faithful Remnant -- just that He chose what benefits would be provided and how they would be used that did make up the Remnant based on their faithfulness to Him.Israel was God’s elect, His “chosen one” (Isa. 45:4; cf. 65:9, 22). But she was told, “The Lord did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. but because the Lord loved you” (Deut. 7:7–8). God chose the Jews simply out of His sovereign love.
Again, they were chosen for a purpose -- the non-Calvinist believes in election of the church -- just not individual predetermined election without condition for salvation.God’s heavenly angels also are elect (1 Tim. 5:21), chosen by Him to glorify His name and to be His messengers. Christ Himself was elect (1 Pet. 2:6, KJV), and the apostles were elect (John 15:16). By the same sovereign plan and will the church is elect. God “has saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity” (2 Tim. 1:9).
There is much debate over the meaning of the term "tasso" here ("appointed"). Some scholars believe it means "were disposed," which would only mean that the Spirit moved so forcefully here that all who were going to believe went ahead and did so. In other words, there were no people here who left "on the edge" of belief. Either definition can be seen this way, but "appointed" in English does "imply" even without requiring that it was appointed previously at some point with specificity to who were "supposed" to believe. Another definition is often "ordained" which is similar to appointed, but neither terms are even translated by those scholars as "pre-appointed" or "pre-ordained" so scholarship recognizes there is just no indication that Luke had this concept particularly in mind when he wrote this.In Acts we are told, “And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed” (13:48).
This one sounds like a closer, but still could be referring to the members individually who would make up the church, collectively. Paul does have a strange use of the term, sometimes, but the overwhelming body of support suggests this could be imprecise or just ambiguous. Looking at it one way, though, there's nothing odd about Paul referring to those in the church (or to whom would be so) as the "chosen" if we already grant that the church is the "chosen" group. It doesn't require that the "chosen" were chosen by person and from eternity past.Paul said, “For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory” (2 Tim. 2:10). His heart’s desire was to reach the elect, the ones who were already chosen, in order that they might take hold of the faith already granted them in God’s sovereign decree.
This is just classic Pauline reference to the church. He just continues to emphasize (because of his past and Jewish critics) that this "church" and "gentile" thing was pre-ordained from the beginning. This was not a new plan but the fulfillment of the original one in all mankind who would believe. The Gentiles should rejoice, indeed, that God from the beginning planned that the church would be saved in this way.Paul gave thanks for the church because it was God’s elect. “We should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth” (2 Thess. 2:13).
I have no problem with mystery -- I think it's quite mysterious how God can know our choices but still ensure that we have them, but Scripture seems to teach that it is so. Only God can know how this works.In his book Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, J. I. Packer observes:
All Christians believe in divine sovereignty, but some are not aware that they do, and mistakenly imagine and insist that they reject it. What causes this odd state of affairs? The root cause is the same as in most cases of error in the Church—the intruding of rationalistic speculations, the passion for systematic consistency, a reluctance to recognize the existence of mystery and to let God be wiser than men, and a consequent subjecting of Scripture to the supposed demands of human logic. People see the Bible teaches man’s responsibility for his actions; they do not see (man, indeed, cannot see) how this is consistent with the sovereign Lordship of God over those actions. They are not content to let the two truths live side by side, as they do in the Scriptures, but jump to the conclusion that, in order to uphold the biblical truth of human responsibility, they are bound to reject the equally biblical and equally true doctrine of divine sovereignty, and to explain away the great number of texts that teach it. The desire to over–simplify the Bible by cutting out the mysteries is natural to our perverse minds, and it is not surprising that even godly men should fall victim to it. Hence this persistent and troublesome dispute. The irony of the situation, however, is that when we ask how the two sides pray, it becomes apparent that those who profess to deny God’s sovereignty really believe in it just as strongly as those who affirm it. ([Chicago: Inter–Varsity, 1961], pp. 16–17)
Because we cannot stand the tension of mystery, paradox, or antinomy, we are inclined to adjust what the Bible teaches so that it will fit our own systems of order and consistency. But that presumptuous approach is unfaithful to God’s Word and leads to confused doctrine and weakened living. It should be noted that other essential scriptural doctrines are also apparently paradoxical to our limited capacity. It is antinomous that Scripture itself the work of human authors, yet the very words of God; that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man; that salvation is forever, yet saints must remain obedient and persevere to the end; that the Christian’s life is lived in total commitment and discipline of self yet is all of Christ. Such inscrutable truths are an encouragement that the mind of God infinitely surpasses the mind of man and are a great proof of the divine authorship of Scripture. Humans writing a Bible on their own would have attempted to resolve such problems.
That sounds nice, but his position as it is explained more fully does deny any real choice -- it's not resolvable as mystery -- it's not even paradox, it's illogical.It is not that God’s sovereign election, or predestination, eliminates man’s choice in faith. Divine sovereignty and human response are integral and inseparable parts of salvation—though exactly how they operate together only the infinite mind of God knows.
Actually, it is the context of Romans 8 that serves the non-Calvinist -- the context makes it clear that it is the destiny of those who are in Christ which is what is predestined and not which people that will be.Nor is it, as many believe and teach, that God simply looks into the future to see which people are going to believe and then elects them to salvation. Taken out of context, Romans 8:29 is often used to support that view. But verse 28 makes it clear that those whom God foresees and predestines to salvation are those whom He has already “called according to His purpose.”
Now, we reach the main point -- this is the reason for the Calvinists presupposition and strict adherence to often awkward interpretations (though both sides need sometimes awkward interpretations, it seems). It's not about credit -- it's about what type of God we serve -- there is no "credit" in making a decision to accept Christ's Lordship, and if God can in His sovereignty create a world that ensures His plans are fulfilled while still providing freedom to make that choice, now that's a Sovereign God.Any teaching that diminishes the sovereign, electing love of God by giving more credit to men also diminishes God’s glory, thus striking a blow at the very purpose of salvation.
This can all be reconciled by just letting go of the Calvinist presuppositions. Tozer had no problem with it. He thought he had found a "middle ground," but it is the very ground most Orthodox non-Calvinists take today. The "modern Arminian" is usually more along this Tozer quote than with Arminius.We should be satisfied simply to declare with John Chadwick,
I sought the Lord,
And afterwards I knew
He moved my soul to seek Him,
Seeking me! It was not that I found,
O Savior true;
No, I was found by Thee.
The Object—The Elect
The object of election is us, not everyone, but only those whom God chose, the saints and “faithful in Christ Jesus” (v. 1). Those whom God elects are those whom He has declared holy before the foundation of the world and who have identified with His Son Jesus Christ by faith. Being a Christian is having been chosen by God to be His child and to inherit all things through and with Jesus Christ.
The Time—Eternity Past
God elected us before the foundation of the world. Before the creation, the Fall, the covenants, or the law, we were sovereignly predestined by God to be His. He designed the church, the Body of His Son, before the world began.
Because in God’s plan Christ was crucified for us “before the foundation of the world” (1 Pet. 1:20), we were designated for salvation by that same plan at that same time. It was then that our inheritance in God’s kingdom was determined (Matt. 25:34). We belonged to God before time began, and we will be His after time has long run its course. Our names as believers were “written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain” (Rev. 13:8; cf. 17:8).
Tozer wrote: "The attempt to answer these questions [the TULIP questions] has divided the Christian church neatly into two camps which have borne the names of two distinguished theologians, Jacobus Arminius and John Calvin. Most Christians are content to get into one camp or the other and deny either sovereignty to God or free will to man. It appears possible, however, to reconcile these two positions without doing violence to either, although the effort that follows may prove deficient to partisans of one camp or the other." *** Here is my view: God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, "What doest thou?" Man's will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.