Redeeming Theology Archives - Page 46 of 82

In a previous post we looked at the statement of Jesus in Matthew 20 that “many are called, but few are chosen.”

This post looks at the identical statement in Matthew 22:14, which also follows a parable from Jesus.

The Parable of the Wedding Feast in Matthew 22:1-14

This parable in Matthew 22:1-14 is sort of two parables in one.

In the first half of this parable (Matthew 22:1-10), a king prepared a wedding feast and invited many people to the feast. When the day of the feast arrived, the king sent out servants to remind those whom he had invited that the day had come. Such double invitations are not uncommon in honor-shame cultures, for they allow the invited guests time to look over the preparations for the feast and who else is invited so that they can decide whether or not they will attend.

In this case, all the guests decided to stay away, and provided their token excuses, which indicated their disapproval (Malina, Synoptic Gospels, 111). Also, many of them sized the servants of the king to beat them and kill them, which was a direct affront to his honor.

So the king sent out his servants again to find anybody he could who would attend his wedding feast. They gathered whomever they found, both good and bad, and brought them to participate in the joy of the king.

This first part of the parable is primarily about how Israel as God’s chosen people had been invited to participate in the party that accompanied the arrival of the Messiah. But when Jesus arrived, most of those in Israel wanted nothing to do with Jesus. So Jesus invited the sinners, tax-collectors, and prostitutes instead. The chief priests and Pharisees obviously did not like to hear this sort of message from Jesus and sought for ways to arrest and kill Him (cf. Matthew 21:45-56; 22:15).

The second half of the parable, which is almost a separate parable itself, is about a man who shows up at the feast without the proper wedding attire (Matthew 22:11-13). The king asks how the man got into the wedding without the proper clothing, and when the man is unable to provide an answer, the king has him thrown out of the wedding hall and into the darkness outside.

This seems strange to modern hearers, for what else could the king expect from people he had rounded up from the streets and back alleys? Why would a homeless man have proper wedding attire? The answer is that in such situations of the Mediterranean culture, the king would make sure to provide proper wedding clothes to all of his guests as they arrived (Malina, Synoptic Gospels, 111. Cf. also Stern, Jewish NT Commentary, 64, and Pilch, Cultural World of Jesus, 148-150).

So the king’s question to the improperly dressed man is not so much, “Why aren’t you wearing the right clothes?” but rather, “How did you get in here? If you had come in by the front gate, you would have been given proper clothing. The fact that you are wearing improper clothing indicates you came in by some other way.”

This is reminiscent of Jesus’ earlier statement that only thieves and robbers enter a sheepfold by coming over a wall (John 10:1). Everyone else comes in through the front gate. The implication is that this man who was in the feast without the proper clothes was a thief who climbed in over a wall. Most ironically, of course, is that there were likely many thieves in the wedding feast, but they had come in through the front door and so were given proper wedding attire.

For Many are Called, but Few are Chosen (Matthew 22:14)

Following the conclusion of this parable, Jesus once again makes the statement, “For many are called, but few are chosen” (Matt 22:14).

As with the previous usage of this summary conclusion in Matthew 20:16, Jesus is not saying anything one way or another about how God sovereignly chose some people to go to heaven while others go to hell.

In fact, though many read “hell” into Jesus’ statement in Matthew 22:13 about the outer darkness and the weeping and gnashing of teeth, this imagery has nothing to do with hell at all, but simply portrays the profound regret which is experienced by those who are outside the hall of the wedding feast. They are not inside, with the food, the light, and the dancing, but are in the darkness outside. The weeping and gnashing of teeth is a Middle Eastern way of expressing regret and shame. The bottom line, of course, is that there is nothing in Matthew 22:1-14 about Unconditional Election.

Many were invited to participate in the feast, but only those who showed up and came through the front door got to join in the celebration.

This sort of a statement would have been offensive to many Jews at the time, for they considered themselves to be God’s only chosen people.

Jesus is not denying their “chosenness,” but is saying that if they do not live up to the reason they were chosen by God, which is to serve others and be a blessing to the world, then God will simply choose others, such as the prostitutes, thieves, and cutpurses. And if it is argued that they are not worthy, that they are not clothed in righteousness, Jesus says, “Don’t worry. They’ll be given the proper attire as they enter into the wedding hall.”

Jesus is saying that while many people were called to participate in His Kingdom, only those who show up are “chosen” to join in the festivities (Cf. discussion in Klein, The New Chosen People, 67-69). But you have to come in the right way, which is through the front door, for only in this way will the guests be properly attired to live, serve, and function within God’s Kingdom (See Capon, Kingdom, Grace, Judgment, 464-465).

There is nothing here to portray either calling or election as some kind of irresistible decree that a person should repent and believe (Marston and Forster, God’s Strategy in Human History, 164).

Many of those who were invited (called) to the wedding resisted the invitation, and those who came were given the proper clothing so that they might be full participants in the wedding celebration of the Kingdom of God. To participate in the Kingdom, you must be wearing Kingdom clothes.

The condition of the wedding garment is given as solid interpretation [cf. Matthew 21:31, 21:43], but because he brings disobedience to the wedding, and does not have the conduct which corresponds to blessing, he cannot be a real participant. Election is fulfilled only in obedience. Hence we do not have here a static doctrine of election but a dynamic theology which is oriented to the right attitude of the elect. To receive gifts is of no avail if there is no readiness to obey. Thus the concept of election is set in living history. It demands responsibility and decision (Kittel, TDNT, II:186).

In summary then, when Jesus says in Matthew 22:14 that “many are called, but few are chosen,” He is not laying out the doctrine of Unconditional Election, but is saying that when God invites all to participate with Him in His rule and reign on earth, He does so without partiality or favoritism.

All are invited, and it does not matter who shows up first or last, all will be welcomed. Those who accept the invitation, however, must recognize that while they will be given blessings and benefits from the overabundance of God’s generosity, these blessings and benefits must be gained the right way (by entering through the front door, which is Jesus), and must be used in the service of others.

If you want to read more about Calvinism, check out other posts in this blog series: Words of Calvinism and the Word of God.

Affiliate Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Thank you for supporting my work in this way!

Was Jeremiah saved before He was born? (Jeremiah 1:4-5)

By Jeremy Myers

7 Comments

There are several texts throughout Scripture which seem to indicate that God has specifically chosen or elected certain individuals before they were ever born. One of these is Jeremiah 1:4-5, which says this:

Then the word of the Lord came to me saying,
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified you;
I ordained you a prophet to the nations” (Jeremiah 1:4-5)

Though this text does not use the words “choose” or “elect,” it is plain to see why it is a favorite verse for those who want to defend the Calvinistic understanding of Unconditional Election. Clearly, before Jeremiah was even born, God “knew” him, “sanctified” him, and “ordained” him.

Jeremiah 1:4-5 is not teaching Unconditional Election

Several things about this text, however, indicate that something else is being taught in this text than the Calvinistic doctrine of Unconditional Election. The first and most important thing to notice about this text is that even if God did elect or foreordain Jeremiah, it was not to eternal life, but rather, to be “a prophet to the nations.”

In other words, if election is being taught in Jeremiah 1:4-5, it follows the same theme of election we have seen in the other posts on election. Jeremiah’s election was not an election to receive eternal life, but an election to perform a specific service.

Once we recognize this, the rest of what God says to Jeremiah become clear. When God says that He “knew” Jeremiah before he was born, it means that God understood everything about Jeremiah. This is a text which teaches about the foreknowledge of God as being comprehensive and complete. God knew everything there was to know about Jeremiah, and on the basis of this foreknowledge, selected Jeremiah to be a prophet to the nations.

This is what the word “sanctified” means as well.

Though we often think of the word “sanctified” as a reference to the “second stage” of salvation, so that after a person is justified, they then become sanctified, we must remember that the most basic meaning of the word “sanctified” is “to set apart.” When believers who have been justified then go on to sanctification, they are being set apart from the world of sin so that they can better serve God.

So also with Jeremiah. It is not that he was becoming more holy before he was even born—that makes no sense. Instead, God had “set apart” Jeremiah by choosing him to be a prophet to the nations. He was a special man with a special message.

Finally, the context of Jeremiah 1:4-5 make it abundantly clear why God is saying these things to Jeremiah at the outset of his prophetic ministry.

After God says that He has known, set apart, and ordained Jeremiah to serve as a prophet, Jeremiah basically says, “But God, I am not a good speaker! I am too young!” (Jeremiah 1:6). God knew of Jeremiah’s doubts about his own ability to serve as a prophet, and so indicated to Jeremiah that God knew him better than Jeremiah knew himself (Marston and Forster, God’s Strategy in Human History, 232).

So while foreknowledge and election are certainly taught in Jeremiah 1:4-5, it is not an election to eternal life, but an election to service.

God, knowing what kind of man Jeremiah would be, set him apart from his mother’s womb, and ordained him to be a prophet to the nations.

If you want to read more about Calvinism, check out other posts in this blog series: Words of Calvinism and the Word of God.

Affiliate Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Thank you for supporting my work in this way!

God Loves it When you Argue with Him (Exodus 33:19)

By Jeremy Myers

8 Comments

When discussing Calvinism with Calvinists, there are two texts that are almost always brought up in defense of God’s right to do anything He wants with people, even if it means deciding from all eternity to send billions of them to everlasting punishment in hell. These texts are Exodus 33:19 and Romans 9:20. Romans 9:20 will be considered in more detail when we look at Romans 9:10-24, but both texts are quoted here:

I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion (Exodus 33:19).

But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” (Romans 9:20).

When quoted in the course of a discussion about Calvinism, these texts are intended to silence all opposition. Calvinists believe that their understanding of the biblical text is the only proper understanding, and if people disagree, it is because they don’t want to submit to God’s revelation of Himself in Scripture.

So when the Calvinist states what he believes the Bible teaches, and you disagree, he quotes Exodus 33:19 and Romans 9:20, implying that if you disagree with Calvinism, you disagree with God.

In other words, God has the right to do whatever He wants, and if He wants to elect some to eternal life while condemning others to eternal damnation, who are we to talk back to God?

The Calvinist is right: God is God and He can do what He likes. If God is as the Calvinist insists, then they are right: we mere humans cannot question God’s judgment or challenge His choices from eternity past to choose some for redemption and others for reprobation. For as God says in Exodus 33:19, He will be gracious to whomever He desires, and will show compassion to whomever He wants. And if this is the way God is, then, as Romans 9:20 says, who are we to argue?

Well, … I, for one, will argue.

There is a Difference between the Bible and our Understanding of the Bible

The problem, of course, is that when non-Calvinists disagree with Calvinism, they are not arguing against God; they are arguing against the Calvinistic understanding of God. The two are very different.

We must all be aware that there is a difference between what God is really like, and what we believe God is really like.

There is a difference between what the Scripture really says about God, and what we think the Scripture says about God.

No person (or system of theology) is 100% correct in their thinking about God or in their grasp of all the Bible teaches about God.

Like the Calvinist, the non-Calvinist also believes that his or her understanding of God is accurately derived from Scripture and what God has revealed about Himself on its pages and through Jesus Christ.

Therefore, the non-Calvinist has just as much right to say “Who are you, O man, to argue against God?” as does the Calvinist. And how much right is that? None at all.

The debate between Calvinism and non-Calvinism is not a debate about whether or not we believe what the Bible says, for we all believe it. No, the debate is about what it is exactly that the Bible says.

In such a debate, it is unhelpful for one side to claim that the other side doesn’t believe the Bible.

So what is God saying Exodus 33:19?

So what then is God saying about Himself in Exodus 33:19?

First, it is important to note that in the surrounding context, there is nothing anywhere about some sovereign decree of God regarding whom He has chosen from eternity past to redeem and reconcile to Himself in eternity future. People’s eternal destinies are not the subject of God’s statement in Exodus 33:19.

In the context, God has become frustrated with the sinful and rebellious ways of His people, Israel. While Moses is on Mount Sinai with God, the people have made for themselves a golden calf to worship (Exodus 32:1-6). This event sets off a minor debate between God and Moses about what God should do to the people of Israel in response to their idolatry.

Initially, God proposes that He will destroy all the people of Israel and start over with Moses (Exodus 32:9-10). But Moses disagrees and tells God that such an action will bring shame upon God’s name (Exodus 32:11-13). God agrees with what Moses says, and decides to not destroy the Israelites (Exodus 32:14).

Following this exchange, Moses returns the people of Israel, and rebukes them for their behavior (Exodus 32:15-29). They repent, and so Moses returns to speak with God and plead with Him to forgive the people (Exodus 32:30-32). God says He will forgive them, but that He will not go with them to the Promised Land because His holiness would consume them in their sin (Exodus 32:33–33:6).

Moses, however, continued to intercede with God for the people of Israel. He tells God that if God does not go with them to the Promised Land, then they should not go at all (Exodus 33:12-16). Finally, God agrees to go with the Israelites to the Promised Land, as Moses has requested (Exodus 33:17).

In response, Moses asks to see the glory of God, and when God’s glory passes in front of Moses, it is then that Moses hears God’s statement that He will be gracious to whom He wants and will show compassion upon whom He desires (Exodus 33:18-19).

Moses Argued with God!

It is extremely ironic that a verse which Calvinists use to tell people not to disagree with God is found in a context in which Moses is doing exactly that.

Furthermore, Moses is praised and blessed for doing so! Far from being a text which tells people not to talk back to God, Exodus 33:19 is a text which invites people to enter into genuine dialogue with God about His character, actions, and behavior.

Yes, God exerts His right to be gracious and compassionate to whom He wants, but He is not talking about determining people’s eternal destinies; He is talking His right to bestow blessings and favor upon certain people for certain reasons. In this case, God decided, as a result of His friendship with Moses, to bless Moses with a special revelation of Himself.

The whole context of these words, then, is not one of some despotic puppeteer, who predetermines everything and applies “might is right” principles. It is of a loving personal God, interacting with and answering the prayer of a person in faith-relationship with him, but reminding the person that God knows best how and to whom to distribute blessing (Marston and Forster, God’s Strategy in Human History, 60).

God is not a God who wants to rule with an iron fist and quell all dissent so that His people are mindless drones who do whatever He wants out of fear for the repercussions if they don’t.

Yes, God wants obedience, but He also loves it when His people engage Him in reasonable discussion and dialogue about His actions and decisions. Moses did this with God, and far from proving that Moses was a rebellious idolater who didn’t want God to be God, such intimate dialogue with God made Moses more of a friend to God.

So, far from being a God who does not want to dialogue with us about His plans and purposes, God is a God who loves to reason with us, debate with us, and even “argue” with us about how He is running the world and what decisions He is making. Exodus 33:19 does not teach us that we should not question God’s actions because “God is God and He can do what He wants.”

Far from it! Exodus 33:19 teaches exactly the opposite. It is stated at the end of a very long debate between God and Moses about God’s plans for the people of Israel. At the end of this discussion, God shows Moses that He has no desire to kill and destroy His people, for His character is centered on mercy and compassion.

God is not a deity who rules with an iron fist. He rules with mercy and compassion, and always takes into considering the input and needs of His people. This is the God revealed to Moses. This is the God revealed in Jesus. This is the God of the Bible.

If you want to read more about Calvinism, check out other posts in this blog series: Words of Calvinism and the Word of God.

Affiliate Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Thank you for supporting my work in this way!

Some Surprising Truths about God’s So-Called “Election” of Abram in Genesis 12:1-3

By Jeremy Myers

13 Comments

Though Genesis 12:1-3 does not contain the words “elect” or “chosen,” this passage is often cited as a defense of God’s Unconditional Election of some individuals for eternal life. In this text, God informs Abram that he will become the father of many nations so that through him, all people on earth might be blessed.

Genesis 12:1-3

Now the Lord had said to Abram: “Get out of your country, from your family and from your father’s house, to a land that I will show you. I will make you a great nation; I will bless you And make your name great; and you shall be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 12:1-3).

In referencing this texts, Calvinists often remind the reader that Terah, Abram’s father, was an idol-worshiper (Josh 24:2), and that if God had not unconditionally intervened in Abrams’ life, Abram would have been an idol-worshiper as well.

John Calvin on Genesis 12:1-3

In fact, Abram may have been an idol-worshipper when God called him. Here, for example, is what John Calvin wrote about Genesis 12:1-3:

This calling of Abram is a signal instance of the gratuitous mercy of God. Had Abram been beforehand with God by any merit of works? Had Abram come to him, or conciliated his favor? Nay, we must ever recall to mind, (which I have before adduced from the passage in Joshua,) that he was plunged into the filth of idolatry; and now God freely stretches forth his hand to bring back the wanderer. He deigns to open his sacred mouth, that he may show to one, deceived by Satan’s wiles, the way of salvation (Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, I:343).

God’s “choice” of Abraham in Genesis 18:17-19

In referencing Genesis 12:1-3, Calvinists often point to Genesis 18:17-19 as proof that Abraham was divinely chosen by God because. The NIV translation of Genesis 18:17-19 says this:

Then the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him” (Genesis 18:17-19, NIV).

Several things can be said about the Calvinistic interpretation of Genesis 12:1-3 and 18:17-19.

First, there is no specific reference to calling or election in these texts. Such theological concepts must be read into them. This is exactly what the NIV translators have done. Though the original Hebrew simply states that God has “known” Abraham, the NIV changes the word to “chosen.”

The NIV, following its usual theological bias, doesn’t even bother with a footnote to tell its unwary readers that it has altered “known” to “chosen” (Marston and Forster, God’s Strategy in Human History, 230).

The surrounding context of Genesis 18:18-19 reveals what it means for God to have “known” Abraham. It does not mean that from before the foundations of the world, God chose or elected Abraham. This idea is not found anywhere in the text. To the contrary, the context reveals that as a result of God calling Abram in Genesis 12, God and Abraham have become friends, so that now, in Genesis 18, God wants to consult with Abraham about what is going to happen to Sodom and Gomorrah.

The statement “I have known him” means that God has made Abraham His friend (cf. Amos 3:2; Hos 13:5; Isa 41:8; Jas 2:23).

No one, of course, would deny that God did choose Abraham, or that his friendship with Abraham was a result of his own free choice. But it is one thing to say that God’s “knowledge” of Abraham was a result of his “choice” of him; it is quite another thing to say that his knowledge of him was equivalent to his choice. It is the friendship itself, and not the choice prior to the friendship, that is the ground for God’s confiding in him (Marston and Forster, God’s Strategy in Human History, 231).

Nevertheless, despite the fact that Abram is not specifically said to be “elect” or “chosen,” the overall trajectory of the biblical account is clear: God did specifically call out Abram from all the people of the world.

Why Did God Call Abram?

Of course, notice carefully what Abram was called by God for.

Nowhere does the Bible ever say that Abram was called by God to receive eternal life. Quite to the contrary, the text explicitly says that Abram was called by God to be a blessing to the world (Genesis 12:2-3). So this is the second argument against the Calvinistic interpretation of Genesis 12:1-3. God did not “elect” Abram to give him eternal life; God elected Abram so he could serve God’s purpose of being a blessing to the world.

In support of this is the fact that Abram did not actually receive eternal life from God until many years after He was called by God to be a blessing. In the case of Abraham, his regeneration followed his election by many years (cf. Genesis 12:4; 16:16; 17:1).

God first spoke to Abram in Genesis 12, but it was not until Genesis 15 that Abram believed God. According to Paul in Romans 4:3, Abraham was justified when He believed God, which occurs in Genesis 15:6.

The so-called Unconditional Election of Abram in Genesis 15 did not immediately result in Abram receiving eternal life. This shows, even more interestingly, that Abram, as an unregenerate person, is able to hear God (Genesis 12:1-3; 13:14), see God (Genesis 12:7), respond to God (Genesis 12:4; 13:18), and teach others about God (Genesis 13:3-4).

And even though Abram made many mistakes before he was a believer, he made many of the exact same mistakes afterward (cf. Genesis 12:10-20 with 20:1-18). The entire record of Abraham’s life in Genesis disproves the Calvinistic system of theology in many ways.

There is one final point to take note of from Genesis 12. Some Calvinists argue that if God had not specially intervened in the life of Abram, Abram would have ended up as an idol worshipper, just like His father. But this is far from obvious in the text.

In fact, it is just as likely that God’s call of Abram was a response to Abram’s response to what he learned about God through general revelation. As we saw in the previous chapter about Total Depravity, the Bible teaches that God has revealed Himself to all people in numerous ways, such as through conscience and creation.

Furthermore, we saw that when people respond to this general revelation of God, God obligates Himself to provide them with further revelation. Maybe God’s special revelation of Himself to Abram is one such example in Scripture. This is speculation, of course, but so also is the Calvinist assertion that Abram knew nothing about God prior to God’s calling of him in Genesis 12.

Ultimately, the point of God’s calling of Abram in Genesis 12 and 15 has nothing whatsoever do with the election or predestination of some to receive eternal life.

Instead, God’s calling of Abram was so that he would be a blessing to the world.

God did call Abram. But it was not necessarily unconditional, nor did it have to do with Abram’s eternal life. The calling of Abram was a calling to service.

God selected Abram to be a blessing to the world.

If you want to read more about Calvinism, check out other posts in this blog series: Words of Calvinism and the Word of God.

Affiliate Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Thank you for supporting my work in this way!

Jesus is the Elect One

By Jeremy Myers

14 Comments

Did it ever occur to you that Jesus was unregenerate? He never had to be regenerated by God because He never lacked eternal life. He always had eternal life. In fact, Jesus is eternal life (John 1:4-5; 14:6; 1 John 5:11-12). Yet even though Jesus is eternal life, Jesus Himself was elected by God. Jesus was chosen. “A wide range of texts throughout the New Testament identifies Jesus as God’s Chosen or Appointed One” (Klein, The New Chosen People, 269).

Robert Shank overstates the case when he writes that “outside of Christ this is no election of any man” (Shank, Elect in the Son, 27). Nevertheless, it is safe to say that Jesus is the premier Elect One (Isa 42:1). Even when He hung dying on the cross, He was recognized by His enemies as being the chosen one of God (Luke 23:35).

Again, does this mean that Jesus was chosen by God to sovereignly receive the free gift of eternal life from God? Of course not! Yet Jesus was elected by God from all eternity. What for? As we saw in the case of Israel, God chose Jesus, not to be the recipient of regeneration, but to serve a purpose and fulfill a role in God’s plan of redemption.

Just as God’s election of Israel was an election to service, purpose, and vocation, so also, God’s election of Jesus was to service, purpose, and vocation.

Jesus was to be Israel’s righteous remnant, a light to the Gentiles, and God’s Suffering Servant (Isa 49:6-7; cf. Matt 12:18). “The Messiah, like the nation [of Israel], was chosen to do a task” (Marston and Forster, God’s Strategy in Human History, 147).

What task did Jesus accomplish as God’s Elect One?

According to Jesus Himself, He came:

to fulfill the law and prophets (Matt 5:17),
to reveal the Father (Matt 11:27),
to serve as a ransom for many (Matt 20:28),
to preach (Mark 1:38),
to call sinners to repentance (Mark 2:17),
to proclaim freedom for captives, give sight to the blind, and proclaim the year of God’s favor (Luke 4:18-19),
to preach the good news of the kingdom of God (Luke 4:43),
to save the world (John 3:17; Luke 19:10),
to give life (John 10:10, 28),
to do the will of the Father (John 6:38),
to bring judgment (John 9:39),
to share the words of the Father (John 17:8),
to testify to the truth (John 18:37).

Various New Testament authors confirm all of these, and additionally say that Jesus came

to destroy Satan’s power and works (Heb 2:14; 1 John 3:8),
to take away sin (1 John 3:5),
to taste death for everyone (Heb 2:9),
and to become a high priest (Heb 2:17).

This is a significant list, and they reveal that the election of Jesus as God’s Messiah was not an election to eternal life, but an election to service.

This fits which what we have already seen about God’s election of Israel. Just as it is best to understand the election of Israel as election to service, so also, the election of Jesus most naturally is understood as an election to service.

The first step in moving away from a rationalistic concept of predestination is taken when we begin to interpret this doctrine in terms of the election of Christ. No longer will predestination be … the arbitrary decision of an absolute sovereign power. The election of which we speak is that which has been revealed in Jesus Christ. The God who has chosen us we know and love as the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, his Chosen One (Hillman, “Scriptural Election: The Third Way,” Present Truth Magazine (Vol. 45), 17.)

If you want to read more about Calvinism, check out other posts in this blog series: Words of Calvinism and the Word of God.

Affiliate Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Thank you for supporting my work in this way!

What does “Many are called, but few are chosen” mean in Matthew 22:14?

The Parable of the Wedding Feast in Matthew 22:1-14

For Many are Called, but Few are Chosen (Matthew 22:14)

Was Jeremiah saved before He was born? (Jeremiah 1:4-5)

Jeremiah 1:4-5 is not teaching Unconditional Election

God Loves it When you Argue with Him (Exodus 33:19)

There is a Difference between the Bible and our Understanding of the Bible

So what is God saying Exodus 33:19?

Moses Argued with God!

Some Surprising Truths about God’s So-Called “Election” of Abram in Genesis 12:1-3

Genesis 12:1-3

John Calvin on Genesis 12:1-3

God’s “choice” of Abraham in Genesis 18:17-19

Why Did God Call Abram?

Jesus is the Elect One

What task did Jesus accomplish as God’s Elect One?

Theological Study Archives

Bible Study Archives

Advertise or Donate

Search (and you Shall Find)

Get Books by Jeremy Myers

Schedule Jeremy for an interview

Click here to Contact Me!