Unconditional Election

by Mike Ratliff

The Doctrine of Unconditional Election is not for sissies. What I mean by that is if we adhere to this doctrine then we had better be ready for those in unbelief to attack us with their broadsides and accusations. It seems that every Pelagian out there, whether full blown Pelagian or semi-Pelagian or Arminian, is convinced that Man is not dead in his or her trespasses and sins and is fully able to elect God or not. Of course, none of their arguments hold any water because they are derived either from man-centered philosophy or from Bible verses taken out of context (eisegesis). On the other hand, the Doctrines of Grace are all completely Biblical and are based entirely in Holy Scripture expositions done exegetically.

The Doctrines of Grace describe and teach what God has done for His people in Jesus Christ. While the Doctrine of Unconditional Election is important it is not the best place to start in trying to understand God’s good work in His people’s hearts and for their behalf in eternity. Why? It is completely contrary to Man’s natural way of thinking and understanding. However, it is vital that we do understand and grasp it. Why? This doctrine is “an important measuring rod for someone’s theology, since an acceptance or rejection of this doctrine reveals at once whether a person is biblically correct on such other doctrines as the nature and extent of sin, the bondage of the will, the full grace of God in salvation, and even the presentation of the gospel.”1

However, it is proper to teach the “U” from T.U.L.I.P. immediately after we have looked at Total Depravity or Total Inability, the “T” in our acronym. Why? Unless we understand the depth of our spiritual deadness we will never quite understand our desperate need for God’s divine election. “It follows…from what has been said that salvation is absolutely and solely of grace—that God is free, in consistency with the infinite perfections of his nature, to save none, few, many, or all, according to the sovereign good pleasure of his will. It also follows that salvation is not based on any merits in the creature, and that it depends on God, and not on men, who are, and who are not, to be made partakers of eternal life. God acts as a sovereign in saving some and passing by others who are left to the just recompense of their sins.”2

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad–in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call– she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. (Romans 9:6-18 ESV)

I listened to a sermon by Ergun Caner last year that he preached at Jerry Falwell’s church where he tried to deal with this passage. Caner is an Arminian and a declared enemy of the Doctrines of Grace. When he came to vv11-15, which state: “though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad–in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call– she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion,” he said, “God chose Jacob to be the Patriarch of God’s people because God saw into the future and knew that Jacob would do right while he knew that Esau would do wrong.” In other words, he was stating exactly the opposite of what this passage says. This passage says that God elected Jacob and did not elect Esau based on nothing they did or did not do since neither was born yet. This Arminian argument is a classic case of eisegesis.

Romans 9:6-18 is a difficult passage. Why? It not only deals with divine election, but also divine reprobation. Reprobation refers to God’s passing over of those who are not elected to salvation. Also, and this really steams those who hate the Doctrines of Grace, this passage says that it is right and just for God to choose some but not others. The Pelagian argument is that if we take this passage at face value we are dishonoring God. They say that this is not fair and God is always fair. Well, I am not going to tell God that His own Word contains lies about Him. God does not need our defense here. “First there is no sense arguing over the justice of God in electing some to salvation and passing over others if we are not convinced first of all that he does just that. If we do not believe this, we will not waste our time puzzling over it. Second, if we are convinced that God does elect some to salvation, as Paul is going to insist he does, then we will approach even the [God is just or right in all his actions] question differently. We will approach it in order to find understanding, rather than arrogantly trying to prove that God cannot do what the Bible clearly teaches he does. To seek understanding is one thing. God urges us to seek it. But to demand that God conform to our limited insights into what is just or right is another matter entirely.”3

This passage from Romans 9 contains three generations of God’s elect, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. There can be no argument against Abraham’s election. God called him. Abraham did not seek God. This is so obvious that Paul did not spend much time here. Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac. God made it clear to Abraham that Ishmael was not the son of promise, but Isaac was. Ishmael was not chosen. In v8 we see a contrast between natural children or children of the flesh and children of promise. God’s choice of Isaac involved supernatural intervention in the case of his conception. Abraham and Sarah were too old to have children, yet he was conceived and was born by God’s gracious hand. Ishmael was the fruit of Abraham’s natural sexual powers, but Isaac was the fruit of God working in his parents supernaturally.

Think of your own spiritual new birth. If your conception of it is that is the product of your own doing or decision then you are basing your faith on your own will power and actions. However, if you understand that you are a Christian because God saved you despite yourself then you have insight into what a miracle salvation is. Paul does a very good job of being blunt and succinct in telling us that God unconditionally elected Jacob while Esau was unconditionally passed over. Why? God did it this way that His purpose in election might stand. (v11)

“The vast majority of Christians who reject the Reformed view of predestination adopt what is sometimes called the prescient or foreknowledge (pre-science, prior knowledge) view of predestination. Briefly stated, this view teaches that from all eternity God knew how we would live. He knew in advance whether we would receive Christ or reject Christ. He knew our free choices before we ever made them. God’s choice of our eternal destiny then was made on the bases of what he know would choose. He chooses us because he knows in advance that we will choose him. The elect, then, are those who God knows will choose Christ freely.”4

This, of course, is exactly the Pelagian, Semi-Pelagian, and Arminain argument against the Doctrine of Unconditional Election. It is an attempt to interpret Romans 8:29,30 in such a way that supports their own doctrines of man electing God.

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. (Romans 8:29-30 ESV)

I once held the view as stated by R.C. Sproul above. When God shook me to my foundation and even further when I finally grasped the awesomeness of the Doctrines of Grace, I was shocked that I had been misinterpreting this passage and others from the moment I read them. My understanding and grasping of the Reformed view came as I surrendered to it. It was tough and took several weeks of study and prayer on my part and God working in my heart to give me understanding. It was through this struggle that I came to understand that the foreknowledge view of this passage is a denial of biblical doctrine while the Reformed view that we love and hold dear from the Doctrines of Grace is completely biblical and supported by very strict exegesis. On the other hand the foreknowledge view cannot be supported if the text is handled correctly.

What does the text say? It tells us that those whom God foreknew he predestined to be conformed to the image of His son… This seems to support the foreknowledge view. However, if we study this passage exegetically it does not. What do I mean? Lets start at the end. How many of those whom God glorifies are also justified? All of them are justified. How many of those justified are also called? All of them are called. How many of those called are also predestined? All of them are predestined. How many of those predestined are also foreknown by God? All of them are foreknown. Therefore, this passage is describing those whom God elects and their ultimate salvation and glorification. Therefore, we know that the calling here is talking about something that is succinct, real, and always produces what God intends. Therefore, we must understand that when we share the Gospel that that could not possibly be this calling because some are saved and some are not by our preaching and teaching. Therefore, this calling is God’s personal call to His Elect’s hearts and lines up with John 6:44.

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. (John 6:44 ESV)

When God draws His elect to be saved it is the drawing that Jesus speaks of in John 6:44.

Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:3-8 ESV)

Are you born of the Spirit? If so, then you are regenerate and you had nothing to do with it. We cannot control the Holy Spirit. He works as the wind blows. That means that our salvation is in God’s capable hands and He saves those whom He elected before the foundation of the world.

Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. (Ephesians 1:2-6 ESV)

Those in Christ are so because God chose them before the foundation of the world based totally according to the purpose of His will, to the praise of His glorious grace, with which He has blessed us in the Beloved. Amen!

SDG

1 James Montgomery Boice and Philip Graham Ryken, The Doctrines of Grace (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2002), 91

2 Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1963). 71

3 James Montgomery Boice and Philip Graham Ryken, The Doctrines of Grace (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2002), 92-93

4 R.C. Sproul, Chosen by God (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc, 1986), 129

Addendum:

Two great links – Thanks Carol!
This one is from Piper on the Will of God.
This one is a great article on foreknowledge.

Here is another one that has helped me a great deal.

Here is the one that God used to break my resistance completely.

57 thoughts on “Unconditional Election

  1. Mike,

    This is a great article. The point that I have been telling people about it the depravity angle. If man is so depraved then election has to be correct otherwise no one would ever be saved.
    Again, a great article.

    DT

    Like

  2. Mike,

    Great truth! God chose me for no reason but his mercy. If I believed he chose me by foreknowledge of seeing that I chose him , then it wouldn’t be because of his mercy. It would mean I did something, which would be boasting.

    Like

  3. A very timely and bold article, Mike. There’s no point in candy coating the truth, and there’s nothing to be gained by tiptoeing around God’s Word in order to avoid offense or in order to foster a false temporal peace built on compromise – quite the opposite actually, there’s much to lose.

    And with this in mind it would seem that there’s no shortage of vocal semi-Pelagian or full blown Pelagian lurkers hanging around on the Reformed blogs.

    Maybe the Lord draws these types of individuals toward the light in the same way he tends to draw argumentative sinners toward patient believers in order that they might come to the full knowledge of His truth and be converted.

    Like

  4. Excellent piece Mike! I have a co worker friend who hates the doctinres of grace, and I have tried to explain this to him, showing it to him in Scripture, and he still doesn’t see it. He states he believes God is sovereign, and man is depraved, but at the same time, we have free will. I am prayerfully considering putting together some kind of audio teaching for him. Please pray for him and for me as well. I praise God for His sovereign mercy and grace. Sola Gratia!!! Sola Scriptura!!!

    Like

  5. There seem to be very few if any conscious pelagians or semi-pelagians running around. The way some protestants throw these words around shows little understanding of their historical meaning. In fact, defined the way it often is these days, Augustine was a pelagian.

    After all, Augustine said “God no doubt wishes all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the Truth; but yet not so as to take away from them free will.”

    Like

  6. Thanks Coram Deo. I have already received some “input” about this article. However, I refuse to be drawn into useless arguing about it. I am puzzled by many who claim to be Reformed, but who decry this sort of article because they say it is divisive and we should avoid that. Well, I am not going to candy coat the truth to have peace with someone who robs God of HIs glory. Amen brother!

    Like

  7. Orthodox,

    You are right about the historical meaning of those terms and how most people don’t know what they are talking about when they use them. Peglagianism is heresy to the core. While Semi-Pelagianism and Arminism, if used in their historical context, are nearly as heretical as full-Pelaginaism. What we have today is Fundamentalism which borrows from both Historical Arminism and Calvinsim.

    Historical Arminism says that Jesus did not die for your and my sins. Instead He suffered for us so that we don’t have do. That is heretical. I doubt if there are many these days who call themselves Arminian would buy into that one.

    In Christ

    Mike Ratliff

    Like

  8. I am confused as to what you are saying in the reading Romans 8:29-30. You keep saying “all” were predestined, foreknown, etc. But, you wouldn’t say that all were glorified, right? And so, therefore, you must say that God didn’t foreknow those who end up in hell?

    Like

  9. Jon,

    The all that I am referring to are all of the elect. So, yes I am saying that all of the elect are positionally glorified. That is what awaits all in Christ. Your last statement is not true at all. The Doctrine of Unconditional Election also includes the Doctrine of Reprobation. God knows all and is Sovereign.

    In Christ

    Mike Ratliff

    Like

  10. Spurgeon’s devotional for today hit the nail on the head as for how God elects and saves without assaulting man’s will to do so.God’s foreknowledge,He knows the end from the beginning,is because He has foreordained it.He knows we will choose Him because He made us to do so.Right to the very circumstances and the very minute of it.Mike,I always thank God that His Son,Jesus,suffered so that I don’t have to,but that suffering is the suffering of God’s wrath both in the Great Tribulation and for all eternity.To God be all the glory for choosing one such as me.I am sure that it really puts the angels in awe of God for His choice!

    Like

  11. So everyone that doesn’t agree with you point by point, is automatically semi-pelagian? With all due respect, that is absurd.

    Like

  12. Kevin,

    I don’t believe I ever said that. There are obviously many other views that are not Reformed other than some form of Pelagianism. However, I suggest that you do a biblical analysis of your own view and see what you are really disagreeing with in the Reformed view. I contend that you will find that those who disagree with what Paul wrote in Romans 9 are suffering from unbelief at some level.

    In Christ

    Mike Ratliff

    Like

  13. Brother,
    I know that I had nothing to do with my salvation.
    None are seeking Him.
    I just have one question.

    Who is, “Whosoever will…”

    Like

  14. Mike,

    Again, with all due respect, I can assure you that I am not suffering from any level of unbelief. Jesus died for my sins and rose again. Why complicate the Gospel? By suggesting that someone who doesn’t agree with you perfectly is in some level of unbelief, you are working contrary to the simplicity of the Gospel.

    Like

  15. Kevin,

    No I am not working contrary to the simplicity of the Gospel. I am stating what scripture says. You say you are not suffering from unbelief. Well since you obviously reject God’s Sovereignty in our salvation then you are clearly stating that you are in unbelief because you are saying or implying that Man is somehow sovereign in salvation.

    I am Reformed and I firmly believe in God’s Sovereignty in all things including our salvation. However, when I present the Gospel I always do it simply as a General call to repent and believe. The rest is in God’s hands. However, we must never make the huge error of telling people they are Christians if all they have done some religious act and there is no evidence of God’s good work in their hearts, ie. Repentance.

    In Christ

    Mike Ratliff

    Like

  16. James 4:8-10 (KJV)
    8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.
    9 Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness.
    10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.
    I’ve read that we are “Created in His Image” (Gen 1:27); Since God obviously has free will, would not we have it also?
    Would you expound on this? Thanks!

    Like

  17. Hi Kathy,

    This is covered in the post prior to this one. Please read Total Inability. The Fall from Genesis 3 caused all of Adam’s descendents to be born spiritually dead and unable to respond to God. Again this is all covered in that post.

    In Christ

    Mike Ratliff

    Like

  18. I recently had some lively discussion with a few Papists. I found out that, though I am completely trusting in Christ alone for Salvation, I am still not part of the Body of Christ. How is this possible? Redefine the “Body of Christ” to mean “the Roman Catholic Church.” It follows nicely, then, that all who are not part of the RCC are outside the “body,” though they be Believers. Simple.

    “TULIP”ers do the same thing. Actually, Mike, you have done worse than this…

    “The Doctrine of Unconditional Election is not for sissies. What I mean by that is if we adhere to this doctrine then we had better be ready for those in unbelief to attack us with their broadsides and accusations.”

    Did you catch it? Those who do not adhere to or agree with the doctrine and oppose it as erroneous teaching are in UNBELIEF.

    Make the TULIP the GOSPEL and now all who reject TULIP reject the GOSPEL.
    Rome says I am out of the Body of Christ. Mike Ratliff says I am in Unbelief.

    I think I will stick with the Bible.

    God is Sovereign, Calvin was not.

    Jeff

    Like

  19. Jeff,

    You misunderstood what I said. I was describing the reaction of people who disagree with this doctrine not that all who do not believe it are not in Christ. I was a Christian for over 20 years before I believed it. God saves His people regardless of whether they believe all of what He shows us from His word or not.

    TULIP is not the Gospel, it describes it.

    In Christ

    Mike Ratliff

    Like

  20. So, Palmer entreated God on behalf of the young man.
    Then left the young man to do as Palmer had preached, or not.
    If we acknowledge that God does the actual saving, doesn’t this incident prove that God indeed might be entreated to do his work of salvation on a questioning individual?
    Would we not be limiting the Almighty, were we to say that He would not save someone who is not “elect”?
    What about His “free will”?
    Can it be stated with certainty that God Almighty would not, through the prayers and love of His children, change his mind about some “non-elect” person, and give that person salvation?

    Like

  21. Luke 13 :34 KJV
    34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!
    Does not the Lord here state his willingness to reach out to all, and they (the children) their unwillingness to respond?
    Thanks for all the work you are doing on this subject, friend.

    Like

  22. Kathy,

    No, this is speaking of Jesus lamenting the hardness of the hearts of those, who are dead in their trespasses and sins and are in full blown unbelief while believing they are God’s people.

    You must try to understand that God’s ways are not our ways. We don’t naturally understand them. To us it is totally unfair for man to be completely unable to repent and believe, but God still requires and commands us to do so. However, He gives us His grace and the ability to repent and believe in His timing. Does it still grieve God for there to be so many who had hardened their hearts against Him? Sure it does.

    I was one of those. I lived a reprobate life until I was 34 or so. God saved me in spite of myself. I did not seek Him. I did not want Him. He drew me to Himself and saved me. I had no choice. However, for 20 years or so after that I was convinced that I had made the decision to be saved. I was also a total failure at killing my sin, etc. I was powerless. Then in 2005 I was writing my third book and did some research for it into Theology. It was through that that I learned about Reformed Theology and Arminism.

    Before that I had never heard of Arminism. When I studied them I found that my own theology was four point Arminism and one point Calvinism. I then started about six weeks of study and prayer. It was through that that each of those points became Calvinist. The last one to fall was Irresistible Grace. I really struggled with the concept that I could be saved by God and not be required to “do something.” Well, God directed me to some books and articles about this and through that I finally surrendered.

    All of the scripture that we can come up with that seems to point to Man’s Free Will are easily refuted when they are put in context and placed in our exegetical framework. What appears to be our choice is always our moving within God’s Grace for it is only by His grace that we are able to do good.

    In Christ

    Mike Ratliff

    Like

  23. Mike, my testimony is similar to yours. I was — literally — in the middle of gross sin when the Lord saved me. He turned my life upside down. It was definitely a “Damascus Road” salvation experience. But for the next 8 years, I was taught that a Christian becomes a Christian when he makes a decision to accept Jesus. I was taught the whole free will thing. And I blindly accepted it.

    Then, exactly 2 years ago, the Lord opened my eyes. I had been studying a book that was loaned to me and as I was doing a critical analysis of the book, I had to do a lot of outside reading. The Lord led me to lots of articles on TULIP. That’s when I had to repent. I was grieved that I had pushed aside the truth of my own testimony.

    It is incredible to me that even though I told my testimony and fully believed that God sovereignly saved me, I still believed in “free will.” It seems impossible, but that’s the way it was. When God opened my eyes and showed me the truth from His Word, I was totally set free. No more confusion. 🙂

    The questions that Kathy has are good ones. Let us be ready with an explanation of our faith. Thanks for these teachings, Mike.

    Like

  24. Amen Carol! Yep, sounds pretty familiar. 🙂 You are right about Kathy’s questions and all of those today. We have to be ready to to share why we believe what we believe.

    In Christ

    Mike Ratliff

    Like

  25. Wow Mike, all I can say is what you had experianced is what we did too. This free will thing is so hard for people to get past. I know, like you I was there. 4 point Calvinist. We are so glad you studied all this out and the Lord opened your eyes to the truth. You have ‘worn the shoes’ so you do know what you are talking about. The process is such a struggle for us. Wonderful article………..looking forward to the next one. Hang in there, you are doing GREAT!!

    Like

  26. Mike, you might want to post these two links if you think they might be helpful. I thought of these when I read Kathy’s questions.

    This one is from Piper on the Will of God.

    This one is a great article on foreknowledge. This is the one that did it for me.

    Like

  27. Pingback: Spurgeon on Unconditional Election « Possessing the Treasure

  28. Nice job Mike. Today this kind of post is sure to draw the anger of many, not even so much because of what conclusion that you came to, but because you dared to come to a conclusion. We are not supposed to “know” the answer to these things you see, but you can easily imagine someone saying the same thing about the Trinity and Christ the God/Man, which are other things that we are certain about even though they have mystery to them.

    I always try to remember this JC Ryle quote, whenever I encounter pomo doubters who come across as being just as arrogant in insisting that I CAN NOT KNOW these things as they say I am for insisting that I CAN KNOW them:

    “we live in an age when men profess to dislike dogmas and creeds, and are filled with a morbid dislike to controversial theology. He who dares to say of one doctrine that ‘it is true,’ and of another that ‘it is false,’ must expect to be called narrow-minded and uncharitable, and to lose the praise of men … The danger is real, great, and unmistakable. Never was it so needful to say, ‘Be not carried about (with divers and strange doctrines)”
    — “Warnings to the churches” ,
    J.C. Ryle (a 19th century watchdog?)

    Like

  29. Jim,

    Thank you brother! I see we are of like mind and spirit here. 🙂 Great quote from J.C. Ryle – Thanks for that, but primarily I want to thank you for the encouragment my brother!

    In Christ

    Mike Ratliff

    Like

  30. Why is it so hard for them to understand that unconditional doesn’t mean ‘universal’? Unconditional just means that those who are elected are elected based on no merit in themselves.

    I’ve been listening to some GREAT audio from James White on this subject too. Why aren’t there more men like you and James and Ken Silva etc. in our churches!

    Like

  31. Paula,

    James White is very good as is Ken. I am humbled that you would include me in that group. You are right about the meaning of Unconditional. I am convinced that to many it is a knee jerk reaction to being told that God is Sovereign and they aren’t.

    In Christ

    Mike Ratliff

    Like

  32. Mike,
    In the psalms, David says that the Lord “knit together” his bones in his mother’s womb.
    So, God was the Creator of David, according to Scripture, and this was after the fall.
    The difficulty I am having with this 5-point theology, is not that I must have part in my Salvation (it is the “operation of God”: Colosians chap.2, vs 12).
    The part that concerns me is the idea that God would create people he intends to burn in Hell (the non-elect).
    It seems to me to be somewhat blasphemous toward the Lord’s character, and doesn’t seem to jive with scripture.
    Many of the Lord’s people have struggled with these ideas, and we will probably not put the arguement to rest, either. But I suppose it is good to discuss these things.

    Like

  33. Hi Kathy,

    Yes, I agree with you. To our natural way of thinking what you said sounds right. But carefully read this passage:

    For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return and Sarah shall have a son.” And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad–in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call– she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honored use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory– even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? (Rom 9:9-24)

    We are the clay. He is the potter. He can do with us as He wills and who are we to lay our value system on Him?

    In Christ

    Mike Ratliff

    Like

  34. That’s the very passage that I kept reading and rereading when my eyes were open to God’s election.The question,”Why does He still find fault?”is a question that only the non-elect would ask after all is said and done.But isn’t it also the very question that free-willers ask today?I know I did when I was in that camp!

    Like

  35. Earlier this week, I’ve tried to reason with another anti-discernment blog about predestination. They, as usual, thought this doctrine turned humans into robots. One guy brought forth the idea that Jesus himself was subjected to freewill/predestination too, otherwise what was the point of Jesus’ 40 days in the wilderness to be tempted by Satan? My arguement is that Jesus wasn’t subjected to predestination because He was God Himself and didn’t have the sinful nature of man (otherwise what was the point of the virgin birth.) But that didn’t go anywhere with them.

    Like

  36. Timothy,

    Yeah, I know what you mean. It’s like spitting into a bonfire. Only God can open the eyes of the spiritually blind. We must tell the truth in love, but it can be quite discouraging when it comes right back in our faces encased in the hatred and wrath of their master.

    In Christ

    Mike Ratliff

    Like

  37. They say that this is not fair and God is always fair. Well, I am not going to tell God that His own Word contains lies about Him. God does not need our defense here. “First there is no sense arguing over the justice of God in electing some to salvation and passing over others if we are not convinced first of all that he does just that.

    They woud be right in saying that God’s election is not fair. I don’t think they would want fair though. Fair would be that all are sent to Hell. That is what we all deserve.

    Philip

    Like

  38. Mike,

    I was just reading through your posts and noticed that I used Romans 9 in a post literally within 4 minutes of your reply to Kathy yesterday. I never get used to seeing the Spirit work!

    Praise the Lord!

    Like

  39. I don’t know where you’re located, however, I recently moved to the Chicago area (Hinsdale, IL) and am seeking a church that preached the doctrines of grace. Are you aware of any? My email address is dianejbrandt@hotmail.com. Thanks for any direction you might have to offer.
    Diane Brandt

    Like

  40. Mike,
    This post is challenging and I’m still praying about it. Can you explain Hebrews 6:4-6, the Arminian view of Apostasy, as it concerns The Doctrine of Unconditional Election. I find myself trying to rationalize, I do believe God is soveriegn and that we don’t exercise our free will in salvation, although I used to believe in free will, but this scripture seems to say that we have a free will in rejecting him after we’ve been saved. Thanks, I prayfully wait for your reply.

    Like

  41. “They woud be right in saying that God’s election is not fair. I don’t think they would want fair though. Fair would be that all are sent to Hell. That is what we all deserve.”

    Are we not limited by language here? It is just that we are all sent to Hell. What they are questioning is the moral correctness of the discrimination.

    I am still looking at, considering and praying over the ideologies, but this discrimination and casual dismissal of the unchosen as the unquestionable creation for whatever purpose doesn’t sit well with the image of a loving God I have come to find from my own reading of scripture.
    For years I have staved off the questions of an all loving God allowing some to suffer partially with points of free-will on the part of us. However, if God has chosen who will suffer and who will not, then this question goes unanswered, it seems, with all but a “it is His unquestionable will”.
    I personally fear that is not enough to satisfy my own moral convictions. Perhaps, and I say this with all the utmost respect, I am not one of the chosen.

    Like

Comments are closed.