In Six Days

A Brief Case For Young Earth Creation

The question of How God created the world is often debated amongst Christians. To be sure, the most important issue at stake in this whole debate is Who created. Whether or not we have an unbiblical view of How the Earth was created is peripheral to the question of Who did the creating. So, may we enter into this dialogue with an understanding that God did in fact create everything, and let us remember that is ultimately what is most important.

As a matter of introductory into this discussion I'd like to first make a few remarks as a way of prefeace. I do not believe that God is more powerful for creating in six days as opposed to six billion years. Obviously my argument would be stifiled by the thought of God creating in six seconds. So, I am not concerned with what is more powerful. Also, I am not concerned with Young Earth. Although that is the view that I will advocate, I do not do so for the sake of being Young Earth. I do so because I believe there are major theological implications at stake. I only intend to briefly outline some of these thoughts as well as provide opposing viewpoints.


Naturalistic Evolution

Naturalistic evolution is the explanation of the origin of the universe through the course of nature and not by God. According to the theory the earth came to be the way we see it now over the course of many millions of years, the processes of mutation and natural selection were the factors that created every species of life that we see in the world today, from the simplest bacteria to humans and everything in between. The age of the earth allows for multiple mutations and adaptations to occur in order to change species into one that is more complex. “I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings, ” wrote Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species.

One of the biggest forms of “evidence” for evolution is said to be found in the fossil record. Carl Sagan agreed by saying, “Evolution is a fact, amply demonstrated by the fossil record.” In order for a fossil to occur there has to be a rapid burial of a living creature. After this occurs, the chemicals of the creature will begin to undergo a series of changes. As the creature decays, water infused with minerals passes through it, replacing the chemicals in the shell with rock-like minerals. The evolutionists believe that this process must also include millions of years of slow decay to occur, but this is not the case. A rock hard miner’s hat was found in a mine in Tasmania, Australia. The hat was permeated with mineralised water in its burial site. The minerals replaced the materials of the hat showing that millions of years are not a factor of fossilization after all (answers in genesis).

The Bible gives an account of a global flood that destroyed all life on earth. It also says that the “fountains of the deep” were broken up. This would have meant that catastrophic events were occurring along side of the flood. Considering that volcanic rocks are interspersed between the fossil layers in the rock record, it makes sense that volcanoes were erupting underneath the oceans which would have shifted the earth rapidly, and mineralise the water. Both of which are needed for fossilization. It is also interesting to note that 95% of all fossils that have been found are marine invertebrates. Obviously, at a time when the earth was being transformed by oceanic volcanoes, marine life would not be able to escape the wrath of these cataclysmic events. The Flood account helps prove that the Earth is not as old as some scientists say. Another recent discovery in Montana has added some more heat to the issue of the earth’s age.

A group of paleontologists, led by Mary Schweitzer, discovered a T. rex thighbone in a sandstone formation of Montana. During the removal of the bone, the researchers were forced to break it open in order to extract it via helicopter. Once they broke open the bone they discovered soft tissue and elastic blood vessels within it. The dinosaurs, which are considered some of the most ancient tetra pods of the earth, are seen as living around 70 million years ago, and with this new discovery of “fresh” tissue, which supports the creationist view of young age, the evolutionist’s theory is being questioned due to the newly found hard “soft” evidence. When Mary Schweitzer discovered the tissue she said, “The bones are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?” Her statement was both interesting and sad. Instead of questioning the new evidence she should be questioning the presupposed age of the bone. Because evolution is a theory of the earth’s origins that takes God out of the equation, the evolutionists will never see God’s hand in science until they actually start looking for it.


Theistic Evolution

Theistic evolution garners all of the factors of Naturalistic Evolution and adds God into the mix. Basically, God created the evolutionary process. Theistic evolution is the proposition that God is in charge of the biological process called evolution. God directs and guides the unfolding of life forms over millions of years. Theistic evolution leads to major compromising of the fundamental beliefs of the Christian faith.

Many creationists put theistic evolution into question since it denies some fundamental beliefs. The first problem is that evolution places man at the end of the whole overall process, contradicting Mark 10:6 which says, “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.” According to this passage man was made at the beginning of creation. If evolution were to have occurred then man would have been made near the end in the overall scheme of the evolutionary process. This is a problem.

Another problematic theory, though not necessarily associated with theistic evolution is known as The Day-Age Theory. This theory teaches that each day as recorded in the creation account is not literal days, but is actually time periods of possibly millions of years. Exodus 20:11 says, “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is…” According to this verse the creation process was six literal days and not a period of millions of years. This has huge implications for the Sabbath, which was the linchpin of Judaic Law. Jew's were to cease from all working activities and rest, just as God had done with creation. Now, what kind of idea would God be presenting to the Jews if he in fact created in billions of years. The concept of ceasing work on the seventh day would have no real meaning, and would certainly not be applicable. However, each day in Genesis is given a number to represent it and at each day's pass the phrase "and there was evening, and there was morning" was used. Such dileniations are represenative of literal days. Day-Agers would argue that each day can simply represent a time period in which God created. However, plants were created on the third day, and the sun was created on the fourth. If these days are to be understood as millions of years, then plants would have no chance of survival.

Again there is another Biblical teaching that the theistic evolutionists deny. This one is concerning the Flood. The question is not whether it occurred or not, but rather it is a question of whether it was a global or local flood. The Bible tells us that “the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.” But according to the theistic evolutionists, this is only referring to the life that existed at that time. Since man had not populated much of the world then, God only needed to destroy them and not the whole earth. This belief contradicts Psalm 104:5a, 6, &8 which says, “You who laid the foundations of the earth, You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains.” When God decided to destroy the Earth he did not mean solely the people around at that time, he meant the whole thing. The theistic evolutionists would attempt to counter with “where did the water go?” Psalm 104:7 gives an answer by saying, “At your rebuke they (the water) fled; At the voice of Your thunder they hastened away.” God put everything in its place. Since the world was changing form during the Flood. Larger mountains and deeper sea basins would have been created, giving a perfect physical explanation for the location of Noah’s water.

Another critique can be seen in Romans 5:12 which says, "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned." Evolution is simply an unbiblical concept because it demands death in order to explain the fossil records and bring about the vast mutations that life has experienced. Clearly, when Adam transgressed against God, he brought death. Without sin, there is no death. Therefore, before Adam there was no death, and consequentially no evolution.

Biblical Christianity

The basis for the origin of life in Christianity is found in the Bible. In the first chapter of Genesis it is recorded that God created all of creation within a span of six literal days, and that man was made in his image in a distinct way from the rest of creation. Man was made out of the dust of the ground (Gen 2:7), and not from an evolutionary chain. To the evolutionist this is impossible because they believe there needs to be millions of years to form stratification levels of rock. As seen with Mt. St. Helens, six hundred feet of strata were formed during a three-week period, disproving that only millions of years can form such layers. The event of Mt. St. Helens helps prove the Global Flood as recorded in the Bible. Demonstrating that even one small catastrophe in the face of a worldwide disaster can create canyons and stratified rock layers.

The creation account cannot be simply an allegorical story for how God really created the world. Paul warned against people that would formulate false sciences in 1 Tim 6:20 saying, “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.” We as Christians cannot compromise scripture to fit-in with the crowd. 1 Peter 2:9 says we are a “peculiar people,” and we should not attempt to find middle ground on this subject.

For Further Study

www.aig.org

What The Bible Says About God

God has eternally existed as three persons within one being. The persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct from one another in their relation and function (Mt 3:16-17; 1 Pet 1:1-2; Tit 3:4-6), yet they remain ontologically one in their essence, nature, and substance. The three persons of the Godhead are unified in all their attributes and are co-equal with each other. The Father is God (Gal 1:1; Eph 5:20), the Son is God; being the exact imprint of His nature (Heb 1:3; Jn 1:1,14; Col 2:9; Phil 2:6), and the Holy Spirit is God for he is eternal and omniscient (Acts 5:3-4; Heb 9:14; 1 Cor 2:10-11). There exists eternally only one God and none will come after him (Deut 6:4; Is 43:10, 44:6-8). Therefore the three persons of the Trinity have eternally existed as one God.

God is unchanging in his nature throughout all eternity (Ps 90:2, 102:24-27). His gifts, purposes and plans are also not subsequent to change, but stand true (Ps 33:11; Heb 6:17; Jas 1:17; Ro 11:29). God is outside of time (2 Pet 3:8), and does not experience a succession of moments. Therefore, He does not need anything, nor does he change, grow, or mature (Mal 3:6; Acts 17:24-25). He is the Great “I Am” (“YHWH” Ex 3:14; John 8:58); the uncaused, self-existent, self-sufficient and immutable God.

God is a holy and perfect being who is completely unlike His creation (Ps 18:30; Mt 5:48). He cannot sin (Heb 6:18), since it would be contrary to His holy character. God’s vast holiness demonstrates his infinite worth and glory, which He jealously desires to be recognized for Him alone (Ex 20:4-6; Deut 4:24, 5:9; Is 48:11). The wrath of God is kindled against those who act contrary to His ways and do not acknowledge Him as God (Hab 1:13; Ro 1:18). This wrath is only satisfied through Christ’s atonement since God’s infinite holiness demands justice for sin (Heb 9:11-14; Ro 3:25-26; Is 30:18). The atonement wrought in Christ is the ultimate demonstration of God’s love (Ro 5:8; 1 John 4:9-10), which he wisely determined to do because he embodies love (1 John 4:16). He is wrathful and just towards sin, yet gracious, merciful, and forgiving (Ex 34:6-7; Ps 145:8).

God is the Almighty One (Ex 6:3 “El Shaddai”), able to sovereignty accomplish all of His purposes without anything hindering Him in any capacity since He is the Creator of all things (Is 46:10-11; Dan 4:35; Eph 1:11, Job 42:1; John 1:3). God is an ever-present Spirit; unable to be divided into parts spatially or seen with human eyes (Ex 33:20; Ps 139:7-8; Jer 23:23-24; John 4:24; John 1:18; 1 Tim 6:16). God is the only wise God (Ro 16:27), having unlimited knowledge of all things including future events and man’s thoughts (Ps 147:5; Mt 6:8; 1 John 3:20; Ps 139:16, Is 46:10; Acts 15:18). God’s mind cannot be known and his thoughts are far superior to ours (Ps 139:6; Is 55:8-9; Ro 11:33-34). He is incomprehensible, yet He has chosen to reveal Himself through His Word and creation sufficiently for life, godliness, and obeying His commands (Ro 1:19-20; 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:2-3; 1 John 2:3, 4:7). This demonstrates that God is both transcendent, being utterly distinct from us, and yet immanently involved in His creation for us to know him.

The Cosmological Argument

Aquinas' Summa Theologica

Thomas Aquinas, in his book Summa Theologica, makes arguments for the existence of God in the third article. Aquinas is trying to prove that God exists without anything being required of him to exist. He is also trying to prove that God is the starting point of all things that exist in reality. He therefore asserts that without God there would be nothing.

Aquinas begins by saying he has five reasons why God must exist automatically without any denial. The first reason Aquinas gives has to do with the idea of “motion.” We know from observing our world that things move because something has moved them. When a little boy kicks a small rock, the rock will move, but if no one kicks or moves the rock it will not move. Everything in our world is moved from something else. These occurrences are based on the cause and effect relationship of the world. The natural world reacts every time to this process. If one thing is moved then it definitely had a mover. If that mover itself had a mover, and the process continued, no matter how long it went it would end with a starting point and a first mover. Just like dominoes. The last domino can attribute its falling to the domino before it and that one to the domino before it and all the way back until it reaches the very first domino. The regression of movers is not infinite; it is finite and always has a starting point. So Aquinas asserts that since our natural world has been given this characteristic of cause and effect, we must conclude that our world came to be from a first mover: an ultimate starting point. This idea also ties in with his second reason for the existence of God, which is about the order of efficient causes. The first efficient cause could not have been caused itself, or it would not be the first starter. God is therefore the first mover, and the first efficient cause that started everything that is in existence. Since it is not logically consistent to believe in an infinite regression of causes, there must have been a first efficient cause, and that cause is the only necessary entity, which is God.

The third point that Aquinas makes is that “the effect is taken away if the cause is taken away.” (Aquinas, pg. 42) According to Aquinas, if you take away God then nothing would exist. We know that this is not the case and things do in fact exist. Since we are dealing with finite things Aquinas says that they have the possibility of not existing, and whatever could not exist anymore at one point must not have existed. Therefore, if something finite does exist, then there must have been something existing out of necessity before it that doesn’t owe it’s existence to anyone, but exists alone. This being would have to be intrinsically necessary because just like the efficient causes, there cannot be an infinite regression of necessary beings.

The fourth point that Aquinas makes has to do with the gradation of things. When we refer to something being more beautiful or more perfect, we are comparing it to some idea that must be the most beautiful or perfect. The same as when we say there is more of something here and less of something there. For his argument, Aquinas uses the example of fire to show that it is the greatest source of heat. He says that the fire is what causes other things to be hot, and to get hotter. Therefore, according to this line of reasoning, there must be someone who has the attributes of what is most good and most excellent in which we are able to compare ourselves to. This idea of the “ultimate” has been an argument for the existence of the supernatural all the way back to the time of Socrates. He says in Phaedo, “If we had this knowledge, we knew before birth and immediately after not only the Equal, but rather the Greater and the Smaller and all such things… So we must have acquired knowledge of them before we are born.” (Phaedo, pg. 66) Socrates was arguing that when we call one stick unequal to another stick in size we are comparing an understanding of something that is equal. We cannot refer to something being equal, however, unless we have some idea of what true equality is. Because of the gradation of things in our world it follows that there must be an ultimate.

The fifth and last argument Aquinas makes for the existence of God has to do with the governance of things. We know from observing nature that inanimate objects do not work towards anything. Their purpose does not come from goals that they have placed. Their use is based off something that has knowledge taking that object and using it for their purpose. Aquinas used the example of an archer who takes his bow and arrow and makes it shoot at something. The arrow cannot shoot on its own because it lacks the intelligence. Someone who has knowledge must come along and use the arrow. Therefore, Aquinas argues that an entity with intelligence must be in control of all the laws of nature, and of all the order of nature.

Final Thoughts

The five evidences that Aquinas gives makes the claim for an uncaused, first moving, efficient, necessary, ultimate, and governing God. His argument is a strong non-deductive argument that although does not prove outright that God exists, it makes incredibly brilliant observations that point to a greater-than-can-be-thought God. His arguments consist very well with logic because without God there would be no rational explanation for the existence of the world. To assume that there must have been an infinite number of causes is illogical because we live in a finite universe. Also, to assume that this universe did come into existence at one point and before that point nothing existed is absurd. Just as Aquinas argued, from nothing, nothing comes. The arguments of Aquinas show the existence of God in a very effective and logical manner. However, since Aquinas is merely dealing with general revelation and issues of creation, it does not lead anyone to the knowledge or specifics of God. This argument is strictly arguing for Natural Theology. Socrates, who understood the idea of a gradation of perfections, did not come to the same conclusion as Aquinas. He argued for the existence of the soul and therefore the rest of the supernatural realm, but that’s as close as he got to the truth. I believe that this argument is a good stepping-stone that can lead atheists and agnostics to a true knowledge of Christ, but there is an element of danger there. Not only does the door open to the possibility of God, but also it opens the possibility of any God. In my opinion, that is a major weakness in the argument. This is considered a false alternative. Aquinas is only arguing for God’s existence, and neglecting other possibilities. For example, instead of God creating everything, there could be a “cosmic scientist” that is conducting experiments on us, or a group of aliens from deep in outer space who created us. Basically, he left out other possibilities that weren’t mentioned, but made the argument to be either God exists, or he does not. Nevertheless, I still appreciate the points Aquinas makes. His argument shows that God really has given us an understanding of who he is through the creation like Romans 1:20 says, ““For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” I believe that Aquinas’ argument goes extremely well with this verse because it shows us that God has made the evidence of himself clearly seen to all of us in his creation.

Egalitarian In Essence, Purpose, & Relation To God... But Not Function

Recently there has been a movement within evangelicalism that has caused the traditional forms of church government to be reexamined. This specific new movement, known as egalitarianism, has questioned the traditionalist view that only men are able to hold positions of leadership within the church. Egalitarians see the hierarchal distinctions established in the world today as a result of the fall and not how God originally intended it to be. Since men and women were both equally created in the image of God, and both equally given the command to have dominion over creation (Gen. 1:26-27), it appears that God’s original intentions were to establish a unity in equality and roles. In Christ, the fall’s plague upon man in creating this patriartical society was finally abolished. There is no longer male and female in Christ (Gal. 3:28). For the egalitarian, this represents the social distinctions that are being renewed. From this basis, the possibility of a woman entering authoritative fields of leadership within the church is no longer something that should be shunned due to the work that Christ did to abolish such distinctions.This has lead to a new wave of exegesis of the applicable texts. With this growing influence it is important to understand what the bible is teaching on the subject systematically. The egalitarian movement jeopardizes both the inerrancy and the clarity of scripture because the clearest readings of the text are being challenged and because some egalitarians (not all), have even stated that Paul must have been wrong on the subject, or else he didn’t write it at all. Such a doctrinal position will have great consequences upon the Church, especially in a culture where the relativity of truth is so pervasive.

Key Biblical Evidence

1 Timothy 3:1-13 gives the biblical basis for the specific requirements of both the position of elders and of deacons. Paul gives a list of strong requirements for someone who is aspiring for the noble position of being an elder. He characterizes these requirements by saying that the elder must be above reproach (1 Tim. 3:2). Elders must be married to one wife, and must be able to manage their households well (1 Tim. 3:2, 4). Paul notices that the way in which the aspiring Elder controls his household will have a close tie with how they will control the church (1 Tim. 3:5). Elders are given the highest position within the local church and therefore must not be recent converts (1 Tim. 3:6). These requirements essentially make up the same characteristics for deacons, except Elders must be able to teach (1 Tim. 3:2).

1 Cor. 11:3-16 provides a cultural example within its historical context for a greater universal principle that God has established for his creation. In order to demonstrate the cultural need for head coverings within the Corinthian church, Paul tells them that the head of the wife is her husband just as the head of Christ is God (1 Cor. 11:3). From this absolute statement Paul demonstrates the woman’s need for head coverings. Notice that head coverings themselves are simply a cultural idea, since Paul allows for its dissuse upon contention (1 Cor. 13-16). However, the universal principle of man's headship in verse three still stands. He furthers ties the idea together by appealing to creation. He notes that women were made from man and for man (1 Cor. 11:8-9). God made Eve from pre-existing Adam and created her to be a helper fit for him (Gen. 2:18). By appealing to creation and saying that the head of the wife is her husband, Paul was not demonstrating that women are inferior to men, because that would mean that Christ is inferior to God by fulfilling the analogy, rather it is a reference to authority. Therefore the need for women to wear head coverings was in order to demonstrate the husband’s authority over his wife. In doing so, Paul was also demonstrating that the authority established on earth mirrors that of the Trinitarian authority of God the Father. The three persons of the Trinity are all equally God and one in essence, yet they have different roles. In this same way men and women are both equally created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27), yet they have different roles. The difference in roles does not designate inferiority either between man and woman, or in the Godhead. Some would seek to argue from here that the word "head" (kefale), means source, and would therefore remove any concept of male headship in the sense of roles. However, if the analogy in verse three is to demonstrate man being the source of woman, then God would be the source of Christ. This would compromise the eternality of the logos, and would have grave implications on the nature of God.

1 Cor. 14: 33-40 teaches another cultural issue that demonstrates the male authority in the church. Paul says that women must keep silent in the church (1 Cor. 14:34). He tells us that if they desire to learn, they must ask their husbands at home, because it is shameful for a woman to speak in church (1 Cor. 14:35). After Paul makes all these statements about women in the church he provides the ultimate basis for his teachings. He says that the things that he is writing are a command of the Lord (1 Cor. 14:37). Paul was not wrong on the subject. God’s very commands are recorded here by Paul. The point was not to usurp women of their rights or equality with men, Rather Paul was demonstrating that authority within the church belongs to men. All forms of speech are not being prohibited as women are allowed to pray and prophecy (1 Cor. 11:5). In context, Paul is discussing disruptive behavior within church that ought to be done away with as much as possible. He first mentions those that speak in tongues. Those that speak in tongues are to do so in order and with an interpreter (1 Cor. 14:27). Likewise Paul says that those who prophesy are to do so one by one (1 Cor. 14:31). Clearly Paul is looking for order within the church and is attempting to avoid disruptions. After establishing this basis Paul adds that women are not to speak in church, but should ask their husbands at home if they desire to learn something. The type of speaking associated here, most likely asking questions with the intent to teach or demonstrate authority on the issue, would be considered disruptive along with the other things mentioned. This is not because women are undeserving or of less value, but because God has ordained man and woman to function differently.

The Complimentarian Case

In Paul’s first pastoral letter to Timothy he said that he did not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:12). Being that teaching is specifically mentioned as something that women should not do in the church, it follows that since an elder must be able to teach in order to be qualified (1 Tim. 3:2), women are not permitted to be elders. Another point given within the qualifications for elders is that they must be the husband of one wife, which implies more then just the singularity of spouses. It specifically refers to them as husbands. This point is not mere semantics, as the qualifications for widows to be enrolled requires that they have been the wife of one husband (1 Tim. 5:9). Just as widows are clearly women, and therefore once wives, so also elders are men and are therefore husbands. Paul could have easily have said that elders must have one spouse, but yet he uses a masculine reference here in the same way the widow requires a feminine reference. Most egalitarians, though, like to point out Galatians 3:28 as demonstrating the social barriers that Christ has done away with, however the major point that Paul is trying to demonstrate to the church at Galatia is that there is no more difference in how we relate to God. We all have access to Christ. This includes the once exclusive nature of salvation as pertaining to the Jews. Through Christ gentiles now have access to salvation (Acts 15:8-9). The distinction that is being abolished is in how we relate to God, not to each other. Just as the functional differences between man and woman have been demonstrated through Paul’s command that women are not to teach, so also are the social distinctions between Jews and Gentiles still maintained even though they received the same Spirit and have the same access to the God. At the Jerusalem council Paul doesn’t require the Gentiles to partake of Jewish rituals and live as Jews, instead he merely gives them a short list of things to abstain from out of respect for the Jewish culture (Acts 15:19-21). Although we are all unified in salvation and redemption, there are still social distinctions. This however, does not mean that women cannot hold any position in leadership. Just as the body functions as a whole with different distinct parts, so also does the church (1 Cor. 12:12-31). Since the qualifications of the position of deacons do not require that one have the ability to teach, it seems that women are not excluded from this role. Being that the deacon position mainly entails service and maintaining the physical aspects of the church, it seems all the more possible that women could fulfill such a role. When Paul was concluding his letter to the Romans he mentioned Phoebe who was a servant of the church at Cenchreae (Romans 16:1). Since the Greek word for deacon and servant are the same (διάκονος), this verse could demonstrate that Phoebe was in fact a deaconess at her church. Although this could be speculation, it is entirely possible given that women are only excluded from teaching and positions of authority over man, not from service (1 Tim. 2:12).

Final Thoughts

Ultimately God's word is absolute truth. His requirements for the church are not arbitrary and they are not to be altered based on culture or context. If we made the Bible relative in one area of teaching, would that stop us from continuing to make scripture relative in other areas as well? We as Christians cannot redefine scripture simply because our culture has changed and become more egalitarian with women’s suffrage and women’s rights. Scriptural principles are universal and are to be held as such.

For Further Reading

"Women & Men In Ministry" by Robert Saucy & Judith Tenelshof
"Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth" by Wayne Grudem
"Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood" by John Piper & Wayne Grudem

God's Sovereign Election

What is Election?

The Doctrine of Election is the teaching that before God created the world he predestined those whom he would call to salvation: demonstrating both his loving-kindness and sovereignty over creation.
The Doctrine of Election is established upon God’s Initiative. Long before he created the heavens and the earth he chose whom he would save (Eph. 1:4, 2 Tim 1:9). It is simply his work, and not our efforts (Ro. 9:16, Eph 2:8-9).
The Doctrine of Election demonstrates man’s utter inability to please God on his own (Ro. 3:10, 23), it also further demonstrates man’s depravity in that he cannot choose God unless God has drawn him (John 6:44).
The Doctrine of Election is based upon God’s complete foreknowledge. Since God knows all of his actions before he does them (Acts 15:18), he planned out the course of history and chose whom he would justify and glorify (Ro. 8:28-29). Election therefore means that all whom God has chosen will receive salvation and sanctification by the Spirit (2 Thess 2:13).
The Doctrine of Election is also the election of Christ as the Savior of the world. Christ was foreknown before the foundation of the world to be our atonement, and reconciliation to God (Acts 2:23, 1 Peter 1:18-21). He was the one chosen by God for the specific task of redeeming us from the fall (Gen 3:15, Is. 42:1, 1 Pet. 2:6).
NOT: The Doctrine of Election is not about working for salvation. It is God’s redemptive work in man’s heart that justifies him from his former state of ungodliness (Ro. 4:4-5). Otherwise grace could not be called grace since the contingent factor would be man’s efforts and not God’s gift (Ro. 11:6).

A Brief History of the Debate

The beginning of the debate on election started in the late Patristic Period with Augustine and Pelagius, but it did not become as much of a mainstream debate until the Reformation. John Calvin, who was a second-generation reformer that lived during the sixteenth century, attempted to systematize biblical data, which for him mostly concerned soteriology (EDT, “Calvinism” pg. 201). Calvin’s main point of emphasis was on the sovereignty of God. Salvation was therefore a providence of God and a part of his eternal plan for fallen man. God’s specific design for salvation was necessary because of man’s complete corruption. Not only is man unable to please God, but he is also incapable of seeking or accepting God, because he does not recognize his need for God. God therefore chose to elect by his own pleasure, since he didn’t need to save any. It is God who calls those whom he wills to save and seals them for the day of the Lord. This attempt by Calvin to systematically approach the Bible was a great theological advancement for the Church. By upholding scripture as God’s inerrant Word, Calvin was able to delve deeper into the mystery of salvation and ask the question what does the Bible teach as a whole. It was very important for Calvin to uphold the Bible as authoritative in what it taught on the subject.

Jacob Arminius, who also lived during the sixteenth century, studied theology at the University of Leiden where his professors taught against Calvinism (EDT, 98). After his schooling, Arminius eventually became a pastor in Amsterdam and openly taught against Calvin’s teachings. Where he found the greatest area of disagreement with Calvinism was not on whether or not there is an elect, but on how someone is a part of the elect. Arminius went against Calvin and taught that man comes to knowledge of Christ by prevenient grace, rather than God’s effectual calling. This grace is available for all and is part of God’s drawing of all men to himself. The elect therefore are not chosen unconditionally, but upon God’s foreknowledge of their faith response. Although I don’t fully agree with the Arminian emphasis on man’s free will, I don’t think that this doctrinal position has ruined Christianity. The issue of election tries to solve the tension between human responsibility and God’s sovereignty, with Arminianism putting the emphasis upon man’s responsibility. In many ways Arminianism brings about how one ought to act in application of a doctrine. Since Arminians believe that man has the ability to choose God, they are very outgoing in presenting the gospel. This is not to say that Calvinists are not, but only to say that Arminians are not wrong in their application of wanting to preach the gospel to all people. Since that is the essence of the great commission for all believers.

Key Passages For Understanding This Doctrine

Eph. 1:1-11 teaches plainly the nature of election. Paul begins his letter to the Ephesians by stating several key truths about God’s sovereign plan of salvation. First, he mentions that his apostleship is strictly due to the will of God (Eph. 1:1). God’s sovereign will for Paul to be an apostle was indicated by the nature of his conversion on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:3-18). After Paul received the vision of Christ and became blind, Ananias also received a vision in which Christ told him to go to Paul because he was a chosen vessel by God (Acts 9:15). Clearly, Paul’s life and mission were based upon the will of God. The next thing Paul states about election is that we were predestined in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4). Not only were we elected before we were created, but we were elect in Christ. In Christ we were also adopted, but not because we are anything special, but because of his will (Eph. 1:5). This adoption is our inheritance and guarantee of salvation (Eph 1:14). It is for this reason that we can be so certain as to call it a guarantee. Our predestination as adopted sons of God is based solely upon his purposes, which he works all things according to (Eph. 1:11).

John 6:22-65 reveals how someone comes to the knowledge of Christ as Savior. A discussion arises about God’s providential manna for the Israelites who wandered in the wilderness for 40 years. Jesus equates himself to manna, explaining that in the same way he has come because of the providence of God, although in a greater way then the temporal provision of manna. Those who ate manna eventually died (John 6:49), but Jesus refers to himself as the bread of life, indicating that God’s provision of him is one of eternal significance (John 6:35,50-51). Although Jesus tells them that whoever believes in him would receive the ultimate demonstration of God’s providence, he then begins to tell them why not everyone will come to him. The first thing Christ mentions is that all whom the Father gives to him will come to him (John 6:37). This tells us that not everyone will partake of the bread of life, but only those who are given by the Father. These who are given to Christ will also not be lost, but will be raised on the last day (John 6:40). Christ then tells the multitude, that only those whom the Father draws will come to him and be raised on the last day (John 6:44). So the ones that are raised on the last day are given by the Father to Christ, and were also drawn by the Father. These statements teach us that the reason why not all come to Christ is because not all are drawn by the Father. If all were drawn then all would be raised on the last day, since that is the result of the drawing of God (John 6:44). Therefore not all are drawn. Jesus told the disciples after this that it is the Spirit who gives life, and that is why he told the crowd that no one can come unless the Father draws him (John 4:63-65). Aside from the Father’s drawing, and the Spirit’s working we cannot partake of the bread of life.

Gen. 25:19-28 is an example of God’s unconditioned election. Isaac’s wife Rebecca was barren, but Isaac prayed that she would conceive and God answered his prayer. When Rebecca conceived, the Lord told her that she would have twins. The Lord also told her that there were two nations within her womb, and that the older would serve the younger (Gen 25:21-23). This declaration by the Lord was part of his sovereign plan for the nation of Israel. Paul tells us that although neither of them were born, and had not done either good or bad, God chose Jacob in order to continue his purpose of election (Ro. 9:11). This election of Jacob was the very election of the nation of Israel as God’s covenant people. God chose Israel because he loved her (Deut. 7:6-8), and not because she was a great nation. In God’s sovereignty he chose to bless the lineage of Israel and not the Edomites, but did so before they even existed (Mal. 1:2-3).

Rom. 9:14-24 explains how much authority God has as the Creator of all things. Election is not unjust because God has the right to show mercy on those whom he wills to show it to (Ro. 9:15, 16). Likewise God has the right as Creator to harden the hearts of whom he chooses as demonstrated through the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in the Exodus event. God did this to show his glory so that his name might be proclaimed in all the earth (Ro. 9:17-18). Paul further explains this idea through the analogy of the potter and the clay. Being that we are molded by God for whatever use and purpose he has for us, we have no right to question the potter’s work (Ro 9:20-21). God uses the vessels of wrath to demonstrate his glory to the vessels of mercy, just like he did with Pharaoh (Ro. 9:22-23).

I Cor. 1:18-31 affirms election by showing its effects upon man. Neither the Jews nor the Greeks understand the concept of Christ’s atonement for sins. To the Jews it is a stumbling block because they were expecting the Messiah to be a political savior who would physically reign as king over Israel, and to the Greeks it is foolishness to believe that a dead man has saved the world from their sins. However, God chose that which was foolish to shame the wise (1 Cor. 1:27). It is to the called only, that Christ is the power and wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24). Therefore, because God did not choose to work though wisdom, we could not believe this on our own because it is foolish. When Paul wrote to the Thessalonians he told them that he knew God had called them because his message came in power to them (1 Thess. 1:4-5). Since the gospel is foolishness otherwise, only those who are called to respond in saving knowledge to the gospel would do so.

In Summary: The biblical evidence teaches God’s complete sovereignty over Creation, his mode in election as being based upon his will, and his drawing of sinners as resulting only in salvation.

Major Questions & Concerns

Question 1) What is the nature of election? This doctrinal dispute is on the basis of how God elects. Is it unconditional? Or is it conditioned upon man’s faith response to the gospel?

In response to this question, I affirm that election is an unconditional process by which only the will of God is a factor (2 Tim 1:9). Just as God chose Jacob without any earthly factors being evaluated, so God also chose the elect (Ro. 9:11). It is only because of his mercy that we are caused to be born again (1 Pet. 1:3). Since we are indeed saved in this unconditional fashion our salvation is accredited to God’s grace, and not our own doing (Eph. 2:8-9). This idea is further tied together when Paul says that we are God’s workmanship, which he prepared beforehand (Eph. 2:10). These points are in contention with those who would say that God saves us based on a conditional basis, like by our works or even by our faith response. We truly cannot assert that any aspect of our salvation can be attributed to us. This includes our faith. We are told that Jesus is both the author and finisher of our faith (Heb. 12:2). So if faith is the means to salvation (Ro. 10:9-10), and our salvation is due to God’s will in election, then our faith is also accredited to God.

Question 2) What is the nature of man’s freedom? Does he have libertarian freedom in the sense that he has free agency to do and chose as he pleases? Or is he restricted in some way due to his fallen nature?

In response to this question, I affirm that man does not have the freedom to choose good over evil. Man is dead in his trespasses (Eph. 2:1, 5), and is by nature an object of wrath (Eph. 2:3). We are characterized as being enslaved by sin (Titus 3:3, Ro. 6:17, 20). Our freedom is therefore, as John Wesley said, to do only what is evil (Schreiner, pg. 233). As descendants of Adam we inherit sin (Ro. 5:12). Therefore we cannot do other than what we were determined by our nature to do, which is sin. Even those good deeds that we may do keep us in our sinful state. Jesus said that even people who do good things for their children are evil (Luke 11:13), so how then can those acts be good, since the person is still evil? Paul said himself that no good thing dwells within him, and that he has no ability to do the right thing (Ro. 7:18). Some people believe however that we are free moral agents who can indeed choose between right and wrong. This is very contrary to scripture, which tells us time after time that we are all sinners. Paul tells us plainly that we were free from righteousness when we were servants to sin (Ro. 6:19, Ro. 7:14). Truly by man’s disobedience we were made slaves to sin, but through Christ’s obedience we have complete freedom (Ro. 5:19).

Question 3) What is the nature of God’s foreknowledge? Does he have foreknowledge of persons in election? Or foreknowledge of actions?

In response to this question, I affirm that his foreknowledge is of persons, and not of the person’s faith. When scripture refers to God knowing someone it involves deep intimacy and a saving relationship (Grudem, 676). If we love God, we are known by God (1 Cor. 8:3). This means that God knows us in a saving way. The opposite is also the case for those who do not know God. What does Jesus tell the workers of iniquity who say to him that they prophesied in his name and cast out devils in his name? He tells them that they do not have a saving relationship with him by saying that he never knew them (Matt. 7:21-23). It is those whom God knew before creation that were predestined for salvation (Ro. 8:29). This means that God’s foreknowledge is of the person. Some would argue however, that the foreknowledge of God allows for people to have the free will to choose God. However, if we acknowledge that there is an elect that is saved by God’s foreknowledge (1 Pet. 1:2), and accept that the number of the elect is already known to God, being that their names were written in the lambs book of life before the creation (Rev 13:8), then our destinies are already determined.

Question 4) Is God’s grace and calling effectual? Or is it prevenient? This dispute deals with whether or not God’s grace can be resisted or is it always effectual, because God never fails?

In response to this question, I affirm that God's effectual calling cannot be resisted. By effectual I am referring to something that demands a response (Grudem, 692). Through the drawing of the Father (John 6:44), we are awakened to the beauty of the Gospel and become able to receive it. Since the calls of God are irrevocable (Ro. 11:29), his call towards the elect is also irrevocable. This idea is seen clearly through Jesus’ words when he said that not only would all whom the Father gives to him come (indicating effectual grace), but that those who come would also never be driven out (John 6:37). Therefore God’s effectual calling cannot be resisted. This is not because God over powers us, but because we are drawn by him (John 6:44), we are able to choose and will choose. When Paul went to Philippi and preached the Gospel there, Lydia was able to receive it because the Lord had opened her heart to believing in it (Acts 16:14). This idea is analogous with someone who decided he was going to ride his bike to work one morning. Unless the conditions were altered, he would actualize his desire to ride his bike to work. But if it were raining outside, he would choose not to ride his bike but instead he would choose to drive his car. This person was not forced to drive his car, but he chose to because of the added external factor. In this same way we are not forced into faith, but freely choose salvation because of the added factor of God’s drawing and the Spirit’s regeneration of our lives. Because God’s drawing results in salvation we know that not all are drawn by the Father, but some would disagree on this point. The passage that is usually brought up in dispute of this point says that when Jesus is lifted up, he will draw all men to himself (John 12:32). This statement came after a group of Greeks came and asked Phillip if they could see Jesus (John 12:20-21). Jesus’ following response that he would draw all men was not a reference to drawing all men without exception, but rather all men without distinction (Schreiner, 242). The point Jesus was making was that he would not just draw Jews to himself, but Greeks as well as other Gentile people groups. This is ultimately because the effectual calling of God is unconditional and brings men into the fellowship of Christ (1 Cor. 1:9).

Question 5) Is there any point to evangelism within the Calvinistic framework?

In response to this question, I affirm that there is. It is a common misconception amongst non-Calvinists to think that evangelism would be pointless within Calvinism because if people are elect they will be saved regardless of whether someone evangelizes or not. However, I think this notion is extremely faulty. The first reason why this is faulty comes from Christ’s own words in the call of the Great Commission to preach to all nations (Mt. 28:19-20). As followers of Christ we have all been called to evangelize. Paul did not allow his knowledge of the elect to hinder him from preaching of the risen Lord. Instead Paul went on three different missionary journeys and even spent many days in prison for what he was preaching. Paul said that he is willing to endure anything for the sake of the elect so that they can obtain salvation just like he did (2 Tim. 2:10). It was because Paul knew that there was an elect that he wanted all the more to evangelize. The fact of election meant people were going to come to Christ. After Paul left Athens during his second missionary journey he went to Corinth and reasoned with the Jews and the Greeks that Jesus was the Christ (Acts 18:4-5). After they opposed his sayings, God told Paul in a vision that he should stay in Corinth because he had many of his people there, so Paul stayed for a year and six months in order to preach the Gospel (Acts 18:10-11). Because there was an elect Paul wanted to preach, and even endure many hardships for those who would soon come to Christ. Lastly, we simply will never know who is the elect and who is not. Therefore we must be ready to give a response to all people for the hope that we have (1 Pet. 3:15), even if they never respond in saving faith. This is seen clearly in the life of Isaiah who was called to preach to people who would never listen to him (Is. 6:9-10), but this did not cause him to discontinue his message. Evangelism is of utmost importance as Paul noted that no one can come to Christ unless they’ve heard, and they will never hear unless the word is preached (Ro. 10: 14).

Why it Matters: Implications & Daily-life Relevance of the Doctrine

Because of election I do not have to spend eternity in separation from God like I deserve to do. If God decided not to save according to election then all humans would, in fact, be damned to Hell. If God did not choose us then no one would come to a saving knowledge of Christ, because man cannot accept God apart from his drawing. Therefore we as believers are completely indebted to election because without it we could never have been justified nor guaranteed for glorification. This should have huge implications for our lives as believers. Being that we are saved by grace through faith by God’s ultimate providence of election, this ought to cause us to live whole-heartedly to him.
Because of election I can be certain of my salvation. If God’s grace can be resisted then we really have no security as believers. Even if we accept God’s free gift of salvation, we could potentially fall away from salvation because his grace is not effectual or irresistible to make us persevere in the faith and keep us from personal apostasy.
Because of election God receives the glory in all things, even in my faith response. If I can boast in anything about salvation, it is in the Lord, and not of myself.
Because of election I desire to better serve God. Because I have been called with a holy calling, I want to be conformed more and more to the image of his son (1 Peter 1:15-16, Ro. 8:28).

How it Fits: Connections of the Doctrine to other Doctrines

The Doctrine of Election is grounded in the total depravity of man. Because of Adam’s transgressions, all men have inherited a sinful nature (Ro. 5:12). The corruption of the fall left man deep in his sin and separated from God. All aspects of creation were affected by this (Ro. 8:22). Not only is our standing before God effected, but our mind is also affected and is hostile to God (Ro. 8:7). Because of this hostility of our minds we cannot submit to God. This is what constitutes our complete inability as depraved creatures. Because we do not honor God as God, we are given up to our own lusts, and passions (Ro. 1:24-28). Our inheritance therefore is death because our efforts and righteousness cannot compete with the holistic nature of God’s righteousness (Is. 64:6, Ro. 6:23). This includes all forms of unrighteousness, because the most unrighteous thing is not acknowledging the truth about God (Ro. 1:18). The wrath of God is indeed what we deserve, but because of the gracious act of election, we can be reconciled back to God. This demonstrates the loving aspect of God’s nature because while we remained as sinners and enemies to God, he chose us in eternity past, and chose to send his Son to die for us (Ro. 5:8-11).
Since we are elected by God for salvation one important aspect of this is the work of the Spirit in our lives. When God chose us for salvation, he also chose to give us the Spirit for spiritual growth. Given that we are completely incapable of choosing God, we are also incapable of understanding God at any level, but because of the Spirit we can know some revealed truths about God through his Word. The work of the Spirit is so vital in our lives because without his work we cannot even say that Jesus is Lord (1 Cor. 12:3). The Spirit’s work in our lives is also seen through the process of sanctification, which was also elected for us when we were elected to be saved (2 Thess. 2:13, Ro. 8:28-29). Therefore, because we have been elected, the Spirit is necessary to keep us preserved in the faith, due to our fallen nature.

Final Thoughts

In light of the Doctrine of Election I am completely humbled by the gracious act of God to desire to save any when none needed to be. It’s hard for me to fully grasp the concept of election, but in light of it I desire to give all the glory to God as Paul did in his doxology in Romans 11. I also genuinely wish to strive to be a better person. I want to set my mind on the things of the Spirit (Ro. 8:5), and treasure his commandments (Proverbs 2:1-5). I want to strive for all of this because apart from election I’d be damned to hell. It is my reasonable service in view of the mercy that God has give to me to respond in a way that is holy and pleasing to him (Ro. 12:1). It is also my prayer to strive to be holy, because he called me with a holy calling (1 Pet. 1:16). I am completely indebted to Christ and I am so much more thankful for salvation and newness of life in view of the doctrine of election then I was before. It is truly both a humbling and frustrating thing to realize the truth of election. However, I have realized that my frustrations in the past on the doctrine of election have only been based on my emotions. Election is really best understood when I realize that I am much more sinful and evil apart from Christ then I realize, and that God is infinitely more holy then I can comprehend. All I can do in light of this incredible mystery of God is praise him and thank him for doing everything for my salvation.

Sources Used:
Elwell, Walter A. "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology 2nd Ed." Grand Rapids: Baker Academic Pub. 2001.

Grudem, Wayne. "Systematic Theology." Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994

Schreiner, Thomas R., Bruce Ware. "Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, & Grace." Grand Rapids: Baker

For Further Reading:
"Why I'm Not An Arminian" by Robert Peterson & Michael Williams
"Debating Calvinism" by David Hunt & James White
"The Sovereignity of God" by A. W. Pink