Of Course God Chooses
There are some things in life I just don’t understand. I don’t understand weak coffee. I don’t understand the appeal of Dancing With the Stars or even American Idol. I don’t understand Christians who claim that abortion is a “gray” area or even support abortion. I also don’t understand Christians who support Barack Obama. I don’t understand Southern Baptist legalism. And I don’t understand people who say that the Bible does not teach that God chooses people.
The truth is that the idea of God’s sovereign choice is everywhere in Scripture for those with eyes to see. Israel is repeatedly referenced as God’s “chosen people.” For example, in Deuteronomy 7:6, Moses addresses the people saying: ‘The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.” This is idea is repeated throughout Scripture, including Deuteronomy 14:2 and Psalm 135:4 which says that “the LORD has chosen Jacob for himself, Israel as his own possession.” Psalm 105:6 refers to Abraham’s descendants of Abraham as “the chosen ones” as does Psalm 106:5. Psalm 65:4 says:
Blessed is the one you choose and bring near,
to dwell in your courts!
We shall be satisfied with the goodness of your house,
the holiness of your temple!
Some try to wiggle around such clear statements by arguing that this is merely an Old Testament concept, it does not apply to the New Testament Church. Yet Jesus quite clearly told the Disciples in John 15:16: “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you.” Furthering this, Jesus says in Matthew 11:27:
All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
Clearly the implication here is that the Son does not choose to reveal the Father to everyone. Luke 10:22 cites the same teaching while Jesus, in John 6:44 says that no one can come to Him unless the Father draws Him, and then repeats this same idea in John 6:65. John 1:12-13 says that believers are born “not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”
This of course has not included references to “God’s elect” which is another way of saying “God’s chosen people.” For example, Matthew 24 repeatedly refers to “the elect.” Romans 8:33 asks who will bring a charge against God’s elect while Romans 9:11 speaks of God’s purposes in election. In 2 Timothy 2:10 and Titus 1:1, Paul speaks of ministering on behalf of the elect. 1 Peter 1:1 addresses the “elect exiles” while 2 Peter 1:10 urges believers to make our calling and election sure and 2 John 1:1 addresses “the elect lady and her children.”
There are many other verses teaches the same thing but neither time nor space allows a comprehensive survey in a blog format. We might disagree as to what it means that God chooses, we might disagree on what grounds God chooses and even how He chooses, but it seems to me that the least we can do is be honest with the Scriptures and say that the concept is there in one form or another.
April 14th, 2008 at 8:15 am
I agree with the scriptures and the idea of being chosen by God/predestination. But, to point out what I learned from Westminster profs at my church is to remember Psalms ultimately are about Christ. So the two you quote are they about Jesus or about us?
And what is the biblical basis behind free will?
April 14th, 2008 at 8:21 am
From this perspective, the Psalm references are simply reminders of God’s choice (first Israel, then, in that instance as you pointed out, fulfilled in Christ as the “True Israel). The only point of this post was to remind us that the Bible does, in fact teach that God chooses.
To see another post dealing a bit with sovereignty/responsibility, see here.
April 14th, 2008 at 8:56 am
I read the previous point and made a comment on the Malonee interview.
I think the bible clearly points out being chosen. I also think it points to free will. Would a correct perspective be that both exist, and Gods way somehow combines both?
Robert
April 14th, 2008 at 10:04 am
What always frustrates me is the implication that those holding to Reformed theology do so because they got their theology from Calvin.
For many of us, self included, we got our theology from a straight-forward reading of the text.
Like, Brent, we get bewildered when the exegetical terrorists try to bully us into not believing what we’ve seen in the text and try to exterminate our theology with ad hominem attacks on John Calvin.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Rob, I would say that the doctrine known as compatibilism is what you’re referring to, but only when it is defined in such a way as to negate any idea of “libertarian free-will.”
April 14th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Robert,
Good questions. I think the Psalm 65 reference clearly has the elect at large in view, as per the plural pronoun (try to say that 20 x’s). If I understand Brent on this, there is often more than one reference in the text. So I dont think the Christological focus of the Psalms should deter us or be problematic for referencing them in regard to our election and/or calling.
As for the issue of free will and sovereignty, I would suggest reading Augustine on this point (see On the Predestination of the Saints and On Grace and Freewill). He offers a view in which free will and sovereignty are compatible that I think is generally followed by Scotus, Calvin, and Edwards. The basic idea is that humans are free in regards to their desires, but that our depraved hearts simply don’t desire God’s will until we are given new hearts which freely love God and desire his will. This is important, as many in the non-reformed traditions paint a caricature of reformed thought in which God keeps people from coming to Him. Of course, God welcomes all who come to Him (James 4) but the issue isn’t in their inability to believe or “come” but rather in that they lack sufficient desires to *want* to believe or *desire* to “come”. So in referencing the oft repeated man-drowning-in-the-water-and-God-throws-a-rope illustration, people don’t reach up and grab the rope of salvation because they would rather be in the water. Their sinful hearts prefer the water to the rope, or helicopter, or whatever is used in the illustration. Sinners freely choose to disobey God until such time as they are given regenerate desires and affections to love, worship, and obey Him.
Does that make sense? Forgive my rushed comments…
April 14th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
I understand the points made, so no worry about the rushed comments. I agree with those made in relation to our deprived hearts not wanting or desiring God.
I just think it is an interesting discussion as to how free will and predestination work. I cannot ignore for example that Adam and Eve had a choice in the garden. They made the wrong one, desiring to be equal with God(pride) and believing God was not good(unbelief) or sufficient.
I struggle with those same issues day by day.
The reason I placed the comment was to make the reformed person like myself think about the subject.
Concerning reformed theology, I’ve never studied Calvin nor read anything by him. I studied the scriptures and came to many conclusions, found a church that held many of the same perspectives and learned it was called reformed theology. So the “you got it from Calvin” argument would not hold water with me.
I’ve just always been interested in the correlation between free will and predestination. Several years ago I just said to myself, I can be comfortable with it possibly being both. I do not need the answer this side of heaven.
Robert
April 14th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Regarding a hearts change one of my favorite passages is from Ezekiel 37 or 36?
God gives us the new heart, it is not by our action or for our glory. It is for His glory and reputation. Then comes the ability to follow the law, etc.
Robert
April 14th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
I’ve always believed, Robert, that it was both. That from God’s (infinite and incomprehensible) persepective, we are predestined and chosen.
But from our limited, finite and very human perspective, we’re pretty clearly NOT chosen/predestined (I’m sure I could come up with some sort of Biblical argument about this, but I think a better argument flows out of our common sense/experience of life).
It seems to me that trying to live your life (or anybody else’s) from God’s perspective is rather dangerous, considering His magnitude and wisdom, or rather, our lack thereof.
Which isn’t to say that asking these kinds of spiritual questions is a bad thing (trying to get a more accurate perspective on things is good, as is embiggening our own wisdom).
But I think we’ve got to be careful to keep our own finite-ness in mind, if nothing else for our own humility’s sake.
April 14th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Hi Brent,
I know your main point is God’s predestination, and you know that we are agreed on the truth of that.
But I want to comment on some of the things you don’t understand. While I will not vote for Barack Obama, I can understand how Christians can support him. Someone who believes that we should care for the poor, work to see health care available to everyone, and that those in power shouldn’t oppress everyone else — it is entirely conceivable that a Christian would understand these things as expressions of his or her theological commitments.
But Barack Obama supports abortion. I do not. I cannot see how abortion is not murder. But it is fascinating to me how much Paul talks about abortion/infanticide at a time in history when it was common to take newborn babies (especially girls) and leave them outside to die of exposure.
Of course, I am equally puzzled by Christians who support Hillary Clinton or John McCain. Both of them believe we should murder foreigners by waging aggressive, preemptive war.
But when Paul wrote Romans 13:1-7, Nero was probably the Emperor, and I would argue that he (Nero) was worse than Obama, Clinton or McCain.
I think the voting of individual Christians is adiaphora. I think many other things, too, but this is a comment, not my own blog!