ELECTION, CALVINISM, AND THE BIBLE,

PART ONE
Posted on January 20, 2011 by Jack Cottrell
ELECTION, CALVINISM, AND THE BIBLE, PART ONE
by Jack Cottrell (Notes) on Thursday, January 20, 2011 at 3:58pm

QUESTION: The New Testament speaks of God as choosing or

electing us, and Christians are called the chosen ones or the
elect. This sounds like determinism, or Calvinism. How can such
language be reconciled with free will?

ANSWER: The main verb for choose is eklegomai; the adjective

(as in chosen ones) is eklektos; the noun (the chosen) is eklog.
The words elect, chosen, and predestined carry similar
connotations. A main point is that this language is used in different
contexts with different applications. It does not always have to do
with salvation, i.e., chosen for salvation. I will explain these
different applications.

First of all, Jesus as the incarnate Son of God is called My Son, My

Chosen One by the Father (Luke 9:35; see Isa. 42:1; Matt. 12:18; 1
Peter 2:4,6). His redemptive work was both predestined and
foreknown (Acts 2:23; 4:28; 1 Peter 1:20). Obviously the second
person of the Trinity was chosen not for salvation but for service,
nor was he chosen against his own will.

Second, as with Jesus, when used of human beings sometimes the

language of election refers to being chosen for service, not for
salvation. God decides to use certain individuals to play specific
roles in his program of redemption. To create the nation of Israel
God chose Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Neh. 9:7; Rom. 9:7-13). He
chose Moses (Ps. 106:23) and David (Ps. 78:70; 139:16) among
others. He even chose certain Gentile rulers to help carry out his
purpose for Israel, e.g., Pharaoh (Rom. 9:17) and Cyrus (Isa. 45:1).
Calvinists and determinists in general usually have completely
misunderstood Pauls point about election in Romans 9. They see
Gods election of the individuals named here, and of the nation of
Israel as such (see below) as referring to unconditional election to
salvation. This is totally wrong. The point is election to service, as I
show in my commentary on Romans.

Calvinists make a similar mistake regarding election language when

used of the Apostles. E.g., Jesus says of the Apostles, You did not
choose Me, but I chose you (John 15:16). Calvinists continually cite
this as proof for their doctrine of unconditional election to salvation,
when Jesus is actually referring to his choice of these men, even
Judas the betrayer, for key roles of service, not for salvation. See
Luke 6:13; John 6:70; 13:18; 15:19; Gal. 1:15-16.

Third, the language of election is sometimes used in the Bible not

for individuals as such but for groups, usually the nation of Israel. In
this case, again, the election in view is to service and not to
salvation. See Deut. 7:6; 14:2; 1 Chron. 16:13; Acts 13:17. This
nation was chosen specifically to prepare the way for the coming
Messiah. This corporate election for service had no necessary
connection with the salvation of any particular Israelite. This is
Pauls main point in Romans 9a point which is usually missed
completely by Calvinists. In this section of Romans Paul is
defending Gods sovereign right to unconditionally choose either
individuals (such as Pharaoh) or groups (such as Israel) for roles of
service without being bound to guarantee their salvation.

In a similar way the language of election is also used of Gods new

elect body, the new Israel, the church. While not strictly parallel to
OT Israel, in this age the church as a body is now Gods chosen
people (1 Peter 2:9); and this election is in part an election to
service. When Peter here describes the church as a chosen race,
he adds this purpose for the choosing: that you may proclaim the
excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His
marvelous light. Thus in terms of service, whereas Israel was
elected for preparation, the church is elected for proclamation.

Fourth, the language of election is sometimes applied to groups in

the sense of election to salvation, but in a very special way. Here
the Bible speaks of a group as being chosen or predestined for
salvation, not in the sense that every individual in the group will be
saved, but in the sense that the group is chosen as the category of
individuals to whom God is pleased to offer his gift of salvation. This
is the key to understanding Pauls treatment of predestination in
Ephesians 1:1-14. His main point is not the predestination of
individuals to salvation, but the predestination of all the Jews as a
nation, and then the predestination of all the Gentiles also, to be a
part of his chosen people. However, he is not here speaking of
every individual Jew nor of every individual Gentile as the object of
predestination to salvation, but of Gods choice to make salvation
available to both groups and to unite both groups into one body, the
church (see Eph. 2:11-16; 3:1-10).

A key to this understanding is how Pauls use of we and you in

Ephesians 1 refers to we Jews and you Gentiles. In this passage
Paul identifies himself with the Jews, whom he calls the first to
hope in Christ (v. 12). In the first part of the chapter he dwells on
Gods purpose for the Jews as a nation: how God chose them (us)
before the foundation of the world, how he predestined them to
adoption as sons, how he offered them the gospel of grace first (see
Rom. 1:16). It should be noted that the references to predestination
in Ephesians 1 are strictly speaking of the predestination of the
nation of Israel, not of individual believers. Pauls main emphasis up
through v. 12 is on Gods purpose for the Jews (us). But then in
the next verses he begins speaking in the second person, you,
i.e., you Gentiles. In v. 12 he says that we who were the first to
hope in Christ were used to the praise of his glory, but now you
also have been brought into the sphere of salvation to the praise
of His glory. This is the theme he continues to develop, then, in
chapters two and three especially.
The use of election language in this sense is also seen in some
passages allegedly referring to repentance and faith as gifts of
God. E.g., Acts 5:31 speaks of Christ as the one who grants
repentance to Israel, while Acts 11:18 says God has granted
repentance to the Gentiles. The point is not that God grants actual
faith and repentance to every member of the nation of Israel nor to
every Gentile. The point is simply that God has made the
opportunity to believe and repent available to both groups. This is
the way in which God is said to have chosen both groups for
salvation, i.e., he has made salvation available to individuals within
the groups. (TO BE CONTINUED)

DID GOD RIG THE ELECTION? By Jack

Cottrell
Posted on November 29, 2016 by Jack Cottrell
Someone on Facebook recently asked me the question, What do
you say to those who read Daniel 2:21 and say we did not have a
choice in the [presidential] election? Daniel 2:21 says that God
changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings.
So, asked the inquirer, does this means that God will raise up
whomever he wants, and that now God has spoken and has
decided to choose Donald Trump? This sounds almost as if God
has rigged the election.

In answering this, lets begin by asking a more general question:

Why does anything happen the way it does? What are the possible
causes of any event that occurs? Actually there are only three
possible causes for anything, namely, (1) God, (2) natural law, and
(3) the decisions of free-will creatures. Regarding the outcome of
the election, we can eliminate natural law. This leaves us with either
God or human decisions.

Many people do indeed think that GOD caused Trump to be elected

(or at least they wonder if this might be so). Before the election I
saw this sentiment expressed often: It really does not matter for
whom you vote. God will decide who wins and who loses. A week
or so after the election, another Facebook entry opined: I believe
that God has a reason why Trump won and I see why. (The writer
did not see fit to share this reason with us, however.) And then we
have the speculation above, that it seems as if God has rigged the
election.

This conclusion is based on a fairly common view of God, especially

in view of Scriptures such as the one cited above. This view is
theistic determinism, known in its popular form as Calvinism. This is
the idea that God is the ultimate and only real CAUSE of everything
that happens. Natural law and human beings are intermediate or
secondary causes: God works his will through them as instruments.
In the final analysis, though, everything that happens is caused by
God.

All true Calvinists believe this; many others have simply latched on
to this idea and assume that it is true. True Calvinists, though, cite
Biblical texts such as Daniel 2:21 (above) to prove their view. To this
are added other texts, such as 1 Samuel 2:7, The LORD makes
poor and makes rich; he brings low and he exalts; Job 34:24, He
shatters the mighty without investigation and sets others in their
place; Psalm 75:7, It is God who executes judgment, putting down
one and lifting up another; Daniel 5:21, The Most High God rules
the kingdom of mankind and sets over it whom he will (ESV).

Thus it is a legitimate question: did God rig (i.e., determine) the

result of the Trump-Clinton election? If not, then how can we
understand these Biblical texts? The answer to the first question is
NO; and to the second question the answer is that these texts must
be understood in the historical context in which they were written,
i.e., in the Old Covenant era. And this must be understood in the
larger context of Gods overall purpose for mankind, which is to
surround himself with creatures made in his own image, whom he
can love and who will freely choose to love him in return.
The first and primary means by which God set out to accomplish
this purpose was through the CREATION of the world (Genesis 1
and 2). But when his human creatures sinned and rebelled against
him (as he foreknew they would), God was ready to put into motion
the supplementary means of accomplishing this purpose, namely,
SALVATION. This was something that could be worked out only
through the redemptive work of the God-man, Jesus Christ. But this
task of saving human beings through Jesus Christ could be
accomplished only after a lengthy period of PREPARATION for
bringing the Savior into the world.

The point is this: most of the Bible (from Genesis 12 to the end of
the Old Testament) is focused on this specific task of preparing for
the first coming of Jesus. To work out his purpose, God chose
Abrahams descendants through Isaac and Jacobthe nation of
Israelas his special physical family, and he worked with them
specifically for about 2,000 years until the time was right for bringing
Christ into the world. Thus almost the entire Old Testament is
describing how God was working within the context of physical
Israel, showing what he had to do to work out the preparation phase
of his purpose.
This is the context in which the Scriptures cited above (Dan. 2:21, et
al.) must be understood. They are talking about how God works to
carry out his purposive will. These are the kinds of things God could
do and actually did do in order to prepare for the incarnation of God
the Logos as Jesus of Nazareth. If it is necessary for God to raise
up the Pharaoh of the Exodus for a specific role in this purpose,
then he causes it (Rom. 9:17). If it is necessary to dethrone a
particular king in order to accomplish his purpose, then God does it.
If it is necessary for God to raise up Nebuchadnezzar and overthrow
him, then he causes it (Dan. 5:18-21). See the same for Belshazzar
(Dan. 5:22ff.). If it is necessary to raise up Cyrus for a certain role in
this process, then God makes sure it happens (Isa. 44:24-45:7).
But hear this: there is no reason to assume that God chooses and
appoints every single governmental leader on every level in every
tribe and nation in the whole world in every age! These texts tell us
what God CAN do, and what he HAS done within the context of his
purpose through Israel! But it is wrong
to generalize or universalize these statements, as if they apply to
everything that was happening (for example) in the Australian and
North American continents in the Old Covenant era. Also, it is wrong
to assume that they apply in the New Covenant era in the same way
as in the Old, as if God were working through some physical nations
today the way he worked through physical Israel in OT times. There
is simply no basis for thinking that these texts apply to the American
election in 2016 the same way they applied to Israel and her
neighbors in OT times. Jesus specifically says (John 18:36) that his
kingdom is not of this world. God is not working through any nation
todayincluding the U.S.A. and modern Israelas he worked
during the period of preparation.
The bottom line is this: we have no reason to believe that God has
any specific purpose for the U.S.A., and no purpose for determining
who was going to win the 2016 election. Rather than assuming
that everything has a purpose (as in Calvinism), we should assume
that nothing has a purpose except those things God declares to be
the case. And we can know this for sure only through the inspired
words of a prophet of God: For the Lord God does nothing without
revealing his secret to his servants the prophets (Amos 3:7).
I am not saying that God had no interest in and no part at all in the
2016 American election. Many people (including yours truly) prayed
that God would intervene and bring about the result that will be best
for his spiritual nation today (the church). I believe that God did so
intervene through his special providence, to influence the outcome
of the election. But sometimes Gods providential intervention is
ignored by his free-will creatures (Amos 4:6-11). Thus we cannot be
sure whether the result of this or any other election is the result of
Gods purposive will, or whether it is the result of his permissive will.
The Scriptures cited above cannot decide this.
In summary, we have no reason to think that Trumps victory was
Gods purposive will: God did not cause (rig) it. It is much more
likely (in my opinion) that it was the result of the choices made by
free-will creatures under the permissive will of God, with some being
influenced by Gods prescriptive will (Rom. 13:1-5; 1 Tim. 2:1-4) and
by special (but resistible) providential intervention by God.
Be Sociable, Share!

IS REBAPTISM EVER NECESSARY?

Posted on August 16, 2011 by Jack Cottrell
IS REBAPTISM EVER NECESSARY?
by Jack Cottrell (Notes) on Tuesday, August 16, 2011 at 3:17pm

QUESTION: Is it ever a good idea, or even necessary, for a person

to be rebaptized, i.e., baptized a second time?

ANSWER: My approach to this question assumes that sometimes

what is considered to be a baptism is indeed a valid baptism, but
sometimes it is not. If a person has been baptized once with a valid
baptism, there will never be a need for rebaptism.

This is true even if a baptized person has fallen from grace and has
now decided to return to the Lord and His church. The Bible itself
gives no teaching and no precedent suggesting that a rebaptism is
necessary in such a case. The incident that sheds the most light on
this issue is the case of Simon the Samaritan sorcerer, in Acts 8:4-
24. Verse 13 indicates that Simon had become a true believer and
had been validly baptized, as a result of Philips preaching and
miracles. However, his avarice and ambition led him into serious sin
(vv. 17-19). From Peters description of his situation (vv. 20-23), it is
fair to conclude that he was actually in a fallen-away state, but not
without hope. Verse 22 records Peters instruction about what
Simon must do to be restored to fellowship with God: Therefore
repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray the Lord that, if
possible, the intention of your heart may be forgiven you (NASB).
There is no reference to any sort of rebaptism; his restoration could
be accomplished via repentance and prayer.
This means that the only circumstance that would require a
rebaptism is a situation in which the person in question was not
validly baptized to begin with. This means that it is necessary to
have a clear understanding of what constitutes a valid baptism, or
of what baptism is supposed to be, according to the Bibles teaching
about it. There is general agreement that three criteria must be met
for a baptism to be valid. I.e., a valid baptism is one which has been
applied in the proper FORM, to a proper SUBJECT, for the proper
PURPOSE.

Within Christendom the various approaches to these issues are all

over the map. I have my convictions concerning the true Biblical
teaching, however; and my explanation here is based upon that.

First, the proper form of baptism is immersion in water. Immersion

(dunking, dipping) is what the Greek word means. Applying the
water via sprinkling or pouring simply does not count as a true
baptism. In the case of an individual who has not been immersed,
he or she indeed must be rebaptized. To be precise, though, this
would not actually be a REbaptism, since the first baptism (by
sprinkling or pouring) was not really a baptism in the first place. The
immersion would in fact be the persons first baptism.

Second, the only proper subject for baptism is an individual (1) who
is old enough and mature enough to understand that he or she is a
sinner who is lost and needs salvation; (2) who understands that
God is providing that salvation through the death and resurrection of
Jesus; and (3) who is able to obey the gospel as the understood
means of receiving this salvation. This means that infant baptism is
always invalid. No one who has had water applied in an infant
ceremony has been truly baptized; all such persons need to be
rebaptized. But as in the previous point, the application of water to
the infant (whether by sprinkling or by immersion) is not a real
baptism at all. Therefore the immersion of an understanding,
repentant believer will be the persons first actual baptism.
(This was the main point of the so-called Anabaptists
[rebaptizers] at the time of the Reformation. They did not consider
themselves to be rebaptizing at all. When they baptized those who
had received only infant baptism, they considered this to be these
folks first and only baptism. Thus they did not like to be called
Anabaptists. And FYI, the Anabaptists did not insist on immersion.)

The third criterion, i.e. the true purpose of baptism, is the most
difficult to apply. In my judgment the only consistent understanding
of Scripture is that baptism is for salvation. This means, at the very
least, that baptism is the point of time when God works the work of
salvation in the repentant believers heart and life. Certainly anyone
who understands this and receives baptism for that purpose will
never have to be rebaptized.

But what about an individual who did not have that specific
understanding of his or her baptism when the act was performed?
What about those who have been taught that the only reason you
need to be baptized is because Jesus commanded it, or to show
others that you are a believer? Does the efficacy of baptism really
depend on whether or not the person being baptized has a proper
understanding of what is going on?

My conviction is yes. I know that many in Restoration Movement

churches routinely accept into membership anyone who has been
immersed as a believer (e.g., any Baptist). I am suggesting, though,
that this reveals an attitude of disrespect and nonchalance toward
the Bibles own teaching about this subject, plus a serious lack of
concern for the converts own spiritual status.

My point is that when we are teaching anyone from a Christian

background about how to become a Christian AND how to become
a member of a NT congregation, we should do two things regarding
the subject of baptism. First, we should clearly teach from the Bible
what it says about the meaning and result of baptism. Second, if the
individual has had any kind of baptismal experience in the past,
especially involving immersion as an adult, we should counsel that
person to recall and examine what was in his or her heart at the
time of that immersion. I would not expect or require such a person
to give a detailed, Bible-College-level answer to this question. All I
would need to hear would be an affirmative answer to this or a
similar question: When you were immersed, did you understand
and believe at that time, that God was doing something toward your
salvation that you could not do for yourself? The more a person
understands, the better; but no one has to be able to articulate the
double cure or even mention the term forgiveness of sins for the
baptism to be valid.

My conviction is based at least in part on Colossians 2:12, which

says that you have been buried with Him in baptism, in which you
were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God
(NASB). The working of God to which Paul is here referring
includes Christs work of atonement and resurrection (see verse
12b), but it also includes the working that he is doing in the act of
baptism itself, i.e., the work of salvation. Thus baptism involves
salvation for those who are believing that God is working therein.

It is possible for someone to go too far in the direction of

rebaptism,, e.g., baptizing someone every time that person has a
back-sliding experience. There are serious reasons to avoid going
to an extreme in that direction. On the other hand, I am becoming
more and more convinced that there are lots of folks in our churches
who have been accepted into membership but who have not been
truly baptized and thus who are not really saved, and whose
lukewarm discipleship reveals to be the case. We have opened the
door to membership to many whose faith-only convictions are
destroying the integrity of our congregations; we are immersing
many children who are too young to know what is going on beyond
the fact that they really love Jesus.

If someone comes to me and is troubled in his or her heart about

whether or not their original baptism was valid, when viewed under
the above criteria, I do not hesitate to recommend that this person
be baptized (again), for the sake of their own peace of mind if
nothing else. I believe we should err on the side of too many
rebaptisms rather than too few.

Be Sociable, Share!