Baptism, the baptism with the Holy Spirit, and election were sensitive topics in the history of Christianity, and even controversial in some instances. These issues were often the reason for division and even splitting within churches. The reason for this is firstly that these issues are very much connected to your personal experience of Christianity, and secondly the fact that the Bible does not address them in a theologically distilled fashion.

It is impossible to speak about a subject like baptism, without relating it to soteriology, or more specific, the understanding of the human will, faith, and God’s grace at man’s salvation. It also has everything to do with election. Soteriology (doctrine of salvation), of which election is an integral part, is therefore fundamental to any theological reflection on baptism or the baptism with the Holy Spirit.

In view of the discussion, the Reformed and Arminian traditions will be considered. The Reformed tradition speaks about human salvation in such a way that the human will or choice has no autonomous or decisive part to play therein. That would mar God’s pure saving grace, which is a central theme or interest in the Reformed theology. The Arminian tradition in contrast, emphasises man’s free and autonomous will or choice in his salvation. For them, the recognition of the free will is a decisive element in salvation.

In my opinion, the theological positions within these two traditions has been guided by sentiments, rather than by firm exegesis. In other words, people tend to reason out of a certain agenda, which is often defined by tradition. For the Reformed, it is important that justice is done to God’s pure grace, and for the Arminian, it is important that justice is done to the human will. In both cases, it is their preconceived notion.

Naturally, this can be related to the post-modernistic debate on preconceived notions. The question is if it is in any way possible to theologically reason objectively, or without any agenda. On the one hand, the post-modernistic debate disillusions any theological reflection to such an extent that it leaves the theologian in a position where everything that he says, can be typified and deconstructed, because his reasoning is inevitably subjected to a certain agenda or ideology. On the other hand, the post-modernistic disillusionment challenges the theologian to reason in such a way that it criticises existing and fixed views, including his own. Although this is probably not categorically possible, it can at least be his aim. The discussion on election will also be on this level.

This study aims to challenge stereotyped views, with specific reference to Reformed and Arminian thought, in order to reconsider the underlying principles of our faith, especially in the light of the continuous growth in renewal- and renewing churches worldwide.

Soteriology

The two excluding views of the Arminian and Reformed traditions exist because of the inherent problem within the soteriology to balance the human will and choice with God’s free initiative of grace. These two aspects have been opposed to each other to such an extent, that the debate between the two parties ended up in a dead end, where both parties refused to negotiate. In more recent theological reasoning, the notion exists within the soteriology to let both aspects remain parallel or next to each other, without trying to relate them. The tension must be kept. The result is a paradoxical position.

It is exactly this position that often leaves the believer with a faith crisis. Arguments regarding these issues are easily taken up personally, because experiences of salvation, faith and personal redemption lie near to the heart, and it touches the core of any Christian’s experience of his or her faith.

The question that this study asks, is if a paradoxical position within the soteriology is tenable, and if there is a manner in which to relate the human will and God’s grace in a meaningful way.

In my view, Scripture portions like Col 1:9; Eph 1:17-18 and Phi 1:9-10, where Paul prays that we may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding, and that we may have the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, criticises a retention of a paradoxical or incomprehensible position within the theology. It rather strives after the understanding and explanation of God’s will. In the same way, 1 Co 2:14-16 talks about the natural man who does not receive the things of the Spirit of God – he cannot understand (know) them, as opposed to the spiritual person that judges everything. Who have known the mind (nouV) of the Lord? But we (the spiritual person) have the mind of Christ. 1 Jo 2:20,27 talks about the fact that those who have the anointment of the Lord, know everything, and that his anointment teaches us of all things, and that it is the truth.

This does not mean that God’s ways can be explained up to the tiniest detail (Rom 11:33). Certain things we do see in a glass, darkly (1 Co 13:12). The question is however if the understanding of the human will and God’s grace must also be reckoned under that which we see in part. The basic assumption of this study is that the human will and God’s grace are so central to the understanding of the gospel, and that they are explained in so many Scripture portions, that beyond any reasonable doubt, they do not fall under this category.

In my opinion, a paradoxical position is also questionable out of a concern for a scientific approach. The bibliological subjects claim to study the text of the Bible in a scientifically accountable manner. Among other things, it meets the requirements of Logic – a science on it’s own. Boers (1979:13) defines theology as follows: it is “a coherent, logical[1], necessary system of general ideas in terms of which every element of our experience concerning matters relating to God can be interpreted.” The same cannot always be said about the dogmatological subjects. The criteria for logical reasoning are often set aside, to justify dogmatic preconceived notions. It appears to be very much acceptable for many dogmatists to operate from a paradigm of understanding which is not based on premises and conclusions, but rather on dogmatic agenda’s.

Because of the fact that a paradoxical position within the soteriology is a more recent development, and that it is congruent with a post-modernistic and enlightened world view, many of the traditional formulations within the Reformed tradition, which were evident in the Scholastic thought, are considered to be too “heavy” Reformed or “Calvinistic.” The Scholastic thought actually tried to avoid paradoxical positions within the soteriology. There are many examples of this, where the Canons of Dort is no exception. Chapter 1, article 6 and 7 talks about God who predestined a certain number of people for eternal life and others for eternal damnation, before the foundation of the world. Although it is being denied from different sources today, I think that here are strong traces of supralapsarianism (literally “above” “fall” “ism”). According to this, the decision for salvation is made outside or above man, and is solely subjected to God’s choice. God imparts faith. In its full consequence, it narrows down to a view where God intercepts the human will and actually wills on behalf of man. In accordance to this, the theology is developed where the fall of man caused man to be in a state of total depravity. This would cause the will of man to be inherently evil, so that it cannot choose God on its own. The only thing that remains is God’s saving grace. Man is completely passive in salvation, and cannot even accept it or make it his own. The logical reverse side of this type of election is that God willingly rejects certain people: double predestination.

The problem that arose from such a strictly Reformed formulation is that it did not take into account the full responsibility of man towards sin, and the fact that people are lost and reject God. It also relates to the theodicy question. Did God create sin or evil? This cannot be. This was the origin of the statement of the principal inexplicability of sin, which probably was one of the first signs of a paradoxical position within the theology.

The statement of the principal inexplicability of sin says that sin cannot be explained, but merely confessed. The typical questions that arose are: Could Adam and Eve choose God? If so, why did they choose against God? Were their will good or evil? If their will were good, why did they choose evil? If their will were evil, does it mean that God created evil? Since there were no answers to these kinds of questions, and since the Reformed theologians realised that a position of double predestination actually nullifies God’s character, the doctrine of the principal inexplicability of sin came into existence[2]. Therefore it is also said that the logical consequence of election (which would amount to double predestination) may not be calculated.

But is sin really inexplicable? Is an explanation really equal to a transference of blame? Explanation is only a transference of blame if the origin of sin is searched outside of man, but not if the origin of sin is exposed or pointed out. It seems as if nobody tries to take this doctrine into question, as if all are afraid of getting caught in the so-called trap.

The origin of sin

It is important to attempt to point out the origin of sin, for it is related to the balance between God’s grace and the human will. Where does sin come from? To attribute sin directly to God does not make sense. Neither was it the result of the fall of man, as if it was a transcendental happening. The fall of man rather refers to the fact that sin was the result of Adam’s choice. Adam was only the first one to choose against God. In this sense, Adam was a type of all of humanity. That does not mean that we can transfer our blame on him, in fact, the offence of one judgement came upon all men to condemnation (Rom 5:18). “They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that does good, no, not one.” (Rom 3:12). Everyone after Adam also chose to sin. For this very reason, the blame for sin lies particularly with us.

The explanation for sin is namely that sin is the result of man’s choice. If that was not the case, man would not have to take responsibility for sin any more. The fact that man has a free will, and chooses sin out of his own, does not make sin intrinsically inexplicable. One could ask on a second level: Why does man will the one or the other? This is a question about the character of the human will (that will be discussed later on), but on a primary level, sin is the result of man’s choice.

If one denies that you have a free will towards sin, and denies that you yourself chose it, then you transferred the blame. You do not transfer the blame by explaining sin, for the explanation for sin is that man is to blame after all.

Most theologians agree with the principal of human responsibility, but they narrow the meaning thereof. They say that man is responsible for his own choice to sin, but not for his choice to believe. In other words, one can only choose sin, not God. This reminds of the paradoxical position mentioned earlier. My question is if one can then talk about responsibility whatsoever? If one can only choose sin, and if your choice for God is being predestined, does this not mean that you actually have no choice at all? Have you not consequently transferred the blame after all?

The polar and non-polar modes of thought

The polar and non-polar schools of thought help to clarify the problem of human and divine share in salvation. In the development of the Reformed Theology, there has been referred to polar thought as God and man that are seen as rivals or competitors. This mode of thought evaluates salvation on a quantitative scale. The subject (God) and the object (man) are separated. It is often referred to as subject-object-splitting. Accordingly, grace is seen as God’s act and faith as man’s act. The sum of the divine and human share constitutes a quantitative totality that brings about the human salvation. According to this approach, man’s salvation is for argument’s sake 10% man’s doing and 90% God’s doing. However, it does not matter how it is calculated, a polar formulation of salvation remains problematic, because it ends in hair-splitting over the percentage of divine or human share. The more recent Reformed theologians realised this danger and admit that one should think in a non-polar mode about man’s salvation. They suggest that the human will and choice should be involved and included in relation to God and his working in salvation-history. Hereby they do not deny the human will, but neither do they make it stand on its own or autonomous. The human will therefore is being included in God’s work of salvation.

In my opinion, polar thought goes deeper than this. It also has to do with the opposition of good and evil. In other words, apart from the fact that God and man are seen as competitors in the polar model, the good pole (God) is being opposed to the evil pole (man). Since there is nothing good in man, it creates a problem on how to bring these two poles together. It is also about the polarity (if any) of the human will, the human nature and God’s grace. It is on this level that I think that the Reformed theology has not completely escaped the polar mode of thought. Since there is nothing good in man’s will (and the will is thus measured on a polar basis), the will is being included and being intercepted by God’s work of salvation. In this sense, man is in a way being removed from the scheme, and he is being engulfed by the other pole. In effect, only one pole remains, namely God himself. This is then presented as being non-polar.

The question is if this offers a satisfactory solution regarding the good-evil scheme. It is just as well as if the cathode (in chemistry) is being removed from the anode and is then presented as being non-polar. But does this really rise above a polar mode of thinking?

The question that has to be asked in this case is if the terms “good” and “evil” are really relevant to soteriology. The polar category is not being escaped by removing one pole from the other, or to enclose the one pole in the other.

Synergism

Synergism also lies within the polar frame of mind, or the other way round. This is where the human choice and act (work?) of faith is seen as co-operating with God’s grace, to bring about the total sum of salvation. This was especially the mode of thought of the Arminians. The problem that the Reformers had with the Arminians was that, if man was saved simply because of his own choice, that he made a contribution to his salvation in some or other way, and thus earned his salvation. That would nullify God’s grace.

The way in which synergism was rejected initially, also figures on the level of polar thought, for an independent human choice at salvation was rejected, because it would imply that something good resides within the human will after all. In other words, the polarity of the human will was decisive for the rejection of synergism.

The question remains: how can salvation be a gift of God as well as a human choice at the same time?

Infralapsarianism

The paradoxical position within the soteriology was unavoidable in a certain sense, for it was the only way in which one could simultaneously hold onto God’s grace and the human choice in salvation. The positive side of this is the fact that a matter that was very personal, and had everything to do with a Christian’s personal faith-experience, was looked upon from more Biblical categories. It did not answer all his questions, but in a way, it has at least done more justice to God’s grace and man’s responsibility. This can be typified as infralapsarianism (see Jonker 1989:65-70). This is opposed to supralapsarianism, in the sense that it does not want to understand election in terms of double predestination. Rather than to understand election as an eternal decree that was carried out, it wants to look at election from the position of the saved sinner (from below to above). It still retains the principle of election and damnation, but as something that comes into effect at the time of salvation, rather than before all time. God’s election comes into realization in such a way that it includes and encloses the human choice, but it does not happen in a way in which the human choice to believe stands on its own. It is being imparted by God’s grace.

In this sense, the reality of election stays the same both for those who hold onto a supralapsarian and an infralapsarian point of view. It is only viewed from different angles. In other words, both viewpoints see the human choice at salvation in the same light. The difference is that the infralapsarian position makes the human choice to reject God’s grace, to stand on its own.

Although the infralapsarian viewpoint in this respect refers to a position of humbleness or meekness, it is in essence just a euphemistic way of admitting a paradoxical position within the theology, but according to the intrinsic nature of infralapsarianism, it is tolerated.

If a paradoxical position is questionable then, and if a scholastic way of thinking do not do justice to pure Biblical categories, in which way can one hold onto both the human choice and God’s sovereign grace?

Question of existence: the relationship between God and man

Since it is problematic to view the salvation of man in terms of the percentage of divine or human share, it is necessary to talk about God and man in terms of a totally different frame of reference, and that is of an inter-personal relationship, where “good” or “evil” are temporary held in suspense. The purpose of that is to focus back the attention to the original relationship between God and man.

To state it differently, the Arminian versus Reformed conflict that is in existence for ages, mainly dealt with the soteriology. The most fundemental theological question was a question of salvation: How do we understand man’s salvation?

I think it is a more fundamental question to ask: For what purpose did God create man? I call this the question of existence. Man’s salvation is not an end in itself. God do not save man just for the sake of saving. It is a medium to a higher purpose. What is this purpose?

1 Jo 1:1-3 casts more light on the subject:

With the phrase: “from the beginning,” 1 John shows a strong correlation with Genesis 1 and John 1. It points to a fundamental principal or truth. From the stance, it carries a very personal character: “which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled.” It talks about human involvement – involvement with the “Word of Life.” This Life has been revealed: “the everlasting Life” (verse 2). This Life already points to Jesus (cf. Joh 14:6). It points to the plan of salvation which God had since the foundation of the world, so that everyone who partakes of Jesus is a partaker of Life. But what is the purpose of this eternal life? Verse 3: “so that (ina) you also may have fellowship (koinwnia) with us. And truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.” The actual purpose of God’s plan of salvation for man is the fellowship with the Father and the Son Jesus Christ. The “fellowship with us” cannot take place without the “fellowship with the Father and the Son.” The relationship with the Father and the Son is the mutual interest of the believers. This is the everlasting life of which the writer speaks. The fellowship with the Father is the reason for man’s existence. The life of man only finds meaning in the participation of eternal life in fellowship with the Father and the Son. This was the original purpose for man’s creation.

What is then the nature of the fellowship with the Father and the Son?

A prominent marker in 1 John is ginwskw (to know). This occurs in 1 Jo 2:3,4,5,13,14,18,29; 3:1,6,16,19,20,24; 4:2,6,7,8,13,16; 5:2,20. It is interesting to review the development of this theme in the letter. 1 Jo 2:3 starts with “if we keep His commandments” as the way in which we know Him. Verse 5 talks about “whoever keeps His Word.” It also talks about love which is perfected and about “we are in Him.” Verse 14 and 15 is about knowing Him in terms of the overcoming of evil. Verse 18 talks about the knowledge of the Antichrist and the fact that it is the last hour. Verse 29 is about the righteousness of Him and the doing of righteousness. Chapter 3:1 says that we are called children of God. Verse 6 says that if we know Him, we do not sin. Verse 16 talks about the fact that He laid down His life for us. Verse 24 is about His Spirit which He gave to us. Chapter 4:2 talks about the confession that Jesus came in the flesh. Verse 6 is about the obedience to the truth. Verse 7 and 8 talks about loving one another. Verse 13 says: “He has given us of His Spirit.” This corresponds with 3:24, but is more personal. We partake in His Spirit. Verse 16 says that God is love and that we abide in His love, and therefore in God himself. It talks about our relationship with God in a much more intimate way. Chapter 5:2 talks about the love for the children of God in terms of the love for God and the keeping of His commandments. Verse 20 is the climax. It is to know Jesus Christ himself, the true God, the everlasting life. This is the essence of life.

Although there are many aspects of “knowledge” in 1 John, there is a certain progression in the “know-” motif. It starts with the keeping of His commandments, and becomes more personal, until it ends in the knowing of the True One himself. The “know-” motif can be seen as the explanation or the way in which meaning is given to the “fellowship with the Father and the Son” (1:3). The knowing of the True One himself is what is really important. It is about a relationship with God. This is the reason why man exist; the reason he was created. This was the original intent for creating Adam and Eve. Sin has broken down this relationship. The purpose of salvation or redemption is therefore a love-relationship with God.

Like the “know-” motif, the “love-” motif is also a significant marker in 1 John. Although love is mostly directed to a horizontal dimension, the vertical dimension, and specifically the reciprocal aspect of love between God and man also occurs. 1 Jo 4:19-20 sates that God loved man first, and that man’s love for God is possible for this reason.

It is however not only in 1 John where the relationship between God and man is being established. There are many other examples which will briefly be referred to.

Another strategic text of John where the significance of a relationship with God is underlined, is Jesus’ prayer (Joh 17:3,11,21-23; Cf. also the “know-” motif in Mat 7:23). Jesus says in Joh 17:3: “This is life eternal, that they might know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” Jesus prays that we may be one just as God is one (verse 11,21,22), and that we may be in Jesus, and He in us (verse 23) so that the world can believe. The well known saying of Jesus in Mat 22:37-40 and Luk 10:27 can be understood in the same light. Our love-relationship with God and the love for our neighbour that flows from it, accentuates the same principal.

The question about man’s purpose for existence can also be founded on Paul’s writings:

The principal of righteousness occurs frequently with Paul. Rom 3:21:26 is considered to be the central portion to emphasise righteousness. Sin defiled the relationship between God and man, and it is restored by the righteousness that is received in Christ. In this sense, righteousness involves more than a mere judicial or a divine legal restoration, it has to do with a personal event. In this instance, it is specifically about a right relationship (Pelser 1984:262-269).

The same principal applies when Paul on a deeper level refers to the fellowship with the Son (1 Co 1:9). It is about a personal relationship. In 1 Co 6:17, the communion with the Spirit is compared to the relationship between a man and a woman. It is very intimate. The theme of fellowship with the Holy Spirit also occurs in Phi 2:1.

The “know-” motif in Paul’s letters also has everything to do with man’s love-relationship with God. Texts that talk about this, is Rom 1:28; 14:14; 1 Co 8:3; 13:12; Gal 4:9; Eph 3:19; 4:20; 1 Th 4:5; 2 Th 1:8; 1 Ti 2:19 en Tit 1:16. Phi 3:8-10 is very striking: “…I also count all things to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord… and be found in Him… that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings…” This theme surpasses everything else when Paul writes to the congregation in Philippi. This is the core of everything that matters.

The motif of the love of God for man (Rom 5:5,8; 8:35,37,39; 9:13; 15:30; 1 Co 8:3; 16:22; 2 Co 5:14; 13:11,14; Gal 2:20; Eph 2:4; 3:19; 5:2,25; 6:23; Phi 2:1; 2 Th 2:16; 3:5; Tit 3:4), and the love of man for God (Rom 8:28; 1 Co 2:9; Gal 5:6; Eph 6:24; Co 1:8; Phm 5) occurs frequently in Paul’s letters. 1 Ti 1:14 and 2 Ti 1:13 do not only talk about the love of God or the love of man, it involves both. Here are traces of a mutual love-relationship. In connection with this, the letter to the Ephesians is very enlightening. Eph 1:4 talks about the intention of election in Christ: to be “holy and without blame before Him in love.” It is about the purpose of God’s intention in Christ. The reason for salvation in Christ is that man can engage and live in a love-relationship with God. Chapter 3:17 talks about Christ that lives in the heart of the believer – “being rooted and grounded in love.” The believer has to learn and know the love of Christ (verse 19). The reason for this is that he may be filled with all the fullness of God. Here is therefore an intertwinement of the “know-” motif and the “love-” motif. It is all about the reciprocal love between God and man.

God’s greatest desire is indeed to have a personal love-relationship with man. According to the best Greek texts, Jam 4:5 should read: “He desires jealously the spirit that He made to dwell in us” (“spirit” is also to be translated in lower case). In other words, God desires man’s spirit jealously (cf. Jesus’ prayer in Joh 17:21-23). The sin that Adam committed, did not cancel God’s original purpose with man either. In fact, God worked the salvation in Jesus Christ so that through Him, we can have access to the Father (Joh 14:6) and the holy of holies of God (Heb 10:18-19) – and this without man having to do any meritorious work (Rom 4:4,5). The salvation of man is therefore not an end in itself, but it stands subordinate to the greater purpose, namely the relationship between God and man.

For the exact reason that God’s deepest intention with man is to have a relationship with him, and because of the fact that it is foundational to Christianity, Christian living has a mutual character right from the start. This is why one speaks of a covenant relationship between God and man. Faith is the way in which man partakes in the covenant (Gal 3:7). Without faith, it is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6).

The role of the will in a relationship

Since the mutual relationship between God and man lies central to the gospel and the whole message of the Bible, it is unavoidable that it should have a profound influence on the soteriological discussion. In fact, it is foundational to it.

Because of the fact that the human will is very relevant to the relationship between God and man, it may be clarifying to look at the role of the will in a human relationship, and then to the role of the will in the relationship between God and man.

The human will is that characteristic which distinguishes him from animals. True love between two parties is only possible if each one chooses spontaneously to love the other party. The one cannot enforce his love on the other and force the other to love him. He must choose it spontaneously; else, it is like a man that proposes to a woman: If the woman can say only “yes,” because it has been predestined that way, or if her will has been programmed that way by the man (if it was possible), then the woman’s “yes” would actually mean nothing to the man.

In terms of soteriology, one could say that the salvation that God brings about for man is not contrary to God’s original intention to have a love-relationship with him. To state it differently, salvation comes into effect within the sphere of the purpose of man’s creation.

This immediately places a question mark behind any form of determinism, for real love between two parties is possible only if each one finds himself therein without predetermined inevitability. God’s love does not make a marionette of man, but a man with a free choice. That is true grace. It is no achievement for man to create something that you make it to do. It is however an achievement to create something that could make it’s own non-predetermined decisions. One could only look at all the attempts in the computer world to create artificial intelligence. No man has ever succeeded in creating something like that – only God can, and that is grace – that underwrites the greatness, sovereinity and omnipotence of God. Anyone can make a marionette…

Therefore, for any relationship to exist between two parties, it is necessary that each has his own will. If God made mere marionettes, He could not have a relationship with them. God had to create something, namely the human will, than can operate autonomous and make its own decisions. Is it not a greater wonder than to make marionettes?

For God to make something or someone with its own free will, it implies a certain risk on God’s part. To make something with it’s own will, there is the risk that it could choose against you. Without this risk, there would not be any way in which a mutual relationship could take place. It is within this framework that God’s love makes any sense. Likewise, God created a certain room wherein man could serve him out of his free will. In the same way, room has been made that Satan could fall and that Adam could choose sin because of their own decision. This does not mean that God created sin or evil, but that God made room to reign over his creation, wherein He could engage in a personal relationship with man. This room gives a certain freedom to creation. Therefore, there is an evident difference between the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness. The character of the kingdom of light is that of freedom, and the kingdom of darkness, that of bondage and force.

If man was not given a choice in his salvation, it would mean that it is actually by force, although man is redeemed by it. If someone offers you something nice to eat, and awaits your approval or disapproval, he has much more grace than someone that forces something down your throat – even if it is something delicious and you like it.

The greatness of God’s grace lies precisely in the fact that He gave a free will to all men, because He created us in His own image (Gen 1:26). It is the greatest gift God could have given man. The human will is the mark of his individuality. This is what exempts man as the highest form of creation. This is what makes man truly man. This is what enables man to have a real relationship with God. This underlines the fundamental purpose of the creation of man.

Although the infralapsarian position does not deny the will and choice of man and actually talks about the relationship between God and man, it remains a question whether the inclusion of the human will in God’s work of salvation does not jeopardise man’s purpose of existence, and in doing that, paralyses the essential character of the originally intended love-relationship between God and man. Did the question of existence not give way to the soteriological question once again?

Distinction between will and nature

The question is then, if the human will is so important in salvation, does that mean that man earns his salvation?

To answer this question, it is necessary to look at the character of the human will. Is the human will equal to his nature? This question is so decisive, that the soteriology stands and falls by it to a large extent.

To understand the human nature, it is necessary to consider Adam’s position towards it, and the influence that sin had on the human nature as a whole. Adam’s sin caused sin to reign in this world. Sin reigned by one man’s offence (Rom 5:17). This was the result of the curse of God in Gen 3:17. Everybody died in Adam corporately (1 Co 15:22). In the same way, everyone who is resurrected to eternal life is resurrected in Christ corporately (see for example the interesting parallel between 1 Co 15:22 and Col 2:11-15). It has everything to do with the condition in the flesh or the human nature (sarx). Since Adam's sin, man’s nature is corrupt (cf. the parallel with Adam’s discovery of his nakedness: Gen 3:7). On the question if there is a correlation between the human will and nature, the interpretation of Rom 7 is decisive:

The well-known saying of Paul:“I do not do the good that I desire; but the evil which I do not will, that I do,” is often used to express a general struggle in a believer’s live. But exegesis of the inherent structure of Rom 7 shows that Paul describes the condition of the man in the flesh (the unconverted man) (see Ridderbos:1966). There are textual markers that point that out. Verse 5, that says: “when we were in the flesh” stands in contrast to verse 6: “But now we have been set free from the Law, having died to that in which we were held.” He makes a clear distinction between the two conditions or ways of existence. From verse 9 to verse 25, Paul elaborates on the condition of the old man. In the whole portion his thrust stays the same. Verse 9 says: “I was alive without the law once.” In verse 14, he speaks about the condition as carnal and sold under sin (that means that he has not been redeemed by the blood of Christ). The same is true of verse 18: “I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwells no good thing.” The Spirit of God obviously does not live in him yet. In verse 24 he says: “O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” This is a cry for salvation. The “body of this death” is in this context the wretched and unsaved condition that longs for deliverance. In verse 25b he refers to the condition that he has just described. “So then… I myself serve.” Verse 25b says the same as verse 18, only in other words.

Some interpret verse 25b as the condition of the new man, as it follows chronologically after the sigh for deliverance (verse 24), and understand verse 18 also as the condition of the new man (for verse 25b and 18 corresponds). This cannot be maintained, for Rom 8 removes any possible ambiguity. Here is a definite turning point: “There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.” Now the condition of the new man is being discussed in contrast to Rom 7, where the condition of the old man has just been discussed. Rom 8:9 says for example: “You are not in the flesh.” It stands in contrast to Rom 7:14 that says: “…I am carnal…” and verse 18 that says: “I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwells no good thing.”

In this light then (the fact that Rom 7:9-25 is about the old man), the relation between will and nature is clarified.

In 7:18 Paul says that to will (to do good) is present with him, but he cannot perform it. In verse 25b, which is a summary of the old man, he talks about his mind (parallel with verse 18-19: that is his will) that serves the Law of God, but with his sinful nature, he serves the law of sin. Paul therefore explains the condition of the old man as a condition where the will to do good is present, but the ability to perform it, is not present (because of the sinful nature that still prevails). In this way, he distinguishes clearly between will and nature.

The implication of this is two-fold:

1. The human nature can be measured in a polar way (good versus bad or saved versus unsaved). The human nature is the determining factor to man’s destination. Someone that is and stays in the sinful nature, will be lost, but someone of whom the sinful nature has been removed, (Col 2:11), is saved and has eternal life.

2. The will is on a different level than the human nature. It has to do with his choice, but it does not categorise man regarding his destination. The same will (that wants to do good) is both present with the saved and unsaved. One can only look at the modern conscience to conserve nature, to eat right, or to maintain world piece. In fact, Rom 2:14-15 shows that the Gentiles who have no Law, they do the things of the Law naturally, for their conscience also bear witness, and the thoughts between one another accuse or even excuse one another.

As Rom 7:25b points out (that correlates with 7:18-19), the human mind (nouV) is closely connected to his will (qelw) (cf. Rom 2:14-15). The ability that man has in his corrupt condition to distinguish between good and evil (Gen 2:9,17; 3:5) is on the level of the will and mind, but it does not make man good as far as his being or nature is concerned.

The character of the human will and nature

Since the will and mind are on a different level than the human nature, it is not being influenced or transformed principally at man’s salvation. Therefore, it remains necessary for the converted to let his mind be renewed continually (Rom 12:2; Col 3:2).

The question as to how the human will must be understood in relation to the polar and non-polar thought, remains. Is the will neutral in the sense that it contains both good and evil characteristics? This is problematic, for it implies that the will finds itself in a middle-position within the polar category.

The real question here is in which terms or categories must one talk about the human will? This far, the following conclusions can be drawn from the character of the human will:

1. It is a dynamic characteristic of man’s soul that stands above the human nature, and enables him to choose good or evil, but it does not have any realising power towards his destination.

2. It is not a certain substance that can be measured in a polar way. Alternatively, it does not intrinsically contain a certain substance that categorise man regarding his destination.

To ask if the will is intrinsically good or evil is actually an inappropriate question.

The human nature, that rather belongs to a polar category, stands fundamental towards man’s categorisation in terms of good or evil.

“Good” is essentially to be in a personal relationship with God and “evil” is to be outside a personal relationship with God. Sin is at its core not evil things or deeds, but the denominator for a wrong destination. The reborn man partakes in the divine nature (2 Pe 1:4). The core of his being has been transformed. He is not sold out to sin any more (Rom 7:14), but a new creation. His old nature has been removed in Christ (Col 2:11). Therefore, 1 Jo 3:9 says: “he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.” Because the human nature determines his destination, man is in essence either perfect in Jesus, or unsaved and far from God. There is no position in between.

On the one hand, it is important to point out that the human nature of the unsaved man is totally corrupt, and on the other hand, that the human will has no realising power towards his salvation. Alternatively, there is nothing inherent to the human nature or his will that can change his destination. If that was so, he could earn his salvation.

How does man get saved then? Is he saved outside or in spite of his will?

Yes and no. The will that is being influenced by the mind, is convicted of sin, righteousness and judgement, and accepts the salvation in Christ on the basis of the Holy Spirit’s conviction. This on its own is not salvation yet, and does not change man’s destination just yet! However, this on its own is faith.

God saved and recreates man on the ground of this faith. He removes the old man and creates the new man. He removes the sinful nature (Col 2:11) and changes man’s destination. Even the fact that man has a will and can choose and accept salvation, does not imply that his will contains anything substantial which can bring about his salvation. The human will only chooses to receive the salvation that God prepared in Jesus Christ. This is the wonder of God’s grace.

Since the distinction between will and nature is not outlined so strongly in the theology, the will and nature are often used together, and are then being used in a polar category. It then becomes difficult not to end up in some or other paradoxical theological position.

The nature of faith

The nature of faith can be understood better in the light of the discussion of the human will. The human will is of such nature that any unsaved person can believe the good news of the gospel (Joh 3:16). This is the heart of the gospel after all. The gospel is particularly intended for sinners and people that are corrupt of nature. Faith can therefore not be a work or an achievement that earns favour with God. Jesus Christ’s death already earned complete favour with God. Faith in Christ is not something that makes you better than someone else. It is neither something that would eventually cause you to say: “O well, I was better than that one, because I believed!”

Faith unto salvation is to take possession of something that is actually yours already. It is like someone who says: “Here is a brand new car for you. It is parked here in your garage and it has been registered in your name. Everything has been done. Do you believe it?” If you say: “Yes I believe it,” does it mean that you have earned the car in any way?

Faith is by nature not a work of righteousness:

Rom 3:21-22 says: “But now a righteousness of God has been revealed apart from Law… the righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus Christ…”

Rom 3:27 says that we are not saved by the law of works, but by the law of faith (cf. Rom 3:28; Gal 2:16). Although the law of faith replaces the law of works, it is on the same level. Because God saw that nobody could fulfil the law of works, He replaced it with the law of faith. It is the new law. The only difference is that the new law is without merit (debt), and therefore everybody can fulfil it (verse 22-26).

Rom 4:4-5: “…But to him working, the reward is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt (merit). But to him not working, but believing… his faith (not God’s faith) is counted for righteousness.

The works of the law is associated with merit, and faith is associated with demerit. These Scripture portions talk about the intrinsic nature of both faith and the works of the law. In Rom 4:4, faith is opposed to work. Faith is not opposed to grace. Faith is by itself not a work. Faith is not grace because God imparts it, but because faith is without merit on its own. Another image that is useful is that of a physician. I have to believe that the physician can save my life, before I get on the operating-table. If I rise from the operating-table, there is no way in which I deserved his saving.

Many theologians see faith as a comprehensive term to describe the total process of conversion, and they are reluctant to talk about the character of faith as it is by itself. They will admit that faith is empty, but only because God imparts it, and not because it is intrinsically and by itself empty. If it was so that God had to impart faith before it could be without merit, it follows logically that faith carries an intrinsic meritorious character. They therefore say that man is not saved because of or on the basis of his faith, but rather by the way or manner of faith.

It is problematic to say that God has to believe for you, or on your behalf, before it can be without merit, for it is not God that has to believe, man has to believe.

Something that many people do not understand is that faith in its essence is to give up all attempts to save yourself. It has the character of surrender right from the start. You rely on God completely. Faith unto salvation is per definition directed to the content of faith, and not to the one who believes. Therefore, you do not build your faith assurance on your own achievement, but on Christ’s achievement on the cross.

The wonder of faith lies thus in the following:

1. It stands on its own as a choice of the human will, and does justice to the free will of man in this way.

2. By nature, faith is in no way meritorious, and does justice to God’s free initiative of grace in this way.

The answer on how to balance the free human will with God’s free grace, precisely lies in the wonder of faith. Faith is the key to the understanding of the gospel and election.

Faith is however not something that originates or operates in a vacuum. Faith has everything to do with the conviction of the Holy Spirit and the merciful provision of God, but faith is not in conflict with God’s original intention to have a personal relationship with man. Faith is therefore equal to the human choice.

The fact than man is a human being, and that he has a free choice at all, is a gift of God in the first place. God’s grace is not limited to individuals, but it has appeared to all men (Tit 2:11). Therefore, in the first instance, the human choice, faith, God’s election in Christ, in fact, the whole gospel is equal to God’s merciful provision and his kindness towards man.

Basic principles of election

The intention and the ground for election

The soteriology is foundational to the understanding of election. Election is therefore not alien to soteriology. It is neither in conflict with the reason for man’s existence. Election rather underlines God’s desire to have a personal relationship with man.

To understand election, it is necessary to distinguish between God’s intention (purpose) of election (Rom 8:28; 9:11; Eph 1:9,11; 3:11; 2 Ti 1:9), and the ground or access to election.

The intention of God’s election points to the predetermined plan of salvation in Christ. The plan of salvation which He had since the beginning concerns Christ’s death, whereby everyone can be saved. This is the heart of election. This is the grace and love that God pours out unto the world (Joh 3:16). Therein man’s will has no say. It solely rests upon the sovereignty and the free initiative of God. God was not obliged to do that. It was God’s intention however to elect and destine people for eternal life who partake in Christ’s salvation. God’s election is therefore being expressed in the plan of salvation in Christ.

The ground for election is faith. Man has access to election in this way. Faith pleases God (Heb 11:5-6). In this way, we have access to the grace in which we now stand (Rom 5:2). In this way, we become part of the elected people of God (Gal 3:7). Faith is the manner in which man becomes part of the eternal plan of salvation in Christ.

Eph 3:8-12 sums this up beautifully: Paul says that to him grace is given to preach the gospel among the gentiles. He calls this a mystery (verse 4,9). This is being understood together with the intention (purpose) of God’s election (1:9,11). Verse 9: “and to bring to light what is the fellowship of the mystery which from eternity has been hidden in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ.” And this (verse 11-12) “according to the eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through (on the ground of) the faith in Him.” (see e.g. World English Bible).

The problem with the understanding of election originates when it is seen as a particular decree that is being pronounced over each individual. In the past, it has been explained from mainly two angles:

1. The Reformed view explains election according to God’s sovereign, transcendent decision, that both have an eternal (universal) and effective (particular) dimension. God’s election is part of salvation-history and encloses man’s decision.

2. The Arminian view explains election according to God’s pre-knowledge. God knew beforehand who would accept Him in faith and who would not.

In my opinion, both views contain a part of the truth. The problem with the Reformed view however, is that it does not really do justice to the freedom of man, and implies a certain determinism after all. The problem with the Arminian explanation is that it borders on a type of fatalism. God knows everything beforehand, and what must be, must be.

The question is if there is by any means a particular or individual moment in election?

Although there are Scripture portions that talk about predestination (proorizw = “decide from the beginning”), of which Eph 1:5-11 is probably the most familiar, it always has to do with the universal intention of election. It is about the fact that God from all eternity, destined those who would take part in the salvation in Christ (by faith), to be his adopted children. It is not about the election of specific individuals.

In a certain sense, the intention of election means that God chose for man since the beginning of the world. Our choice to believe is a reaction on God’s “yes” in Christ (2 Cor 1:18-20). The verdict of election has been determined already. It exists in the fact that God principally chose for man in Jesus Christ. There is not a second moment where God chooses some again. He already chose in Christ.

We are elected in Christ

Christ is the point where the election reaches its final and decisive moment. That is where the intention of election pointed to, and wherein it has been completed.

That is why Eph 1:4 and 2 Ti 1:9 says that we are elected in Christ. Those who take part of Christ through faith, take part in election. The election is primarily concerned with Christ. 1 Pe 1:18-20: “knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things… but with the precious blood of Christ… indeed having been foreknown before the foundation of the world…” He is the Elected of God (Isa 42:1). Mat 25:34 says: “Then the King (Jesus: see verse 31) shall say to those on His right hand, Come, blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” Other verses that point to this are Act 2:23 and 4:28 (cf. Act 3:18).

The salvation event in Christ represents the intention of God that has been there since the beginning. Through faith we take part of Christ (Gal 3:7,16,26-27), and therefore of the eternal intention (plan of salvation in Christ) that God had since the beginning. God knew of the salvation that would come in Christ before the foundation of the world. Everything came into being through Christ (Col 1:15-19). God destined it so from the beginning that those who would love God, would be conformed to the image of his Son (Rom 8:28-29). The way in which God has planned the election in Christ, is not in a deterministic or fatalistic way. It was a plan that God intended to execute at all costs. Nothing would stop Him, for He is omnipotent.

One could say that election is just another word for gospel. It actually underlines the whole gospel. It also underlines the grace of God: the merciful provision that God created that man could be saved without merit – not because of good deeds or descent, but because of faith – there is no distinction. No one is being specially favoured. This underlines the love and justice of God. It is a matter that brings joy (good news) for the whole world (Joh 3:16). It is not an obscure element in theology that has to be dodged. In the light of the soteriology, election is therefore not an end in itself, but the paraphrase of God’s desire to engage in a personal relationship with man.

The universal nature of election

As mentioned, it is problematic to understand election according to a particular decree. Although Israel’s election might be understood more in this line (that will be discussed later on), their election is still not to be understood as deterministic.

Some claim that Christ’s death was designated only for a predestined group of people whom he elected. It is known as the doctrine of limited atonement. Defenders of this point of view (like Owen 1985) spend most of their time on denying texts that point to the universal salvation of man. Arguments in this regard are often based on assumptions, and it is hardly reconcilable with a true evangelical message.

Texts that point to the universal salvation of man are the following:

1. Texts that point to Christ’s death for all people: Isa 40:5; Joh 3:16; Joh 12:32; Tit 2:11; Rom 5:15,18; 14:15; 1 Cor 8:11; 2 Cor 5:15,19; 1 Ti 2:6; 2 Pe 2:1; Heb 2:9; 10:29!; 1 Jo 2:2; Mat 18:14.

2. Texts that point to the fact that God wants all people to be saved: 1 Ti 2:4; 2 Pe 3:9.

The Biblical evidence that Christ in fact died for all people is overwhelming. God’s plan of salvation that has been there since the foundation of the world includes all people. Therefore, all people can share in the salvation in Him, for God wants all men to be saved. All people however do not automatically receive eternal life and do not share in the life-giving power of His death and resurrection, for everybody do not become believers in Christ, and everyone do not share in the likeness of His death and resurrection (Rm 6:5).

Important Scripture Portions

Jos 24:15; 1 Ki 18:21

The people have to choose whom they want to serve by themselves: The Lord or the idols of Baal, for God is a jealous God (Jos 24:19).

Joh 1:12

To everyone that accepts (lambanw) Jesus, God gives the power to become his sons. If someone accepts Jesus Christ, God gives him the new birth. God makes him a new man. The acceptance has to be distinguished from the new birth. The acceptance has to do with the human choice to believe, while the new birth has to do with the heart-changing work of God that he does on the ground of faith.

Rom 5:2

Faith is the access to the grace in which we stand. It is the manner that God elected in his intention whereby man becomes part of God’s plan of salvation. If man believes, he becomes part of the grace of God in Christ Jesus.

Rom 10:12-13

God is rich over all who call upon Him, for whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. The salvation of man cannot be disconnected from a conscious decision and confession to accept Jesus as Lord of your life.

1 Ti 4:10

God is the Saviour of all men, especially of those who believe.

Salvation is for all people, but those who believe partake of the saving grace in Christ. Unbelievers also share in God’s grace (through creation and his provision in nature), but not in the grace in Christ, because they do not believe.

Heb 11:6

Without faith it is impossible to please God, for he who goes to God has to believe. God’s judgement also takes man’s works into account (Mat 16:27; Joh 8:39; 1 Cor 3:12-15; 2 Cor 5:10; 1 Pe 1:17; Rev 22:12), not as decisive or final criteria for salvation, but as fruit of faith, otherwise faith is dead (Jam 2:20). God’s judgement involves more than merely going to heaven or going to hell. It also has to do with reward that will be reckoned on the basis of works. The Bible does not elaborate on this dimension of God’s judgement however.

Discussion of specific Scripture Portions

The question that arises from most of these texts is if election excludes free human choice, or if God has determined every individual’s destiny beforehand. For ease of reference, all Scripture portions will be discussed chronologically.

Psa 37:28 – God keeps his saints

This portion talks about God’s faithfulness towards his “saints.” He will keep (or guard) them and never forsake them (MKJV). These “saints” of God are being qualified as follows:

1. Those who depart from evil and do good (verse 27).

2. The righteous. They speak wisdom and their tongues talk of judgment. The Law of God is in their hearts. (verse 29-31).

3. He who waits upon the Lord (verse 34).

4. The perfect and upright one, the man whose end is piece (verse 37).

Psa 51:7; Jer 17:9; Ecc 9:3 – Deeply rooted sin

These texts say something about the deeply rooted sin that is present in the heart of man. The “heart” in these portions refers to his nature. This has to be reborn of water and Spirit (Joh 3:5), for God searches the heart and judges man on that ground (Jer 17:10). As previously discussed, the sinful nature of man has to be distinguished from his will.

Psa 139:2-4 – You understand my thought afar off

This is about God’s omniscience, and especially the fact that He knows man’s thoughts. God’s “understanding” is here not pre-knowledge, but His ability to “read” your mind from a distance. Nothing is hidden for Him (verse 7). It does not say that He knows your thoughts before it comes into your mind (as some translations imply). He knows or searches (literal: disperses) your “path” (journey / whereabouts) and your “lying down” (verse 3); He does not determine it (some translations); He does know it very well though. God knows your thoughts so well that He knows what you are going to say, even before there is a word on your tongue (verse 4). It is just another way of saying that God knows your thoughts. God therefore does not know your thoughts because he has pre-knowledge of it, but because of His omnipresence and omniscience, and because He can “read” minds.

Psa 139:16 – The days they were formed

The MKJV translates: “Your eyes saw my embryo; and in Your book all my members were written, the days they were formed, and not one was among them.” In the KJV, the “days” falls away: “…in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.”

In the book of life, all my unformed bodily members were written. It talks about God’s omniscience. God knows man thoroughly (verse 1). He understands you and searches you. He is acquainted with all your ways (verse 3). God was present at the formation of man’s inward parts (verse 13). Verse 15 also speaks about the fact that God had knowledge of man’s formation, and that He was actively involved in it. The phrase “in Your book all my members were written” (verse 16) describes how well God knows you and how he knows everything about you, up to the tiniest detail, even at the earliest stage of your development. It does not speak about a moment before you existed, but about a moment at the time of your formation: “Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect” (KJV). The “days they were formed” (MKJV) is not about days that shall follow as some translations translate (e.g. GNB: “You saw me before I was born. The days allotted to me had all been recorded in your book, before any of them ever began.” or NEB: “Your eyes foresaw my deeds, and they were all recorded in your book; my life was fashioned before it had come into being.”). It talks about the days when God formed man and decided how his bodily members should look like. The phrase “when as yet there was none of them” (KJV) does not refer to the “days” but to the “substance” (MKJV: embryo). It still talks about the same moment or the “days” when God formed man.

Verse 16 could be paraphrased as follows:

Your eyes saw the substance of by unformed bodily parts and wrote it all in Your book, in days when You decided how I should look and how I must be, when as yet none of my bodily members has been there in their final form.

There are therefore no traces of deterministic predestination, but it is about God’s omniscience and about how the formation of every human being is his doing.

Pro 16:4 – Everything is made for its own end

This statement does not imply a certain predestination or determinism. It is not being suggested that God causes all things to happen. Man is free to choose the way that he wishes (verse 1-3). There are however, certain consequences connected to certain behaviour. See the following translations:

NIV: “The Lord works out everything for his (referring to everything) own ends.”

NEB: “The Lord has made each thing for its own end.”

The following verses explain it. God connects certain consequences to certain conduct: the wicked for the day of evil (verse 4); the proud in heart… shall not be unpunished (verse 5); by mercy and truth, iniquity is purged (verse 6), etc.

Jer 1:5 – I knew you before…

“Before I formed you in the belly I knew you; and before you came forth out of the womb I consecrated you, and I appointed (add, apply, appoint, ascribe, assign) you a prophet to the nations.” This is about God’s omniscience (see also Psa 139). God’s “knowledge” of Jeremiah is in this context not necessarily “pre-” knowledge, but it is about God’s knowledge of Jeremiah at his unborn state. The “consecration” of God talks about God’s dedication for holy use (see Barnes [sa]). It was God’s plan with Jeremiah to make him a prophet for the nations (see The Message). The fact that God has a plan for someone’s life and that he dedicates and elects someone for a certain purpose, does not mean that such a person will inevitably, or without any choice, fall into that plan. One can deliberately choose against God’s plan for your life and miss his purpose!

Jer 20:7 – Jeremiah’s prayer

The MKJV says: “You have deceived me, and I was deceived.” It is difficult to determine what Jeremiah meant with these words. In the light of the following verses, it seems as if Jeremiah is very unhappy with his circumstances. The people mock at him. He argues with God about it. He thinks that God deceived him, and he resents himself that he allowed himself to be misled. He actually resents God that He does not help him (see Living Bible). Here is no trace of God’s persuasion in a deterministic way. The expression: “You have deceived me” is merely the way in which Jeremiah tries to put into words his complaint before God.

Jer 31:18 – Ephraim’s mourning

Ephraim’s mourning is described with the words: “turn me, and I shall be turned.” The NIV and NKJV say: “Restore me and I will return.” The heart-changing work of God is related to their will to change. The “turning” is a desire that Ephraim utters.

Jer 31:33 – I will be their God

“I will put My Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.”

This is about the change of heart that God will cause. It talks about a new position towards God that they will be put in. It is a promise of God on the basis of his new covenant with man (verse 31). In this context, the double-sided nature of the covenant becomes clear. It is an agreement between God and man. It also stands in relation to the call unto the people to turn back (verse 21-22). There is no indication that God predestines the people unto a certain condition, as if there was no reaction from the people’s side. Verse 30 says that the people will die because of their own unrighteousness.

Lam 5:21 (cf. Jer 31:18) – Prayer unto repentance

This is another prayer unto repentance (as in Jer 31:18). The prayer is a conscious request to God that is connected to the will to be changed. The NKJV translates: “Turn us back to You and we will be restored.”

Mat 6:8 – Your Father knows what you need

God knows what we need even before we ask it of Him. God knows it, for He knows us so well. He knows our thoughts (Psa 139), and our whole being. Therefore, He also knows our needs. It does not speak about God’s “fore-” knowledge, but about God’s omniscient knowledge.

Mat 11:27 – Everyone to whom the Son will reveal Him

Nobody knows the Father, except the Son and everyone to whom the Son will reveal Him. Compare this portion with the explanation of Joh 5:21. Just as in Joh 5:21, it does not specifically say to whom the Son will reveal Him. It only states the fact that the Son has a certain will. So, the question remains: to whom will the Son reveal Him? In a certain sense, this question is being answered in the next verses (verse 28-29): those who come to Jesus and take up Jesus’ yoke and learn from Him. Here is no indication that the will of the Son is particular by nature, as if it only applies to predestined individuals.

Mat 13:11 – It is not given to them

The same event takes place Joh 12:39. See therefore the exposition of Joh 12:39 for the interpretation of this portion.

Joh 5:21 – The Son makes alive whomever He wills

“The Son of Man makes alive whomever He wills” stands in connection with verse 22: “the Father… has committed all judgment to the Son” (see also verse 27). The Son chooses whom he wants to make alive. He uses his own judgment. It does not say that there is no ground for election, or that election happens randomly. “He who hears My Word and believes on Him who sent Me has everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation, but has passed from death to life” (verse 24). The will of the Son is therefore closely related to the call to faith – and the call to faith is always open to any one.

The explanation of Joh 6:38-40 gives a clearer exposition of the will of the Son. The Son’s will is not to do his own will, but the will of his Father. Verse 40: “And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes on Him should have everlasting life.”

Joh 6:29,37,44 (see also 6:65) – Those who learn from the Father

In verse 28, the disciples ask: What shall we do that we might work the works of God? The Good News Bible translates verse 29 as follows: “What God wants you to do is to believe in the one he sent.” That is the “work of God” that they must do. That is the bread (verse 26,32-35,41,48-51) they have to eat. This constitutes the background where against this passage has to be understood.

Who comes to Jesus?

1. Everyone whom the Father gives Him (verse 37).

2. Everyone whom the Father draws (verse 44).

3. Everyone who hears and learns from the Father (verse 45).

These three ways of coming to Jesus are different sides of the same coin. They are not opposed to one another, but they throw light on the same matter from different angles.

The word “draw” can also be translated as “attract.” (see Baur 1957 and the UBS Dictionary: Newman 1971).

Whom does the Father draw? They shall all be taught of God (verse 45). God draws people through what He teaches through the death of his Son.

The teach-ing of the Father and the attract-ing of the Father are the same. Therefore, all is drawn to Jesus with his exaltation on the cross, according to 12:32.

What does the Father teach? “Then you shall know that I AM, and that I do nothing of Myself, but as My Father has taught Me, I speak these things.” (8:28). Jesus says this concerning his exaltation on the cross. This is the truth that will make us free (8:32).

It is important to distinguish between “teach” and “learn”:

1. To teach someone (comes from didaskw).

2. To learn something yourself (from manqanw)

The MKJV translates verse 45: “And they shall all be taught of God. Therefore everyone who hears and learns from the Father comes to Me.”

All people will be taught or drawn, but not all will learn. To learn is just another way of saying “to believe” (verse 29,30,35,36,40,47,64). Only those who heard and learned come to Jesus.

The text says that Jesus will raise all of those who will be given to Him by the Father (6:39,65). Who are they whom Jesus will raise? From the context, it is clear that they are those that are taught or drawn by the Father and learn, in other words, those who also believe.

Summary

1. All are drawn and all are taught, but not all learn – only those who believe, learn.

2. Yet, no one can come to Jesus if the Father does not teach or draw (attract) him.

3. Only those who learn, the Father gives to Jesus. It is those who believe.

Joh 6:65 – No one come to Me unless it was given to him from My Father

Didwmi (give) in this passage can be translated in the following ways:

1. Granted to him: RSV, NKJV, NEB

2. Given to him: KJV, MKJV

3. Enable him to: NIV

4. Attract him: Linving

5. Makes it possible: Good News

Irrespective of which translation is preferred, this verse refers to verses 37,44-45. Through God’s teaching of all men, and because of the fact that He offers his salvation to all men, He enables all and teaches all about salvation, although not all will learn. Yet, no one can come to the Father if life is not given as a gift to all (as bread for all). It can only be accepted through faith (verse 29,30,35,36,40,47,64).

That which the Father gives, eventually points to Christ himself (verse 69). In the same way, the “drawing” of the Father (6:44) points to the gospel of his Son (6:40).

Joh 8:43,47 – They cannot hear the Word

Those who listen to Jesus do not know his speech, because they cannot hear the Word (verse 43). Their inability to hear is because they have the devil as their Father and his lusts they will (want to) do (verse 44). It is also because they do not believe (verse 45-46). They are not of God (verse 47). Who are of God? The opposite of that, those who believe. Jesus constitutes a general fact. Someone who has the devil as father does not listen to the truth, and those who is of God, in other words, those who believe, they do listen to his words.

The phrase: “ek qeou” (of God) is not explained further in the text. It merely denotes the believers as opposed to the unbelievers. It probably points to the birth of God (cf. Joh 1:13; 3:5,8 as well as 1 Joh 3:9; 4:7; 5:1,4,18). There is nothing in the text that suggests predestination or a certain pre-determination of those that are “of God” or those that are not “of God.”

Jesus talks to Israel here (verse 52). The unbelief of Israel will be understood better in the light of Joh 12:39 (see discussion).

Joh 10:25-27 – You are not of My sheep

Here we have to do with the unbelief of Israel. Therefore, this has to be read in relation to the discussion of Joh 12:39 (discussed hereafter). But in this passage, the unbelief is seen as Israel’s own fault. Verse 25 says: “I told you and you did not believe.” Verse 26 does not point to the predestination of unbelief here, but to the fact that unbelief is a characteristic or mark of those who are not Jesus’ sheep. In verse 27, He says that his sheep hear his voice, are known by Jesus, and they follow him. Implicitly, Jesus says that the Jews do not hear, are not being known by Jesus, and they do not follow Him. It does not say that Jesus has chosen beforehand that they must not be his sheep, but merely that they are not his sheep, and that they do not listen to his voice, etc. The question can now be asked: why are they not his sheep and why do they not listen and follow? This passage does not say specifically. The only thing that can be derived from the text, are these given characteristics of the unbelieving Jews. The terms “do not believe,” “not my sheep,” “not hear,” “not know” and “not follow” are actually synonyms. The one says the same as the other, only in a different way.

This passage therefore says nothing about the reason or ground as to why some are his sheep and others are not.

Joh 10:28-29 – No one is able to pluck them out of My Father's hand

For the explanation of verse 29a, see the explanation of Joh 6:37

The question is if verse 28 and 29b suggests that a Christian cannot fall away from the kingdom of God. Verse 28a says that Jesus gives his children eternal life and just after that, that they shall never ever perish. It is actually the logical reverse side of the fact that that someone who has eternal life will not be lost (cf. Joh 3:16). The portions about the inability to be “plucked out of the Father's hand” says essentially the same, and it is semantically parallel to it. Therefore, someone who inherits eternal life, shall not perish, and shall not be plucked from the Father’s hand. No external person or party, not even the devil, can take eternal life from you. But can one deprive oneself of it?

How do you know you have eternal life, or, how do you know that Jesus has given eternal life to someone? As bad as it sounds, someone who believes will not necessarily inherit eternal life, but only someone who persists in faith! According to Du Toit (1991:327-340), there exists different levels or depths of faith. Not all faith is faith in Jesus as personal saviour. Compare the parable of the sower where the seed fell on the stony places and amoung the thorns. See also Heb 6:4-6; 10:26-29, where there is a real possibility to fall away from the kingdom of God (discussed in more detail elsewhere).

This does not say that a believer cannot be sure of eternal life. But assurance of faith is related to the measure wherein you believe that your salvation does not depend upon yourself and your own achievement, but upon Christ’s achievement on the cross, and upon the measure wherein you entrust yourself to Him (cf. e.g. 1 Jo 5:13: “I have written these things to you who believe… that you may know that you have everlasting life.”). Therefore, faith is not a power trick, but experiential knowledge that God restored the relationship between you and him, and that no one else can break that relationship.

Joh 12:39 and Rom 11 – Israel that could not believe

These people were indeed unable to believe. Why? So that the word of Isaiah could be fulfilled. The words of Isaiah (Isa 6:9-10) are in the form of a prayer. Isaiah prays a specific prayer: that God will make the heart of this people fat, their ears heavy, their eyes shut, and that their heart will not understand. Joh 12:39 is nothing else than the answer on a prayer. God is here only faithful to himself. That is why the inability to believe, specifically points to this people – Israel. It is a specific part of the plan of salvation. God did not merely elect certain people unto damnation, but He hardened Israel’s heart so that the nations can believe (Rom 11:11,30). And yet it is not as if Israel were total marionettes in this happening, for some of the rulers did believe, but they did not confess (Joh 12:42-43). According to Paul, only some of Israel did not believe (some of the branches were broken off: Rom 11:17). Paul was an Israelite himself anyway, and yet he belived.

The unbelief of Israel came to bring salvation to all the gentiles. Their rejection was the salvation of the world (Rom 11:15). The unbelieving Israel was like branches that have been broken off to make room for wild branches (gentiles) that were grafted into the good olive tree (verse 19,24). Therefore the gentiles stand by faith, and they have no reason to be high-minded (verse 20).

The question can now be asked if Israel has no chance of salvation because of their unbelief? No, they did not stumble that they fall, but to make Israel jealous (Rom 11:11). Is God then unfair if he does not give some of Israel a chance to believe? Paul struggled with the same question (Rom 11:1-32). Therefore, he also quotes from Isaiah 6:9-10 (Rom 11:8). The reason why God hardened their hearts is because they were disobedient (Rom 11:20,30) and unfaithful to God in the desert. They were not predestined unto unbelief, but they went after other gods. Now the question can still be asked: is it not unfair that God blind the Jews if many if them did not take part in the desert experience? Does God not give them a fair chance to believe? God does actually, because Paul says in Rom 11:22: “Behold then the kindness, and the severity of God; on those having fallen, severity; but on you, kindness, if you continue in the kindness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.” This points to the justness of God. In verse 23 he says that the Israelites will be grafted in if they do not stay in unbelief (if they believe in Jesus; cf. Joh 15). How is that? “Blindness in part has happened to Israel, until the fullness of the nations has come in. And so all Israel shall be saved” (Rom 11:25-26; cf. Luk 21:24).

Paul calls this truth a mystery (Rom 11:25). It is not something that can be worked out to the letter. We can safely leave that to God’s justness. God's ways are greater than ours, and it is unsearchable (Rom 11:33-36).

This however, does not make any difference regarding the posistion of the gentiles towards the faith.

Joh 14:17 – The world cannot receive the Spirit of Truth

Why cannot the world receive the Spirit of Truth? Because it does not see the Spirit and does not know him. It is not a physical “see,” but a spiritual one, that is actually an expansion to “know.” The gospel is meant for the world (Joh 3:16), but why do they not see and know the Spirit?

It is not because they were predestined that way, but:

1. Because they do not believe (verse 1, 10,11,12. cf. verse 9 in context with 10-12).

2. Because they do not love Him and do not keep his commandments (verse 15).

Joh 15:16 – I have chosen you that you should bring forth fruit

It was customary among the Jewish community to choose your own teacher. Jesus says to his disciples that they have not chosen him as their teacher. The fact that Jesus chose them, points to his motive of pure love, without any interest from their side. He appointed and chose them for a specific task, and that is to bear fruit. The elect have the opportunity to choose to be available for selection and service (Culpepper 1988:1346). What is the ground for election in this context?

1. Those who abide in Him (verse 7). In other words, those who are in Jesus – those who believe in Him and identify with Him.

2. Those who keep his commandments (verse 10), namely to love others (verse 12,17).

Acts 13:48 – As many as were ordained/appointed to eternal life

“And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.” The relevant word concerning the interpretation of this verse is tetagmenoi (from tassw).

Possible Meanings

1. UBS Mini Lexicon (Newman 1971) gives the possibilities: appoint, set aside, command.

2. The Analytical Lexicon (Bagster:1794) gives the possibilities: arrange, appoint, assign.

3. Louw and Nida (1988) place it in the semantic field of assign.

4. Baur (1957) specifically translates Act 13:48 with belong to, be classed among those possessing.

Translations

1. ordained: KJV, MKJV

2. appointed: Amplified, NKJV, NIV

3. those who were marked out: NEB

Interpretation

Marshall (1980) says there are basically 3 interpretations of this passage:

1. Faith is preceded by predestination.

2. People placed their trust in God before they believed.

3. The gentiles are specifically so privileged to be reckoned as being part of the elect.

Bruce (1990) says that tassw probably means “enrolled” or “inscribed.” He says: “These showed by their faith that they had been so enrolled.”

There is no inherent indication to predestination or election in the word tassw, but rather that these people also share in eternal life. They are also classed among those possessing eternal life. They are also assigned to have eternal life, or eternal life is also destined for them. Regardless of which translation in preferred, interpretation 1 remains problematic.

It is also important to note that osoi…aiwnion (“all those who are classed among those possessing eternal life”) is not a condition for episteusan (“they believed”), or precedes it in time, but it rather expands or classifies episteusan.

From the context, it is clear that it is about gentiles that are converted (see verse 42,46).

This happens against the background of gentiles that accepted the gospel, versus Jews that rejected it (verse 46). The point that the writer wants to make with the expansion osoi…aiwnion, is that gentiles can also take part in election (verse 17). It is not about certain individuals that are predestined to become believers, but about the intention of God to destine gentiles for eternal life also.

This can be paraphrased as follows:

They have become believers. They who have become believers, are also destined to receive eternal life on the basis of their faith, for gentiles are also destined for eternal life.

This interpretation is supported by the context:

1. Verse 39 says that by Him (Jesus) all who believes are justified from all things. Faith is here the pre-requisite for justification, not predestination.

2. The Jews’ rejection (verse 46) is placed over against the faith (acceptance) of the gentiles. Faith is the determining factor for rejection or acceptance, not predestination.

3. The salvation to the nations that is mentioned in verse 47, does not say that specific individuals will be saved as a result of predestination, but that salvation is available to all people.

Acts 15:7 – From ancient days God chose that the nations should hear

From ancient days God chose among us that through Paul’s mouth the nations should hear the Word of the gospel, and believe. This underlines the same principle that was discussed in Act 13:48. The issue here is not about prior determination of a certain happening, or the predestination of certain individuals, but about the plan and intention of God to also choose gentiles who believe the gospel, after it has been preached to them. He has decided ages ago and arranged it so that the gospel will be available to all nations, for God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life (Joh 3:16). That is His eternal intention. That is election. That is the heart of the gospel.

Acts 15:18 – All His works are known to God from eternity

In the most Greek texts, “All His works” and “to God” do not occur. Many translations translate: “That have been known for ages.” (e.g. NIV). If “all His works” and “to God” would be reckoned as part of the text, it would still not imply some kind of fatalism. It rather speaks about the fact that God knew beforehand what He would do in the end time. His intention and promises are sure. Nobody or nothing can stop God from completing His works, which He has planned from ages ago.

Rom 3:10-23 – There is none that seeks after God

No sinner seeks after God (Rom 3:10). No sinner reaches after God or comes to God on his own. God takes the initiative. God comes to man. He reveals himself through his Son Jesus Christ to man. If the Spirit of God convicts man of righteousness, sin and judgement (Joh 16:8), he can accept the salvation that God has prepared for him. But whom do the Spirit convict of righteousness, sin and judgement? The world (Joh 16:8), which is all people. Therefore, the gospel is good news to all people (Luk 2:10).

As was discussed earlier, the problem of depravity does not lie with the human will, but with his nature. An unbeliever can also will to do good, but he cannot bring it into effect, because his sinful nature disqualifies any good attempts to do true good or to accomplish salvation (Rom 7:15). Verse 18 also says: “For to will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good I do not find.” To accept salvation by choice is not to do good or to perform a good work, it is actually to acknowledge that you cannot do anything to be saved, and that you can merely accept the salvation that has been prepared by Christ. That is faith. In other words, a sinner does not seek after God, but he can accept salvation through faith after God has bowed down towards him. Interestingly enough, the writer of Hebrews calls faith a way of seeking God (Heb 11:6).

Rom 3:24 – Free justification (without merit)

The way in which man is saved without merit, is that of faith. The fact that man can take part in salvation through faith is God’s grace after all. Faith on its own (without the need for God to impart it) is opposed to merit (see the nature of faith).

Rom 8:8 – Those who live by the flesh cannot please God

The context of Rom 8 makes it clear that this is about people that live or walk according to the Spirit or the flesh (verse 4). Compare the following translations:

1. “... those who are living in the life of the flesh” (Amplified).

2. “... those controlled by the sinful nature” (NIV).

3. “... those who live under its control” (NEB).

4. “... those who are still under control of their old sinful selves” (Living).

5. “... those who obey their human nature” (Good News).

It is therefore about sinners that has not come to repentance yet, people that intentionally choose to live according to the flesh. It is in contrast with verse 9 that says: “but you are not in the flesh.” Here Paul distinguishes between two types of people or two ways of existence: those who are in the flesh (unsaved sinners), and those who are in the Spirit (those who have been justified).

Because someone who is in the flesh still, cannot please God, the flesh has to be put off in Christ firstly (Col 2:11).

This does not say that a sinner cannot believe, in fact, only sinners can believe unto salvation (Rom 3:21-24), there is no distinction. For this reason is it impossible to please God without faith (Heb 11:5-6).

Rom 8:29-30 – Those whom He predestinated

This portion has to be understood against the background of verse 28 that say that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His plan (purpose)” (the calling is being explained further in verse 30). It points to the people that take part in God’s plan or intention by their love for God. God had the intention from the beginning that all things (“all things” points to verse 29-30: die calling, the justification etc.) work together for good to those who love Him.

Verse 29 can be translated with “those whom He knew of before…” (proginwskw). This foreknowledge does not point to the names of certain individuals, but to those that will fit into His plan / intention – those who will take part of the plan that he made provision for since the foundation of the world (in Jesus) – those who love God (verse 28). He has decided it so that these people will also be conformed to the image of His Son. Verse 30: In God’s plan he has decided that these people (that would love Him) would take part of God’s calling, justification and glorification. Here are traces of pre-knowledge, but then as pre-determined destination in general, for those who will take part of the plan that God has made provision for in Christ. It is especially about the content of the intention in Christ. In other words, those who take part of the plan that God has made provision for since the foundation of the world, will by their love for God, also take part in the whole “present”: the calling, justification and the glorification.

In other places in the New Testament, calling does not necessarily imply election. According to Mat 22:14, many are called, but few chosen (see also the “teaching” of the Father in the discussion of Joh 6:45), but election always implies calling.

Rom 9 – God’s sovereign plan to choose gentiles also

In Rom 9, the Israelites are unhappy that the gentiles can now also take part in the covenants (verse 4). This lies close to Paul’s heart that they feel like this, and he is troubled about it, because he is a born Israelite himself (9:2-3). He says that it is not as if the Word of God has failed (9:6), and he shows that those who are children of the promise, are counted as children of God (:8). The term “children of the promise” is being explained in 4:16: “Therefore it is of faith so that it might be according to grace; for the promise to be made sure to all the seed, not only to that which is of the Law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all.” Therefore, not all those of Israel are Israel, but those who are children of the promise (9:6-8). The Living Bible translates 9:8 with “those who believe the promise of salvation.” Therefore, only those who believe, are part of the promise, if you are an Israelite or not (also see Rom 9:28,32,33). It is therefore not about the election of certain individuals, but about the election of all who believe, Jew or non-Jew.

In Rom 9, it is about the intention of God (9:11). It is about those whom He calls (9:11). What is his intention? Whom does he call? In verse 24, Paul says that God calls of the Gentiles as well as the Jews. The Jews cannot understand that the Gentiles, who did not follow after righteousness, receive it now for free (only by faith: 9:30). They think it is unfair that God also allows Gentiles in his intention, and they even want to strife with God about it. Paul replies that God is sovereign in his actions. He may decide how He wants to save people. The intention of God is not of the one willing or of the one running, but of God’s mercy. Who is the man that wants to take God’s intention in question, how can Israel say to God: “why have you made me this way?” (9:20).

The question that is asked in Rom 9:19 is a question that Paul anticipates: "Why does He yet find fault? For who has resisted His will?" To paraphrase the question that Paul anticipates: Why does God find fault with the Jews after God has hardened their heats in order to bring salvation to the non-Jews also (verse 30) for no one could succeed in stopping God from performing his will / purpose anyway? Paul argues that this is actually a silly question, for God did not in fact blame them, for He ought to show His wrath and make His power known, but He did not, He endured with much long-suffering those who were to blame and who deserved hell in the first place (verse 22). By this, God actually did not add more blame, but made known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy which He had before prepared to glory (verse 23). This is a paraphrase for the gospel where His grace is shown. And to whom did God's grace came? People from all the nations – Jews included (verse 24). In the New Testament therefore, all people attain the righteousness by faith (verse 30).

The following then from Rom 9:19:

The question that Paul addresses is not a question that lies beneath God's working, but a question that he anticipates from his audience.
Paul shows that this question is actually inappropriate and that the opposite is true.
Paul does therefore not try to retain the idea that God still blames people after He has pre-elected them.
The blame on the Israelites was there before he chose to harden their hearts to the gospel. The hardening of their hearts was therefore not a change in their destination, but God used them, even though they were already going to hell, in his plan to bring salvation to all nations.

4. The hardening of hearts does not equal eternal damnation, but serves a higher purpose: namely to bring salvation to all nations.

Rom 9 is therefore about election as election that includes Gentiles. It is not about particular election. Election does not depend upon certain things that count in your favour (like being a physical descendent of Abraham), but upon something without merit, that is faith.

On the question: Why does God harden the hearts of the Israelites (verse 18), see the discussion of Joh 12:39 and Rom 11.

Rom 11 – The future of Israel

See the discussion of Jh 12:39.

2 Cor 3:5 – We are not sufficient of ourselves

We are not sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God. The emphasis lies on “as of ourselves” and not on “think.” See for example the NIV:“Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God.”

We may not think that we have the ability in ourselves to be ministers of the new covenant. It is here about the Spirit that makes us able. His Spirit gives us the ability to be ministers of the new covenant (verse 6). The new dispensation of the Spirit, and the ability to walk in it, comes from God. In this context, it is not about the work of salvation of the Spirit, but about the companionship and the empowerment of the Spirit for this ministry. The people in Corinth relied too heavily on their own abilities; therefore, they are also warned against letters of commendation (verse 1).

2 Cor 4:4 – The blinding of the minds

The covering of the gospel for those who are lost, is connected to 3:15. The god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers. But when they turn to the Lord, the veil is being taken away (3:16). To whom is the gospel hidden (4:3)? To (the hearts / minds of) those being lost. Why are they lost? Not because they are being predestined that way, but because they do not believe (verse 4, KJV: “them which believe not”). Therefore, the light of the glorious gospel of Christ (who is the image of God) did not dawn on them. The covering of the gospel is not being determined for certain individuals, but it is the description of the state of the hearts of those who do not believe. This is the case with all who believe not. Their hearts remains blinded until the Holy Spirit takes away the covering, after they have accepted Christ in faith. The process of conviction of the Holy Spirit takes place in the hearts of those who are not only taught about the good news, but also learned themselves, and have taken the gospel to heart (cf. Joh 6:45). Their hearts are being enlightened. They have the Spirit of faith, as it is written: “I believed, and therefore I have spoken” (verse 13).

2 Cor 5:14-15 en 2 Tim 2:11 – All died

2 Cor 5:14-15 says: " For the love of Christ constrains us, judging this, that if one died for all, then all died; (15) and He died for all, that the living ones may live no more to themselves, but to Him who died for them and having been raised." According to 2 Cor 5:14-15, all people died because Christ died for all people, but that does not necessarily mean that all people live. "The living ones" may live no more to themselves. Who share in the new life? Only those who are "in Christ" are new creatures (2 Cor 5:17).

2 Ti 2:11 says: "For faithful is the Word, for if we died with Him, we shall also live with Him." Here it looks as if everyone who died with Christ also lives with Him. 2 Ti 2:11 cannot be understood in the same way as 2 Cor 5:15. The difference between the two portions is that 2 Ti talks about people that died with Christ and live with Him. Everyone that died according to 2 Cor 5:15 did die, but they did not die with Christ in the same way as in 2 Ti 2:11.

What does it mean that all people died because Christ died for all people? This has to be understood in the same way as other portions where people who are dead by sin are mentioned.

Rom 5:12 "Therefore, even as through one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed on all men inasmuch as all sinned."

Rom 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death…"

All people who are not reborn and who are not in Christ (2 Cor 5:17), are and remain spiritually dead in their sin, for the eternal death, which is the result of sin, reigns over all who are and remain in sin (cf. Rom 6:12,14). Christ's death also talks about the fact that all people deserve death. Christ died for all people, which means that God reconciled the whole world to Himself in Christ (2 Cor 5:19) and potentially made all people's punishment to come down on Christ, so that everyone who let himself be reconciled to God (2 Cor 5:20) through faith and as a result is in Christ – his punishment has already been received by Christ. Someone who does not accept Jesus' reconciliation on the cross and who does not believe in Him cannot take part in God's reconciliation in Christ, and he will receive God's direct punishment (2 Th 1:9; Heb 10:29).

They who accepted the Word in faith, are being reborn from incorruptible seed (1 Pe 1:23) and take part in Christ in all aspects. Baptism therefore talks about the believer's identification and likeness to Christ's death and resurrection. The believer shares in everything that Christ has done through His death and resurrection. Through the believer's connectedness to Christ, his flesh has been put off (Col 2:11); he is a new creature (2 Cor 5:17) and he shares in the divine nature (2 Pe 1:4). The believer's connectedness to Christ in His death and resurrection (of which baptism speaks) is very well being explained by the following Scripture portions:

Rom 6:5-6 "For if we have been joined together in the likeness of His death, we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection; (6) knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him in order that the body of sin might be destroyed, that from now on we should not serve sin."

Rom 6:8-9 "But if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, (9) knowing that when Christ was raised from the dead, He dies no more; death no longer has dominion over Him."

Col 2:12 "buried with Him in baptism, in whom also you were raised through the faith of the working of God, raising Him from the dead."

Rom 8:10 "And if Christ is in you, indeed the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness."

Eph 2:8 – Salvation is a gift of God

This verse refers to verse 5: “by grace you are saved.” The touto (this) in verse 8 refers semantically in the first place to the salvation (cf. verse 5), not to faith (cf. Zerwick & Grosvenor 1988, Amplified Bible). One cannot save yourself. If you see this and recognise that only God can save you through Jesus the Lord, and if you accept that, and confess it, you are saved (Rom 10:10), for this equals faith. The Message translates: “Saving is all his idea, and all his work. All we do is trust him enough to let him do it. It's God's gift from start to finish!”

It is grammatically possible to understand touto as referring back to the whole phrase (salvation and faith). But even if touto refers to the whole phrase, the dia pistewV (through faith) is merely an expansion to seswsmenoi (you are saved). In this context, it is primarily about the salvation and the “making alive” of man (Eph 2:5). One should also be able to translate: “For by grace you are saved (through faith), and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.” The “(through faith)” is added to say how salvation takes place, namely through faith. Faith is the way in which man becomes part of the saving grace, for it is opposed to merit. “It is by grace that you have been saved because you have faith” (Louw & Nida 1988:379).

Compare Rom 4:4,5. Here, it is not grace that is being opposed to merit, but faith, for faith on its own is not a meritorious work, therefore it is according to grace. In other words, it is not grace because God imparts faith, but because faith has no inherent meritorious character. God knows this, and therefore he has made this the way in which man can be saved. Therefore, the way of faith on its own equals grace.

Here in Eph 2:8, the same principle applies. Faith is the access to grace (Rom 5:2)

In Eph 2:8, the dia pistewV refers to the manner of salvation: through faith. Therefore, general terms are used here (dia + Accusative). The emphasis is not primarily on the action of the faith of the individual here, but on the way of salvation, the intention of God that is being revealed in Christ, and this was not thought up by man. The intention of God to save people through their faith, without merit, is in all aspects a reflection of God’s pure grace. It is in totality a gift from God wherein all people can share.

Phi 1:29 – It is given to believe and to suffer

To you it is granted on behalf of Christ not only to believe on Him, but also to suffer for His sake. The relevant Greek word is ecarisqhn, 2 sing. aor. ind. of carizomai.

Possible meanings

1. The Mini-dictionary of the UBS-text (Newman 1971), offers the possible meaning of granted.

2. The Analytical dictionary (Bagster Press:1794) gives the possibility: granted a favour.

3. Zerwick & Grosvenor (1988): Grant: as a grace or privilege.

4. Bauer’s Lexicon (1957) has a specific reference to Phi 1:29, and translates it with: granted the privilege of.

Translations

1. Granted: NIV, RSV, NKJV.

2. Given the privilege of: Good News, Living.

3. Granted the privilege: NEB, Amplified.

4. Have been given the privilege: GNB.

Interpretation

The context of Phi 1 (and especially verse 27-30) points to the fact that Paul is encouraging these people that are striving for their faith (1:27). Paul hears about their difficult circumstances (1:27) and learns about the suffering that they have to go through for Christ’s sake. He learns that they have adversaries in this battle (1:28) who make it difficult to believe, and intensifies their suffering for Christ’s sake. The phrase: “for Christ’s sake” is important. In this verse, Paul wants to tell them that they must consider their faith as a privilege, for they are not doing it for themselves, but for Christ. Therefore, he also encourages the congregation to have the same attitude (mind) as Christ.

Paul is in any case not giving a definition for faith unto salvation (as e.g. Rom 4-5). He rather talks about the fact that they are Christians (believe in Him) rather than about the nature of faith. The context is that of encouragement against the background of the striving of their faith.

An interpretation that wants to read into the text a faith unto salvation as being imparted by God, has a few contextual difficulties:

1. This does not correspond to the general thrust of this portion.

2. The infinitive of both “faith” and “suffering” makes such an interpretation not apparent, for the infinitive fits better in the construction with “to consider as a privilege” (as was explained).

3. If God imparted faith, would He have imparted suffering as well? These two terms are part of the same Greek construction after all.

4. This would also not concur with the other Pauline utterances (cf. Tit 2:11; Rom 3:27; 5:2,15,18; 10:12-13; 14:15; 1 Cor 8:11; 2 Cor 5:15,19; 1 Ti 2:4,6; etc.).

Phi 2:12 – Work out your own salvation

Katergazomai (work out) can be translated as follows:

Possible meanings

1. The Mini Lexicon of the UBS text (Newman 1971) gives the following possibilities among others: do, bring about, work out, make ready.

2. The Analytical Lexicon (Bagster Press:1794) gives the following specifically concerning Phi 2:12: to work, practise, realize in practice.

3. Liddle & Scott (1924) gives among others the possibility: to effect, to prevail upon, to work in.

4. Louw & Nida (1988) suggest effect in this regard.

5. Baur (1957): work out.

Translations

1. Work out: RSV, KJV, NKJV, NEB.

2. Continue to work out: NIV.

3. Keep on working...to complete: Good News.

4. Cultivate: MKJV.

5. “Cultivate, carry out the goal, fully complete” (Amplified).

6. “Do the good things as a result from being saved” (Living).

7. “Be energetic in your life of salvation” (Message).

Interpretation

The term katergazomai (“work out”) on its own, can be interpreted in two ways:

1. As something you have to bring into being.

2. As something that has already come into being that has to be cultivated or completed.

To simplify it, one could say that the emphasis in no. 1 lies on the work and in no. 2 on the out (outwards).

In this context, the second interpretation fits beteer – that implies that salvation has been obtained already, and that katergazomai is being used to describe the outward living / cultivation of this salvation:

1. The Bible translations that choose for one of the two interpretations, all choose for the second translation (NIV, Good News, Amplified, Living, MKJV).

2. From the context, it is evident that Paul speaks to believers who already received salvation. He says in verse 12: “as you have always obeyed.” These are people who have already received the salvation of Jesus Christ through their faith. Verse 14 also says, “do all things without murmurings and disputings.” This “all things” refers to everything that is associated with, or everything that is the implication of the salvation that they have received. In verse 15, the meaning of verse 12 is being expanded and qualified further: “so that you may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation. Among these you shine as lights in the world.” Here, the “working out” of the salvation means that they have to shine as lights in the world, so that their lives might be a witness of the salvation that God has worked in them. And all of this God works in them (through His Spirit) and helps them to will as well as to do of His good pleasure (verse 13).

Phi 2:13 – It is God who works in you both to will and to do

Translations

1. “God is always at work in you to make you willing and able to obey his own purpose” (Good News).

2. “For God is at work within you, helping you to want to obey him, and then helping you to do what he wants” (Living).

3. “It is God Who is all the while effectually at work in you [energizing]...” (Amplified).

4. “Inspiring both the will and the deed” (NEB).

5. “For it is God who works in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure” (MKJV).

Interpretation

God works in us and gives us the energy / power / ability (energwn) to will and to do of His good pleasure, for without God’s power it is impossible for any Christian to walk in His will. In this context, it is about the living of your Christianity in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation (verse 15). God helps you to will to live / cultivate your salvation towards the outside world, but He does not will for you or on your behalf, it is still you that will. Verse 12 says: “Cultivate your own salvation.” In other words: “You must do it, but God enables you…”

2 Th 2:13 – From the beginning chosen to salvation

Here are a few translations that in my opinion simplify the interpretation of the text.

1. NEB: “We are always bound to thank God for you, my friends beloved by the Lord. From the beginning of time God chose you to find salvation in the Spirit who consecrates you and in the truth you believe.”

2. NIV: “But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth.”

3. The RSV also translates: “through.”

In this portion, it is once more about the intention of God’s election. It is about the plan that God had since the beginning to call people by the gospel (verse 14). The election is in Christ (verse 14). The congregation obtains the glory of Christ. Verse 13 is other words to say that the gospel is being given to us as a gift in Christ (cf. Eph 1:4). Hereby He calls us to obtain the glory of Christ. The intention of election is salvation. The manner in which we partake of salvation is as follows (from the context):

1. Through (en) the sanctification of the Spirit. It is the manner in which God recreates man through faith.

2. And through (en) faith. He elects those who believe. Verse 10-12 says that those who did not accept (decomai) the truth, and did not believe it, will be condemned. Verse 13 follows in contrast to that. Paul then thanks God that he cannot say the same of the congregation. By implication, they did believe and accepted the word of truth. Through that, they have become part of God’s eternal intention of election.

This verse van be paraphrased as follows:

But brothers, we ought to thank God that the Lord loved us so that he had a plan since the beginning to let us become partakers of salvation through the holiness of the Spirit, and this by our faith in the truth.

2 Th 3:2 – All do not have the faith

“All do not have the faith,” merely says that not everybody believes or comes to faith. It says nothing about the nature of faith. It does not say if faith is being imparted or not.

2 Tm 1:9 – Saved according his own purpose and grace

It is here about God's own purpose / intention and grace. God’s grace and purpose is revealed in Christ Jesus. The salvation was given us in Christ Jesus before the eternal times. In other words, if we partake in Christ, we partake in the salvation that he, in the purpose / intention of his election, has given in Christ since the beginning (cf. Rom 9:11). How do we partake in this? We partake in Christ through faith (verse 12).

Tit 3:5 – According to His mercy He saved us

This talks about the salvation / redemption of man. It is all God’s work. It is God’s gift in Christ. It finds form through rebirth (cf. Joh 3:5). Nothing is being said here about the access to salvation. Faith is still necessary to partake in this salvation (verse 8, cf. the discussion of Eph 2:8).

1 Pe 1:1-2 – Elect according to the foreknowledge of God

Peter addresses his letter to the scattered strangers. They are elected according to the foreknowledge of God, in the sanctification of the Spirit to obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. God had knowledge beforehand (prognwsiV) and knew that He would choose people in Christ (see Eph 1:5-11). They will take part in the sanctification / holiness (agiasmoV) of the Spirit – that is the rebirth and the sanctifying work through the Spirit (Joh 3:5). He knew that it would bring people to obedience, for He decided to give his Spirit as Comforter and Leader to those who are born again (the promise of the Father). The sprinkling with the blood of the of the Lord Jesus speaks of the inner happening in the heart, wherein the blood of the Lamb will wash away people’s sin and make their conscience clean (Heb 10:22). All of this is part if the work of grace that God knew of before, and that he had planned, that He would make available through Christ’s work of redemption. It is not about individual election, but it contains the eternal intention of God to give rebirth and redemption to those who believe in Christ (1 Pe 1:3-5; see also Eph 3:8-12).

1 Pe 1:10 – The grace for you

The grace that was intended for them, of which the prophets prophesied, is directly connected with salvation – the end of their faith (verse 9). The grace is intended for them that believe. The Greek says: “thV eiV umaV caristoV.” Literally, “the grace is for you.” It does not mean that the grace is only for these people, but that the grace is there for all who believe. Verse 17 says that God judges according to the work of each one without being a respecter of persons. In verse 20, Peter talks about God’s foreknowledge, not foreknowledge of certain individuals that will accept Him, but foreknowledge of the precious blood of Christ (verse 19). This was revealed for you (verse 20). This “you” refers to those who by Him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead (verse 21).

1 Pe 2:8 – Appointed to disobedience

Jesus became a stone of stumbling for them which stumble against it through their disobedience and unbelief (verse 7). The “appointment” of these people does not point to specific individuals, but it is the inevitable result of their unbelief and disobedience. The “appointment” points to the destination of the unbelievers in general. They are therefore not destined to unbelief, but the unbelief / disobedience is destined to “stumbling.”

See the following translations:

1. NEB: “They trip because they refuse the Lord; this is the fate (trip) that is appointed to them (them that are disobedient).”

2. Living Bible: “They will stumble because they will not listen to God's Word, nor obey it, and so this punishment will follow – that they will fall.”

3. Message: “For the untrusting it's... a stone to trip over, a boulder blocking the way. They trip and fall because they refuse to obey, just as predicted.”

2 Pe 1:1 – To those who have obtained like precious faith with us

Peter writes to those who “have obtained like precious faith with us.” The relevant Greek word that is being used here is lacousin, dat. pl. ml. aor. part. from lagcanw.

Possible meanings

1. Baur (1957) gives the possibility: obtain.

2. The Analytical dictionary (Bagster Press:1794) also has the possibility: obtain.

3. Liddill & Scott (1924, although it is a dictionary for classical Greek) gives this meaning: Generally: to obtain, to get possession of.

Translations

1. Obtain: KJV, NKJV, RSV.

2. Obtained an equal privilege of: Amplified.

3. Share equally with us in the privileges of faith: NEB.

4. To you whose experience with God is as life-changing as ours: Message.

Interpretation

The translation “obtain” on its own can be understood in two possible ways:

1. To receive something as a gift.

2. To become a possessor or partaker of something.

In this context, it seems more probable to understand lacousin in a general sense, as something that you become a partaker of, without necessarily denying the human involvement or choice therein.

The fides qua is not implied here (faith that you believe with), but the fides quae (faith that you believe in) (Schelkle 1970:185). It is not about the “that” of faith, but about the “what” of faith. The faith is being described by isotimon (only occurrence in the NT). Bigg (1978:249) shows that this word was often understood as “of equal value,” but he says that it has to be translated more precisely with “of equal honour” or “of equal privilege.” Therefore, the interpretations of the NEB and the Amplified, which translate with “the privilege(s) that we have in the faith,” seems to fit better. Peter actually wants to say that the people to whom he writes, believe in a faith that shares in the same privileges as the faith that he believes in. Although the people to whom Peter writes, obtained their faith through his mediation (and not through Jesus himself), it does not make their faith inferior, for both share in the same privileges through the righteousness of Jesus Christ (cf. Bigg 1978:249).

Faith unto salvation would be an over-interpretation in this portion, and it is hard to reconcile it with the context, where the autonomous character of faith is being emphasised:

1:5 “Filling out your faith with virtue” (autonomous faith).

1:9 “For he in whom these things are not present is blind and cannot see afar off and has forgotten that he was purged from his sins in the past.” Peter wants to encourage them to believe and accept the forgiveness. It is a choice they have to make.

1:10 “Rather be diligent to make your calling and election sure.” It is an active decision to make sure that they are saved.

2:21 Hereby Peter admits the possibility to become apostate from the faith. He refers to people who “knew the way of righteousness.” Because of this, faith unto salvation cannot be seen as a gift, for then it would mean that God imparts a faith that can become apostate later on!

3:9 “The Lord is not slow concerning His promise, as some count slowness, but is long-suffering toward us, not purposing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” If God would impart faith as a gift to some, this verse has no meaning, especially in the light of other Scripture portions (see Isa 40:5; Joh 3:16; Tit 2:11; Rom 5:15,18; 14:15; 1 Cor 8:11; 2 Cor 5:19; 2 Pe 2:1; Heb 2:9; 1 Jo 2:2; Mat 18:14; 1 Ti 2:4,6).

2 Pe 2:9 – God delivers the godly out of temptation

God knows how to deliver the godly (eusebeia)out of temptation. Godliness in this context is not something unto which one is destined to, but a characteristic of those who believe (1:5 and especially 1:9).

The unrighteous are reserved for the day of judgement. The “reserving” is not a pre-destination for some individuals, but the result / designation for the unjust – those who denied the Master who bought them (2:1).

1 Jo 5:16 – Prayer for life to the brother

“If anyone sees his brother sin a sin not to death, he shall ask, and He shall give him life for those that do not sin to death. There is a sin to death, I do not say that he shall pray for it.” The “brother” is the fellow Christian. It is about praying for him if you see that he sins not to death (sin to death is eternal, eventual and persistent sin, that is to turn your back unto God and to deny Him. It is the sin of them that are lost.). God shall give him “life.” It is not “eternal life” here, but “life” in the area of sin that you pray for.

Rev 5:9 – Redeemed out of every kindred and tongue and people and nation

Here are no traces of faith, election, or destination. The fact is merely being stated that Jesus redeems people out of every kindred and tongue and people and nation.

Rev 13:8; 17:8 – Names written in the book of life

The Good News Bible translates 13:8 as follows:

“All people living on earth will worship it, except those whose names were written before the creation of the world in the book of the living which belongs to the Lamb that was killed.” (cf. RSV, Living)

The NIV translates as follows:

“All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast – all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.” (cf. KJV, NKJV, REB, ISV)

The question is to which subordinate clause does the phrase: “from the foundation of the world” refers to – the names or the Lamb? According to the Greek, both are possible. Even Zerwick and Grosvenor (1988) cannot choose:

1. The Good News Bible’s translation in this regard would correspond with Rev 17:8 – which is less problematic to translate: “whose names were not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world.” Rev 13:18 and Rev 17:8 would then correspond in meaning.

2. However, the NIV translation would correspond in meaning with 1 Pe 1:20!

Yet, I shall prefer the former translation, merely because I think that the writer of Revelation probably had the same meaning in mind in both instances (13:8 and 17:8).

The expression “foundation of the world” (katabolhV kosmou) occurs only 10 times in the New Testament and it is foundational to the understanding of this portion. It occurs:

1. with pro + genitive: “before the foundation of the world”: Joh 17:24; Eph 1:4; 1 Pe 1:20. That which is described, is being completed before the foundation of the world. It is interesting to note that in all three occurrences, the person of Christ or the salvation in Christ is mentioned. As was pointed out before, Eph 1:4 does not imply individual election, but the salvation / election in Christ, thus the plan of salvation (intention of election).

2. with apo + genitive: “since the foundation of the world”: Mat 13:35; 25:34; Luk 11:50; Heb 4:3; 9:26; Rev 13:8; 17:8. That which is described, is still being in the process of happening, but it started at the foundation of the world. It is grammatically well illustrated by Luk 11:50; Heb 9:26. It removes therefore the possibility of predestination in Rev 13:8 and 17:8. The names are therefore not already written before the foundation of the world (as the RSV and Good News Bible translated erroneously), but it started then. See e.g. the UBS dictionary (Newman:1971) and the REB of Rev 13:8; 17:8, that translates “since” (the translation “from” is not incorrect).

Consequences of particular predestination and imparted faith

Individual predestination and a doctrine where the will of man does not exist autonomous at salvation, results in certain problematic theological positions.

Consequence of particular election

Those who advocate particular election, see God’s choice to accept only some elected individuals as foundational to the doctrine of election. Although younger formulations within the theology want to incorporate the human choice in salvation, it do not let the will stand on its own, for it would threaten the mercy-character of election. The logical consequence of this type of particular election is contradictory. It wants to hold onto God’s irresistible grace on the one hand, and make room for the wrong choice of man on the other hand. Therefore, man is being saved because of God’s will, but he perishes because of man’s will. Dogmatists want to hold onto both, but they do not want to relate them. The tension must be kept. The result is a paradoxical position that apparently became quite acceptable within a post-modernistic paradigm.

If the latter problem is being brought to a head, there is usually in the last instance being snatched back at God’s sovereignty at the expense of the free will of man. Therefore, if the doctrine of election must be followed through to its consequence, it is not possible not to end up with determinism and supralapsarianism. There is therefore no true mention of a mutual relationship between God and man, for a relationship is not possible if each does not have its own autonomous choice in it (see the discussion in chapter 1).

Prayer for believers and the need for preaching

If individual election is understood as something that exists from all eternity, it becomes problematic to pray for unbelievers to come to repentance, for by implication you might try to change something to an election that is being determined already. Thereby, God’s sovereignty comes into question. If the result of God’s election is being determined before the foundation of the world, nothing that man does or does not do, could change anything.

The same problem arises with the need for preaching. If the result of election has been determined already, is it necessary to preach the gospel and call people unto repentance at all?

Objective faith assurance?

Objective faith assurance is also a contradiction in my opinion, for it would refer to the possibility of having faith assurance because the choice of salvation lies outside yourself. The question remains however: How do you know you take part in the true faith and not of the faith that corresponds with the seed that fell on the rocky or thorny soil? (parable of the sower). An answer cannot be given to this question without acknowledging the subjective dimension of faith assurance. On the question: “How can one be sure of your faith?”, the answer will be: “hold onto the promise” or, “accept it in faith” or, “it is something that you just know one day.” The question is if one can say that faith assurance is objective at all. Faith assurance is an experience. It is about the question if you are certain. It is not something that you can objectify cognitively. Faith assurance is per definition a subjective experience. For this reason, the faith assurance of those who want to hold onto objective faith assurance is particularly in question, for how do you know you are elected? How do you know you do not merely have a pretended faith?

If faith is being imparted, faith assurance can certainly not be something that you obtain by a so-called power trick. God certainly has to impart that too! But what does one say to people who struggle seriously with faith assurance? “I shall pray that you will receive it: be patient” or, “pray for it, believe it, accept it,” in other words, “do the power trick.”

Apostasy of believers

Responsible exegesis of Heb 6:4-6 shows that it is indeed possible for believers to fall out of the grace of God. It has to do with believers, for it speaks of people who:

1. became enlightened

2. have tasted of the heavenly gift

3. were made partakers of the Holy Spirit

4. have tasted the good Word of God

5. and (have tasted) the powers of the world to come.

Believers are being addressed in this letter anyway. Compare Heb 10:26,29; 12:3,14.

Most Reformed theologians deny the possibility that a believer can become apostate (see the perseverance of the saints in the Canons of Dort). Some do leave this possibility open (on the ground of Heb 6:4-6), but it creates the following inevitable problems:

1. If such a possibility is left open, and one wants to hold onto imparted faith, it means that God did something at man’s salvation that did not essentially transformed him. It places a question mark behind the integrity of the faith that God would have imparted. God then imparts the gift of faith, but later takes it back!

2. If people can become apostate, after they have believed on the basis of their own choice, doesn’t man’s choice determine his destination after all?

The doctrine about the perseverance of the saints, also contradicts the doctrine of the banning in the church. This doctrine says that a Christian that has become apostate or went astray, may be cut off from the kingdom of God. How can this be reconciled with the rest of the Reformed theology? Does God impart the gift of faith to someone, but it can later be taken away by the church?

The Canons of Dort

The Canons of Dort were often accused of presenting a doctrine of double predestination and supralapsarianism (in other words, to put forth a doctrine wherein the result of election has been determined before the foundation of the world). The teaching of the Canons of Dort has been typified with the term TULIP, that stands for Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace and Perseverance of the saints.

Statements in the Canons of Dort include the following:

Chapter 1, Article 6: “...It is the decision of election and rejection…” (double predestination).

Chapter 1, Article 7: “...According to that, He has elected a certain number of people from the human race before creation.” (supralapsarianism).

Many theologians therefore tried to apologise for the Canons of Dort by pointing to the scholastic thought and the influence of Beza at the time. It remains a problem however, to silence the critics against the Canons of Dort.

The problem is that the church still leans strongly upon the Canons of Dort, and that it is still a compulsory confession for many young people that want to confess their faith publicly, or want to be ordained as pastors. It is being said to them that one has to look at its general thrust and that it’s core has to be accepted, irrespective of certain formulations that might be problematic. The question is however, what if some problematic formulations form part of the core of the Canons of Dort?

Consistent humbleness

Most Theologians, as a justification for a paradoxical position within the theology, reach back to a position of consistent humbleness. The fact that certain positions within the dogmatics are being understood as paradoxical would be due to man’s limited understanding. The problem is however, that the humbleness-position is in fact a position of piety. It is a filter or a preconceived notion. It determines that the aspect of God’s sovereignty is being accentuated. It is where this theology has its fundamental point of departure. All theological conclusions must be subjected to this pious experience.

This position of piety asks for the consistent vindication of God’s all-including grace, for it fears that salvation might contain a measure of merit on man’s side. Statements that would underline the principle of consistent humbleness are the following:

· “Why will certain people be lost? We cannot explain it. One need not explain sin either. One can only confess it.” (the principle inexplicability of sin).

· “I did not choose God, He has chosen me.”

· “We all ought to be lost, but God has chosen me. I may not ask why He actually chose me – and not those who will be lost… I can merely fall on my knees and say ‘thanks, thanks, thanks…’”

These statements may sound soothing on the ear, not because it make logical sense, but because it confirms the position of consistent humbleness. It offers a kind of escape from a search for logical understanding. It transcends my limited understanding, and ends up in an idea of God, which is essentially inexplicable and mysterious, and an idea of man that longs for an inferiority complex.

For some, there is even a striving for a type of masochistic satisfaction, that strengthens the feeling of inferiority. This experience then becomes the underlying experience of piety.

The principle of humbleness then becomes a type of meritorious or false humility. It can be compared to someone who does not want to accept a compliment. The moment when it looks as if you are something or can something, you do not want to accept it.

This utter reliance on God’s grace that cannot be accepted or resisted, results in a type of passivity and fatalism with believers – a hope that the Lord will intervene some other time and that He might change your fate. But if God does not do it, you are cross with Him! This often results in people that serve the Lord for what they can get out of Him, and not out of spontaneous chosen love.

The consistent vindication of the principle of humbleness boils down to the attenuation of the natural or general grace of God to all people. If the natural grace would include the free choice of man in terms of salvation, such grace would clash with the principle of consistent humbleness. Therefore, a large distinction is drawn between general and specific grace. This distinction most probably came into being to maintain the principle of consistent humbleness.

Is autonomous faith equal to synergism?

Out of the position that was described above, the principle of faith as a free choice for all men is rejected, and accused of being a synergism.

This accusation has to be evaluated against the background of the polar versus non-polar thought.

As was mentioned before, according to polar thought, the salvation of man is described by way of a quantitative scale of human and divine share. Die accusation of synergism actually remains on the level of polar thought, for those who reject synergism, strives for a 0% human share and a 100% divine share. It would argue that if the unbeliever would be able to believe by himself, it would give a higher value than zero to man, and therefore result in synergism. As was also mentioned before (at the nature of faith), it correlates with the wrong view that faith is not empty in itself, but empty because it would have been imparted.

The non-polar thought rather understands man in terms of a dynamic, reciprocal relationship with God, where each has its own will and personality.

Conclusions

1. The accusation of synergism is unfounded regarding faith as ground for salvation, for it understands faith wrongly (Rom 3:28; Gal 2:16; Rom 4:4). Faith is after all an acknowledgement that you cannot do anything out of your own strength, and to rely completely on God.

2. The accusation of synergism in unfounded regarding salvation as man’s choice, for salvation as man’s choice, relies on non-polar thought. It is non-polar, for it sees man in a personal relationship with God (see the discussion of the question of existence).

“Perseverance of the saints” (sanctificatio)

According to this doctrine, the elect are preserved or kept against apostasy: “Once a child of God – always a child of God.” This doctrine however delivers the following problems:

1. If one would hold onto the sovereign work of salvation of God in Christ without allowing the human choice to stand on its own regarding salvation and the Christian walk (sanctificatio), why does God not give to all Christians a certain theological understanding? Why do Christians think so differently? Is it because God imparts truth differently? Or is it because that that which you believe in, is determined by your own faith and your own choice?

2. If the doctrines of the unconditional election and the perseverance of the saints are calculated to its full consequence, it ends in a type of determinism, for the will of the sinner cannot choose any good, and the will of the believer cannot choose evil in such a way that it falls out of the grace. In both cases, the will of man is being determined by God’s will. God then “wills” on behalf of man before and after salvation. The result is that one cannot speak of a relationship between God and man in the true sense of the word.

Caricature of God’s grace and love

Although those who advocate particular predestination want to hold onto a consistent vindication of God’s grace, grace is portrayed in such a way that it places a question mark behind its character. How can grace benefit only certain people or even determine their destiny beforehand? Although theologians like Jonker (1989) will not formulate it in such a way, it remains an underlying problem in their theology. Even though Jonker would soften the problem by asking for an infralapsarian view on election, it does not offer a fundamental solution to the problem.

In spite of the fact that contemporary formulations within Reformed theology make provision for the choice of man at salvation, it does not allow the human choice to stand on its own. It is included or incorporated in God’s work of salvation. Yet, it implies that the human choice is being determined by God. The question is, if grace does not take the autonomous choice into account, is it still grace? Is it not a pre-determined cause of fate? Man can be viewed in no other way as being a puppet in salvation. It follows that God cannot have a true reciprocal relationship with man.

Love does not force, love releases. Love towards someone else does not bind beforehand; it makes room for the spontaneous reaction of the other party. Love is in the letting go. See for example the parable of the prodigal son.

Particular predestination is related to a perpendicular or rigid view of God. It robs God of his dynamic nature and his right to change his decision if he chooses, or “to turn and repent of his anger / evil that He thought to do,” (Jonah 3:9-10; Jer 18:8; Jer 26:3,13,19) or God’s openness to engage in conversation or judgment (Isa 43:26)

Bibliography

Analytical Greek Lexicon, 1794. London: Samuel Bagster & Sons.

Barnes, A [sa]. Albert Barnes’ notes on the Bible

Barret, CK 1968. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. London: Adam & Charles Black.

Barth, K 1969. The Doctrine of Reconciliation. Vol IV, Church Dogmatics. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.

Baur, W 1957. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. Zondervan: The University of Chicago Press.

Beasley-Murray, GR 1972. Baptism in the New Testament. Cape Town: Oxford University Press.

Bigg, C 1978. The International Critical Commentary. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.

Boers, H 1979. What is New testament Theology? Philadelphia : Fortress.

Bornkamm, G 1939. Taufe und neues Leben bei Paulus. Theologische Blätter. Vol XVIII.

Bruce, FF 1990. The Acts of the Apostles. The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans.

Burger, CW; Muller, BA; Smit DJ (ed) 1993. Riglyne vir prediking oor regverdiging en reg. Kaapstad: Lux Verbi.

Chantry, WJ 1987. Signs of the Apostles. Great Britain : Hazel Watson & Viney Limited.

Cronje, K et al 1988. Grieks met Begrip: ’n Inleidende Grammatika, Toegespits op die Griekse Nuwe Testament. Auckland Park: Werkgroep vir Griekse Onderrig.

Culpepper, RA 1988. John, in Godwin, Edgemon (ed) 1988.

Dowley, T (ed) 1990. The history of Christianity. Oxford England: Lion Publishing.

Du Toit, AB (ed) 1984. Handleiding by die Nuwe Testament. Band V. Pretoria: N.G. Kerkboekhandel

Du Toit, BA 1977. Die ontvangs van die Heilige Gees in Samaria: ‘n eksegetiese studie van Handelinge 8:14-17. UNISA.

– 1991. The Aspect of faith in the gospel of John with special reference to the farewell discourses of Jesus in Neotestamentica 25(2) 1991.

Furnish, VP 1984. 11 Corinthians. New York, London, Toronto: Doubleday.

Godwin, J, Edgemon, R (ed) 1988. Disciple’s Study Bible. Nashville: Holman.

Harris, MJ 1991. Collosians & Philemon: Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans.

Harrison, EF 1976. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Vol. 10. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan

Hislop, A 1959. The Two Babylons. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers.

Hunt, JPT 1990. Colossians 2:11-12, the circumcision / baptism analogy, and infant baptism. Tyndale Bulletin. Vol. 41.2. November 1990.

Jonker, WD 1989. Uit Vrye Guns Alleen: Wegwysers in die Dogmatiek. Pretoria: NG Kerkboekhandel.

Liddle & Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon 1924. London: Clarendon Press.

Louw, JP, Nida, EA 1988. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains. New York: United Bible Societies.

Marshall, IH 1980. The Acts of the Apostles. London: Inter-Varsity Press.

Martin, RP 1974. Colossians and Philemon. London: Oliphants.

Meeks, WA 1983. The First Urban Christians: The social World of the Apostle Paul. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.

Mitton, CL 1976. Ephesians. London: Oliphants.

Muller, JAC 1958. Die Brief aan die Kolossense. Stellenbosch: CSV.

Newman, BM 1971. A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament. London: UBS.

O’Brien, PT 1982. Colossians, Philemon. Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher.

Owen, J 1985. The death of death in the death of Christ. Great Brittain : Banner of Truth Trust.

Pelser, GMM 1984. Pauliniese Soteriologie, in Du Toit 1984: 256-281.

Peterson, D 1993. Engaging with God. A Biblical theology of worship. Michigan: Eerdmans.

Rendtorff, FM 1905. Die Taufe im Urchristentum im Lichte der Neueren Forschungen. Leipzig.

Ridderbos, H 1966. Paulus. Ontwerp van zijn theologie. Kampen: Kok, 1966.

Schelkle, 1970. Die Petrusbriefe der Judasbrief. Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Herder.

Van der Watt, J & Joubert, S 1997. Die Boodskap: Die Nuwe Testament in Hedendaagse Afrikaans. Vereeniging: Christelike Uitgewersmaatskappy.

Van Rensburg, JPJ 1953. ’n Eerste Griekse Grammatika. Stellenbosch-Grahamstad: Universiteits-uitgewers en -boekhandelaars (edms) beperk.

Van’t Spijker, W; Balke, W; Exalto, K; Van Driel, L (ed) 1983. Rondom de doopvont: Leer en gebruik van de heilige doop in het Nieuwe Testament en in de geschiedenis van de westerse kerk. Kampen: Uitgeverij de Groot Goudriaan.

Versteeg, JP 1983. De doop volgens het Nieuwe Testament, in Van’t Spijker et al. 1983: 9-133.

Wessels, GF 1993. Galasiërs 2:11-14, in Burger, CW; Muller, BA; Smit, DJ (ed) 1993: 160-170.

Zerwick, M, Grosvenor, M 1988. A grammatical analysis of the Greek New Testament. Rome: Biblical Institute Press.

Philip du Toit

Discuss this here.

[2] Concerning the inexplicability of sin, most refer to Isa 5. It is about God’s vineyard that ought to bear fruit, but did not. Verse 4 says: “I looked for it to yield grapes, but it yielded rotten grapes.” It implies the alienation to God, and especially the wrong direction in which the people went. This is related to the sin of the people, but the mere fact that the writer asks the question: “why,” does not say that sin is inherently inexplicable. It describes the feelings and the questions that God has.