Election

My Answer to an Article on Election by P Coulson (Believers Magazine, Sept.2001)

The article begins with this sub-heading: “Election unto salvation may offend human reasoning...”. We say election unto salvation offends God’s reasoning also. We find no verse of Scripture quoted in this article that justifies the view presented. Reference is made to Israel and to certain individuals .such as Esau, and attempts are made to draw conclusions from these. Mr Jack Hunter is quoted as teaching “individual election” but no  source reference is given that this might be verified. I will quote one who opposed this teaching in Assembly Testimony, No.236, Nov/Dec 1991—H T Kimber.  www.assembly testimony           There are many more of course, notable brethren, who reject the notion of “election to salvation” (read the booklet, Election by W N Benson, published by Gospel Tract Publications, June 1998)

H T Kimber wrote to correct an erroneous article on Election published in Assembly Testimony, No.227.

If anyone cannot agree with this view of election to salvation, we are told it will be because of  “severely limited capacity to understand the mind and ways of God.... our minds are too small...we find it impossible to reconcile the idea of sovereign choice with the equally scriptural doctrine of man’s individual responsibility to obey the gospel. To human thinking these two principles are diametrically opposed and irreconcilable.”

But if the article speaks of “sovereign choice” then there must be deliberate rejection as well as deliberate acceptance, or choice does not exist. These contradictions “sit in perfect accord in the mind of God”. That is, while the “natural mind” calls black black and white white, and straight cannot be bent, it is different with our God. To Him straight can be bent and black can be white.

It is assumed only Calvinists (i.e. those who hold to any part of TULIP theology) have the mind of God (note, mind of God is not a Scriptural term). But the believer is not governed by a natural mind. The believer is renewed in the mind (Eph.4:22). Paul says, let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus (Phil.2:5), with the mind I myself serve the law of God (Rom.7:25), and We have the mind of Christ (1 Cor.2:16).  God does not expect His children to go on in a state of confusion. Our God is not guilty of double-talk, as the B M  article will have us to believe.

Another amazing statement is brought before the reader: “If it were possible in any way for the harmony of these two principles to be expressed in words, then surely the Holy Spirit would have done so in the Scriptures.” This is an admission that not even the Holy Spirit can reconcile these two views.

The next sub-heading is “...but it is in total harmony with human responsibility.” Mtt.11.27 is then quoted, “All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him”.

Despite there being no mention, nor even an allusion, to election in this verse, we are informed, “Such a verse makes a clear statement (my italics) concerning the sovereign, elective will of God in relation to individuals from among the race of men...to the unbiased mind this is a crystal–clear declaration of individual election”.

The Lord also said  Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Mtt.11:7. The verses tell us that the child of God is brought into divine knowledge, and this can in no way imply therefore that such was sovereignly elected to salvation.

We ask what kind of human responsibility is this that cannot respond to the gospel of Christ, because of not being among the elect? The god of Calvinism commands the repentance of all, but prevents the ability to perform it.

Another verse quoted, and popular among Calvinists, is John 6:37. The writer quotes this, “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me: (divine election) and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out (human responsibility).”

The Father gives to the Son all those who freely repent of their sins and trust in Christ. They shall come to Him for no power in heaven or earth or below can prevent them coming to Him. There is no election in that. What of those who will not come? That is their responsibility, we are told. But we are not told  that because they are therefore not elect they cannot come. The writer doesn’t tell us that according to his doctrine God’s choice is to damn them without opportunity to repent.

The third sub-heading is “In relation to the salvation of the soul, election is always individual...”   We are next told “The Scriptures teach, unequivocally (my italics), that God has chosen certain individuals to be saved....  We can boldly assert this truth as both scriptural and unassailable.” The example is then given of Jacob and Esau, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” But this has nothing to do with salvation or election of course. The writer tells us these are “the inspired words of Paul to the Romans...based upon God’s sovereign dealings recorded in Genesis 25.23 and Exodus 33.19.” He does NOT tell his readers that Paul was quoting Malachi 1:2,3 which was written centuries after both Jacob and Esau had died. That is, God did not make that statement during their lifetime. In any case, while it is true that God may deal with individuals as He pleases there is no example in Scripture where an individual is elected, foreordained, or predestined to do evil against his own will. It is convoluted thinking that concludes because God deals with certain individuals according to His own will, therefore God has elected from eternity other individuals to salvation.

It is boldly asserted that, “The truth of individual election is emphatically taught in the parenthetic section of the Roman epistle, chs. 9-11. Indeed, if we fail to see that, we miss the whole point of that part of the doctrine of the gospel.”  No such thing is taught of course, and the writer doesn’t refer to any particular words to justify his statement. Maybe he it is who doesn’t understand the gospel.

Romans 9-11, shows us that God will have mercy on whom He will, and therefore the gospel must go out to the Gentiles, so that whosoever among these may believe the gospel and be saved.

This is seen in practice in Acts 13:46-48 (quoted in the article but not commented upon). And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. These were Gentiles who had gladly received the word and had glorified it). They were not foreordained to eternal life. They were not elected to eternal life. They were not predestined to eternal life. God has ordained (purposed, appointed) eternal life to be the blessing for as many as rightly respond to the gospel of Christ. It was not to remain the prerogative of the Jew. These Gentiles accordingly believed.      

The fourth sub-heading is, “....but there is a corporate aspect in relation to Israel’s blessing as a nation.”

“God’s statement, ‘Israel is my son’ (Ex.422), shows that their election and sonship were collective....”

But we can find no reference to this corporate, collective election of Israel mentioned in Scripture. Rather the opposite is stated by Paul in Rom.9;6, They are not all Israel, which are of Israel.  Inclusion in the blessing of the nation will be on the grounds of personal and individual faith on the part of the Jew.

The term corporate election is one invented by certain men to bring into derision those holding to the Scriptural doctrine of election. Election is not to salvation, but those trusting in Christ are chosen before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and without blame before him in love. (Eph.1:4). God has chosen those who get saved to be holy and without blame.

The closing words are, “You and I are not elect because we are in the Church, we are in the Church because we are the elect of God, sovereignly, gloriously, wonderfully chosen by God to be saved by His grace! Should we not humbly and thankfully adopt the attitude of Abraham’s servant? ‘and the man bowed down his head, and worshipped the Lord’ (Gen 24.6)”

This is not how Paul prayed. He wrote, I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsman according to the flesh. Rom.9:2,3. Moses also prayed, yet now if thou wilt forgive their sin—; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. Ex.32:32.

It is with great dismay that we find the Believers Magazine given over to the promotion of Calvinism.

For those not aware what five-point (TULIP) Calvinism is, I give a summary below.

TOTAL DEPRAVITY— Man is totally dead to God and cannot of his own will respond to the gospel.

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION—God from eternity unconditionally chose a certain few out of the human race to be saved.

LIMITED ATONEMENT—Christ died only for those previously elected. His propitionary sacrifice does not reach to all men.

IRRESISTABLE GRACE—God overpowers the will of the elect sinner, granting him faith and then repentance to believe on Jesus Christ.

PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS—All the elect will persevere in the faith and ultimately die in a state of grace. (None can be sure they are elect until they die).

L M Vance shows in his book The Other Side of Calvinism, that these five points are intimately related, so it is inconsistent to reject any one point and hold to others. But we reject them all as being contrary to the teaching of Scripture.

I gave Mr Coulson the opportunity to answer the objections raised by me against “Election to Salvation” before publication. His reply is in the letters section

Dear brother Ron,

Your self-styled ‘response’ to my article on Election in the Believers Magazine is as misrepresentative and malign as your 'response’ to an earlier contribution on the subject of Propitiation. I would be grateful if you would append to your forthcoming ‘response’ a note from myself stating that I utterly refute your uncharitable and untrue accusation that I am a ‘Calvinist’ or that I support or teach the false ‘TULIP’ doctrine.

With thanks,

Phil Coulson

I am puzzled by the words “self-styled”. My answer is Bible-styled. Col.4:6, 2 Tim.4:2. Jude 3. I do only that which is incumbent upon all believers. Whether my answer is misrepresentative, readers can judge for themselves. As to being malign, I seek only to establish the truth. The tenets of Calvinism are NOT commonly held among us and must be strongly resisted. There was no malignity intended on my part and I certainly do not feel it. I love my brother in the Lord, and believe that he was sincere in his articles, and sought to set forth the things that he firmly believes.

 I haven’t at any time accused Mr Coulson of being a “Calvinist” so the charges of being uncharitable and untrue are invalid. However, readers of Believers Magazine will largely be aware that the statements in the quoted B M  articles do represent the doctrines of  Calvinism.

And it would be a matter of spiritual arrogance for me to thank God for saving me while my neighbour is damned without hope of salvation.

genuine christians

I am looking for real Christians. That is, those who have experienced a genuine conversion on a particular day that they remember. They turned from sin and trusted Christ. They recognized Him to be the Son of God. They no longer love the world and its giddy pursuits. They are waiting for the Rapture and have no time for Calvinistic lies. They hold to the true Bible and if English speaking believe the Authorized Bible to be the ONLY faithful translation of the Scriptures. They detest CCM ( modern religious rock and roll filth). They dress properly when worshipping. They obey authorities, and pay their taxes. Their neighbours and work colleagues know they are born again because they witness to them.
Where are you? email me.

An Antidote to Covenant Theology

THE PREMILLENNIAL FAITH

1 The Church is not Israel. Israel is not the Church

What builder, half way through construction, then proceeds to put in the foundations?

Paul said, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation 1 Cor.3:10. Foundation of what, if it is not the Church?

ye are . . . built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. Eph.2:20. Who are the 'ye'? - V.8 tells us, those by grace saved through faith. They are built on something that did not exist prior to Christ. The building began subsequent to Christ saying upon this rock I will build my church. Mat.16:18 . It can be seen quite clearly that Christ used the future tense. Israel existed at that time. It was not the Church and it was not to have any extension built on to it. A new work began with the death and resurrection of Christ. the outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost began that work.

2 Promises given to Israel cannot be misappropriated by the Church.

God deceived Abraham if His promise cannot be taken literally. The promise began in Gen.12:1-3, . . . I will make of thee a great nation. An unconditional covenant was then established In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abraham, saying Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates. Gen.15:18. The later history of Abraham shows that he did not for one minute think that this great promise was to be spiritualized. He saw nothing allegorical in it. If God intended it thus, then Abraham was duped and God let him go on in his deception.

That promise has yet to be fulfilled. the seed of Abraham has never possessed the land to the boundaries given, certainly not in Solomon's day.

A-millenialists take a woolly minded approach to Scripture. they tell us that 1 Ki.4:20-21 shows a fulfilment. But the border of Egypt is not the river of Egypt. The western limits of Solomon's empire reached to Gaza. If the A-millenialists think that the covenant was literally fulfilled, why are they still trying to spiritualise it? A careful reading shows the ABrahamic covenant to be unconditional so why did God not keep His word? Why do prophets coming after Solomon prophesy concerning the occupation of the land? See Jer.31, 32 chapters of restoration, spoken not long before Israel was taken into captivity. The days come, saith the Lord, that the city shall be built to the Lord. . . . I will gather them out of all countries. . . . I will bring them again unto this place. . . I will make an everlasting covenant with them.

If OT promises are made to Israel, they pertain to Israel.

3 Israel has a future but not yet.

There is no green tree in Palestine yet. Jews are there in unbelief. Though a few may get saved they do not represent the nation. Those trusting Christ become members of the Church which is His body. The nation at large remains. They have been put to one side for the time being, for God is dealing with the Church at this time (1 Pet.4:17).

Paul spoke of Israel's future. . . . And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: for this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. Rom.11:26,27.

what strange flight of fancy can take this and apply it to the church? Every child of God is secure in that his sins were settled once and for all at Calvary. This covenant therefore does not relate to the Church at all. All, not part, of Israel shall be saved. That hasn't happened yet. It will happen when the Deliverer comes. I do not need a Deliverer for I have a Saviour, but it is the same Christ Who will then come to His own and be received of them.

4 The Church has a better covenant that was never given to Israel.

A new covenant was promised to Israel, Jer.31:31, to be fulfilled after those days. The writer to the Hebrews refers to this in order to show that the mention of a new covenant implies that the old must disappear. It has not been swallowed up in Christianity. It has not been modified and adapted to a Christian covenant. The old vanishes away. A better will take its place until the time of Israel's New Covenant comes.

Then we see in Hebrews 8:6-13 that neither has Jeremiah's new covenant come into operation. Christians do not have God's laws put into their minds and written in their hearts. If so then all believers would be at the same level of understanding and obedience.

Believers do need teaching, so that we come to know our Lord and Saviour better and better. That is the purpose of the ministry of the word. It will not be needed in that coming day.

We have a far superior, a better covenant than that given to the house of Israel. The writer to the Hebrews refers to it in this same passage He is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 8:6.

5 The Lord’s coming to the air is not His coming to the earth

Old Testament prophecies speak of the second coming of Christ. They speak of His coming again to reign on the earth. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives. Zech. 14: 4. This is confirmed in the New Testament, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. Acts 1: 11

He is coming to earth with His saints. And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints. Jude 14.

Rev. 19: 11-15 also speaks of His coming to earth with His saints, to execute judgment. And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

Because the subject of the New Testament Church is not found in Old Testament prophecies, references to the second coming in the O T all relate to an earthly fulfilment.

The Church is a mystery (secret) revealed in the New Testament.

In the New Testament, 1 Thess. 4: 16 tells us, The Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Here, the Lord is coming for His saints. The meeting is in the air. The earth is not mentioned. Israel is not involved in this. It is the rapture of the New Testament saints. It precedes the Lord’s coming to earth by at least seven years. A-millennialists have no satisfactory explanation for this verse.

The Lord MUST come for His saints before He can come with them.

His coming to the air will be hidden from the eyes of all ungodly. There is nothing strange in this. Just remember that no ungodly eye gazed on the Lord in His resurrection.

What is wrong with the Brethren?

1. They have a false rallying cry.
It is “We gather to the name of the Lord Jesus Christ”. The Brethren have produced a number of works defending this slogan. One such work is Gathering unto His Name by N Crawford and was published in 1985 by Truth and Tidings, an American Brethren magazine. There is no Scripture calling believers to gather to the Name.
The phrase is built on a mutilation of Scripture, For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst. Mtt.18:

There are some who make a play of the first “in”. They want to make it read “unto my name” on the grounds that the preposition eis may be translated “unto”. J N Darby appears to be the first (and only translator, that I can find ) who makes this change. The change was made in order to promote an ecclesiastical system. The system became known as Exclusive Brethrenism and is now as much a false cult as any can be. We note that Exclusive Brethren (now entirely a false cult) continue to proclaim they gather to the name of the Lord Jesus. (see Stephen Hesterman; Plymouth Brethren.com).

“Unto” is an archaic word and has been replaced almost entirely by “to” (not “in”) in modern usage.. Eis is translated by many English prepositions; to, into. in, throughout, for, unto, by, at, among, against, upon, toward, on, concerning. “In” is used at least 70 times, so we may deduce there is no reason at all why it should not be “in” in Matt. 18: 20.

The phrase is use to set up an ecclesiastical boundary. Outside are the denominations and systems of men. They are regarded as gathered to a system, e.g. Methodism, or another name; Wesleyan, or a practice, e.g. Baptist. etc.

The use of the phrase “gathered to His name” takes us to 1 Cor. 1: 12 where we read every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
Those saying they were of Christ were the most spiritually arrogant. They were claiming a higher standing than all other believers. So today, those “gathering to the name” refer to themselves as Assemblies of Christian Brethren. They appropriate to themselves a title which belongs to all those born again by the Spirit of God.

2. They have a false gospel
The error is more in what is omitted rather than in what is said. Essentially there is no call for repentance made. There is no warning given of final judgment. There is no teaching that one must believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God. The cross is hardly touched upon. The Brethren’s gospel is on more than an emotional appeal to be saved.

3. They have a false bible
In early days emphasis was given to Darby’s New Translation. It was the bible of the Brethren. Few could explain why they considered it to be superior to the AV Bible. Also high regard was given to the RV for reasons which appear obscure this version now being obsolete. Now the NKJB and the NIV are given prominence and the AV is decried publicly by almost all those engaged in public preaching.
The rejection of the AV Bible has led to much false teaching. An example may be seen in false translation of 2 Thess.2: 2 by the Brethren. The y deny the Scripture, God was manifest in the flesh. They reject 1 John 5: 7-8.

4. They have a false baptism
The emphasis the brethren give is not in the answer of a good conscience toward God (1 Pet. 3:21), but in a public show to draw others. Baptism is used as an initiation rite into the assembly. The majority of those baptized are the children of assembly members. These do not usually speak of Biblical conversion experiences but of when as small children they “asked Jesus into their hearts”.

5. They have a false government.
Assemblies are ruled by an oversight comprising several brethren. As most assemblies are very small the control is often in the hands of one man.
Historically oversights have been self perpetuating. From time to time brethren are invited to join the oversight. There is of course no Scripture for this procedure. Those invited are not selected because of their labours among the saints in shepherding and teaching; rather because they will uphold the views of those already ruling. The main exercise of oversights is to get the members to conform to their decrees. There has always been a degree of interference in the personal lives of the members. Members are taught to show unquestioning loyalty to the leaders. The decisions may not be challenged or even questioned.

6. A false class of teachers .

They will not separate from evil.
The most conservative brethren are willing to preach in liberal assemblies and to work alongside those who hold to error. They are prepared to have fellowship with those who blaspheme the name of Christ rather than risk losing a preaching engagement. There is at least one assembly where a man has been in fellowship who has publicly taught the Lord could sin. This does not prevent outreaching brethren from sitting down and breaking bread with him.
Undiscerning secretaries will invite men to preach because their names have appeared on the circuit cards and other assemblies have accepted them. So a secretary not holding to the errors of Calvinism invites a man to preach who holds to a limited atonement, because he is a leading Brethren teacher.
They will not permit their teaching to be challenged.
Preachers from liberal assemblies are not barred from the platforms of more conservative assemblies, particularly if they can draw a crowd. One of such goes about preaching that the Lord did NOT die for all.
None of the public men are prepared to name a bible they can trust implicitly as the word of God from cover to cover.

7. They have no pastors

The only place where pastors are mentioned in the N T, is at Eph. 4: 11, And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers.

The Greek word poimēn means literally, a shepherd. It is translated 16 times thus in the N T and once as Pastor. It denotes the shepherd care of the elder or overseer.
Brethren do not recognize pastors, because they think by implication it shows one man to be in charge, which they claim is a characteristic of apostate Christendom. They ignore the fact that most assemblies are in the control of one man.
It is rare to find a man with a true shepherd heart in assembly fellowship. Governing bodies are preferred. If a sheep should be found to be straying he made need disciplining or excommunication. There will not be a shepherd seeking him out on the hills ready to carry him lovingly back to the flock. Pastoral work as seen in Eph. 4: 11 is linked to teaching. i.e. feeding.

What is the answer?
Brethren will speak of the autonomy of the local assembly. By this they claim they are self governing but will hasten to add that really the Holy Spirit is ruling in the assembly. But assemblies are locked into a circle of fellowship and its members are strongly influenced by what is believed and practiced in other assemblies. If the belief and practice is scriptural so well and good, but this is not the case. All accept the false rallying cry. All accept the “no reliable bible” philosophy.
The answer is not in autonomy but in independence. If the local assembly is independent it may still enjoy fellowship with other like-minded gatherings but will not be influenced by the majority of assemblies which are now apostate. But Bible criticizing preachers must be denied access to the platform. They cannot be accepted simply because they are popular among the Brethren at large.