Soteriology, Part 12

By Lewis Sperry Chafer

[Editor’s note: In view of the fact that Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer has written a whole volume on Soteriology to come from the press soon, the present series of articles will be concluded herewith though it must needs be terminated abruptly. Beginning with the next issue of the quarterly a whole new series will commence, D.V.]

Divine Election

Introduction

In this pursuance of the theme, Divine Election, a limited treatment is proposed in view of the extended consideration already given under the caption Divine Decrees. Only the subdivision of the doctrine of decrees, namely, Divine Election, is directly germane to the more restricted field of Soteriology.

Though the doctrine of divine election presents difficulties which are insolvable by the finite mind, the fact of divine selection is not limited to God’s choice of some out of the many for eternal glory; it is observable anywhere in the universe. There is a variety in all God’s creation. There are classifications among the angels. One star is said to differ from another star in glory. Men are not born of the same race with the same advantages, nor with the same native abilities. These variations in the estates of men cannot be accounted for on the basis of the efficacy of the free will of man. Men do not choose their race, their life conditions, whether it be in civilization or in heathendom, nor do they choose their natural gifts. On the other hand, it is as clearly disclosed, to those who will receive the revelation, that God’s attitude toward the entire human family is one of infinite compassion and boundless sacrificial love. Though the two revealed facts—divine election and the universality of divine love—cannot be reconciled within the sphere of human understanding, here, as elsewhere, God may be honored by believing and by resting in Him. Therefore, to God be all the glory! And to Him be given the first consideration! Those systems of religious thought which require that the doctrine of God shall conform to the notion of the supremacy of man, which also begin with man, defend man,, and glorify man, are fundamentally wrong and therefore are productive of God-dishonoring error. The order of truth is established forever by the first phrase of the Bible—”In the beginning God…” He it is Who planned, He executes, and He it is who will realize to an infinite degree all that He has purposed. He will never be defeated nor disappointed. The true system of religious thought begins with God, defends God, and glorifies God; and the creature is conformed to the plan and purpose of the Creator. The fall of man alone can account for the wickedness of heart which resists the divine supremacy.

Having first of all declared the believer to be blessed “with all spiritual blessings in the heavenly places in Christ” (Eph 1:3), the Apostle proceeds to enumerate some of those measureless possessions and positions in Christ which come to the elect; and what could be more orderly than that the contemplation of the divine dealing with man should begin with a declaration of God’s sovereignty in election? Whatever God bestows upon His creatures must, of necessity, be absolute in its nature. He discovers nothing in fallen man other than an object of His super-abounding grace. The first man, Adam, stood before God on the ground of a natural perfection, being the true representation of God’s creative purpose; but Adam fell from the estate of natural perfection and from that time, both for Adam and his posterity, only regenerative grace could commend any human being to God. No obligation rests upon God in the exercise of His grace. He may, and does, choose whom He will. He neither sees, nor foresees, any good in man which might form a basis of His blessings. Whatever good is found in redeemed man is wrought in him by divine grace. God does design for those whom He chooses that they shall be “holy and without blame before Him,” but this is the result which is wrought by God in grace, and is never wrought by man. Certainly man has not chosen God. Christ emphasized this when He said, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” Even the first man when unfallen and wholly free to choose did not choose God; how much more is it certain that fallen man will not of himself choose God! Therefore the provision of the ground of redemption is not enough in itself; the perverted will of man must be divinely moved. The unregenerate heart must be rendered willing as well as transformed in its essential character. All of this God undertakes and accomplishes in sovereign grace. He elects, He calls, He inclines the heart, He redeems, He regenerates, He preserves, and He presents faultless before His glory those who are the objects of His sovereign grace. On the other hand, He employs means to the accomplishment of His purpose. On the divine side, the awful demands of sin must be met by the sacrifice of His only begotten Son. It is not enough that sin shall be declared to be sinful; it is required that its curse shall be borne by the Lamb of God, the will of man must be moved, regeneration must be wrought by the Spirit, and every spiritual and heavenly blessing must be secured by the setting up of an actual union with Christ. On the human side, when man’s opposition to God is divinely broken down, he then believes to the saving of his soul. So demanding and real are all the divine means employed for the saving of the lost, that it is as much required of man that he believe and thus elect to be saved by the divine grace as that actual redemption shall be wrought for him on Calvary’s cross. In the realm of human experience man is conscious only of his power to choose, or reject, the salvation that is in Christ; and, because of the reality of this human choice, he is saved or lost according to his belief, or disbelief, in Christ as his Savior.

While there is very much in the doctrine of divine election which transcends the limitations of the finite understanding, it is true that man originates nothing—not even sin, since sin began with the angels of God. It is God who hath chosen His elect; and while this selection is both sovereign and final, nevertheless not one human being who desires to be saved and who complies with the necessary terms of the gospel will ever be lost.

The wickedness of fallen man is disclosed in his natural disposition to withhold from his Creator the honor and obedience which is due from the creature. Men’s inability to recognize the measurements of the estate into which he has been placed by creation, or to be satisfied therewith, is a primary evidence of the fall. Nothing, indeed, will arise in the natural man that might be a basis of divine favor. Such a basis must originate in the sovereign grace of God, and that which does arise is perfect and worthy of God.

The treatment of the doctrine of Election falls into two major parts, namely, (a) the fact of divine election and (b) the order of elective decrees.

I. The Fact of Divine Election

This general theme may be subdivided into four features, which are, (a) the terms used, (b) a clear revelation, (c) the essential truths embraced, and (d) objections to the doctrine of election.

1. The Terms Used.

a. Election.

In Biblical usage, the word election designates a sovereign divine purpose so formulated as to be independent of human merit, descent, or cooperation. The entire doctrine is in harmony with the truth, previously observed, that, in God’s creation, both variety and selection are everywhere present. The term is used of Israel (Isa 65:9, 22), of the Church (Rom 8:33; Col 3:12; 2 Tim 2:10; 1 Thess 1:4; 1 Pet 5:13), and of Christ (Isa 42:1; 1 Pet 2:6).

b. Chosen.

This word is but a synonym of the word election. Those elected of God are chosen by Him from all eternity. Like election, the term is applied to Israel (Isa 44:1), and to the Church (Eph 1:4; 2 Thess 2:13; 1 Pet 2:9), and is also used of the Apostles (John 6:70; 13:18; Acts 1:2).

c. Drawing.

There is a general drawing as mentioned in John 12:32, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me”; and an irresistible drawing which Christ mentioned, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:44).

d. Calling.

This feature of divine activity is similar to drawing. No Scripture places the divine call, with all that it means in its effectiveness, better than Romans 8:30: “Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.”

e. Divine Purpose.

Again, that which is closely akin to election is suggested by the word purpose. It is written, “Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself” (Eph 1:9); “According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Eph 3:11).

f. Foreknowledge.

This specific term means merely that God knows beforehand. It is used of Israel (Rom 11:2) and of the Church (Rom 8:29).

g. Foreordination and Predestination.

These words, almost complete synonyms, are used in the New Testament to declare the truth that God determines what shall be before it comes to pass. These words are more concerned with that to which men are divinely appointed than with the men themselves. God’s foreordination and predestination precede all history. As foreknowledge recognizes the certainty of future events, foreordination and predestination make those events sure. The two divine activities of foreseeing and foreordaining could not function separately.

They do not occur in succession, but are dependent on each other.

2. A Clear Revelation.

Whatever reaction to the fact of divine election may be recorded by the mind of man, the doctrine stands as an unequivocal revelation. This is not to say that it is free from complexity, or that problems are involved in the doctrine which are insuperable; and, as before noted under like circumstances, where human comprehension reaches its utmost boundary faith is still a guiding factor. A few moments of unprejudiced reflection will serve much to the end that a very simple proposition may be accepted, which is, that this is God’s universe; all created intelligences are the work of His hands and therefore are to be disposed as He shall choose. It only remains to discover what is equally true, namely, that what He determines is directed by infinite understanding, executed by infinite power, and is the manifestation of infinite love. How terrible might be the estate of the creature were he in the hands of an insane, fiendish despot! How universal, too, is the confidence in the mind of man that God is good! Why indeed should it not be so? But why, when His goodness is even dimly recognized, is it not a ground of rest and trust? Is it not clear to all that to question the divine elective plan is to question the very wisdom and worthiness of God? Angels, who know vastly more of God’s Being, cease not to adore Him throughout all ages. To do less than that would be, for them, to descend to the level of satanic infamy. In view of the truth that God has designed, created, and executed all that is, and that it goes on to the consummation He has foreordained, it should not be thought strange or unreasonable that He determines the course and destiny of human history. Men choose their course by what seems to them a free will and they glory in the fact that they are wise enough to adjust themselves to circumstances; but God is the Author of circumstances. Man blindly responds to the emotions of his heart; but God searches the heart of man and is able to create and control every sentiment which sways the mind of men. No equal game of competition for Supremacy is on between God and man. When all the vain conceit of man is at its superlative manifestation he is still the creature functioning as God created him to do. It is common sanity to give God His rightful place and to acknowledge His sovereign elective purpose in all that He has made to exist. The Bible is adjusted to the truth that God is supreme with the authority and sovereign right in creation that belongs normally to the Creator. He may give latitude to men, but their sphere of freedom is never outside the larger sphere of His eternal purpose. Certain Scriptures may well be cited which mark off the uncompromised authority of God.

No more striking example of election could be found than that asserted by Jehovah when He utters His seven “I will’s” which form the unconditional covenant with Abraham, including “I will bless thee,” “I will make a great nation of thee,” “In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” These purposes, centered in one man apart from any human conditions to be fulfilled, reach out to the whole earth and imply the divine ascendancy and jurisdiction, over not one human destiny alone, but over governments and nations to the end of time. In this light it will not be difficult to observe that the election of one person is a small issue compared to the outreach of such a covenant, and that Abraham is the elect of God for this high distinction. Attention should be given to the prediction, which has never failed to be executed, in which Jehovah declared to Abraham, “I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee.” When the nations who are thus to be judged stand before the throne of Christ’s glory (Matt 25:31–46), the King says to those on the right hand, “Come ye blessed,” and to those on the left hand, “Depart ye cursed.” However, it is to be observed that in predestination a kingdom is prepared from the foundation of the world for those on the right hand; but no specific preparation is indicated for those on the left hand.

They go to the lake of fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Men have no rightful part in that destiny, except only as they have cast in their lot with the enemies of God and have, like Satan, repudiated the Creator’s authority. Multitudes of men lived in Abraham’s generation, but God prepared and spoke to Abraham alone. It would be something rational to contend with Jehovah either because of the fact that He did not do for every person precisely what He did for Abraham or because of the fact that what He did was wrought in sovereign grace apart from any consideration of merit or demerit on Abraham’s part.

In His early ministry, Christ asserted the unwelcome truth of divine election when He said, “But I tell you of a truth, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land; but unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow. And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian,” (Luke 4:25–27).

Why, indeed, should an obscure maiden be chosen to be the mother of the Redeemer? Were there not a multitude to resent this on the ground of seeming partiality? Yet the angel said unto Mary, “Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee: blessed are thou among women” (Luke 1:28).

Were certain men chosen to be apostles at random? Did Christ pick the first men that He met after He determined to associate men with Himself, or were these men chosen in the divine counsels of eternity? Was it a mere coincidence that Saul of Tarsus was prepared by education and called to the greatest of all human tasks—the formation of Christian doctrine? God could say, as well, to Pharaoh, “Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth” (Rom 9:17). Thus it is disclosed that a mighty purpose is served through Pharaoh; yet Pharaoh did not understand it. Doubtless he considered himself to be worthy of all the credit accruing for what he was, being as self-centered as any other “self-made” man.

The case of Cyrus is equally instructive. God called him by name when Cyrus had not known Him. This mighty king was called that he might know that Jehovah is the God of Israel, and that Cyrus might know Jehovah. The prophet declares: “Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut; I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight; I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron: and I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel. For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me” (Isa 45:1–4). Why, indeed, would two of earth’s greatest kings—Pharaoh and Cyrus—be thus elected, one to a hardened heart and the other to know Jehovah? The Scriptures do not leave room for an implication that these destinies were due to human designs or traits; the testimony in each instance is that Jehovah did precisely what occurred in each case. God is not asking to be relieved of such responsibility. Why should God elect Jacob and reject Esau? Why should the seed be called in Isaac and not in Ishmael? Only because God willed it so; and shall it be said that there was no worthy reason for these divine selections? Should it be said that there is no reason for any of God’s actions in election and only because of the fact that men, perchance, do not understand them? Is any life ever lived—whether it be on the plane of Pharaoh or on the plane of an apostle—that does not serve the purpose of its Creator? Is it not true that no two human beings are alike as seen by God and that no one could serve as a substitute for another, nor the divine purpose for one be extended, as men would like to require, to others?

It is rational, to say the least, for each person to enter gladly into the will of God for himself and especially since, within His eternal purpose, He extends the gracious invitation “Whosoever will may come.” It is not to be expected that the unsaved will accept truth respecting divine sovereignty in election. The mind energized by Satan (Eph 2:2) will not yield any point to the authority of God. The entire theme concerns those only who are regenerated and should never be presented to, or even discussed in the presence of, the unsaved.

3. The Essential Truths Embraced.

a. God Has by Election Chosen Some to Salvation, but Not All.

This truth, too often resisted for want of an understanding of the nature of God, or of the position He occupies in relation to His creatures, is reasonable; but it is distinctly a revelation. This, as before stated, cannot be doubted by those who are amenable to the Word of God. It is disclosed concerning individuals that they were chosen in the Lord (Rom 16:13); chosen to salvation (2 Thess 2:13); chosen in Him “before the foundation of the world” (Eph 1:4); predestined to the adoption of sons (Eph 1:5); elect according to the foreknowledge of God (1 Pet 1:2); vessels of mercy which He had before prepared unto glory (Rom 9:23). There could be no question raised but what these passages contemplate an act of God by which some are chosen, but not all. The idea of election, or selection, cannot be applied to an entire class as unrelated to any others. Hidden in the word election is the implied truth, which is unavoidably a part of it, that others are not chosen, but are passed by. This suggests again the distinction, already particularized when discussing the divine decrees, that predestination points either to election or retribution, and that election cannot be understood in any other light than that others—the non-elect—are passed by. The thought expressed by the word election cannot be modified. It asserts an express intention on the part of God to confer salvation on certain persons, but not all. It is not a mere purpose to give salvation to those who may believe; it rather determines who will believe.

b. Divine Election Was Accomplished in Eternity Past.

All things which relate to human history were determined in the eternal counsels of God before man was created. Three passages may serve to state this truth: “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love” (Eph 1:4); “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began” (2 Tim 1:9); “Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world” (Acts 15:18). Some have held that election takes place in time and that it was the sending of the gospel to men which Gcd purposed in past ages. Men are elect, it is claimed, only as they exercise their own wills in accepting the offers of divine grace. To such, one passage of Scripture provides a correction: “But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Thess 2:13, 14). Thus it is said that election to salvation is “from the beginning,” which corresponds to that beginning cited in John 1:1. The gospel, it is said, served as the call which fulfilled the eternal election to salvation.

c. Election Does Not Rest Merely on Foreknowledge.

The obvious distinction between foreknowledge and foreordination, or predestination, has been the occasion for much discussion, there being those who assert that God, by His foreknowledge, discriminated between those who by their own choice would accept salvation and those who would not and, in consequence, being thus informed, God was able to predestinate those He knew would believe. The superficial character of this notion is seen (1) in the fact that foreknowledge and foreordination, or predestination, could not be placed in a sequence. Nothing could be foreknown as certain that had not been made certain by foreordination, nor could anything be foreordained that was not foreknown. Of three passages bearing on the relationship between these two divine activities, two mention foreknowledge first in order, while the other reverses this arrangement. In Romans 8:29 it is written, “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate”; and in 1 Peter 1:2 believers are addressed as “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God.” But in Acts 2:23, where the divine purpose in Christ’s death is in view, it is said: “Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.” (2) The Scriptures declare that that which cometh to pass is foreordained of God and not merely foreknown. Salvation is by grace apart from works. Men are not saved because of good works whether anticipated or realized. Election is according to grace and not according to works. If salvation be by grace, it is no more of works; and if it be by works, it is no more of grace (Rom 11:5, 6). In the light of this revelation, it is impossible to build a foreseen structure of works as the ground of any person’s salvation. Similarly, there is divine authority for denying that faith and personal holiness, even foreseen, determine divine election. The Bible reverses this order by declaring that election is unto faith and holiness. It is no slight error to confuse these issues and make faith and holiness the cause and election the effect. Faith can serve no greater purpose than to be the means by which that which God has determined may be realized. Referring again to passages already cited, it will be seen that God chose from the beginning those to be saved and then predestinated them to “belief of the truth” (2 Thess 2:13); and He chose some before the foundation of the world that they should be holy and without blame before Him in love (Eph 1:4). Thus it is revealed that men are not first holy and then elect; but they are first elect and that election is unto holiness. As an illustration of this order in the truth, the Apostle refers to the divine choice of Jacob over Esau before they were born and before they had done either good or evil. All this, it is said, is to the end that the divine election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth (Rom 9:10–13). It may be added that acceptable works and qualities are not resident in any fallen human being, except these characteristics are wrought in the human heart by divine energy. It would therefore be folly to expect that God would foresee in men what could never exist. Doubtless multitudes of people cling to a conditional election lest they be forced to recognize the depravity of man.

d. Divine Election Is Immutable.

Not only will that which was determined in past ages be brought to fruition, but it is immutable. It is claimed by those who give an undue emphasis to the ability of the human will that God’s purposes in salvation may be frustrated, and that the elect of today may, because of human determination, become the non-elect of tomorrow. It is implied that God can do no more than to adjust Himself to the will of man and that His determination concerning His creatures may change. In reply to this idea, it may be remarked that God has never created one human will as an instrument to defeat His own purpose. He creates them that they may serve His immutable will. Since God is the Creator of all things, it is absurd to suppose that He who creates cannot determine the choice and destiny of that which He has wrought. Referring to those who had erred and by their unbelief had it overthrown the faith of some,” the Apostle declares in assuring terms, “Nevertheless, the foundation of God [His eternal purpose] standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his” (2 Tim 2:18, 19). Human language cannot express a more positive assertion than that which appears in Romans 8:30: “Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” The Romans text, in harmony with all the Bible, states that all that are predestinated are called, that all who are called are justified, and that all who are justified are glorified. There could not be one more or one less, else God has failed in the realization of His good pleasure.

e. Election in Relation to Christ’s Mediation.

In theological investigation a problem arises, which sustains no close relation to the believer’s daily life and service but which relates to the order of elective decrees—yet to be considered, as to whether Christ died for men because of their election to salvation or whether they are elect because Christ died for them. The question introduces nothing chronological. It has to do with that which is logical, or the matter of cause and effect in the mind of God. In other words, since it is so evident that God was not influenced in His elective choice by foreseen faith and obedience of the elect, was He influenced by the foreseen relation of the elect to the Savior? This much may be known: There was that in God which impelled Him to give His Son for the world (John 3:16). From this and other Scriptures it may be concluded that, though the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8), the election of some to salvation through the Lamb’s death established the necessity for that death. By this interpretation, election stands first in the order uninfluenced by other issues, and is thus distinctly an election according to grace. The whole theme is exceedingly abstruse and it may be well to be reminded here of Romans 11:34: “Who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been his counsellor?” If the best of men were to devise a program for the Almighty, it is probable they would not include election at all, and it is more than certain that their scheme would not start with election in sovereign grace apart from all values of human merit.

The doctrine of election is not without its difficulties—precisely such, indeed, as are normal when the finite mind essays to trace the paths of infinity. Within his own consciousness, man recognizes little outside his own power of determination; however, in the end and regardless of the means by which man has reached his destiny, it will be that destiny which was not only foreseen, but divinely purposed. Such must be the conviction of every devout soul that contemplates the obvious truth that the Creator is as resourceful in executing His purpose as He is in originating them.

4. Objections to the Doctrine of Election.

In his Systematic Theology, Dr. Augustus H. Strong has presented the usual objections to election and refuted them in a manner so brief and yet so conclusive that it seems well to restate his material here. A part only of his argument in each instance is here quoted:

“(a) It is unjust to those who are not included in this purpose of salvation.—Answer: Election deals, not simply with creatures, but with sinful, guilty, and condemned creatures. That any should be saved, is matter of pure grace, and those who are not included in this purpose of salvation suffer only the due reward of their deeds. There is, therefore, no injustice in God’s election. We may better praise God that he saves any, than charge him with injustice because he saves so few….

“(b) It represents God as partial in his dealings and a respecter of persons.—Answer: Since there is nothing in men that determines God’s choice of one rather than another, the objection is invalid. It would equally apply to God’s selection of certain nations, as Israel, and certain individuals, as Cyrus, to be recipients of special temporal gifts. If God is not to be regarded as partial in not providing a salvation for fallen angels, he cannot be regarded as partial in not providing regenerating influences of his Spirit for the whole race of fallen men….

“(c) It represents God as arbitrary.—Answer: It represents God, not as arbitrary, but as exercising the free choice of a wise and sovereign will, in ways and for reasons which are inscrutable to us. To deny the possibility of such choice is to deny God’s personality. To deny that God has reasons for his choice is to deny his wisdom. The doctrine of election finds these reasons, not in men, but in God….

“(d) It tends to immorality, by representing men’s salvation as independent of their own obedience.—Answer: The objection ignores the fact that the salvation of believers is ordained only in connection with their regeneration and sanctification, as means; and that the certainty of final triumph is the strongest incentive to strenuous conflict with sin….

“(e) It inspires pride in those who think themselves elect.—Answer: This is possible only in the case of those who pervert the doctrine. On the contrary, its proper influence is to humble men. Those who exalt themselves above others, upon the ground that they are special favorites of God, have reason to question their election….

“(f) It discourages effort for the salvation of the impenitent, whether on their own part or on the part of others.—Answer: Since it is a secret decree, it cannot hinder or discourage such effort. On the other hand, it is a ground of encouragement, and so a stimulus to effort; for, without election, it is certain that all would be lost (cf. Acts 18:10). While it humbles the sinner, so that he is willing to cry for mercy, it encourages him also by showing him that some will be saved, and (since election and faith are inseparably connected) that he will be saved, if he will only believe….

“(g) The decree of election implies a decree of reprobation.—Answer: The decree of reprobation is not a positive decree, like that of election, but a permissive decree to leave the sinner to his self-chosen rebellion and its natural consequences of punishment” (pp. 431-34).

II. The Order of Elective Decrees

Of all the decrees of God, reaching out as they do to infinity, five are related directly to the purpose of God in election as it pertains to those who comprise the Church, the Body of Christ. The problem which presents itself to the mind of thoughtful and devout men is as to the order which these five decrees maintain in the mind of God. The arrangement, being logical rather than chronological, is somewhat speculative and yet great issues are involved. By the term logical is meant that, though the entire program is as one thought in the mind of God, the principle of cause and effect is evidently involved. That is, one issue may prepare the way and thus become the cause of another. These specific decrees are here named, but without regard at this time as to the right order which they sustain.

(1) The decree to elect some to salvation and leave others to their just condemnation.

(2) The decree to create all men.

(3) The decree to permit the fall.

(4) The decree to provide salvation for men.

(5) The decree to apply salvation to men.

Four schools of interpretation are recognized, each contending for a specific order in the arrangement of these elective decrees. These schools are: the supralapsarian, the infralapsarian, the sublapsarian, and the Arminian; the first three being classed as Calvinistic. Though the defense of these varying orders concerns primarily the one subject—the election of some to be saved and the leaving of others to a just condemnation, the titles by which three of these schools are identified relates them to the fall of man. The word lapsarian refers to one who believes in the doctrine that man is a fallen being. Of this particular line of investigation, Dr. Charles Hodge writes this qualifying word: “It is to be borne in mind that the object of these speculations is not to pry into the operation of the divine mind, but simply to ascertain and exhibit the relation in which the several truths revealed in Scripture concerning the plan of redemption bear to each other” (Systematic Theology, Vol. II, p. 321). A more detailed consideration of each of the claims advanced by each of these schools is here presented:

1. The Order Set Forth by the Supralapsarians.

This group is sometimes styled the High Calvinists or the Ultra Calvinists. The primary issue in the order proposed by this school of interpreters is that the decree to elect some and to reprobate all others stands first in the order of decrees and by this disposal of God He is declared to have elected men to their destiny before they sin and without a cause, except it be by the sovereign will of God. It is true that God, as First Cause, effected man’s existence knowing who would be reprobate; but this responsibility, like that of the presence of sin in the world, is never reckoned from the creature back upon God. Earlier in this immediate discussion, it was concluded that divine election precedes the determination to provide a Savior. The present issue is as to the order which obtains between the decree to elect and the decree to permit the fall.

The order as defended by the Supralapsarians is:

(1) Decree to elect some to be saved and to reprobate all others.

(2) Decree to create men both elect and non-elect.

(3) Decree to permit the fall.

(4) Decree to provide salvation for the elect.

(5) Decree to apply salvation to the election.

On this view as held by the Supralapsarians, Dr. William G. T. Shedd remarks: “The supralapsarian theory places, in the order of decrees, the decree of election and preterition before the fall, instead of after it. It supposes that God begins by decreeing that a certain number of men shall be elected, and reprobated. This decree is prior even to that of creation, in the logical order…. The objections to this view are the following: (a) The decree of election and preterition has reference to a non-entity. Man is contemplated as creatable, not as created. Consequently, the decree of election and preterition has no real object…. Man is only ideally existent, an abstract conception; and therefore any divine determination concerning him, is a determination concerning non-entity. But God’s decrees of election and reprobation suppose some actually created beings, from which to select and reject. ‘On whom he will, he hath mercy; and whom he will, he hardeneth,’ Rom 9:18. The first decree, in the order of nature, must therefore be a decree to create. God must bring man into being, before he can decide what man shall do or experience. It is no reply to say, that man is created in the Divine idea, though not in reality, when the decree of predestination is made. It is equally true that he is fallen, in the Divine idea, when this decree is made. And the question is, What is the logical order, in the divine idea, of the creation and the fall? (b) The Scriptures represent the elect and nonelect, respectively, as taken out of an existing aggregate of beings. John 15:19, ‘I have chosen you out of the world.’ (c) The elect are chosen to justification and sanctification. Eph 1:4–6; 1 Pet 1:2. They must therefore have been already fallen, and consequently created. God justifies ‘the ungodly,’ Rom 4:5; and sanctifies the unholy. (d) The supralapsarian reprobation is a Divine act that cannot presuppose sin, because it does not presuppose existence. But the Scriptures represent the non-elect as sinful creatures. In Jude 4, the men who were ‘of old ordained to this condemnation’ are ‘ungodly men, turning the grace of God into lasciviousness.’ Accordingly, the Westminster Confession (III, 7) affirms that God passes by the non-elect, and ‘ordains them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.’ The supralapsarian quotes Rom 9:11, in proof of his assertion that election and preterition are prior to the creation of man. ‘The children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil,’ Jacob was chosen and Esau was left. This is an erroneous interpretation. Birth is not synonymous with creation. Parents are not the creators of their children. Man exists before he is born into the world. He exists in the womb; and he existed in Adam” (Dogmatic Theology, Vol. I, pp. 442, 443).

2. The Order Set Forth by Infralapsarians.

According to this school—properly called moderate Calvinists—the distinctive issue is that the decree to elect some and to leave others in retribution follows the fall, the order they defend, therefore, being:

(1) Decree to create all men.

(2) Decree to permit the fall.

(3) Decree to provide salvation for men.

(4) Decree to elect those who do believe and to leave in just condemnation all who do not believe.

(5) Decree to apply salvation to those who believe.

Dr. Charles Hodge is one, among several, who makes no distinction between the infralapsarian and sublapsarian views by not mentioning the latter. What he writes, therefore, combines these to some extent. Of the Infralapsarians he says: “That this view is self-consistent and harmonious. As all the decrees of God are one comprehensive purpose, no view of the relation of the details embraced in that purpose which does not admit of their being reduced to unity can be admitted. In every great mechanism, whatever the number or complexity of its parts, there must be unity of design. Every part bears a given relation to every other part, and the perception of that relation is necessary to a proper understanding of the whole. Again, as the decrees of God are eternal and immutable, no view of his plan of operation which supposes Him to purpose first one thing and then another can be consistent with their nature. And as God is absolutely sovereign and independent, all his purposes must be determined from within or according to the counsel of his own will. They cannot be supposed to be contingent or suspended on the action of his creatures, or upon anything out of Himself. The infralapsarian scheme, as held by most Augustinians, fulfils all these conditions. All the particulars form one comprehensive whole. All follow in an order which supposes no change of purpose; and all depend on the infinitely wise, holy, and righteous will of God. The final end is the glory of God. For that end He creates the world, allows the fall; from among fallen men He elects some to everlasting life, and leaves the rest to the just recompense of their sins. Whom He elects He calls, justifies, and glorifies. This is the golden chain the links of which cannot be separated or transposed. This is the form in which the scheme of redemption lay in the Apostle’s mind as he teaches us in Rom viii.29, 30 ” (Systematic Theology, Vol. II, p. 320).

3. The Order Set Forth by the Sublapsarians.

This arrangement, sustained by a group who are also styled moderate Calvinists, differs but slightly from the order proposed by the Infralapsarians. Technically, the Infralapsarians place election after the decree to provide salvation, though Dr. Hodge, quoted above, does not recognize this feature when listing the order of decrees as proposed by the Infralapsarians. The Sublapsarians are identified by the placing of the decree to elect to follow the decree to permit the fall. In general, the sublapsarian order is a refutation of the supralapsarian order. Dr. Hodge’s theological position classes him more reasonably with this school. The distinction between the infralapsarian and the sublapsarian is that the infralapsarian school places the decree to provide salvation before the decree to elect, while the sublapsarian places the decree to elect before the decree to provide salvation. The infralapsarian order, which places the decree to provide salvation before the decree to elect, allows possibly for the contention that Christ wrought an unlimited redemption, whereas the sublapsarian order, which places the decree to elect before the decree to provide salvation, favors the theory of a limited redemption. The order prescribed by the Sublapsarians is:

(1) Decree to create all men.

(2) Decree to permit the fall.

(3) Decree to elect those who do believe and to leave in just condemnation those who do not believe.

(4) Decree to provide salvation for men.

(5) Decree to apply salvation to those who believe.

4. The Order Set Forth by the Arminians.

Here the order is identical with that of the infralapsarian view, with one exception, namely, the Arminian view of election, which step is made to follow the decree to provide salvation. Election is by the Arminians made to depend on foreseen human virtue, faith, and obedience, whereas the infralapsarian view of election, invests it with the character of sovereign divine choice apart from any foreseen human merit whatsoever.

Refuting the Arminian idea of election, Dr. Shedd exposes the position of Richard Watson—the chief of Arminian theologians—as follows: “Respecting election, Watson (Institutes, II. 338) remarks as follows: ‘To be elected is, to be separated from the world (“I have chosen you out of the world”), and to be sanctified by the Spirit (“elect unto obedience”). It follows, then, that election is not only an act of God in time, but also that it is subsequent to the administration of the means of salvation. Actual election cannot be eternal, for from eternity the elect were not actually chosen out of the world, and could not be actually sanctified unto obedience.’ This explanation makes election to be sanctification itself, instead of its cause. ‘To be elected, is to be separated from the world, and to be sanctified.’ The term ‘separate’ is used here by Watson not as St. Paul uses it to denote election, when he says that God ‘separated him from his mother’s womb’ (Gal 1:15); but in the sense of sanctification, as St. Paul employs it in 2 Cor 6:17, ‘Be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing.’ By this interpretation, election is made to be the same thing as sanctification, instead of being an act of God that produces it; as is taught in Eph 1:4, ‘He hath chosen us that we should be holy,’ and in 1 Pet 1:2, ‘Elect unto obedience”’ (Dogmatic Theology, Vol. I. p. 449).

Conclusion.

It will be observed from the foregoing that the differences represented in these various orders of decrees, though they seem highly speculative to some, do represent vital doctrine at its very foundation. The three schools of Calvinists contend alike that divine election is the sovereign choice of God which expresses His grace apart from every form of human works foreseen or actual, and that the Arminian school, by making election to be no more than foreknowledge as to human merit, assert that, in the end, man elects himself by his faith and obedience. The Calvinistic schools are the result of a faithful induction of the Word of God bearing on the elective decrees, whereas the Arminian school is an intrusion of human reason.

Dallas, Texas