Testing Calvinism’s Proof Texts – Volume 1: Part 1

Introduction

Among all the doctrines associated with Calvinism, none is more central than election. Every point of the TULIP framework either depends directly upon election or is closely connected to it. For that reason, it is appropriate that our examination begins here. Before considering passages commonly cited in support of unconditional election, we must first ask a more basic question: What does the Bible mean when it speaks of God’s choosing or electing?

This question must be answered from Scripture itself rather than from theological definitions. The words ‘elect,’ ‘chosen,’ and ‘choose’ occur in a variety of contexts throughout both the Old and New Testaments. They are applied to individuals, nations, kings, priests, prophets, apostles, places, and even the Messiah. Consequently, we must resist the temptation to assume that every occurrence refers to eternal salvation.

The Purpose of This Chapter

The purpose of this chapter is not to determine whether Calvinism is correct. Rather, it is to establish the biblical range of the language of election before examining the passages Calvinists most frequently cite. If Scripture employs election in several different ways, then each passage must be interpreted according to its own context rather than according to a single theological definition applied uniformly to every occurrence.

Methodology

Each proof text examined throughout this work will follow the same pattern:

1. The biblical passage.
2. Historical setting.
3. Literary context.
4. Significant Hebrew or Greek observations where appropriate.
5. The Calvinist interpretation.
6. Contextual evaluation.
7. Relationship to the broader teaching of Scripture.
8. Conclusions.

Maintaining the same methodology for every passage helps ensure that no text receives preferential treatment because of its theological significance.

Beginning with the Old Testament

The doctrine of election did not originate in the New Testament. Long before the coming of Christ, God repeatedly chose people, families, tribes, nations, kings, priests, prophets, and places for specific purposes within His redemptive plan. Accordingly, our study begins in the Old Testament. By observing how the language of choosing functions there, we establish an important biblical foundation before approaching the New Testament passages that stand at the center of the Calvinist debate.

Election in the Old Testament

The first occurrence of God’s choosing in Scripture establishes an important pattern. God frequently chose individuals and groups for a particular role, responsibility, or purpose within His redemptive plan. The fact that someone was chosen did not, by itself, answer every question concerning that person’s eternal standing before God. Instead, the context reveals why the choice was made.

Throughout the Old Testament, election language is used in a variety of settings. Sometimes God chooses a nation. At other times He chooses a king, a priest, a prophet, a tribe, or a place where His name would dwell. These diverse uses caution us against assuming that every reference to election speaks of the same kind of choosing.

The Election of Abraham

God’s call of Abram in Genesis 12 marks one of the most significant acts of divine choosing in biblical history. God chose Abram to become the father of a great nation, through whom all the families of the earth would ultimately be blessed (Genesis 12:1–3). The emphasis of the passage is God’s sovereign initiative in establishing His covenant purposes. At the same time, the text identifies the purpose of that choice: Abraham would become the channel through which God’s redemptive blessing would reach the nations. Before asking whether this event teaches unconditional election unto eternal salvation, we must first recognize what the passage explicitly states. It describes God’s choice of Abraham for a covenant purpose. Whether additional theological conclusions should be drawn must be demonstrated from the text rather than assumed.

The Importance of Purpose

One of the recurring observations that will emerge throughout this study is that biblical election is often accompanied by an explicit statement of purpose.

• God chose Israel to be His covenant people.
• God chose Aaron’s family for the priesthood.
• God chose David to be king.
• God chose Jerusalem as the place where His name would dwell.

In each instance, Scripture explains why the choice was made. Therefore, whenever we encounter election language, one of our first questions should be: ‘For what purpose was this person or group chosen?’ Allowing the text to answer that question protects us from reading purposes into the passage that the author never intended.

Transition

The next passages move from the election of an individual to the election of an entire nation. These foundational Old Testament texts become especially important because New Testament writers repeatedly appeal to Israel’s election when explaining God’s unfolding plan of redemption.

The Election of Israel

The election of Israel is one of the clearest and most frequently repeated examples of divine choosing in the Old Testament. God declared that Israel was His chosen people (Deuteronomy 7:6–8; 14:2), not because they were the largest or most deserving of the nations, but because of His covenant love and His promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

The context identifies Israel as a nation chosen for covenant relationship and for a unique role within God’s redemptive purposes. Through Israel would come the Law, the prophets, the covenants, the temple service, and ultimately the Messiah. The emphasis of these passages is corporate election to covenant privilege and responsibility.

Chosen Does Not Eliminate Responsibility

Israel’s election did not remove the nation’s responsibility to trust and obey God. Throughout the Old Testament, the prophets repeatedly called the chosen nation to repentance, warning that covenant blessings were conditioned upon covenant faithfulness while covenant disobedience would bring discipline. The fact that Israel was chosen did not guarantee that every Israelite possessed saving faith. Scripture itself distinguishes between membership in the covenant nation and genuine faith in God. This distinction becomes increasingly important when we reach the New Testament, where Paul addresses the relationship between ethnic Israel and the people of God.

Election and Service

Many Old Testament examples demonstrate that election often concerns service rather than the eternal destiny of the individual or group being chosen. Aaron and his sons were chosen for the priesthood. David was chosen to shepherd Israel as king. Cyrus, though a pagan ruler, was chosen by God as His instrument to accomplish a specific historical purpose. These examples do not deny God’s sovereignty over salvation. Rather, they demonstrate that the language of choosing is broader than a single theological category. The purpose of the election must always be determined from the immediate context.

Preparing for the New Testament

These foundational observations establish an important interpretive principle. Before concluding that every New Testament reference to election concerns the unconditional salvation of particular individuals, we must first ask whether the biblical author is using election language in the same way the Old Testament commonly does. The Old Testament has shown that God chooses for many purposes. The New Testament must therefore be allowed to define its own use of election language passage by passage rather than by assumption.

Avoiding Circular Reasoning

One of the greatest dangers in theological interpretation is circular reasoning. Circular reasoning occurs when a theological system is first assumed to be true and individual passages are then interpreted in a way that necessarily supports that system. The conclusions reached appear to confirm the original assumptions, but the assumptions themselves have never been independently demonstrated from the text.

The proper order of interpretation is the reverse. Individual passages should first be understood according to their own context. Only after careful exegesis has been completed should broader theological conclusions be constructed. Theology should arise from Scripture rather than determine its meaning in advance.Accordingly, this work will continually ask whether a proposed interpretation arises naturally from the passage itself or whether it depends upon assumptions supplied by a larger theological framework.

The Danger of Overloading Words

Biblical words should never be required to carry more meaning than the author intended. A single theological term may legitimately possess different nuances in different contexts. Consequently, the meaning of a word cannot be established simply by appealing to every occurrence of that word elsewhere in Scripture. Neither should definitions be imported from later systematic theology into the biblical text. Lexicons provide possible meanings, but only the immediate context determines which meaning the author intended. Throughout this work, lexical studies will therefore serve the context rather than replace it.

The Difference Between Description and Prescription

Scripture frequently records events without intending to establish universal doctrinal principles. Historical narratives, parables, prophetic literature, wisdom literature, and apostolic instruction each communicate truth according to their own literary purpose. 
Accordingly, careful attention will be given to genre. A descriptive narrative should not automatically be treated as prescribing a universal theological principle unless the context clearly indicates that intention. Likewise, doctrinal passages should be interpreted according to the author’s argument rather than by isolated phrases.

Preparing to Examine Calvinism’s Proof Texts

Having established the principles that will govern this study, we are now prepared to examine the biblical passages most frequently cited in support of Calvinist doctrine. Each passage will be allowed to speak for itself before theological conclusions are considered. Every chapter will begin with the biblical text, proceed through its historical and literary context, fairly present the Calvinist interpretation, and then evaluate that interpretation in light of the immediate context and the whole counsel of Scripture. Our purpose is not to determine what a theological system requires a passage to mean, but what the inspired author intended to communicate when the passage was written. Only after that question has been answered can any theological conclusion be responsibly drawn.

Final Remarks

The interpretive principles established in this chapter will govern every proof-text examined throughout the remainder of this work. They will not be repeated in later chapters except where brief reference is necessary. The next chapter begins the examination of Calvinism’s Scriptural proof texts.