The first misconception confuses the doctrine of election with the gospel message. There are some men who think that preaching election is preaching the gospel. It is true that no one would ever be saved if there were no sovereign election, but it is just as true that preaching election alone will not convert sinners. We believe election is what makes the gospel work, but we do not believe that election is the gospel. When the jailer asked Paul, “What must I do to be saved?” the apostle did not say, “Believe in the doctrine of election and you will be saved.” When Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:1–4, gave a summary of the gospel that he preached, he did not mention the word election. Many well-meaning preachers whose motives I do not question are actually doing more harm than good by trying to exalt God’s sovereign electing grace as the gospel itself.

I know of no verse that teaches election any more clearly than Acts 13:48. However, that text does not set forth the gospel message. Look at what is said:

And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. (Acts 13:48)

It is essential that we notice that Luke is not preaching a gospel sermon, but he is giving a report of what happened earlier that day when Paul had preached the gospel. The first part of the chapter is the evangelistic message referred to by the words “when the Gentiles heard this.” The heart of the gospel message, found in verses 37–40, is the apostolic gospel. It involves telling sinners about the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and then assuring them that all who believe that message will be forgiven of every sin. Verse 48 is the report of the results, or effects, the Holy Spirit accomplished through the preached gospel earlier that day.

How different was the reporting done by the apostles than that which is done by the “evangelists” of our day. The apostles gave God all the credit for every conversion. The apostles “glorified the Word of the Lord” because they knew that the Word of the Lord alone had produced the amazing results. Today the report would read quite differently. An evangelist would boast, “I had ten first-time decisions today,” or, “twenty people opened their hearts and gave God a chance to save them.” The statistical boasting today is a result of men wrongly believing that conversion is effected by a combination of the power of a sinner’s free will and the “soul-winning ability” of a preacher. The apostles knew nothing of such man-exalting and God-denying nonsense. They always credited God’s sovereign electing grace with being the cause of every sinner’s faith.

It amazes me to see the lengths that men will go in attempting to deny the truth of God’s sovereign electing grace. Kenneth Taylor, in his Living Bible, which is marketed as a translation even though it is really a paraphrase, translates Acts 13:48b this way: “…as many as wanted eternal life, believed.” In the margin he gives “disposed to” as an alternative meaning for “wanted.” He then gives “ordained to” as a third option. It is not possible to make the verse say, “As many as wanted, believed.” This is not paraphrasing in order to better understand the truth; this is radically and deliberately changing the meaning in order to hide the truth. If “were disposed to” is a legitimate translation, which it is not, it would still not settle the question as to why those particular individuals were disposed to believe, or who was responsible for disposing them. The word ordained as a third option shows that Taylor knows what the text means. It also shows his total bias against the truth of sovereign grace by passing off his interpretation as translation.

Spurgeon answered Taylor’s distortion long before it was ever made. The great Baptist preacher explained Acts 13:48 well:

Attempts have been made to prove that these words do not teach predestination, but these attempts so clearly do violence that I will not waste time in answering them… I read, “As many as were ordained to eternal life believed,” and I shall not twist that text but shall glorify the grace of God by ascribing to it every man’s faith….Is it not God Who gives the disposition to believe? If men are disposed to have eternal life, does not he in every case dispose them? Is it wrong for God to give grace? If it be right for him to give it, is it wrong for him to PURPOSE to give it? Would you have him give it by accident? If it is right for him to purpose to give grace today, it was right for him to purpose it before that date—and, since he changes not—from eternity.

A.W. Pink’s comments are just as clear and concise:

Every artifice of human ingenuity has been employed to blunt the sharp edge of this Scripture and to explain away the obvious meaning of these words, but it has been employed in vain, though nothing will ever be able to reconcile this and similar passages to the mind of natural man. “As many as were ordained to eternal life believed.”

There are four things we can learn. First, that believing is the consequence and not the cause of God’s decree. Second, we can see that a limited number only are “ordained to eternal life,” for if all men without exception were thus ordained by God, then the words “as many as” would be a meaningless qualification. Third, this “ordination” of God is not to mere external privilege but to “eternal life,” not to service but to salvation itself. Fourth, we understand that that all of the “as many as,” not one less—who are thus ordained by God to eternal life, will most certainly believe.”

Again, I remind you that election is not the gospel but is what makes the gospel work. If there were no sovereign election, we could preach the gospel until our tongues fell off, and not one single soul would be saved. Likewise, we could preach and teach election every Sunday for a lifetime, but unless we also preached the gospel facts, not one conversion would take place. We must understand that a man may preach a great sermon on election and never preach the gospel; and likewise, he may preach a clear gospel message without mentioning election. However, we must hasten to add that, first of all, no true biblical gospel sermon will ever say, or in any way infer, anything that denies or contradicts the truth of sovereign election, and secondly, no biblical sermon on election will ever deny or contradict either the gospel or its free and unfettered preaching to all sinners.

“But election isn’t fair!”

Some years ago, I was at a weekend retreat with a group of university students. During a discussion period, someone raised the subject of predestination and election. One girl asked, “Where does the Bible clearly teach that God sovereignly chooses some people to be saved?” I asked her to read Romans 9 aloud. She paused a second with a surprised look on her face as she slowly read, “Before they were born or had done good or evil.” When she got to 9:13b and read, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated,” she stopped and said, “But that’s not fair.” I asked her to read the next verse. The King James Version says, “What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.” She had a modern speech translation and it said, “You will object and say, ‘but that’s not fair.’” The surprised girl blurted out, “That’s what I just said!”

Now listen very carefully. If you object to election on the grounds that you think it is unfair, you are using an objection that has already been used and answered in the Scripture. The moment you say, “Election is unfair,” you are admitting that you disagree with Paul’s teaching in Romans 9:11–13 because that is the very objection he is presupposing his opponents will make. In his answer, Paul does not back up or soften his statement. He declares that God has every right to show mercy to whomever he chooses.

The young lady continued to read Romans 9. She read verse 18, “Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.” She literally gasped, “Then man cannot be held responsible. He is only a robot.” Again I asked her to read the next verse. The King James says, “Thou wilt say then unto me, why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?” The young lady’s modern speech translation read, “You will say to me, ‘Then man cannot be held responsible. He is only a robot.’” The poor girl said, “I did it again!” Let me repeat what I just said. If you object to election on the grounds that you think it makes man a robot, you are using an objection that has already been used and answered in the Scripture. The moment you say, “Election means man cannot be held responsible,” you are admitting that you disagree with Paul’s teaching in Romans 9:18. Again, we see that Paul did not soften his statement. He declares that the potter has the sovereign right to fashion, as he chooses, the lump of clay, which is sinful man.

Both of the above objections forget the fall of Adam and the doctrine of depravity. They treat sinners as if God created them sinful instead of remembering that we all chose, in Adam, to sin. Let me try to illustrate how ridiculous these objections are.

Suppose a very wealthy lady in your town chooses to adopt two or three orphans. She gives them her name, her love, and her fortune. Everybody in town would automatically accuse her of being mean and unfair because she only adopted three orphans instead of ten! You know that would not happen. Everyone would applaud her for adopting two or three simply because she did not have to adopt any! However, let God choose some sinners, when he could justly bypass all sinners since he owes no sinner anything but death, and God somehow becomes unfair or mean. In the case of the wealthy lady and the orphans, we magnify her gracious act. In the case of God and sinners, some will ignore his grace and vilify his character.

The writers of Scripture say very little about the dark side of election, called reprobation, simply because they are not at all surprised that God justly leaves some sinners to perish. The biblical authors are constantly amazed that God chose anyone to be saved, and even more amazed that he sovereignly chose them.

Since the objection of “unfairness” is so common and easily appeals to sentimentality, we need to say a bit more about it. A good friend of mine was covering the subject of election while teaching a high school and college class in Sunday School. There were seven kids in the class. My friend, Bob Dittmar, took an envelope out of his pocket and said, “There is a one-dollar bill in this envelope. I am going to choose one of you seven and give it to you as a gift. Do I have the right to choose anyone of the seven?” All seven vocally agreed that it was his money and he could do with it as he chose. Bob handed the envelope to a boy, and he opened it, took out the dollar and said, “Thank you.” Bob asked the other six how they felt about not getting the dollar, and none of them were upset. They, of course, would have been happy if they had been chosen but were not upset since it was “his money to do with as he chose.”

Bob then got two more envelopes out of his pocket and gave them to two girls. The girls opened the envelopes, took out a dollar and said, “Thank you.” When asked how they felt, the other four said, “Something does not ring right about all this.” The three with envelopes insisted that all was fair and right since it was Bob’s money and he did not owe any of them anything. My friend then gave three more kids envelopes, and now six of the seven kids each had a dollar. He asked the one person out of the seven who had no envelope how she felt, and she immediately replied, “I was cheated. It was not fair.” The other six young people all reminded the girl how she had agreed that the teacher had a right to choose anyone since he owed none of them anything. It was a free gift, and she could not accuse Bob of being unfair. They really ganged up on her and put her down. They were all firm believers in Bob’s right to “sovereignly choose” since it was his money and he owed none of them anything.

Bob then gave the last girl an envelope, and when she opened it, she discovered a five-dollar bill. Guess what the other six all cried. “It’s not fair! I was cheated!” My friend said, “Aren’t you the same people who were just arguing that I could not possibly cheat this girl since I owed her nothing? How can I all of the sudden cheat you when you just said I owed you nothing? Besides, you are holding a dollar as a gift you did not earn or deserve.”

I am sure you can see that the “it is not fair” argument is utterly ridiculous. What makes the situation even worse is the fact that God freely offers to give sinners a full pardon for all sin if they would only be willing to receive it; but they all, without exception apart from his sovereign grace, say, “No.”

Why does God predestinate some people to go to hell?

The answer to this misconception is simple. HE DOESN’T! God does not predestinate people to go to hell. This is a straw dummy that preachers who reject election often erect. Instead of dealing with the verses of Scripture that we show them, they make statements like the above. All we need ask is this: “Did not anyone ever tell you about a man named Adam and how he used his free will to choose sin and plunge his whole posterity into depravity.” How can God possibly predestinate someone to go to hell who is already on his way to hell by the choice of his own “free will?” The coming of Christ has absolutely nothing to do with people going to hell. It only affects people going to heaven. All men were lost long before Christ came. His death has nothing to do with any man’s condemnation. If Christ had never come and died, all men would have justly perished in hell. How can his coming and dying have anything to do with the sons of Adam being lost sinners? Ask the question this way: “Why does God predestinate some SINNERS to go to hell?” and you have a whole new discussion. 

Election sends no one to hell, but it does get some people into heaven. We could bring up from hell sinners who are now there, or who will ever be there, and not a single one of them would blame election for their being in hell. The so-called pagan who supposedly “never heard” will say, “My testimony is recorded in Romans 1. I did not follow the light God gave me, nor did I follow my conscience. I deliberately pushed away the truth. In my heart, I knew when I cut down a tree and used half of it to build a fire and the other half to carve an idol that it was the same wood.”

The Jew will say, “I am in hell because I would not obey the light that God gave my nation. I trusted in the fact that I was a Jew and would not repent and believe the gospel promises of a Redeemer.” We could go on and on and listen to one testimony after another, and every lost sinner would blame his or her own wicked heart for their lost estate. There will never be a single soul in hell who will say, “I wanted to be saved from sin but God would not save me because I was not one of the elect.” The very throne of grace would collapse and be destroyed if that were true.

However, we must quickly add that the reverse is true for those in heaven. Bring any one of the saints who praise our God day and night from heaven, and not a single one will say, “I am here because of my free will. I am feasting on the riches and glories of grace because I decided to let Jesus save me.” No, no, the uniform song from heaven will forever more be:

‘Tis not that I did choose thee, for, Lord that could not be;
This heart would still refuse thee, hadst thou not chosen me.
Thou from the sin that stained me hast cleansed and set me free;
of old thou hast ordained me, that I should live to thee.

‘Twas sov ‘reign mercy called me and taught my op ‘ning mind;
the world had else enthralled me, to heav ‘nly glories blind.
My heart owns none before thee, for thy rich grace I thirst;
this knowing, if I love thee, thou must have loved me first.

But election is based on God’s foreknowledge.

This is the favorite argument of the “Bible-believing fundamentalist” of our generation. “Oh, yes, God indeed chooses some sinners to be saved, but his choice is based on the fact that he foresees which sinner will be willing to accept the gospel. God, then, on the basis of this foreknown information, chooses those who are willing to choose him. Romans 8:29 makes this very clear.” This is like a big rug that Arminians use to sweep the truth of election under. The problem is the big lump in the rug that cannot be hidden!

First of all, I agree that God indeed has the ability to look into the future. However, he has never yet found anyone with a willingness to believe. There is no “foreseen faith” to see. Romans 3:11, 12 tell us exactly what God foresaw:

There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. (Rom. 3:11–12)

It is impossible to find some way for God to foresee a willingness of someone to seek God in the crowd Paul describes in these verses. There is none, and that really means no, not one, who is willing to seek God until God first seeks him. The only faith that God foresees in any man is the faith that he himself purposes to give that man. 

Foreknowledge is not an attribute of God that gives him the ability to see into the future. He, of course, can do that. When the Bible says that God foreknows, it means God purposes to do something. Foreknowledge is an act of God, not merely God having prior knowledge of something that will happen in the future. God only “foresees” what is absolutely certain to happen, and not one single thing can be absolutely certain to happen unless God has chosen to fix it so it does happen. Nothing happens that is not part of God’s foreordained plan. 

It is impossible for anyone, even God, to foreknow for certain that something is going to happen unless it is certain that it will actually happen. There can be absolutely no possible contingencies that will keep it from happening if it is truly foreknown. That is why you and I cannot foreknow one single thing in the future for certain. We cannot perfectly control any of the contingencies, and we have no control at all over many of them. Many unknowns may keep our plans and purposes from happening. God alone foreknows, simply because he alone can fix any given thing so it will positively happen. God does control every contingency. This is why Romans 8:28 is such a comfort. If man has a true “free will,” then even God could not be absolutely certain of any event since the man might change his mind at the last second.

The word know basically means to love. Look at the following texts of Scripture.

You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities. (Amos 3:2)

It is obvious that God “knew all things about every single nation,” but he knew, or loved, Israel in a special way. This text means that God knew, loved, or chose Israel alone out of all the other nations.

But if any man love God, the same is known of him. (1 Cor. 8:3) 

In this text, love and known are used interchangeably.

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matt. 7:23)

This verse cannot possibly mean that Jesus did not “know all about” the people to whom he was speaking. It was because he did know all about them that they were rejected. He knows everything about every nation and every person. Jesus is saying that he did not know them in a way of love. He did not love them redemptively. There is a sense in which it is not nearly as important that we know the Lord as it is that he knows us!

For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish. (Ps. 1:6)

Again it is obvious that God sees and knows everything the ungodly do just as much as he sees and knows what the godly do. However, God knows, or watches over in love, the way of the righteous.

We could produce many other texts that clearly prove that the word know means love. When God knows someone, it means he loves that person. When he “fore” knows someone, he fore-loves them. The word foreknow really means the same thing as choose or elect. God’s “fore” knowledge is his “fore” love, or his sovereign choice of a person. When God foreknows a person, he knows them in a way of special electing love. It means that he chooses them unto salvation.

In the next chapter, we want to show the effects the doctrine of election had on the life and ministry of the apostle Paul.

Shortly after I came to understand the truth of sovereign grace, I did a study of the effect of the doctrine of election on the life and ministry of Paul. I tried to look up and analyze every reference Paul made to election, predestination, calling, etc. I was amazed at how Paul’s life and ministry not only clearly established the truth of sovereign grace; but it also totally refuted most of the objections that people offer to election and predestination. Here is what I discovered.