Chapter 4

Unconditional Election, Part 2

In his booklet TULIP: What We Believe about the Five Points of Calvinism, Piper next turns to Romans 9, a favorite passage among Calvinists. When certain verses there are detached from their context, they can appear to support the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election. My foundational premise in what follows is that Paul did not contradict himself in his letter to the Romans. Therefore, if we find verses and passages in chapters 1–8 and 10–16 that contradict the Calvinistic idea of unconditional election (as well as total depravity and irresistible grace, since these doctrines are interdependent), we can be certain Paul was not endorsing any of those ideas in chapter 9.

As we will see, there are scores of verses and passages in those chapters that contradict the Calvinistic interpretation of Romans 9. As we look at them, it will become crystal clear that Paul was not endorsing in chapter 9 the Calvinistic idea that God decided to save only certain individuals. Rather, he was affirming the biblical truth that God decided to save Gentiles by grace through faith—the same way He saves descendants of Jacob/Israel.

Chapter 3

Unconditional Election, Part 1

So far we have covered the T and the I of the TULIP acronym. In this chapter and the next two, we will examine the U, which stands for Unconditional Election. This Calvinistic doctrine states that God, in eternity past, chose certain individuals for salvation. That election was not based on any merit in those chosen, nor on anything God foreknew about them. Calvinists point to the many Scriptures that use words such as chosen, elected, and predestined to support their claim.

No reasonable person would argue that the Bible does not say Christians have been chosen, elected, or predestined by God. The difference between Calvinists and non-Calvinists lies in how those terms are interpreted. Calvinists claim God’s election is unconditional; non-Calvinists believe it is conditional.

Chapter Two

Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace, Part 2

It is important that you have read the previous chapter before beginning this one, as this chapter builds directly on it. We will continue examining Calvinism’s first and fourth cardinal doctrines.

Does Being Dead in Sin Make Repentance Impossible?

Calvinists often ask: How can one who is “dead in his sins” possibly repent and believe? Is it not true that dead people can do nothing and are unable to respond to outside influences?

Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:1).

This well-known, oft-quoted verse is packed with wonderful truths.

First, people can be justified before God. That is, they can be forgiven of every sin they’ve ever committed and become innocent in God’s eyes. As has been rightly said, the word justified can be defined as “just-as-if-I’d never-sinned.”

Second, that justification is “by faith.” That stands in contrast with the idea that one is justified “by works.” The only way one could be justified by works would be by never committing a single sin. In such a case, one would not need to be forgiven. One would be innocent. But, since all have sinned, our only hope of becoming innocent in God’s eyes is through His grace that offers justification. That grace is received by faith.

“Little Johnny, God has predestined a small minority of people to be saved and go to heaven forever, and so it is obvious that He has predestined the majority of people to be eternally damned and burn in the fires of hell. Your mother and I have no idea if God has predestined you to be forever damned or forever saved. We love you, son, but God might not love you, and He may have plans to send you to hell for your future sins. If you do find yourself one day burning in hell because He hasn’t elected to save you, just remember that we will always love you, even if God abhors you.

“Also, you must always remember that we will be in heaven forever only because we were unconditionally chosen for salvation before we were born. That would be the only reason that we won’t be in hell with you if you find yourself there. It won’t be because of anything we did. Take comfort in knowing that. It may not seem fair, but who are we to judge God?

I keep attempting to write the final article in this series on God’s view of modern Israel, but friends and facts aren’t allowing it. This will be the sixth (and hopefully final) article.

The fourth article, titled “The Future Gathering of the Ten Lost Tribes,” sparked interest from readers who were not aware of the fact that the 20th- and 21st-century regathering of Jews from around the world to Israel has primarily consisted of descendants of the tribes of Judah and two tribes that assimilated into Judah—Benjamin and Levi. That fact is hidden in plain sight by the reality that all modern descendants of Israel/Jacob who consciously trace their ancestry back to him don’t generally refer to themselves as Israelites, but as Jews (although they are indeed Israelites, but from the tribe of Judah).

The original Hebrew word Yehudi referred specifically to a member of the tribe of Judah—one of Jacob/Israel’s twelve sons. Throughout most of the Old Testament, especially during the period of the divided kingdoms, the word “Jews” refers specifically to the people of Judah and does not designate the full twelve tribes of Israel. In fact, the earliest reference to Jews in the Bible is 2 Kings 16:5–6, where it specifically distinguishes the people of the southern Kingdom of Judah from the northern Kingdom of Israel, who at the time were at war with each other.

One of the most important factors in Bible interpretation—if not the most important—is honesty. We Bible interpreters often struggle to remain honest when Scripture contradicts our well-entrenched beliefs. Yet we are interpreting a book that repeatedly warns against dishonesty. Our Bibles tell us that all liars will be cast into a lake of fire!

In this final teaching about modern Israel, I will do my best to interpret Romans 11—oddly a favorite of dispensationalists—honestly. That requires reading the chapter in context with the rest of Scripture. The Bible can be made to say almost anything by isolating verses and passages.

For example, someone who is ignorant or dishonest could conclude from Romans 11 that God opened the door of salvation to Gentiles only because the Jews rejected Jesus. Had they not rejected Him, the door would have remained eternally closed to Gentiles. Moreover, God supposedly opened that door purely to make Jews jealous so they might open their hearts to Jesus. All of that can—and sometimes is—extracted from Romans 11.

This teaching is the fourth in a series regarding God’s view of modern Israel. I hope you read the first three before this one, as they lay a foundation that could well prevent any misunderstanding of what you are about to read.

It is commonly believed among evangelicals that the restoration of the state of Israel in 1948 and the subsequent immigration of millions of Jews to their ancient homeland since then is the final fulfillment of God’s many promises through His prophets to regather the scattered descendants of Jacob/Israel. Thus, it is concluded that Christians should generally side with Israel since God is obviously favoring them—even when what Israel does harms others, including God’s own children through Jesus Christ. That, of course, is problematic, because it requires us to believe that God favors those who reject His Son over those who follow His Son. That, in my humble opinion, is the real “Replacement Theology”—a replacement of the Church by the modern nation of Israel.

There was a time in my young Christian life when I was sure, along with many others, that Jesus would return by 1981. It was easy to prove. Jesus said in the Olivet Discourse, “This generation will not pass away until all these things take place” (Matt. 24:34). A generation is 40 years. The modern nation of Israel was born in 1948. So, add 1948 and 40, and you arrive at 1988. Then subtract 7 years for the Tribulation. Bingo! Jesus will return by 1981. We were sure our eschatology was watertight!

Looking back, it appears we were slightly off. Where did we go wrong? We made many assumptions. One of them was thinking we could predict the year of Jesus’ return.