Who Chose Whom?

The question is whether we chose Christ first before God chose us, or that God chose us because He saw that we would choose us (called the prescient view); the former being that we become the elect when we get saved, instead of being born elect, and the latter that God merely saw something meritorious in us that prompted election (which would be the beginning of salvation by works). The election is unconditional, meaning that there was nothing in us that God saw to make Him elect us. The answer is that God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world and that we were elect and predestined from our conception to be saved. "For the elect obtained unto it, and the rest were hardened...." Christ said, "You did not choose Me, but I chose you... [John 15:16]."

 Fact is, we never would've chosen Christ if He hadn't intervened and poured out His grace on us to make us willing (yes, God can make us willing to do His will--see Psa. 110:3 and Phil. 2:13). The miracle is not that all don't get saved, but that anyone gets saved--if God would've chosen to save only one He would've been justified.

Jesus said in John 15:5 that without Him we can do nothing. That means that we couldn't even choose Christ apart from grace. The doctrine of total depravity or total inability attests to this fact--all of our nature is infected and depraved with sin, and we are as bad off as we can be. God gives us all a choice, but that does not mean we can choose without grace. Pelagius, the heretic, argued that God can only hold us responsible for what we can do, and this is what people are saying when they say that if the non-elect can't choose, that they have an excuse (that they were on the wrong list). The Word says in Rom. 1:20, "...They are without excuse." The blame is theirs, not God's. Romans 9:20 says, "O man, who are you to reply against God...?" God is no man's debtor, says Luther; and He didn't have to save anyone, just as He did not spare the angels who sinned. "...Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" (Gen. 18:25).

Some say that election makes God look like the worst of despots--meaning the condemned never had a chance. John 5:40 says that "you were not willing." Do you remember the old poem Invictus by William Ernest Henley? "I am the captain of my soul, I am the master of my fate." Well, sorry to say that God is the master of your destiny and the conqueror of your soul if you are saved." God never gives up His sovereignty in order to get someone saved. "Many are called, but few are chosen." Acts 13:48 says, "For as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."

One of the slogans of the Reformation was soli Deo Gloria, which means "to God alone be the glory." If we choose Christ on our own ability, apart from God's help, then we get some of the glory--but God wants all the glory. It all depends on whether you see salvation as a human achievement or divine accomplishment.

In summary, we owe our faith to our election, not our election to our faith.

SOLI DEO GLORIA!

Seeking The Baptism?

NB:  Nowhere in Scripture are we admonished to "seek the baptism!"  What we ought to do is to "seek the Lord while He may be found."

Are we to seek to be baptized in the Holy Spirit? I'm sure you have come across some preacher who has challenged you about this on TV or radio but has you ever wondered if it is doctrinally accurate?

First of all, Jesus is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit. Secondly, baptism with the Holy Spirit and baptism in the Holy Spirit is also the same thing. Thirdly, the Holy Spirit does not baptize, as is commonly claimed from a mistranslation of 1 Cor. 12:13 which says, "by one Spirit you were all baptized." Actually, the Greek says, "in one Spirit...we were all baptized." The reason the translators put in "by" instead of "in" or "with" is because there would be two "ins" in one sentence, making for confusion.

Some Pentecostals believe that there is more than one baptism and especially that it is subsequent to regeneration. Eph. 4:5 says, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." This is not referring to water baptism, as some would maintain, but to the baptism by Jesus at salvation. 2 Pet. 1:3 says that God has given us all things that pertain to life and godliness: There is nothing more to seek (except a spiritual gift, which is commanded). There is no second blessing! The point of contention here is that there are many fillings, enduements, unctions, and anointings; however, there is only one baptism. Actually, the blessing is not only manifested in tongues, but in prophecy or any spiritual gift.

The false teaching is that the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" is always testified by unknown tongues or glossolalia. They get this from experience or from taking doctrine from narratives in Acts like Cornelius or the Ephesians instead of from didactic portions that contradict their teaching. This early period was a transition period for the church and the "usual" conversion experience wasn't known yet. The principle of hermeneutics is to interpret the narrative in light of the didactic, not vice versa. We don't make our doctrines based on our experiences either, no matter how convincing--this leads to mysticism and heresy. The only sure knowledge we have is Holy Writ.

There is no 2nd-class Christian (there are some who don't know their gift, though). The Pentecostal view puts us in we/them mentality and separates believers and makes them judgmental and jealous rather than one in the Spirit. We are never to make our doctrine based upon our experiences but test our experiences by sound doctrine. Birds of a feather flock together, right? Well, that is what happens in charismatic circles where ignorance of sound doctrine often prevails and experience is key. I'm sure something happened to them if they claim a second blessing, but it is highly probable that they were having a revival or even getting saved in the first place. It has been said that revival is a baptism on a large scale; I say they are fillings or salvation on a large scale. Let us not dichotomize Christians where the Bible doesn't: baptized and non-baptized Christians. No Christian has a right to feel superior.

Finally, Pentecostals will tell you that tongues are for everyone, and will the Father give you a stone if you ask for bread? However, the Bible tells us that in 1 Cor. 12:11 that the Holy Spirit gives gifts as He wills (that is proof that the baptism in the Holy Spirit cannot be when you speak in tongues, because the Holy Spirit gives tongues and Jesus baptizes!) We are to seek the greater gifts, such as prophecy--not tongues. There is no biblical, exegetical proof that in Jude where it says praying in the Spirit means we are to pray in tongues or have a private prayer language--this is hogwash. We pray in groans too deep for words sometimes and if you want to say that is a prayer language, which only God understands, that is fine.   Soli Deo Gloria!