ELECTION
Election,
etymologically,
is
the
choice
of
one,
or
of
some,
out
of
many.
In
the
usage
we
are
investigating,
election
is
always,
and
only,
of
God.
It
is
the
method
by
which,
in
the
exercise
of
His
holy
freedom,
He
carries
out
His
purpose
('the
purpose
of
God
according
to
election,'
Ro
9").
The
'call'
which
brings
the
election
to
light,
as
in
the
call
of
Abraham,
Israel,
believers,
is
in
time,
but
the
call
rests
on
God's
prior,
eternal
determination
(Ro
8"-
2').
Israel
was
chosen
of
God's
free
love
(Dt
7™);
believers
are
declared
to
be
blessed
in
Christ,
'even
as
he
chose'
them
'in
him'
—
the
One
in
whom
is
the
ground
of
all
salvation
—
'before
the
foundation
of
the
world'
(Eph
1<).
It
is
strongly
insisted
on,
therefore,
that
the
reason
of
election
is
not
anything
in
the
object
itself
(Ro
9"-
'^);
the
ground
of
the
election
of
believers
is
not
in
their
holiness
or
good
works,
or
even
in
fides
prcevisa,
but
solely
in
God's
free
grace
and
mercy
(Eph
1'-*;
holiness
a
result,
not
a
cause).
They
are
'made
a
heritage,
having
been
foreordained
according
to
the
purpose
of
him
who
worketh
all
things
after
the
counsel
of
his
will
'
(Eph
1")
;
or,
as
in
an
earlier
verse,
'
according
to
the
good
pleasure
of
his
will,
to
the
praise
of
the
glory
of
his
grace'
(v.»).
Yet,
as
it
is
axiomatic
that
there
is
no
unrighteousness
with
God
(Ro
9");
that
His
loving
will
embraces
the
whole
world
(Jn
3i«,
1
Ti
2');
that
He
can
never,
in
even
the
slightest
degree,
act
partially
or
capriciously
(Ac
10**,
2
Ti
2");
and
that,
as
salvation
in
the
case
of
none
is
compulsory,
but
is
always
in
accordance
with
the
saved
person's
own
free
choice,
so
none
perishes
but
by
his
own
fault
or
unbelief
—
it
is
obvious
that
difficult
problems
arise
on
this
subject
which
can
be
solved,
so
far
as
solution
is
possible,
only
by
close
attention
to
all
Scripture
indications.
1.
In
the
OT.
—
Valuable
help
is
afforded,
first,
by
observing
how
this
idea
shapes
itself,
and
is
developed,
in
the
OT.
From
the
first,
then,
we
see
that
God's
purpose
advances
by
a
method
of
election,
but
observe
also
that,
while
sovereign
and
free,
this
election
is
never
an
end
in
itself,
but
is
subordinated
as
a
means
to
a
wider
end.
It
is
obvious
also
that
it
was
only
by
an
election
—
that
is,
by
beginning
with
some
individual
or
people,
at
some
time,
in
some
place
—
that
such
ends
as
God
had
in
view
in
His
Kingdom
could
be
realized.
Abraham,
accordingly,
is
chosen,
and
God
calls
him,
and
makes
His
covenant
with
him,
and
with
his
seed;
not,
however,
as
a
private,
personal
transaction,
but
that
in
him
and
in
his
seed
all
families
of
the
earth
should
be
blessed
(Gn
122-
'
etc.).
Further
elections
narrow
down
this
line
of
promise
—
Isaac,
not
Ishmael;
Jacob,
not
Esau
(cf.
Ro
9'-")
—
till
Israel
is
grown,
and
pre-pared
for
the
national
covenant
at
Sinai.
Israel,
again,
is
chosen
from
among
the
families
of
the
earth
(Ex
19»-6,
Dt
i".
Am
3^);
not,
however,
for
its
own
sake,
but
that
it
may
be
a
means
of
blessing
to
the
Gentiles.
This
is
the
ideal
caUing
of
Israel
which
peculiarly
comes
out
in
the
prophecies
of
the
Servant
of
Jehovah
(Is
41-49)
—
a
calling
of
which
the
nation
as
a
whole
so
fatally
fell
short
(Is
42i»-
20).
So
far
as
these
proph-ecies
of
the
Servant
point
to
Christ
—
the
Elect
One
in
the
supreme
sense,
as
both
Augustine
and
Calvin
emphasize
—
His
mission
also
was
one
of
salvation
to
the
world.
Here,
however,
it
will
naturally
be
asked
—
Is
there
not,
after
all,
a
reason
for
these
and
similar
elections
in
the
greater
congruity
of
the
object
with
the
purpose
for
which
it
was
designed?
If
God
chose
Abraham,
was
it
not
because
Abraham
was
the
best
fitted
among
existing
men
for
such
a
vocation?
Was
Isaac
not
better
fitted
than
Ishmael,
and
Jacob
than
Esau,
to
be
the
transmitters
of
the
promise?
This
leads
to
a
remark
which
carries
us
much
deeper
into
the
nature
of
election.
We
err
grievously
if
we
think
of
God's
relation
to
the
objects
of
His
choice
as
that
of
a
workman
to
a
set
of
tools
provided
for
him,
from
which
he
selects
that
most
suited
to
his
end.
It
is
a
shallow
view
of
the
ELECTION
Divine
election
which
regards
it
as
simply
availing
itself
of
happy
varieties
of
character
spontaneously
presenting
themselves
in
the
course
of
natural
develop-ment.
Election
goes
deeper
than
grace
—
even
into
the
sphere
of
nature.
It
presides,
to
use
a
happy
phrase
of
Lange's,
at
the
making
of
its
object
(Abraham,
Moses,
David,
Paul,
etc.),
as
well
as
uses
it
when
made.
The
question
is
not
simply
how,
a
man
of
the
gifts
and
qualifications
of
Abraham,
or
Moses,
or
Paul,
being
given,
God
should
use
him
in
the
way
He
did,
but
rather
how
a
man
of
this
spiritual
build,
and
these
gifts
and
qualifications,
came
at
that
precise
juncture
to
be
there
at
all.
The
answer
to
that
question
can
be
found
only
in
the
Divine
ordering;
election
working
in
the
natural
sphere
prior
to
its
being
revealed
in
the
spiritual,
God
does
not
simply
find
His
instruments
—
He
creates
them:
He
has
had
them,
in
a
true
sense,
in
view,
and
has
been
preparing
them
from
the
founda-tion
of
things.
Hence
St.
Paul's
saying
of
himself
that
he
was
separated
from
his
mother's
womb
(Gal
1"
;
cf.
of
Jeremiah,
Jer
1';
of
Cyrus,
Is
45'
etc.).
Here
comes
in
another
consideration.
Israel
was
the
elect
nation,
but
as
a
nation
it
miserably
failed
in
its
vocation
(so
sometimes
with
the
outward
Church).
It
would
seem,
then,
as
if,
on
the
external
side,
election
had
failed
of
its
result;
but
it
did
not
do
so
really.
This
is
the
next
step
in
the
OT
development
—
the
reaUzation
of
an
election
within
the
election,
of
a
true
and
spiritual
Israel
within
the
natural,
of
individual
election
as
distinct
from
national.
This
idea
is
seen
shaping
itself
in
the
greater
prophets
in
the
doctrine
of
the
'remnant'
(cf.
Is
1'
6"
S's-is
etc.);
in
the
idea
of
a
godly
kernel
in
Israel
in
distinction
from
the
un-believing
mass
(involved
in
prophecies
of
the
Servant)
;
and
is
laid
hold
of,
and
effectively
used,
by
St.
Paul
in
his
rebutting
of
the
supposition
that
the
word
of
God
had
failed
(Ro
9»
'for
they
are
not
all
Israel
that
are
of
Israel,'
11'-
'
etc.).
This
yields
us
the
natural
transition
to
the
NT
conception.
2.
In
the
NT.
—
The
difference
in
the
NT
standpoint
in
regard
to
election
may
perhaps
now
be
thus
defined.
(1)
Whereas
the
election
in
the
OT
is
primarily
national,
and
only
gradually
works
round
to
the
idea
of
an
inner,
spiritual
election,
the
opposite
is
the
case
in
the
NT
—
election
is
there
at
first
personal
and
individual,
and
the
Church
as
an
elect
body
is
viewed
as
made
up
of
these
Individual
believers
and
all
others
professing
faith
in
Christ
(a
distinction
thus
again
arising
between
inward
and
outward).
(2)
Whereas
the
personal
aspect
of
election
in
the
OT
is
throughout
subordinate
to
the
idea
of
service,
in
the
NT,
on
the
other
hand,
stress
is
laid
on
the
personal
election
to
eternal
salvation;
and
the
aspect
of
election
as
a
means
to
an
end
beyond
itself
falls
into
the
background,
without,
however,
being
at
all
intended
to
be
lost
sight
of.
The
believer,
accord-ing
to
NT
teaching,
is
called
to
nothing
so
much
as
to
active
service;
he
is
to
be
a
light
of
the
world
(Mt
5"-"),
a
worker
together
with
God
(1
Co
3'),
a
living
epistle,
known
and
read
of
all
men
(2
Co
3'-
»);
the
light
has
shined
in
his
heart
that
he
should
give
it
forth
to
others
(2
Co
4');
he
is
elected
to
the
end
that
he
may
show
forth
the
excellencies
of
Him
who
called
him
(1
P
2'),
etc.
St.
Paul
is
a
'vessel
of
election'
to
the
definite
end
that
he
should
bear
Christ's
name
to
the
Gentiles
(Ac
9").
Believers
are
a
kind
of
'
first-fruits
'
unto
God
(Ro
16',
1
Co
16>s,
Ja
1",
Rev
14«);
there
is
a
'fulness'
to
be
brought
in
(Ro
ll^s).
As
carrying
us,
perhaps,
most
deeply
into
the
comprehension
of
the
NT
doctrine
of
election,
it
is
lastly
to
be
observed
that,
apart
from
the
inheritance
of
ideas
from
the
OT,
there
is
an
experiential
basis
for
this
doctrine,
from
which,
in
the
living
conscious-ness
of
faith,
it
can
never
be
divorced.
In
general
it
is
to
be
remembered
how
God's
providence
is
every-where
in
Scripture
represented
as
extending
over
all
persons
and
events
—
nothing
escaping
His
notice,
or
