THE following are the passages where the word eklektos occurs in the New Testament:

The study of these passages will confirm the conclusion indicated on p. 21 as to the use and meaning of the word eklektos. But the fact that in 2 Peter it is twice applied to Christ ought to veto the view adopted by certain expositors that where the Apostle uses it elsewhere it means no more than professing Christians. And such a view is further discredited by the fact, brought to light by Luke xxiii. 35, that the Jews employed it as a Messianic title.

The prophecy of Matt. xxiv. relates to the people of God who will be on earth during the reign of Antichrist, in a future dispensation; and verse 31 refers, of course, to the Lord’s return to earth as “Son of Man” for their deliverance.

1 Tim. v. 21 is of exceptional interest. For nowhere else in Scripture are Angels thus associated with the Deity as witnessing the testimony and service of Christians upon earth. May not “the elect Angels” be that special section of the heavenly host who stand in the immediate presence of God (Matt. xviii. 10. See footnote 72).

2 Tim. ii. 10 is supposed by many expositors to refer explicitly to the unconverted. But no other Scripture lends any countenance to such a view. (See p.  REF christians_chosen p 21)

In 1 Peter i. 1 the word is used as a descriptive title, and not (as A.V. suggests) in a doctrinal sense. It is noteworthy that that foreknowledge of God, which is associated with predestination in Romans viii., is here allied with election. My only comment is that there must be something amiss with any theology which ignores it.

The following are the passages in which the kindred word eklegomai occurs:

These passages give proof that eklegomai is not a distinctively theological word, even when the Lord uses it of choosing His Apostles. This appears from His words: “Ye have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you”; for the word must have the same meaning in both sentences.

And having regard to the fact that Eph. 1. 4 is a part of the “mystery” revelation of the Church, the Body of Christ, and that there is nothing precisely akin to it elsewhere in Scripture, may we not assume (as suggested at p. 19) that this heavenly election pertains peculiarly to the Lord’s heavenly people of this present dispensation?

2 Thess. ii. 13 is in a category by itself. For the word there used (aireomai) occurs again only in Phil. 1. 22 and Heb. xi. 25. Dean Alford calls it “a LXX expression,” and Dr. Bullinger defines it (in contrast with eklegomai) “to separate rather by the act of taking than by showing preference, favour, or love.” This strengthens my belief that the “deliverance” (see p. 21, ante) of verse 13 is from the Antichristian persecution of Matt. xxiv. 21, which is the special subject of this chapter. This view might be accepted without reserve if the alternative reading of R.V. margin were adopted; God’s people of this dispensation being gathered home “as a first-fruits” (see p. 83) before the era of that last great storm of persecution.

The passages in which ekloge occurs are Acts ix. 15; Rom. ix. 11, and xi. 5, 7, 28; 1 Thess. i. 4; 2 Pet. i. 10.

The truth of Election, as revealed in Scripture, I again repeat, crowns the supreme revelation of the grace of God; whereas the Augustinian doctrine of Election implicitly denies the supremacy of grace. Though this may be concealed by popular expositors, it is plainly manifest in our standard theology. Here, ex. gr., are some typical sentences quoted from the Westminster Divines, whose treatise on the subject is incomparably the ablest and best accredited exposition of it:

“Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when and where and how He pleaseth . . .

“So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

“Others not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word cannot be saved.”

The reader will observe that this implicitly adopts the hateful dogma of “the damnation of infants “a dogma which Rom. v. definitely refutes. And while Scripture testifies that, wherever the Gospel is proclaimed, it is the acceptance or rejection of Christ that fixes the destiny of men, this doctrine teaches that idiots and imbeciles though wholly incapable of “being called by the ministry of the Word,” are nevertheless, if “not elected,” to share the doom of the impenitent; for they “cannot be saved.”

“Cannot be saved”: these words admit of only one meaning, namely that God cannot save them; for no one imagines that any sinner can save himself. And this is an explicit denial of the most distinctive truth of Christianity the supremacy of grace. To say that though God has power to save them it is not His Will that they should be saved is no less a denial of that great basal truth, and it explicitly impugns many of the plainest and most unequivocal statements of Scripture. And worse even than this, it discredits the personal ministry of the Lord Jesus and His attitude and words to those who rejected His appeals to come to Him. (See pp. 2222.)

As already noticed (p. 22), this doctrine is closely allied with the error of regarding the work of Christ as being merely the anti-type of the sin-offering a substitutionary sacrifice for the redeemed people of God. It is this truly, but it is also the fulfilment of every type and every promise of the Hebrew Scriptures. And it is infinitely more even than this; for the full and final revelation of Christianity discloses wonders of Divine grace which transcend everything of which Moses and the prophets wrote. Having made peace by the blood of the Cross, God has reconciled “all things” to Himself by Christ (Col. i. 20, ta panta, i.e. the whole universe).

And the ministry of the reconciliation is the distinctive gospel of this Christian dispensation. Here are the inspired words of the Apostle to whom it was specially committed: “On Christ’s behalf we are ambassadors, as though God were entreating by us:  we pray on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God” (2 Cor. v. 20, Dean Alford’s translation). Such was his appeal to the unsaved not (as suggested by both A.V. and R.V.) to the saints of Corinth. For here (as in 1 Cor. xv. 14) he is describing his gospel testimony. Addressing the Christians, he adds: “we also entreat that ye receive not the grace of God in vain” (chap. vi. 1).

Every unprejudiced mind will recognise that, if the Augustinian doctrine were true, such an appeal to a company of the unconverted would be illusory if not dishonest. For, while that doctrine incorporates a Scriptural truth, it has a negative side which is based solely on inferences from Scripture, inferences which are proved to be false by the fact of their practically denying the grace of God and the truth of the gospel. But in contrast with this, the truth of election declares the blessedness and eternal security of the redeemed without any negative reference whatever. This statement can be challenged only by so misreading Romans ix. as to make it clash with the teaching of the earlier chapters of the Epistle (see p. 17, ante).

But someone may ask, What about the twenty-first verse? “Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour and another to dishonour?” Both the context and the tone of these words clearly indicate that they are not meant to instruct a halting Christian, but to silence a caviller. And moreover, the antithesis in the parable is not at all between life and death, but between honour and dishonour. With the same clay the potter forms one vessel that perchance may touch the hands and lips of a queen, while he designs another for base, albeit useful purposes. But a potter who would make a vessel with the deliberate purpose of destroying it must be a maniac of a dangerous type. And the words which follow put to shame the profane thought that God is here compared to a maniac potter! For though “the vessels of wrath” are fitted (i.e. made fully fit or ready) for destruction, the “much long-suffering” of God still bears with them. And their readiness for destruction is due entirely to themselves, whereas, in marked contrast with this, it is to God that the vessels of mercy owe their readiness for glory.

It cannot be denied that with respect not only to election, but also to other transcendental truths of still greater importance and difficulty, the Fathers, in their zeal for the suppression of heresy, left themselves open to the charge of aspiring to “know the Almighty to perfection.” As regards election, indeed, it may be pleaded on their behalf that the great truth of the supremacy of grace had already been lost in the Primitive Church (see p. 24 ante). But no such plea can be offered for those who in days of fuller light identify themselves with these features of their teaching.

Though the difficulties which beset this subject are so very real, we cannot consent to solve them at the expense of truth of still greater moment. Moreover they are not peculiar to “election.” They are found in every phase of the seeming conflict between Divine sovereignty and human will; and indeed, if we allowed our minds to be enslaved by them, they would put an end to all intercessory prayer.^[83] The following sentence in the Apostle Peter’s inspired words to the Jews at Pentecost illustrate a special aspect of them: “Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.” The sheriff who kills a man in complicance with “the determinate counsel” of a court of law does not commit a “wicked” act. And if the men who crucified Christ were giving effect to the “determinate counsel” of God, how could it be said they were “wicked “in doing so? Let this be explained and we shall find a clue to the solution of our “election” difficulties. As suggested on an earlier page, if we could view these truths from the stand-point of the Infinite, we should discover that though they seem to us to be incompatible, they are in fact inseparable (p. 19).

My treatment of this subject may leave me open to the taunt of slighting great teachers of the past. But having regard to present circumstances, I do not fear that taunt. In time of war, as we have been hearing of late, the order to “clear the decks” is rigidly enforced in every warship; and anything likely to imperil safety, no matter how highly it may be prized, is ruthlessly thrown overboard. And in these days of apostasy, when traditional exegesis is freely used to undermine the faith by discrediting the Divine revelation on which it rests, it behoves us to “clear the decks.”

And the importance of the question here at issue is not limited to religious controversy; it concerns our national warfare. Germany and Britain were twin sons of the Reformation; and in both countries the character of the people was formed upon the Bible held in reverence as the Word of God. And yet the course and conduct of this dreadful war has raised the question whether Germany can any longer be deemed a Christian nation. To what then can the astounding change which this indicates be due? One cause alone is adequate to account for it. The Bible has been dethroned in that land under the influence of the sceptical movement which masquerades as “Higher Criticism.”

And this again gives rise to the question:  How could such an essentially rationalistic movement gain the mastery over a Godfearing people? The following dictum of Adolf Saphir’s may explain itfor his words are as true as they are startling: “It is out of the arsenal of the orthodox that the weapons have been taken with which the very fundamental truths of the Gospel have been assailed.” In other words, as he proceeds to explain, the traditional interpretation of Scripture “paved the way for Rationalism and Neology.” If then our own land is to be saved from the apostasy which has thus depraved the character of the German people, let us fearlessly “clear the decks,” and take our stand upon Holy Scripture, untrammelled by Patristic theology. And with reference to the special subject of these pages, let us refuse all teaching of the past which trenches upon the truth either of Divine sovereignty or of Divine grace or in any way discredits or tampers with “the word of the truth of the Gospel.”

[83] To pray for the salvation of relatives or friends would be, of course, except to trifle with God. Indeed a recent popular “book of piety,” based on a misreading of John xvii. 9, suggests a veto upon such a prayer.