Die Uitverkiesingsleer: 'n Bondige Uiteensetting

Hierdie is 'n skrywe deur my vriend, Chris Saayman, in antwoord op 'n artikel aan hom gestuur deur 'n persoon, waarin Calvyn veroordeel word en die uitverkiesingsleer verwerp word.

"Liewe oom Rupert, dankie vir die aanstuur van die stuk. Dis 'n groot jammerte dat die genade-leer altyd aan Calvyn gekoppel word. Want eintlik is dit maar net die basiese leer van die Skrif. Selfs al sou alles waar wees wat in die stuk geskryf is en selfs al was Calvyn 'n antichris, bly die leer van die genade nog presies dieselfde, want die BYBEL is steeds dieselfde. Die kuns is om vanaf 2017 terug te gryp op die Skrif en nie langs die pad vas te haak by allerlei “pit-stops” in die geskiedenis nie. Al wat ons belydenisskrifte doen – al dra dit die stempel van die kerkgeskiedenis - is om ons aan die Skrif vas te knoop. Die leer van die Skrif is glashelder duidelik dat die mens tot bekering moet kom, moet omdraai en Christus as Verlosser aanneem. Die Skrif is ewe duidelik dat die natuurlike mens dit nie kan doen nie! Die natuurlike mens het nie hulp nodig nie, maar 'n lewendmaking. Net vanoggend het ek dit weer in Rom 6:13 gelees! As mens se oë eers daarvoor oop is, sien jy dit orals. Ook in die OT bv in Eseg 37. Wanneer 'n mens tot bekering kom, VOEL dit vir jou asof alles van jou beslissing afhang. Maar lees jy later die Bybel, sien jy dat Sy lewendmaking jou beslissing voorafgegaan het! Bekering is die VRUG van wedergeboorte en nie andersom nie! Indien God alle mense met hierdie vrye guns bedien, maar nie almal reageer nie, beteken dit dan dat die mens se halsstarrigheid vir God ore aansit? Is alle mense dan nie ewe halsstarrig nie? Of besit sommige mense sekere edele kwaliteite wat ander nie het nie – sodat hulle wat hierdie kwaliteite het, die keuse kan maak? Klink nie Skriftuurlik nie. Is die Bybelse leer dat Jesus alle mense effektief op die kruis met God versoen het, maar dat sommige wat versoen is, in die verderf eindig omdat hulle so halsstarrig was? Kan versoende mense in die verderf eindig? Of was Jesus se dood slegs 'n potensiele moontlikheid vir versoening? En moet Koning Mens se besluit dit effektief maak? Klink ook nie skriftuurlik nie. Kolos 2:13-14 stel dit eksplisiet dat die mens DOOD was maar LEWENDGEMAAK is op die kruis 2000jr gelede want die kruis het die skuld totaal weggeneem. Lees dit asb. Dit is skokkend duidelik. Of Calvyn dus 'n bose monster was of nie, hierdie Bybelse gegewe staan ongeskonde. En ons moet DAAROP let, nie op Calvyn nie. Aan die einde van die dag sit ons almal met hierdie deurslaggewende vraag: Die realiteit rondom ons wys vir ons dat sommige mense tot bekering kom en ander nie. Vraag: Waarom kom sommige en ander nie? Lê die uitsluitsel by die mens of by God? Ek dink die Skrif is 100% duidelik dat dit nie die mens is wat die staf in sy hand het nie. Wat genadige verkiesing betref, wel dit staan natuurlik die hele Bybel vol. Paulus weet daar is diegene wat verkies is wat nog tot redding moet kom (hulle is nog nie gered nie, maar sal nog kom) 2 Tim 2:10. Die begrip opsigself beteken dat sommige verbygegaan is. Verkies beteken dat nie almal verkies is nie, anders is dit geen verkiesing nie! As mens se oë hiervoor oopgegaan het sien jy ook dit oral in die Skrif. Dis die bron van ons saligheid Efes1:4. Verkiesing en verwerping beteken egter nie dat God skuld dra aan die mens se val nie. Hoewel God dit in Sy ewige Raad so bepaal het, het die MENS homself vir die hel “gepredestineer”. God het in Sy ewige Raad bepaal dat Judas Christus sou verraai, nogtans is Judas self skuldig, nie God nie! Die mens dra self die volle skuld. God het geen verpligting om enige mens op hierdie hellevaart te stuit nie. Hy skuld die mens niks. Hy het volle reg om te mens toe te laat om te BEGAAN op sy eie selfgekose verderfpad. Sou Hy ALLE mense laat begaan het, sou Hy nie van enige onreg beskuldig kon word nie. Eintlik is dit onreg om selfs net EEN van hierdie rampokkers te stuit in hulle vaart en hulle te laat omkeer! Persoonlik dink ek dat die groot rede waarom ons nie die verkiesing (en daarom die hele evangelie) nie verstaan nie, is omdat ons nie insig het in die ware aard van die sonde en die Val nie. Alle vorme van Arminianisme byvoorbeeld, versag die sondebegrip en verlig die dood sodat die dood net 'n diep slaap word! Maar, RADIKALE sondebegrip verg RADIKALE genade om die mens gered te kry. Juis omdat die Skrif die sonde en geestelike dood teken op die manier wat hy doen, vandaar die verkiesingsleer. Naamlik dat God besluit het om 'n hele hemel vol mense te stuit. Diep in ons binneste dink ons dat God ons op 'n manier die redding verskuldig is omdat ons slagoffers van die sonde is. Byna soos drenkelinge - die verbygaande skip se kaptein is dit aan 'n drenkeling verskuldig om hom te red. Indien nie is hy 'n hartelose monster. Die Skrif praat nie op hierdie manier oor die sonde nie. Die val was eerder 'n staatsgreep teen 'n oneindige Wese. Die mens is nie 'n slagoffer van sonde nie. Die mens is willens en wetens 'n opstandige rebel wat self god wil wees en die ware God van die troon wil afruk. Watter regeerder sal mense wat 'n staatsgreep wil uitoefen spaar? Ondenkbaar. Almal sal boet. 'n Koning wat weier om sulke mense te red is nie 'n monster nie, dis die regte ding om te doen - straf. God skuld die redding aan niemand. Almal verdien oneindige strawwe omdat teen 'n oneindige Wese gerebelleer word. Die grootste GENADE wat God aan my kon bewys is om my vir ewig HEL toe te stuur. Dit sou GENADE wees in die lig van wat my sonde werklik is. DAT God dus besluit het om 'n hele hemel vol sulke misdadigers te verlos en te red is die GROOTSTE genade denkbaar!!!!! Eintlik - Indien Hy werklik REGVERDIG moes wees, moes Hy alle alle alle alle mense laat begaan het op hulle hellevaart! Genade is eintlik ONregverdig. God het niemand vir die hel gepredestineer nie. Maar die MENS het HOMSELF vir die hel gepredestineer met die Val. En pleks van om te mens te laat begaan in sy hellevaart (soos Hy MOES doen) het Hy nogtans besluit om vanuit hierdie korrupte nes, aan Sy Seun 'n bruid te gee, die skape vir wie die Seun sou kom sterf (Joh 10:11). Jesus kom aarde toe om die bruid onfeilbaar salig te maak. Wat 'n evangelie!!! Ons het nie 'n middeweg nodig nie. Net die getuienis van die Skrif. Daarin kan ons ons 'n ewigheid lank verbly!!! Die mens wat hel toe gaan, gaan dus hel toe op grond van eie skuld en die mens wat hemel toe gaan gaan soontoe op grond van God se “skuld”. Die verlore mens het sy verlorenheid 100% aan HOMSELF te wyte. Die geredde mens het sy verlossing 100% aan God te danke! Dit klink soos 'n paradoks, maar dit is in wese die egte leer van die Skrif. Om terug te keer na die stuk: Wat ookal die skrywer te kenne gee, pla my nie, want die getuienis van die Skrif is by verre meer belangrik as die kerkgeskiedenis. Al was al die reformatore opperste skurke – soos die artikel wat oom gestuur het beweer, verander dit niks aan die leer van die genade nie. Ons het nie TULIP nodig om dit te ken nie, ons sien dit in die Bybel!"

The Doctrine of Election Explained in Short.

(This is an article by a friend in response to an article on Calvin, vilifying him and so condemning the doctrine of Grace as taught by the Reformers, and which I translated for him)
It is a shame that the doctrine of Grace is always connected to Calvin. I say that because this doctrine is actually just the basic teaching of Scripture. Even though every bad thing written about Calvin, who he was and what atrocities he allegedly committed, be true, the Doctrine of Grace still remains the same, because the BIBLE still remains the same.

The art would be to reach back from this point in 2017, through scripture, and not get hung up on all sorts of pit-stops in the History of the Church. The only purpose of the different confessions of faith – even though they do carry the stamp of church history in their make-up – is to connect us to the truth in Scripture. The doctrine of Scripture is crystal clear – man has to repent, make a u-turn and accept Christ as Saviour. At the same time, Scripture is also just as clear on the issue that it is impossible for natural man to this. He is not in need of help, he is in need of a quickening, a resurrection from the dead.

Just this morning I read about it again in Romans 6:13. If your eyes are opened to it, you see it all over Scripture. Even in the OT eg. In Ezechiel 37. In that moment when you first come to repentance, it FEELS as though it all depends on you yourself. When, afterwards, you read the Bible though, you realise that His quickening, His regeneration, did, in fact, precede your repentance.

Repentance is the FRUIT of regeneration, not the other way around! If God has gifted every human being with this free favour, but all do not react positively, does that mean that man’s stubbornness has trumped God’s will? Are all men not equally stubborn? Or do some men possess a certain noble quality that not all men possess – so that those who do possess this quality, are able to make this choice? It does not sound scriptural at all.

Is it, therefore, the true Biblical narrative, or teaching, that Jesus reconciled ALL men to God on the cross, but that some of those that were reconciled, end up in perdition because they stubbornly resisted this reconciliation? Can reconciled people end up in hell? Or was Jesus’ death just a potential for reconciliation, and now ‘King’ man’s decision has to make it effective?

This does not sound Scriptural either. Colossians 2:13-14 says explicitly that man was DEAD but was QUICKENED (made alive) on the cross 2000 years ago because the cross had totally removed the debt of sin. Please read it. It is shockingly clear. So, whether or not Calvin was an evil monster or a good man, this Biblical given stands unadulterated. So THAT is what we have to focus our attention on, NOT on Calvin. At the end of the day, we are faced with this decisive fact: The reality around us shows us unequivocally that some people come to repentance and some don’t. Question: Why do some come to repentance, and others don’t? Does the ultimate control lie with man or with God? I think that Scripture is 100% clear that man does not hold the staff of authority in his hand. As for Gracious Election, it is found all through Scripture. Paul knows that there are those elected that still needs to come to salvation (they have not come to salvation yet, but they WILL come) 2 Timothy 2:10. The concept itself means that some have been passed over. Elect means that not all were elected, otherwise, it would not be election. Once your eyes have been opened to this truth you recognise it everywhere in Scripture. It is the source of our salvation Ephesians 1:4. Election and Rejection in and of itself do not mean that God shares any guilt in the fall of man. Although God has decreed it in His eternal counsel, man ‘predestined’ himself for hell.

God has decreed in His eternal Counsel that Judas should betray Christ, yet Judas himself is the guilty party, not God! Man himself carries the full burden of guilt. God has no responsibility to stop anyone on his/her road to hell. He owes man nothing. He has the absolute right to allow man to CONTINUE on his chosen path to perdition. If He should allow all men to continue, He could not be accused of any wrongdoing or unrighteousness. It would actually be unfair to stop even just ONE of these ‘gangsters’ in their headlong rush and allow them to repent. Personally, I think that the main reason why we do not understand the election of God (and therefore the whole Gospel), is because we have no insight into the true nature of sin and the Fall of man.

All forms of Arminianism, for example, softens the understanding of sin and eases the idea of death to a more palatable deep sleep!  But, RADICAL conviction of sin needs RADICAL grace to save a person. Specifically, because Scripture paints sin and spiritual death as it does, election comes into play, namely, that God has decided to intervene and stop a heavenly host of people from their headlong dash to hell. You see, deep within ourselves, we have the idea that God owes us salvation in some way because we are poor victims of sin. Sort of like a drowning soul – the passing ship’s captain is obliged to save this drowning man. If he doesn’t he is a heartless monster. But Scripture does not talk thus about sin. The Fall was more akin to a coup d’etat against an eternal Being.

Man was no victim of sin. Man is a deliberately rebellious being that wants to be god himself and remove the one true God from His throne. Which ruler will pardon people who want to effect a coup? It is unthinkable. All would pay the price. A king who would refuse to save such people is not a monster, it is the just and the fair thing to do – to punish them. God owes salvation to no man. All deserve eternal punishment because the rebellion was committed against an eternal Being. The greatest MERCY God could have shown me was to have sent me to HELL for all of eternity. That would have been MERCY in light of the true measure of my sin.

The fact that God has decided to redeem and to save a heavenly host of such criminals is the GREATEST  act of mercy EVER!!! Actually – if God had to be really JUST, he should have allowed ALL ALL ALL people to carry on in their plunge to perdition.

Grace and mercy is actually Unjust. God has predestined no one for hell. But MAN predestined HIMSELF for hell with the Fall. Now instead of allowing man to continue on his way to hell (as He should have done) He has decided nevertheless to pull from this corrupt nest of vipers a sum of people, a bride for His Son, the sheep for whom the Son would come to lay down His life. (John 10:11) Jesus comes to earth to safeguard His bride, to guarantee her salvation. What a gospel! We don’t need some sort of compromise. Just the testimony of Scripture. In that, we can live for all eternity!!!

The person going to hell goes to hell on the grounds of his own guilt, and the person that goes to heaven goes there on the grounds of God’s guarantee. The lost man is 100% to blame himself. The saved man has God to thank 100%. It may sound like a paradox to you, but it is, in fact, the true doctrine of Scripture.

To come back to the article: Whatever the writer is trying to showcase, it does not bother me, because the testimony of Scripture is more important than church history by far. Even should all the reformers have been utter villains – as the article seems to assert, it does not change the immutable truth of the Doctrine of Grace. We do not need TULIP to know it, we see it in the Bible!