Is God's Call for Salvation Limited to a Few?

 

Introduction of the Issue

            The pastor sat in the man's living room and explained the gospel. The man was "under conviction" to the point that he shook. He knew he needed to be saved but he was waiting for a "special call." He had grown up in a church that taught the call of God for salvation was limited to a few. He could not be sure he was elected by God for salvation and he was afraid to accept the offer of salvation. Nothing the pastor said could convince him that he could be saved if he would trust in Jesus as his savior.

            The author of this paper was that pastor and the event happened just the way it was described. Since that time, the pastor has studied much more about the idea that God limits his offer of salvation to a select few. He is convinced today, as he was then, that the idea presents a distorted view of God's purpose of salvation. It is the intent of this paper to present a Biblical view of the issue and argue that God desires to save more rather than fewer. It is an accompanying thesis that the limitations on the number of people saved are not with God and His desire, but with man and his rejection of God's plan.

            To accomplish this task, the paper will examine the arguments of those who teach a limited call. This study will include an examination of the scriptures used to support the limited call. Finally, the author will present a position that he believes is a more adequate view of the issue.

 

Limited Call to Salvation

 

            The doctrine under consideration here is named "effectual calling" and has been defined as follows: "Special calling means that God works in a particularly effective way with the elect, enabling them to respond in repentance and faith, and rendering it certain that they will" (Erickson, p. 295). Another Southern Baptist writer, W.T. Conner, makes it clear that hearing the gospel does not insure that a call will be extended. He says, "This efficacious call does not come to all, not even to all who hear the gospel" (Conner, p. 157). This distinction is an attempt to deal with the issue of why some people hear the gospel and are saved while others hear the gospel and remain lost. These scholars and those who accept this doctrine, place the deciding factor with God who decided before the event, who would receive an effectual calling. The question here is: Is this what the Bible teaches? We will turn now to a look at the arguments used to support the doctrine of effectual calling.

1.      Salvation is the work of God. Conners makes a very effective argument for this doctrine. In particular he argues that conversion is the result of God's activity. However, Conners does make one statement in his discussion of this matter that bears examination. He says, "It is not true that the sinner within and of himself repents and believes and then God comes into the process in forgiveness (Conners, p. 156). If Dr. Conners means that the repentance and belief are a part of the process and not to be regarded outside the drawing of the Holy Spirit, well and good. However, if he intends to remove the individual's responsibility to make a decision to accept the gift of conversion, he does not offer any scriptural support for that position.

2.      God seeks the person chosen for salvation with a special calling. Erickson supports this argument by illustrations from the ministry of Jesus. Erickson points to Matthew 22:14 as an example of this doctrine as contrasted with the general call for salvation. He also refers to the individual calls extended to the disciples to become followers as well as Zacchaeus.  Conners  makes the same point with references from the gospels as well as Paul. In particular John 6:44 is pointed out as teaching this concept. This passage will be examined in detail in the author's argument.

3.      Special or Effectual Calling is largely the work of the Holy Spirit in illumination. I Corinthians 2: 6-16 and other passages are used to support this position. The argument  here centers on the idea that mankind is so opposed to God that he will not naturally come to God. Romans 8:7 is used here to support this position (Conners, p. 157). Romans 3: 11 is often used to argue that no one can seek God without special help from the Holy Spirit.

 

A Response

 

            An examination of the three points above leads to the conviction that they are correct as far as they go. The problem is a limited understanding of the power of the Holy Spirit in the presentation of the gospel. Some observations concerning the three arguments are in order.

1.      Salvation is the work of God. This is surely correct. The sinner cannot save himself or there would be no need for a savior. Certainly the change of mind and heart is not something the lost person does for himself. A person could no more bring about his "rebirth" than he could bring about his first physical birth.  A mistake made by those who wish to limit the opportunity of salvation to a few is the truth of the necessity of man's response. These well meaning people want to insure that man has no room to claim any credit for salvation. Therefore in their minds, accepting the gift of eternal life is regarded as a "work." The Bible recognizes the danger in Ephesians 2: 8-9 were we are reminded that we are saved by grace through faith but that salvation is a gift of God. We need to understand that accepting a gift does not bring any credit to the one receiving but all credit goes to the one giving.

Moreover, the Bible repeatedly calls for a response on the part of man. Jesus preached to the people to "repent ye, and believe the gospel" (Mark 1:15). Again the scripture says that the command to repent is extended to "all men everywhere to repent. (Acts 17:30)." These verses are in the impertative and are commands that expect a response. To attempt to remove the necessity for a response by first placing the initial decision with God and then insuring compliance with "irresistable grace" is to rob much of the Bible of its true meaning. It is the responsibility of sinners to repent and to take the response from them by positing that sinners are only doing what God has predetermined they will and must do is to cut at the very root of the gospel. How can God hold us accountable if He decided who could respond and be saved?

2.      This is the crux of the issue. It should be noted that those who argue for an effectual call recognize that there is a general call to all the lost. Erickson recognizes this in Matthew 11:28 where Jesus said, "Come to me all who labor…" However he goes on to make an important distinction is dealing with Matthew 22:14 which says, "Many are called but few are chosen." It is Erickson's position that the sinner is unable to believe and therefore God must do some special work to enable him to respond (Erickson, p. 295).

Before dealing with John 6:44 we need to recognize that the call of God for a believer to a special ministry is not germaine to this discussion. Certainly God calls people to ministry and that is a very special calling but it does not speak to the calling to salvation under discussion here.

John 6:44 is a "happy hunting ground" of those who try to limit the number who can be saved. John 6: 44 says, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him…" This verse is understood to mean God has chosen to draw a few to Jesus and has chosen to leave the rest undrawn. This interpretation is "read into" the verse by those who have already made up their minds about limited calling. A careful study of the passage with an open mind gives a very different interpretation for verse 45 reads, "It is written in the Prophets: "They will all be taught by God." Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me." This corresponds to the "Many are called but few are chosen" of Matthew 22:14 mentioned above. Verse 45 makes it clear that God teaches all so there is a universal calling to salvation. However only those who listen and learn come to Jesus. The limitation is not on the side of God ( who wants everyone to repent according to 2 Peter 3:9) but on the side of man. Some listen and learn and are saved and some reject the opportunity. God is willing to draw everyone if they will listen and learn.

Dr. Erickson makes a special point of mentioning the call of Zacchaeus and says, "In these cases, Jesus no doubt presented his claims in a direct and personal fashion which carried a special persuasiveness not felt by the surrounding crowd (Erickson, p. 295). All this is read into the text. How can one say Zacchaeus had a effectual call while the rich young ruler spoken of in Luke 18: 18-23 did not? The difference here is not in the call but in the response.  

3.      The question of whether it is possible to seek God is very important. Here as in the other two positions, those who would limit the call of God are right as far as they go. The argument from I Corinthians 2: 6-16 and Romans 8:7 is exactly right but does not apply to this issue. Those passages simply affirm that the non-believer cannot understand spiritual matters. Verse 14 is central to this point. That verse says, "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." There is no argument here that the lost person cannot understand the things of God without the help of the Holy Spirit. My argument is that the Holy Spirit is available to help anyone who is willing to listen.

The issue of whether a lost person can seek God is the basic issue here. The Romans 3: 11 passage is often used to argue that no one does seek God. However a careful study of that verse will show that Paul is quoting from Psalms 14: 2 which states that "The Lord looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God." If we look at verse 1 we see that the Psalm is talking about the fool who says in his heart "There is no God." Seen in the original context we see that is issue is not about whether it is possible to seek God but the actions of the fool.

When we look at the total teaching of scripture about seeking God we find that (1). God commands it (Isaiah 55:6 Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: ) , (2). Rewards are promised to those who do it (Heb. 11:6  for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.)  and (3). there are those who do it (John 12: 21 reports that some Greeks came saying:  "Sir, we would see Jesus.") There are other examples that could be added to support the position that we are commanded to, rewarded for, and are able to seek God. 

                  It is very important to remember here that the sinner is being sought by God. Jesus said it this way in Luke 19: 10: "For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost." So when the lost person turns to God he finds that the savior has already been active in seeking him. Notice that Jesus did not say he came to seek some of the lost.

 

Conclusion

 

            The doctrine of “effectual calling” is a human doctrine that is designed to defend God’s honor because some people hear the gospel and do not respond. Some well meaning theologians are concerned that God appears weak and ineffective if sinners are allowed to make a decision in the process of salvation. God does not need his honor defended by anyone and it is a perversion of scripture to neglect the many calls for sinners to “repent” and “choose.” “Effectual calling” is not a biblical doctrine and actually hinders the work of evangelism when lost men and women are afraid to accept the gospel out of a fear that they don’t have “the call.”

            Some argue that “the dead don’t hear” and therefore they can’t respond. I remind those  folks that Jesus said, “²⁵ I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live (John 5:25).