John Frame on Covenantal Election

From John Frame’s The Doctrine of God :

So although the election of Israel is by grace, there is an important place for continued faithfulness. Individuals can belong to the chosen people, yet lose their elect status by faithlessness and disobedience. Branches can be broken off “because of unbelief” (Rom. 11:20). When we consider divine rejection, we should not argue that the discarded branches were never really elect. There is a place for such reasoning, but it pertains to a different kind of election, which we will discuss in the following section. Here, however, we are talking about historical election. And in this context it is possible to lose one’s election. The discarded branches were indeed elect at one time, for they were part of the tree of Israel. Israel as a nation was really elect, before God declared them to be “not my people,” and they became elect again, when God declared them to be “sons of the living God.” The same is true of the New Testament church. It would not be right to say that Judas, or Ananias, or the apostates of Hebrews 6 and 10 were never elect in any sense. They were elect in the sense that Israel was elect. Indeed, when Calvinists worry about the implications of Hebrews 6 and 10, it is useful for them to consider that the apostates in these passages are very much like Old Testament Israel: they “have once been enlightened, . . . tasted the heavnly gift, . . . shared in the Holy Spirit, . . . tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age.” (Heb. 6:4-5). Israel experienced all these things throughout Old Testament history and particularly during the earthly ministry of Jesus. But they rejected him and joined those who crucified the Son of God. So those church members who turn away from Christ “are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace” (6:6). Note how Hebrews 4:4-6 emerges out of the references to Israel in chapters 3 and 4. The Israelites, blessed as they were with enlightenment, the heavenly gift, the Holy Spirit, the word of God, and the powers of the coming age, nevertheless hardened their hearts against the Lord (3:7-11, 15). The writer therefore urges Christians to “make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience” (4:11). So God continues to break branches off the tree of redemption. Even those who have been freshly engrafted can be broken off because of unbelief (pp. 324-5).

COMMENT FROM JAMES B. JORDAN

Mr. Christian,

I can chime in and say that this was garden variety Calvinism when I went to RTS Jackson in the mid-70s and WTS Philly in the late 1980s. Everybody knew that the Bible uses these terms and phrases in more generalized and “covenantal” ways than the way they are used in some systematics, where they are given carefully stipulated definitions for certain purposes. You are quite right that in only a few years recently the powers-that-be in these denominations have tossed Calvinism out the window and have adopted a kind of hypercalvinism.

As for figuring it all out: Being close to 60 years of age, I have the sad duty of letting you on the dirty little secret that a WHOLE lot of what goes on in the Church has to do with politics and jockeying for power and for the spotlight. Those who acquire power are able to intimidate good men, because those good men have families, and because those good men want to keep their pastorates and teaching positions in order to serve Jesus Christ and His people. If they stand up and lose their positions, then how can they really serve Him?

Undergoing this kind of pressure is called crucifixion.

There are other aspects of this present weirdness, mainly I believe the resurgence of a pagan notion of God as someone who demands bribes and merits and who only rewards such bribes. This is a rejection of the Biblical God, who is a Father who delights to give new gifts to His children on their birthdays as they grow up and can handle new responsibilities. The god of bribes is Zeus, Baal, and the god of Medieval Rome. The lingering effects of this bribe-god are seen occasionally in older Protestant writers, but by the mid-20th century this error had been pretty much exorcised from the Reformed faith. Then it made a comeback, and now is the new orthodoxy to which all must conform.