In arguing for limited atonement, John Murray cites Romans 8.31-39, saying in part:
When we proceed to verse 33 the restrictive scope becomes unquestionably patent. For Paul says: “who will bring a charge against the elect of God? God is the one who justifies: who is he who condemns?” The thought moves strictly within the orbit defined by election and justification, and the reference to election and justification harks back to verses 28-30 where predestination and justification are shown to be co-extensive [Redemption: Accomplished & Applied , p. 66].
Paul is undoubtedly capable of referring to those predestined to eternal life as the “elect,” but he seems to be using the term differently here. To demonstrate this we will look at some instances where the New Testament speaks of election differently from (though certainly not in opposition to) the way the term is used in Reformed dogmatics. Then we will consider the context to see how Paul is using the term in Romans 8.33.
Election as an Historical Act
While the doctrine of election is taught plainly in Scripture (e.g. Eph 1.3-14), that does not mean every time the word “elect” is used, as either a verb or a noun, it is being used as a technical term for this doctrine. Here are some examples of some other uses of the verb, eklegomai , “to elect”:
“And He began speaking a parable to the invited guests when he noticed how they had been picking out the places of honor at the table . . .” (Luke 14.7). What is Jesus observing here? Obviously, he sees the guests sitting down in certain seats. This is referred to as election. To elect the places of honor means to claim them by occupying them. Likewise, we read in Luke 6.13: “And when day came, He called His disciples to Him; and chose twelve of them, whom He named as apostles.” Here “elected” is virtually synonymous with “appointed.” The election was an action which took place in history.
In Acts we find similar usages. Peter declares to the Counsel of Jerusalem, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe” (15.7). The event to which Peter referred was the vision he was given by God. God “elected” him by giving that vision. Peter is emphatic that the choice was made by God in time and space-“among you.”
Likewise, Acts 13.17: “The God of this people Israel chose our fathers, and made the people great during their stay in the land of Egypt, and with an uplifted arm He led them out from it.” The most natural reading is that this passage lists three historical events, not one timeless decree and two historical events. God chose Abraham when He called him in Genesis 12.1-3.
All that is being said here is that the “election” or “choice” (which, remember, is all one Greek word, not a technical theological term) in Scripture has a similar semantic range to its English counterparts. If I hold up to you a platter of cookies and say, “Choose one,” I am not simply requesting a mental operation. I am asking you to pick up a cookie with your hand and put it in your mouth. Choosing, depending on context, ranges from the mental action of making a decision upon which one will act in the future to actually acting. Thus, while we make a needed distinction in technical theology between God’s decree and His execution of His decree, the Bible is free to refer to either of these as God’s election. It is simply using ordinary language, and we must be careful not to import our own technical distinctions into the meaning of the words.
This range in meaning to the verb, eklegomai, is also reflected in the adjective and substantive noun, eklektoss – the “elect” or “chosen.” Like his speech recorded in Acts 15, Peter also sometimes uses election to refer not to recipients of the eternal decree but to the recipients of the space-time action of God:
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled clean with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in fullest measure (1 Pet 1.1, 2).
Here, our standard doctrine of election is not found in the word “chosen” or “elect,” but in the word “foreknowledge. Having been foreknown by God, the recipients of Peter’s salutation have been “chosen” by the action of the Spirit in setting them apart.
Paul is apparently also capable of using the term in this way. He exhorts the Colossians to act “as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved” (3.12). While it is true that the elect are loved from eternity, they are not holy from eternity. They are holy when they are engrafted into Christ by the Holy Spirit and both forensically justified and definitively sanctified. Thus, to act as the “chosen of God” is almost meaningless if the term is being used in it’s technical sense in Reformed theology. Rather, to be “chosen” is to be actually called and regenerated and gathered into the Church. Likewise, “the faith of God’s elect” (Tit 1.1; NIV) makes little sense unless it means the faith of the visible saints, those who have actually begun in history to profess faith in Christ.
No Condemnation in Christ Jesus
The question remains: Are the “elect” in Romans 8.33 to be identified with those in Colossians 3.12 and Titus 1.1 or with those in Ephesians 1.4? The context would seem to indicate that the elect here are those who have been sanctified by the Spirit, engrafted into Christ, and given saving faith. The reason for coming to this conclusion is that Paul presents election and justification as, to use Murray’s term, “co-extensive.”
Are election (understood as synonymous with predestination) and justification “co-extensive”? In the sense that all those predestined to be justified will be justified, the idea is uncontroversial because it is tautological. But, at any given moment in history, the fact is that many (perhaps most, if a revival is about to occur) of the elect are not justified, and are subject to charges brought against them by God Himself.
Paul Himself emphasizes the need for one to be actually regenerated and given union with Christ in order for one to be justified. He writes, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (8.1; emphasis added). Furthermore, being in Christ requires the work of the Spirit: “But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him” (8.9b). The elect are those whom Christ has picked out by the Spirit so that they now belong to Him and thus possess Christ and all His benefits.
Indeed the entire passage of Romans 8.31-39 is introduced by way of a listing of the blessings brought through the work of the Spirit as He mediates the presence of Christ and, thereby, His benefits. The Spirit gives us sonship (8.15-17) and causes us to wait for the fulfillment of our adoption at the Resurrection (8.23-24). The Spirit also prays for us (8.26) according to the perfect plan of God (8.27), which is for all things to work for our good (8.28) and entails the certainty of our glorification (8.30). Thus, it is those who have the Spirit, and therefore the Son, who can say, “If God is for us, who is against us?”
Furthermore, Paul’s first list of what cannot separate us from the love of Christ (8.35-37) recalls his earlier statement of how the Spirit bears witness that we are fellow heirs of Christ “if indeed we suffer with Him in order that we may also be glorified with Him” (8.17b). It is the Spirit who enables us to hope in the midst of suffering and eagerly await our glorification (8.23-25).
Finally, Paul climaxes by saying that no created thing “shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (8.39; emphasis added). This recalls Paul’s statement in 8.1 that there is “no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” with which he introduces how the Spirit mediates Christ’s presence. Paul is not only concerned about predestination, but with the work of the Spirit who applies Christ to us resulting in justification and all other benefits of redemption. The elect are those who have been picked out of the world by the Spirit-that is, those who have been justified.
The Elect & The Church
It is interesting that Murray, in his essay, “The Atonement & the Free Offer of the Gospel,” cited Ephesians 5.25-32 as a prooftext for limited atonement. Just as husbands are to show special love for their wives, so Christ “gave Himself” for the Church. This would certainly point to a definite atonement if one may simply equate “the Church” with those predestined to eternal life. This could be done by stating that Paul is referring to the “invisible” Church.
Murray, however, elsewhere does not want to make such a simple equation. In his provocative and extremely rewarding short essay, “The Church: Its Definition in Terms of ‘Visible’ and ‘Invisible’ Invalid”[Collected Writings., pp. 231-236] he concludes that
Strictly speaking, it is not proper to speak of the “visible church.” According to Scripture we should speak of “the Church” and conceive of it as that visible entity that exists and functions in accord with the institution of Christ as its Head, the Church that is the body of Christ indwelt and directed by the Holy Spirit, consisting of those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be saints, manifested in the congregations of the faithful, and finally the Church glorious, holy and without blemish.[Ibid, p. 236]
The traditional reason for defining the Church as visible and invisible, of course, was the fact that “Only God knows completely and infallibly those who are his, those predestined to salvation and ultimately conformed to the image of His Son. The church cannot make a census of the elect nor of the regenerate”[Ibid, p. 231. See the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 25, “Of the Church, paragraphs 1 and 2]. Nevertheless, despite these realistic concerns, Murray demonstrates that the Bible will not support such a two-fold definition. The Church as it is described in Ephesians is especially prone to be labelled the “invisible Church.” He cites several reasons this label is inadequate, of which I will quote three:
[1] Paul’s doxology: “to Him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus” (Eph 3.21) cannot be regarded to the Church as glorified; the Church of which Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians 12.28 (cf. Eph 1.22; 4.11) surely comes within the scope of that within which his glory redounds to God . . . [2] When Paul affirms, “Christ is head of the church” (Eph 5.23; cf. vs. 22; 1.22; Col 1.18), this must apply to the Church as administered upon earth, of which the apostle speaks elsewhere (cf. 2 Cor 11.28; Eph 4.11), and of which our Lord himself spoke (Matt. 16.18; 18.17) . . . [3] The Church as visible is subject to Christ (Eph 5.24) and cannot be excluded from his dominion. The nourishing and cherishing that Christ imparts (Eph 5.29) are activities wrought in the church visible by which it is maintained in accord with Christ’s promise.[Ibid, 234]
Thus, the fact that Christ gave Himself for the Church (Eph 5.25) is undoubtedly related to limited atonement (it certainly doesn’t imply a universal atonement!), it is a problematic prooftext since not all members of the Church are predestined to eternal life-despite the unambiguous teaching on predestination in Ephesians 1.[I cannot find a date for Murray’s essay on the Church. His use of Eph 5.25-27 to argue for limited atonement was published in 1965–relatively late in his career. Christian Baptism, which contains some similar statement about the problematic nature of making a distinction between the visible and invisible Church, was published in 1952. Thus, it seems that Murray did not see any problem between what he wrote about the nature of the Church and what he wrote about limited atonement. I wish I could ask him about it! It is curious that Eph 5.25-27 is not used in his earlier work, Redemption: Accomplished & Applied. All I can say is that if we can’t limit Eph 5.25-27 to “the invisible church” then it is difficult to consider it an easy prooftext for limited atonement.
Likewise, despite the unambiguous reference to predestination in Romans 8.29-30, the “elect” in v. 33 are not precisely identical to the people whom God has ordained to eternal life. As pointed out earlier, the not-yet-regenerated elect, at least, are outside the group Paul is discussing.
Conclusion
“The elect” as a term can sometimes be used in such a way that it is virtually synonymous with “the Church.” Paul uses the term this way in Titus 1.1, Colossians 3.12, and–I have argued here–Romans 8.33. Thus, I don’t think it is as “tight” a prooftext for limited atonement as it is treated by Murray.
Of course, if salvation is monergistic, then obviously all those drawn out of the Kingdom of Darkness and into Christ’s Body are the recipients of God’s sovereign mercy, while others are passed over and left in their sins. Thus, God sent the Son for the salvation of the elect alone–for He knew (and brought about) that they alone would savingly benefit from His death and resurrection. On the other hand, Paul does consider it possible that some who have been graciously drawn into God’s covenant, may in fact prove themselves to be reprobate (Rom 11.21-24). The same ambiguity found in Ephesians 5.25-27 obtains in Romans 8.33. We need to be cautious in our use of it to prove limited atonement.