Unconditional Election, Part 1

In this part of the sermon: Martin argues that the doctrine of election is rooted in the plain meaning of key biblical words, particularly 'elect' (eklegomai, eklektos, eklogai) and 'foreknow.' He…

Martin mentions a current evangelist who would say the framers of the confession learned about election from hell or the devil, highlighting the strong opposition to the doctrine.

Now, having given a simple statement of the doctrine using the Westminster Shorter Catechism as a guide, what is the biblical basis for the doctrine of election? Where did the framers of the confession get these notions? Well, some would say they got them out of their own heads. There is a current evangelist who would say they paid a visit to hell and they learned it from the devil.

11:31 - 11:53 Read in full sermon

In this part of the sermon: Martin argues that the doctrine of election is rooted in the plain meaning of key biblical words, particularly 'elect' (eklegomai, eklektos, eklogai) and 'foreknow.' He…

He notes the common accusation that reformers simply 'parroted' Calvin's thoughts on election, setting up the argument that the doctrine is biblically derived, not man-made.

Some would say they read the works of a well-known reformer who lived in Geneva too much and they just parroted his thoughts.

11:54 - 12:01 Read in full sermon

Driving home: And there is not a shred of evidence that its basic linguistic significance is changed one iota when it is used with reference to God's act of selecting out of the mass of lost humanity a certain number of sinners to be …

To illustrate that choice is initiated by the selector, not the selected, Martin uses the analogy of David choosing stones from the brook, emphasizing that the stones did not choose themselves.

Something is selected and something is non-selected. And thirdly, the choice is always initiated by the selector, not the selected. David did not stand by the brook and wait until five stones wriggled up out of the brook and stood erect upon the bank and said, David, we would like to be involved in this great conquest of the Philistine giant. No, no, all of the stones lay in the same condition on the brook's bed until David stretched out his hand and laid hold of five of it.

18:56 - 19:32 Read in full sermon

Driving home: And there is not a shred of evidence that its basic linguistic significance is changed one iota when it is used with reference to God's act of selecting out of the mass of lost humanity a certain number of sinners to be …

He uses the analogy of chief seats not getting up to choose the Pharisees, reinforcing that the choice is initiated by the selector, not the selected, in contrast to the idea of man initiating salvation.

The chief seats did not get up from their place in the banquet hall and walk to these Pharisees and say, We would like to have you recline upon us. All the seats were in a passive state and they chose the chief seats. the meaning of this word is obvious in its secular usage. And there is not a shred of evidence that its basic linguistic significance is changed one iota when it is used with reference to God's act of selecting out of the mass of lost humanity a certain number of sinners to be the recipients of His saving mercy.

19:33 - 20:16 Read in full sermon

Driving home: And there is not a shred of evidence that its basic linguistic significance is changed one iota when it is used with reference to God's act of selecting out of the mass of lost humanity a certain number of sinners to be …

Martin critiques the idea that election means God 'ratifies' man's choice, calling it a 'twisting of the word elect to mean ratify' and 'prostituting the words of Holy Scripture'.

And when people say, all right, elections in the Bible, I'm forced to believe it, it's a Bible word. But by election, all the Bible means is God saw who would improve and use the grace given to all and those who would make the first motions to God, either in faith or repentance or some kind of positive response. God, foreseeing that motion of faith and repentance, decided to choose them. My friends, that is a twisting of the word elect to mean ratify.

20:17 - 20:47 Read in full sermon

Driving home: And there is not a shred of evidence that its basic linguistic significance is changed one iota when it is used with reference to God's act of selecting out of the mass of lost humanity a certain number of sinners to be …

He uses the example of the multitude choosing the deacons in Acts 6, and the apostles ratifying that choice, to clearly distinguish between selection and approval, arguing that God's election is selection, not ratification of man's choice.

From select merely to approve. And there's a classic example of the difference between those two things in the sixth chapter of Acts.

20:49 - 20:58 Read in full sermon

In this part of the sermon: Martin presents several passages whose 'obvious meaning' supports election: Matthew 11:25-26 (Jesus' joy in the Father's sovereign revelation), John 6:37-40 (all the Father gives…

Martin recounts a story of a young man who refused to simply read and accept the plain meaning of John 6:37, immediately jumping to objections, illustrating the human tendency to resist clear biblical teaching on election.

It came home so strongly to me a few years ago. It was a young man who'd heard some strange things about us as a church and I had occasion to visit him and when I met him, his eye was full of fire. And I could tell he was loaded for bear. And what do you people believe?

37:39 - 37:57 Read in full sermon

Driving home: I don't care how unpopular it is. I don't care how many people feel this should be no part of evangelical testimony. I could care less. It is the testimony of the Word. We are not judges of the Word. We are its servants …

He compares twisting the meaning of John 6 to twisting 1 Timothy 2 to argue that women should preach, highlighting how people pervert Scripture to avoid uncomfortable truths.

it. Now if you can get any other meaning out of those words, my friend, you're as clever as the daughters of Sarah who can use 1 Timothy 2 to prove that women ought to preach and teach. They take the words, I suffer not a woman to teach, and when they're done, they prove that women should teach. Now, if you can do that with John 6 and get anything other than that there is a people given to Christ, and therefore if some are given, others are not given. And if the will of Christ is to save all who have been given, it is not the will of Christ to save those who have not been given. You say, I don...

39:11 - 39:55 Read in full sermon

In this part of the sermon: Martin further argues for implicit testimony from the biblical doctrine of sin, which states that fallen man is spiritually dead and unable to initiate repentance or faith. He…

Martin points out the inconsistency of those who want God on the throne controlling world leaders and personal problems (claiming Romans 8:28) but not on the throne when it comes to who will be saved, illustrating a selective acceptance of God's sovereignty.

For the God of the Bible is the God who sits upon a throne of unrivaled sovereignty. Now follow me. The problem with those who say, Yes, I want God on the throne controlling Brezhnev and Mount Satan and all of his crowd. And I want God on the throne controlling all of the problems of my life so when things get hot I can claim Romans 8, 28.

52:29 - 52:52 Read in full sermon