The Doctrine of Election

I was challenged today with the statement below.  For clarity, I posted the entire statement, then responded to it (with his comments in yellow) underneath.

Here's the original statement-

"I realize I'm going further down a well traveled rabbit trail, and I'm going into a theological gunfight armed with a pen-knife, but I have a real difficulty with an understanding of God as "choosing" some, and not choosing others.  Where's the grace in that?  Or the justice, for that matter?  I have heard the arguments for "grace alone", and I agree that grace initiates, but when we contort ourselves into theological pretzels to ensure that man has NO role in his salvation, we wind up in some positions that I humbly submit put God in a rather awkward stance as well--one that I believe is contrary to his nature.

If God solely predestines some of us to not be saved, what was his purpose in creating us?  How could a loving, just God create a being that he knew no matter what that individual did, was already destined for the fires of Hell?

Yes, I affirm that God initiates the offer of salvation, but if we give NO role to man in accepting that act, then what are we to do?  How can you be sure of your salvation?

Sorry guys, but I walked this twisted path for a major portion of my life, and I have to disagree.  Free will has to be in here somewhere.  And a God who capriciously extends salvation only two a limited number, when "ALL have sinned and fallen short" doesn't sound like a very just God to me (let alone merciful). 

Where do we see a Scriptural basis for God loving some more than others?  If God deliberately does not extend the means (or invitation) to salvation to some, is he confused?  Because both Paul and Peter tell us that God wants all to be saved...how can he want something that he has made impossible?

I submit that God extends the opportunity and invitation to salvation to ALL men.  Every man has his own free will to choose whether to accept that invitation.  The "elect" are those who have (or will in the future) accept that invitation.  I believe that to exclude any role for man makes God into something that he is not."

Here is how I responded-


"" ..."choosing" some, and not choosing others.  Where's the grace in that?"

I guess it all depends on how you define, 'grace'.  Since grace is, 'unmerited favor', I can't see a problem with Him choosing some and not others.  Eph. 1:4-6 makes this pretty clear, and it gives us the reason..."according to the purpose of his will."  2 Tim. 1:9 re-iterates this- "...in virtue of his own purpose and the grace which he gave us in Christ Jesus ages ago."

"we wind up in some positions that I humbly submit put God in a rather awkward stance as well--one that I believe is contrary to his nature."

Can you name or describe some of these positions?

"If God solely predestines some of us to not be saved, what was his purpose in creating us?"

For his sovereign good pleasure and for his glory.  You didn't think the story about Pharoah was only a historical narrative, did you?  Paul didn't...see Romans 9.  In reprobation, God doesn't need to predestine anyone to hell...we take care of that on our own.  He simply chooses to pass over those he has not chosen for salvation.  This is a difficult teaching, and one I am not comfortable with, but I am trusting in both the justice and grace of God.  Jude 4 alludes to this doctrine.  So do Romans 11:7 and 1 Pet. 2:8. Romans 9:17-22 makes it explicit, but that still doesn't make it easy.

"How could a loving, just God create a being that he knew no matter what that individual did, was already destined for the fires of Hell? "

He couldn't.  The problem isn't with the nature of God, or with a particular system of theological interpretation of God, but with the premise of the question.  It assumes that some will be sinless, or at least choose God, without his intervention.  Jesus said that can't happen.  God created ALL OF US knowing we were destined to the fires of hell, not just some of us.  

He didn't look down the corridors of time and see which of us would choose him...He looked down the corridors of time and saw that, “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

"if we give NO role to man in accepting that act, then what are we to do?"

Oh, we have a role...we must believe.  Really believe.  The notitia/assensus/fiducia kind of believe.  But we can't even do that without God's intervention (Eph. 2:1-10; John 6:44).

"Free will has to be in here somewhere."

It is.  We all have free will (liberium arbitrium), whether saved or lost, and we all choose what we want.  The problem lies in what, exactly, we want.  What we do not have, if we are unregenerate, is the will to choose God or righteousness (libertas).  In other words, as Paul clearly states in Romans 3, and Jesus clearly indicates in John 3:3 and John 6:44 and 6:65, we will never choose God.  Scripture never speaks of free will in any other context than God's free will to do what he sovereignly wishes.  It clearly states that all of what is necessary for us to seek after God occurs at the hand of God (Ezek. 36:26-7).  Acts 16:14 is an example of this, and 1 Cor. 2:14 is an explanation of how it manifests itself in the unregenerate.

"And a God who capriciously extends salvation"

Be careful.  Do not blaspheme a holy God who has extended salvation to YOU.  It is on the basis of grace that we have been saved, not capriciousness.

"Where do we see a Scriptural basis for God loving some more than others?"

It's a theme found throughout scripture, both the OT and the NT.  The clearest picture of it is in Romans 9- "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." It is also seen clearly in Deut. 7:7-8, with all the accoutrements that surround that idea.  In the old covenant, God had a chosen people that he divinely loved and protected, even though they were just as sinful as the nations surrounding them.  In the new covenant, he has the same.  Jesus died for the elect (Eph. 5:25, Rom. 8:32-4; Jn. 6:37-9; Jn. 17:9; 2 Cor 5:21, etc.).  The fact that there is an elect is logical proof that God loves some in a different way than he loves others.

"both Paul and Peter tell us that God wants all to be saved...how can he want something that he has made impossible? "

You need to clarify who, 'all' means in the context of those verses.  Just because the word, 'all' is used does not mean it intends to be a human universal.  Can we all agree on that? (humor)  Look at Romans 8:32.  It says, "..he gave up his son for us all."  Then in v. 33, he says who 'all' is- "Who shall bring any charge against God's elect?"

Secondly, you need to make a distinction between the necessary will (Ex. 3:14) and the free will of God.  Do you think God 'wanted' evil to exist?  Yet he made it possible.  This mystery is found to some degree in Acts 2:23, where Peter speaks of the crucifixion as being both, "...according to the definite plan...of God" and, "...crucified and killed at the hands of lawless men."  God doesn't will something he makes impossible.  Scripture is clear that with man, things are impossible, but with God, anything is possible.  Instead, God makes possible something he wills (salvation for a hopelessly lost person, like me).

"Every man has his own free will to choose whether to accept that invitation"

In one sense, this is correct.  But in the sense I think you intend, then you have made the will of man sovereign over the will of God.  To give man a role in his own salvation is to negate the entire concept of grace.  After all, grace is not grace if it is merited.  When Jesus said, "Flesh profits nothing," he didn't mean, "a little something."  He meant what he said.  The only freedom of will we have to accept Christ is the freedom of being regenerate (John 3:3).  Without that, we cannot choose to accept it, because we can't even SEE it.  If faith brings about regeneration, the faith is a WORK.  But if regeneration brings about faith, then what Jesus told Nicodemus makes sense, and what Paul said in Ephesians 2 make sense, and God gets all the glory for our salvation, rather than sharing his glory with another (us).

I hope this is constructive.  

How could I have better answered the comments?


.