I loved this post by Trogdor over at the One-Man Peanut Gallery blog.
It is remarkably quotable. His first point is probably the most important, though it will be missed by most.
Read it.
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label election. Show all posts
13 November 2012
28 April 2011
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-
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?
.
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."
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?
.
19 July 2010
The Prescience View of Salvation
For much of my life, I believed what is called by theologians the 'Prescience' or 'Prescient' view of salvation. It was explained to me as a youth (around age 14, if I recall), and I just accepted it without much thought.
Funny how things change when we learn that for every doctrine we accept, we learn there is a set of assumptions that go along with the doctrine. We buy the assumptions when we buy the doctrine. (Sort of a metaphysical buy-one-get-one-free deal.) Often, upon hearing these assumptions and their implications, people will just dismiss them out-of-hand so as to not have to deal with them. I've heard this said directly to me in my adult Sunday School class ("I think its both", referring in this case to particular redemption versus universal redemption). When this happens, the implications of the dismissed assumptions are not considered (they can't be considered, or the logical inconsistencies will drive one away from the held doctrine, or drive one crazy trying to synthesize them).
So what is this thing I believed that I no longer believe? First, what its not- it isn't a rejection of the biblical doctrine of election (as some have tried to make it out to be). What it does though is change how 'election' is defined. The prescience view of salvation basically says that, yes, there is an elect, and God pre-destined the elect to salvation by looking down the corridors of time and seeing who would freely choose Him, then as a result of that choice, electing that person to eternal life. Seems simple. Makes sense, on the surface, and preserves our cherished 'free will'.
But there is a serious problem with the view, and with what it implies. (Those nasty assumptions we buy with the doctrine again...).
Here's the problem- scripture teaches very clearly that no one, unless God regenerates their hearts and allows them, can 'choose Christ' on their own. Start with John 6:65. Throw in John 6:44, John 3, Romans 9, especially Romans 9:15-16, John 15:16, Ephesians 1:3-12, and so on (I could cite a bunch more, but I'd have to drag out some references as these are the ones I can remember right now). Fallen man has not lost his ability to make choices (liberium arbitrium), but he has indeed lost his liberty (libertas). We choose what we want, and outside of Christ, God is the last thing we want. So in effect, if God looked down the corridors of time, what He would see would be that no one would choose him of their own free will. Thus Romans 3:10-11. This would throw a serious wooden shoe (sabot) into the whole idea of election, wouldn't it? After all, if there was no one to elect, what is a non-sovereign God to do? (Yes, that's where we get the word sabotage, from the old expression about throwing a shoe into the machine.) I've heard this idea expressed this way in the past- 'God's sovereignty ends at our free will.' Proponents of this view say that God would never interfere in the free will of a creature He loves and force that creature to change its mind. Do you see the problem with this idea?
The bottom line assumption that comes with the prescience view is that in the end, if God looks at man's choice to determine what His will would be, then ultimately man, and not God, is sovereign. I can't live in that world, and I hope any thinking Christian will come quickly to the same conclusion about God's sovereignty. (And by the way, why would anyone who holds the stated view above ever bother to pray for a lost friend or family member? After all, if God won't intervene and change the lost person's heart, why bother? It is only knowing that God remains sovereign over salvation that we can pray for the lost with the faith to know that God does indeed intervene in the human heart to bring fallen people to him...see John 6:44.)
What do I believe now? I believe in the sovereign view of election. As Romans 9:10-16 says, election is God's choice, not based on anything we do, but based solely on His good pleasure. The best picture of this in the New Testament is the story of the raising of Lazarus, but I'll save that for another article.
Funny how things change when we learn that for every doctrine we accept, we learn there is a set of assumptions that go along with the doctrine. We buy the assumptions when we buy the doctrine. (Sort of a metaphysical buy-one-get-one-free deal.) Often, upon hearing these assumptions and their implications, people will just dismiss them out-of-hand so as to not have to deal with them. I've heard this said directly to me in my adult Sunday School class ("I think its both", referring in this case to particular redemption versus universal redemption). When this happens, the implications of the dismissed assumptions are not considered (they can't be considered, or the logical inconsistencies will drive one away from the held doctrine, or drive one crazy trying to synthesize them).
So what is this thing I believed that I no longer believe? First, what its not- it isn't a rejection of the biblical doctrine of election (as some have tried to make it out to be). What it does though is change how 'election' is defined. The prescience view of salvation basically says that, yes, there is an elect, and God pre-destined the elect to salvation by looking down the corridors of time and seeing who would freely choose Him, then as a result of that choice, electing that person to eternal life. Seems simple. Makes sense, on the surface, and preserves our cherished 'free will'.
But there is a serious problem with the view, and with what it implies. (Those nasty assumptions we buy with the doctrine again...).
Here's the problem- scripture teaches very clearly that no one, unless God regenerates their hearts and allows them, can 'choose Christ' on their own. Start with John 6:65. Throw in John 6:44, John 3, Romans 9, especially Romans 9:15-16, John 15:16, Ephesians 1:3-12, and so on (I could cite a bunch more, but I'd have to drag out some references as these are the ones I can remember right now). Fallen man has not lost his ability to make choices (liberium arbitrium), but he has indeed lost his liberty (libertas). We choose what we want, and outside of Christ, God is the last thing we want. So in effect, if God looked down the corridors of time, what He would see would be that no one would choose him of their own free will. Thus Romans 3:10-11. This would throw a serious wooden shoe (sabot) into the whole idea of election, wouldn't it? After all, if there was no one to elect, what is a non-sovereign God to do? (Yes, that's where we get the word sabotage, from the old expression about throwing a shoe into the machine.) I've heard this idea expressed this way in the past- 'God's sovereignty ends at our free will.' Proponents of this view say that God would never interfere in the free will of a creature He loves and force that creature to change its mind. Do you see the problem with this idea?
The bottom line assumption that comes with the prescience view is that in the end, if God looks at man's choice to determine what His will would be, then ultimately man, and not God, is sovereign. I can't live in that world, and I hope any thinking Christian will come quickly to the same conclusion about God's sovereignty. (And by the way, why would anyone who holds the stated view above ever bother to pray for a lost friend or family member? After all, if God won't intervene and change the lost person's heart, why bother? It is only knowing that God remains sovereign over salvation that we can pray for the lost with the faith to know that God does indeed intervene in the human heart to bring fallen people to him...see John 6:44.)
What do I believe now? I believe in the sovereign view of election. As Romans 9:10-16 says, election is God's choice, not based on anything we do, but based solely on His good pleasure. The best picture of this in the New Testament is the story of the raising of Lazarus, but I'll save that for another article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)