Election and the Will of God
Dear friends (and foes),
I have a speculation with which I would appreciate the help of some insightful theologians (that could be you). I am currently agnostic with regard to Calvinistic and Arminian soteriology, but wish to frame this proposition from a Calvinistic point of reference.
Whereas,
a) God elects only some individuals for salvation, thus automatically condemning the rest of humanity,
b) God elects His children based on nothing in-and-of themselves (i. e. they're own righteousness), and therefore
c) The basis of God's election of some and condemnation of others must be the same,
What then is the basis of this "double-election"?
Let me ward off unthoughtful responses by saying this: "Grace" is not the answer, because it does not satisfy the question. Grace is the means and is too vague to be the answer. When people say "grace" they really mean something more specific. What I want to know is, What is that something? Arminians say, "Foreknowledge." Catholics say, "Faith and works." One of the pat Calvinist answers is "His sovereignty"; but this is also vague. I want to hear it expressed in tangible terms. For example, is it "arbitrariness"? This seems to be the best answer I have found so far.
Webster defines arbitrary as
Thus, election can be said to be an exercise of God's volition, His will. He wills that some be saved and some perish (see proposition point 'c'), i.e. He "double-predestines".
P. S. How do Reformed theologians understand Jesus's statement in the wedding banquet parable in Matthew 22:14?
I have a speculation with which I would appreciate the help of some insightful theologians (that could be you). I am currently agnostic with regard to Calvinistic and Arminian soteriology, but wish to frame this proposition from a Calvinistic point of reference.
Whereas,
a) God elects only some individuals for salvation, thus automatically condemning the rest of humanity,
b) God elects His children based on nothing in-and-of themselves (i. e. they're own righteousness), and therefore
c) The basis of God's election of some and condemnation of others must be the same,
What then is the basis of this "double-election"?
Let me ward off unthoughtful responses by saying this: "Grace" is not the answer, because it does not satisfy the question. Grace is the means and is too vague to be the answer. When people say "grace" they really mean something more specific. What I want to know is, What is that something? Arminians say, "Foreknowledge." Catholics say, "Faith and works." One of the pat Calvinist answers is "His sovereignty"; but this is also vague. I want to hear it expressed in tangible terms. For example, is it "arbitrariness"? This seems to be the best answer I have found so far.
Webster defines arbitrary as
1: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law; 2: not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority; 3: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something.Sounds an awful lot like sovereignty, doesn't it? Let's agree then for a moment that "arbitrariness" is the answer. One of two things must be true about arbitrariness. Either (a) it denotes a complete lack of volition and thus denotes random chance, or (b) it is volitional and based on something, albeit not anything inherent or intrinsic in humanity.
Thus, election can be said to be an exercise of God's volition, His will. He wills that some be saved and some perish (see proposition point 'c'), i.e. He "double-predestines".
P. S. How do Reformed theologians understand Jesus's statement in the wedding banquet parable in Matthew 22:14?
My head answer: I don't know.
ReplyDeleteMy gut answer: It's none of our business.
My heart answer: Although we are not saved by works, God really is seeking a people who will follow him, and have used the free will he gave them for his glory, and not their own. This could qualify as "Foreknowledge" or as an antithesis to Calvinism entirely. You pick.
The heart answer looks like a contradiction, which takes me back to my gut answer, which reminds me that...
I don't know.
P.S. Hey Mr. Seminary Smart Guy... did you notice that my comment was chiastic?
Hey Mr. Real-life Ministry Smart Guy... I don't typically exegete blog comments as scrupulously as I do Scripture, so no, I didn't think "chiasmus" when I read it. You got me!
ReplyDeleteScripture repeatedly makes it plain that God is not willing that any should perish, and that He does not take any pleasure in the destruction of the wicked, and also that He places all of the responsibility for our ultimate condition squarely on us as individuals. I can't understand why anyone would let go of the fairness and lucidity of that teaching in the face of far more ambiguous passages. I'm not convinced that God wills anyone to perish, ever, even if that point of view seems a tad pedestrian to the committed Calvinist.
ReplyDeleteM,
ReplyDeleteSo sorry for being essentially silent the last couple of days. Classes just started up and I hit the ground running.
Your response and the coreman's both reflect an Arminian bent, and that's not a slam whatsoever. I lean more in that direction on some points and in the direction of Calvin on others. I would agree that God takes no pleasure in condemnation, although saying that he does not will it to be so is saying something entirely different. In Romans 9, Paul tells us that he prepared some people in advance for the pouring out of his wrath unto destruction. We could interpret that in a number of ways, but the most obvious interpretations are that He's either speaking of hell or of annihilation (or perhaps both, in sequence).
Concerning 2 Peter 9 (which I assume is the passage from which you've gleaned the conviction that God is not willing that any perish), there is very strong reason to believe that he is speaking exclusively to and regarding believers (see v. 8, that he is addressing His "beloved"). In this view, He is essentially affirming the preservation of the saints, that He will not allow them to perish but rather will see them through to repentance in the process of sanctification. Otherwise, we set up a contradiction (and not merely a paradox that is beyond our ability and thus privilege to know) when we say that God does something which He does not will, in some sense, to do.
Now, should sound exegesis require that we take Peter to be saying that God does not wish "anyone" (as the NIV translates it) whatsoever to spend eternity apart from Him, the Arminian offers the only reasonable explanation, insofar as I can see. I simply have not hear a persuasive argument from a Calvinist that affirms that (a) God does not wish for anyone to be condemned to hell, but (b) He only elects some to salvation, necessarily excluding all others. Some (a la Barth) have attempted to solve this via universalism... that God predestines all people for salvation, but passages such as John 3 (esp. v. 18) preclude this possibility (others that seriously weaken the case for universalism are Eph. 2:12-13, Matt. 5:29-30, 10:28, 13:42, 18:9, 23:33, 25:41; Mark 9:43-47; Luke 12:5... and those are just the tip of the iceberg). So we're essentially left with predestination in the Reformed understanding, or predestination according to foreknowledge, the Arminian understanding. My problem is when Calvinists try to weasel out of the implications of their theology by saying that God predestines some to heaven, but not the rest to hell. That's the grossest non-sequitir imaginable, even for a supernaturalist. ;-)
If I had to select a verse that supports God's desire that all men come to faith, I'd probably offer 1 Timothy 2:1-4, where Paul called on believers to pray for all men, even those in authority over them who were hostile to their faith, and then affirmed God's desire that all men be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. But the Bible is replete with similar statements and sentiments, and this seems to me to be the easiest thing imaginable to believe about God, based on what we can comprehend about Him as his children.
ReplyDeleteWhen compassion wells up in me and I'm flooded with painful desire for my lost friends and family to embrace Christ, that's God talking. At that moment I couldn't care any less about John Calvin. Give me the humility of "the coreman" over the pedantic tinkering of Calvinism any day.
The stumbling block is obviously God's foreknowledge, because as humans we can understand mercy and punishment, love and hate, kindness and cruelty, but we can't understand what it would be like to see someone at the top of the stairs and know that he will fall down them and break his neck before it happens. We will never understand that, ever.
I think this is why Paul is telling us we need to know our place in Romans 9. As C.S. Lewis wrote, "If God thinks this state of war in the universe a price worth paying for free will...then we may take it that it is worth paying."
I don't think it's "weaseling out of implications" by saying that God predestines some to heaven, but not the rest to hell. The fact of the matter is God predestines some to heaven, and the rest could choose to put their faith in Jesus if they wanted to. In the end though, no one else does. Sure, you can say by not choosing is basically choosing them to go to hell, but that's not how God talks about the day of judgment in Romans 2 even though it's later explained that "all have sinned and fallen short".
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, what God desires and what God does is not always the same. God desires to be honored by the law, Jesus desired the cup to be taken away from Him, the Holy Spirit desires that born again believers not to fall into temptation... if the best evidence one can come up with is that God desires all men to come to know Him, so it must be men's fault that they don't know Him, they are treating God's will towards salvation differently than almost everything else God does. This coming from a calvinist perspective, and not intended to rag on arminianists whatsoever.
But onto the discussion of the original question, I don't claim to know why God chose certain people, or why He didn't choose certain people, but I believe it is not our part to even begin understanding why him, or why not her, or even why me. The infinite implications of "why" is so great, how can we possibly wrap our minds around it?
Having said that, I don't intend to just brush off the question saying we can't possibly know so let's just forget about it... but this I do know: God does not choose for our sake. He does not look at each one of us and weigh our qualities and choose us based on anything of our own merit. At the same time, I don't believe any of it is arbitrary. He saved us for His own purposes, and to serve His own purposes. He is the one choosing after all, if not because of us, isn't it naturally because of Him? For the people who are chosen, if you are looking at it from a totally human standpoint then sure, it can be arbitrary. But if you look at it from God's perspective, having eternal knowledge and foreknowledge, how can it be arbitrary for Him? He must have reasons for choosing so and so, and not choosing so and so, and in the end it will be more glorifying for Him. (Ephesians 1:11, 2 Timothy 1:9, Isaiah 48:11... and many other places talking about for whom He has chosen for)
In short, I believe in asking why some people over others, the question itself is focusing on the wrong thing. God never chose people based on people, God chose people based on God. The only thing we can do is praise and be thankful.
Thanks for weighing in, David. On a reread you may notice that I never asked the question, "Why?" Though I share some Arminian convictions, I am not an Arminian (as I stated in the post). One of the ways I am very unlike many Arminians is that I absolutely delight to think and speak of God as completely sovereign over history and creation. My issue is, to what extent do we define what it means for Him to be sovereign? Does it necessarily mean He determines with finality every minute detail of history? Or does it mean that He is so powerful, His ways so far above our ways, so completely and perfectly wise and in control that He does not have to micromanage the acts of history. Perhaps He's so brilliant that He created beings capable of responding to His grace.
ReplyDeleteThis whole issue will come down, time and time again, to the chicken and egg metaphor. Does God harden hearts that (a) are not already willfully hard towards him (as the context of Isaiah 6, and I believe Mark's application of this text in ch. 4 of his gospel, seem to indicate), or (b) He foreknows would reject His offer of salvation. It's not a copout to tie election to foreknowledge. Calvinism has its mysteries; so does Arminianism. Are we all allowed the same grace or is there a double-standard?
You may not have intended this, but at face value your statement that God elects His children not for their sake isn't true. It is true that God ultimately does what He does, even on our behalf, for His glory. But we rob God of one of His most essential character attributes when we say that He does not bless us for our sake. It is in God's very nature to love and bless and save. So God acts on our behalf both for His glory and are good, because these are not at odds. Perhaps Calvinism does not allow for this, but I'm not sure.
Regarding double-predestination, my views have opened up a bit since writing this post. I am open to the idea that God elects some who will be saved no matter what, and that He has made it possible for others to be saved as well, through willfully responding to His grace. But I am unsatisfied with the Edwarsian distinction between natural ability and moral ability. That's the kind of weaseling I was referring to. It makes no sense to say that people are able to respond in faith to God but that none of them actually do. Zero percent odds do not lend support for this argument, so it appears to be merely semantic.
Thanks for the dialogue.
P.S. Are you a TEDS student, a Harvest member, or did you find my blog some other way?
*our good. I'm not illiterate. ;-)
ReplyDelete