WARNING: I’m sure some people felt that after my last post that I
deceived them into reading far more than the typical 1,000 word entry
into a blog. I did this by inserting them into the middle of a dialogue
which removed both introduction and prefatory material. It was not my
intent to deceive…and I ask for forgiveness. It is my promise this time
that by reading the material after the statement that says IT DOESN'T
MATTER AS LONG AS WE LOVE EACH OTHER that you will be reading far more
than 1,000 words. Don’t actually read that statement because it is the
punch line to a joke and you may actually be drawn in to the material
below that really has absolutely nothing to do with the actual topic,
is really nothing more than the crazy connection in my
bowl-of-spaghetti-like mind of ‘election’ and ‘electricity’, and thus
exponentially increases the words you will read. So, just to be clear,
read all the material after IT DOESN'T MATTER AS LONG AS WE LOVE EACH
OTHER and you will be able to stick far closer to the 1,000 word
maximum (though, it’s not really even close).
As many of you have surmised from my first post, I prefer to have a
smile on my face prior to discussing these things. Not because what we
discuss is not serious, but simply because it reminds us that we can’t
take ourselves too seriously. So, in that vein of thought, enjoy the
following:
How many Calvinists does it take to change a light bulb?
None. God has predestined when the lights will be on.
How many Arminians?
Only one, but first the bulb must want to be changed.
How many Charismatics?
One - since his or her hands are in the air anyway.
How many Baptists?
CHANGE?? But we have NEVER done it that way before!
How many Pentecostals?
Ten. One to change the bulb and nine to pray against the spirit of darkness...
How many TV evangelists?
One. But for the message of light to continue, send in your donation...
How many Fundamentalists?
ONLY ONE because any more would be compromise and ecumenical... (standards of light would slip.)
How many Charismatics?
None - unless the Lord leads.
How many Dispensationalists?
Two - one to change the bulb and one to keep the promises to the old bulb.
How many Promise Keepers?
None - unless Coach McCartney says it's manly to do so.
How many Calvinists?
Every Calvinist knows only God can change a light bulb.
How many Arminians?
Since the bulb has free will - it must make the decision.
How many Episcopalians?
None, they assume darkness is the nature of the bulb and it would be
harmful and disrespectful to violate the personality of the bulb.
How many Quakers?
Someone will, but there is no one officially called to be a bulb changer.
How many Charismatics?
None - unless the Spirit witnesses to their spirit that it should be done.
How many Baptists?
Two, one to change the bulb, the other to preach on tithing in order to pay for the new bulb.
How many Premillennialists?
While knowing where the light bulbs are, they are persuaded to wait for
the official light bulb changer but no one knows when he will arrive.
How many Amillennialists?
Two, one to change the bulb, the other to remind others not to fear the
old darkness or trust the new light--both are only symbolic.
How many Postmillennialists?
One, but now he has to rethink his eschatology....
How Many Liberal Christians?
111 - 27 to reconstruct the dilapidated house that a burnt out bulb
would be found in, 15 to set up a food and clothes pantry to provide
for those who are both constructing and going to live in the house, 8
scholars to think of new ways of understanding light, 3 more scholars
to discuss how much we’ve misunderstood the bulb, 32 to love the old
bulb in the same way Jesus loved bulbs and 26 to love the new bulb the
same way Jesus loved bulbs. This whole time Fundamentalists will be
noting the eerie similarities between the numbers 111 and 666 and not
help the Liberal Christians for fear of working with the
Anti-Christ.
How many Evolutionists?
None - it will change itself - it will just take billions and billions of years.
How many Lutherans?
17 - 5 to form a committee to find and nominate 9 people to a committee
which shall then discuss the issues of light bulb changing, from which
that committee shall appoint three other people to carry out the final
resolution of the second committee - which is that one person shall
supervise while one changes the bulb and one will follow up in one
month's time to investigate the performance of the bulb.
How many Seventh Day Adventists?
Just one - as long as it isn't Saturday.
How many Atheists?
1 - but they are still in darkness.
How many Modern Evangelicals?
IT DOESN'T MATTER AS LONG AS WE LOVE EACH OTHER.
In my last post, we began the process of looking at each of the
components of TULIPS in order to see how well this model of salvation
aligns with Scripture. In looking at Total Depravity, we agreed with
much of the traditional position though we found no Scriptural evidence
for: regeneration prior to faith; an understanding that death means
spiritual inability to act; and that the non-believer is unable to
exercise faith. Thus, we stated that a person will never seek God in
their sinfulness. However, through the conviction of the Holy Spirit,
God seeks each individual making them aware of their standing before
Him. It is at this point that a person does or does not exercise their
faith in Jesus. Having believed, they are given life which is the
presence of God through the Holy Spirit living in them. All the
benefits of salvation are immediately bestowed upon them (though final
fulfillment awaits our resurrection).
In this article, we will look at the second component of TULIPS –
Unconditional Election. I will follow the same model as I did with the
last post by defining Unconditional Election from a Calvinist
perspective, list some places where Biblical support is lacking, and
make a suggestion for a position that better embraces Scripture.
Unconditional Election From a Calvinist Perspective
In our post about Total Depravity we noted that Calvinists believe that
God regenerates some people prior to giving them the gift of faith. The
logical question then becomes, why doesn’t God just regenerate everyone
instead of some? And if just some, why the ones that He does? The
answers to this from a Calvinist perspective lie in Unconditional
Election.
Unconditional Election states that in eternity past, prior to the
creation of anything, God decreed a number of things (this is typically
known as supra-, infra- and sub-lapsarianism – for a breakdown of each,
go here). One of the
things that He decreed was who would be objects of His grace (some
Calvinists also state that additionally God chose who would be objects
of His wrath, while others state that we were all objects of His wrath
– He simply chooses us out of that). Those who He decreed would receive
His salvation are throughout Scripture called the elect. Those who are
not chosen are described as objects of wrath or the non-elect. This
choosing of the elect is in no way dependent on anything that God
foreknew about them (whether they would place their faith in Him, etc.
– John 15:16) but was purely based upon His sovereign choice and thus
is unconditional election. There is no way for mankind to know who of
those currently dead in sin are elect and so it is appropriate for us
to present the Gospel to everyone. Romans 9, John 6 and Ephesians 1 are
the primary sources for this perspective, though there are many other
verses that Calvinists use for support.
Where I Think Calvinists Lack Scriptural Support
It is difficult to answer this part of TULIPS without a complete word
study of foreknowledge, predestination, and the idea of the
elect/election. I would strongly recommend C. Gordon Olson’s book
“Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism” for the most in depth study of these
words that I’ve seen (and also since in the space I have I will only be
able to skim over each item). Below, I assume a word study of the words
noted, so, if you’ve never done a word study, go to this link or
here for online resources to do so.
An important question for us to ask is, Biblically who are the elect?
In the OT, the idea of being elect, or chosen, is applied to corporate
Israel and to the Messiah. We recognize this because we often speak of
the Jewish people as the ‘chosen people.’ However, this also points out
something we need to be aware of – simply to be chosen does not
necessitate that a person is elect (not all the chosen people were
saved). Thus, we must always use the context to determine whether a
‘choosing’ is the same as ‘election.’ In the NT, three words are used
for the elect: eklegomai (v. to choose); eklektos (adj. Chosen, choice,
elect); ekloge (n. election). Of the 50 uses of these words, a vast
majority of these are used in reference either to Israel or to the
elect of the end times. A minority of these are used specifically of
church-age Christians in a theological sense (again, in a way that
suggests eternal election as opposed to choosing – see Luke 6:13 for a
non-theological sense). There are no theologically significant (i.e.
pertaining to God’s choosing in eternity past) uses of election in the
OT or NT where election is applied to any individual other than Jesus.
Nor is there any Biblical distinction between the elect and nonelect in
the unrepentant state. So, the scriptural burden of proof that God
individually elected people lies in the hands of the Calvinists. This
proof is lacking.
This lack of evidence for individual election is what we would expect.
In both Ephesians 1:4 and 1:11, Paul states that we have been chosen
‘in Him.’ This is a significant term throughout the NT and especially
in Ephesians 1. ‘In Him’ we are the righteousness of God, have life,
are a child of God, and blameless (there are many more…do a word search
on ‘in Him’, ‘in Christ’ and ‘in Jesus’). I am none of these things
either on my own or because God has decreed it from eternity past.
Ephesians 1:3-13 tells us that I am these things because I am ‘in
Christ’ who is the only person spoken of as being individually elect or
chosen in all Scripture. So, the question that needs to be asked is not
whether some are elect or not – Christ is the only one elect from
eternity past – but how am I placed in Christ? Ephesians 1:13 tells us
it is through belief in the gospel.
1 Peter 1:1-3 and Romans 8:29 in their simplest meanings recognize that
God foreknew who would believe in the gospel and so from eternity past
we have been elect – but again, not because God individually chose me
but because God individually chose Christ and I am in Christ. Some will
state that this places the merit for our salvation in our own hands
(since we exercise faith) and reduces the glory and sovereignty of God.
Please note my last post for how faith does not scripturally amount to
a meritorious work.
I could not end this section without dealing with Romans 9….but I am
already way over my word limit. So, here it goes in condensed form:
v. 1-5 – Paul anguishes that the people of Israel do not know of the
love of God in Jesus even though they have been so central to His
purpose in Christ.
v. 6-9 – Did God’s promise to Abraham then fail? No, because it is not
physical descent that the promises pertain to. This can be seen in the
fact that Isaac is chosen over Ishmael even though they have the same
father.
v. 10-13 – In case some might argue that Isaac/Ishmael had different
mothers, Paul continues with the case of Jacob and Esau – twins. God’s
purpose in election is tied to who is chosen to be blessed. Knowing
that Jesus would be the descendent of Jacob and since His purpose in
election is tied into Christ as noted above, God chooses Jacob – not
based on anything that Jacob had done but to complete His plan in Jesus.
v. 14-18 – This would seem to be unjust (that God blesses one over
another irrespective of their actions and for His own purpose). Paul
states that God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy and uses the
example of Israel (Exodus 33:19 – quoted in the context of the story of
the golden calf) and Egypt (Exodus 9:16 – quoted in the context of a
plague against the ‘gods’ of cattle). Both worshipped cattle, yet God
has mercy on Israel and hardens Egypt.
v. 19-24 – So if it is God who does all this, how can He hold Israel
responsible for being hardened? Paul turns this around and states that
we who are creatures cannot question the Creator’s plans. What if God’s
purpose in electing Christ included the hardening of Israel so that the
Gentiles might now be included in His salvation plan?
v. 25-33 – Paul shows that the Gentiles were to become called in the
same way that Israel had been called, but that it was always through
faith (this is the children of promise from v. 8 ). This is the
culmination of 19-24 – Israel should have been able to see that God was
working because of the faith of the Gentiles and so their hardening is
still held against them.
Ch. 10 – Paul elaborates on how righteousness is not through the Law but through faith
Ch. 11 – Paul shows that Israel has not been rejected. Instead, it is
the Gentiles who have been grafted into the tree and, in the same way,
God will fulfill all His promises to Israel and re-graft Israel into
the tree.
It is important to note throughout this passage, that although Paul is
not speaking of every Israelite or every Gentile, he is consistently
speaking of a group of people, not individuals (notice the consistent
use of plural pronouns and the consistent use in all three chapters of
Israel and Gentiles). It is additionally significant that every
individual mentioned in Romans 9 is used as a representative of a
people-group in the OT. Though Calvinists would like to use this as
individual election, the context of both the immediate passage and the
passages in the OT do not bear this out. God is speaking here about
Israel and Gentiles as a group, not individual election.
So, to sum up, Calvinists need to answer the following questions to align their theology with Scripture:
- If individual election by God in eternity past is so certain, why are
all the references to elect people (other than Christ) plural (or, to
put it another way, please identify any person in Scripture who is
stated to be elect individually)?
- Why contextually ought we to think of foreknowledge different in 1 Peter and Romans than what it seems to say at face value?
- A traditional Biblical hermeneutic is to take into consideration the
context of OT quotes when understanding a NT passage (e.g. Matthew
27:46, 1 Peter 2:24). Why do Calvinists feel we should suspend this for
Romans 9 when every OT quote either explicitly or implicitly speaks of
groups of people/nations, not individuals?
One final question. If election is unconditional and has been decreed
in eternity past, then the eternal outcome of every person has already
been predetermined. What did Jesus mean in Matthew 11:20-24? If Tyre,
Sidon, Sodom and Gomorrah were vessels of wrath (which, historically
they clearly fell under God’s judgment and were not elect), then how
could they have become elect (repented) simply by seeing Jesus’
miracles?
So How Do We Understand Unconditional Election Based on Scripture
We realize that there is election (of Jesus) and that believers are
recognized as elect (because of their association to Jesus). But this
is so far different from what Calvinists teach in Unconditional
Election that it’s probably just best to say that we don’t believe in
Unconditional Election (however, it should be quickly noted that we do
not believe in Conditional Election either – we simply don’t believe in
any type of Individual Election other than the individual election of
Jesus). Since there is no Scriptural support for the election of any
individual other than Christ, biblically only Christ is elect. We are
elect but only by our association with Christ by being placed in Him –
since He is the elect one and we are in Him, we are elect. We are
placed in Christ when we believe the gospel (Ephesians 1:1-13). God
foreknew all of this in eternity past and so has seen us as elect for
all time (1 Peter 1:1-3, Romans 8:29).
-Pastor Russ-
Russ on Total Depravity
A message from Rey: The discussion has been going pretty good
thus far, just wanted to remind folk that Brother Russ is a guest here
so treat him with respect and love. Also, please supply Scriptural
references when mentioning something so that those studying can also
refer to the verses…after all neither Russ, nor myself nor even you are
the final authority on Scripture…thank the Lord for that.
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Unconditional Election
Written by Name:Tim on 2005-05-09 08:25:36Russ said,
Quote:
We are elect but only by our association with Christ by being placed in Him – since He is the elect one and we are in Him, we are elect. We are placed in Christ when we believe the gospel (Ephesians 1:1-13). God foreknew all of this in eternity past and so has seen us as elect for all time (1 Peter 1:1-3, Romans 8:29).
Now that's a Calvinistic statement I can live with. Nuff said. :grin
Doug's Question
Written by biblerey on 2005-05-09 12:33:21Brother Doug at Cofeeswirls asks Russ a question regarding "nearness to God". THis has little to do with Unconditional Election and somewhat tangential to Total Depravity but since the other post is like 44 comments long, I figured I would post this here
Unconditional Election
Written by Name:Tim on 2005-05-09 15:55:23I'm surprised my comment hasn't at least drawn a :eek or a couple of :?
As I stated in our "T" discussion, I believe the entire system breaks down if you don't endorse the "T". There is no 4 point Calvinism (Amraldyianism) or 3 point Calvinism, etc. Russ's statement, "...we are placed in Christ when we believe the gospel..." is right on. The difference in our understanding has to do with "who will believe?"
Let's consider the following passage:
Quote:
He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
(John 1:11-13)
Who are those who believe? Answer: Those who are born.
How are they born? Answer: (1)Not of blood. That is, not the natural birth of flesh and blood. (2)Not of the will of the flesh. That is, not by a volitional act that you decide to make for yourself. (3)Not by the will of man. That is, not by the desires and hopes of your parents or pastor of Christian friends. (4)but of God. That is, all who are saved will not receive or believe until they are born of God.
Is everyone born of God? No, if they were then everyone would be saved.
If someone does not receive Christ, or believe, it is because they are not "born of God". If you are "born of God" it is His doing. It is not something that takes place because of natural birth, a personal decision or the decision of others. It is done by election. That's why I sing, "Amazing grace how sweet the sound that SAVED a wretch like me."
Written by biblerey on 2005-05-09 17:11:37Like Russ, Arminians have often called me a Calvinist especially when they hear my understanding of Ephesians 2:8 and 9.
So your reasoning here is:
B = Believe
R = Receive
N = Born of God
B = R (they're interchangeable)
if someone B then it must mean that they were N
If someone does not B then they were not N
?
Yup...
Written by Name:Tim on 2005-05-09 17:28:06That appears to be the sentence structure to me and that's my understanding of the verse.
Written by biblerey on 2005-05-09 17:46:16Does the verse specify what type of belief? I'm having a problem with James 2:19 and John 8 right about now.
hhhmmm....
Written by Name:Tim on 2005-05-09 18:43:33It seems to me that "believe" and "receive" are intentionally connected together here so that there is no room for doubt or misunderstanding. Believe and receive are equivalent to faith and trust.
Written by Name: PastorRuss on 2005-05-09 20:27:03Tim - Sorry....wasn't sure how to take your post and sadly its been a busy day so I've not had as much time to check the sites today (and I won't be in the office till 10 am tomorrow, so don't expect quick morning responses either :grin ). Since everything falls at TD, you will find the next several posts pretty much useless :eek But, as I have already noted in TD:
- There has been no indicator as to why Jesus expected faith in the unrepentent in Mark 6:5-6 (I could also add that the faith of individuals is always attributed to them, not to a gift from God). This also shows that when faith was lacking, Jesus could not work....there must be some lesson for us there....
- Even if regeneration and faith are simultaneous, it does not figure in verses such as John 20:31 which place life/regeneration after belief. The dead must believe.
Your point above in John 1 is agreed on, though I would see it differently than you. Note that it is those who believe that are born again. It would seem that faith comes prior to the new birth. However, even if it doesn't, phrase in 1:13 stands as it is: we cannot will ourselves to be born again. Nowhere in my writing do I suggest that it is by our will that we are born again. I never equate faith with will. Scripturally, we are always born again because of our faith. Thus, your argument doesn't stand since I'm not arguing that we will ourselves to be born again. I realize this throws a bit of a wrench into the argument since you will want to argue about free will....sadly, I will argue no such thing. I am arguing about whether faith is present in the unregenerate....I find evidence as per my TD post that there is.
Written by Name:Tim on 2005-05-09 22:20:33Faith requires an exercise of the will. The will is the "power" that exercises "faith". John 1:18-20 says, "to them gave He power to become sons of God."
If people already had this power there would be no need for God to give it.
Written by biblerey on 2005-05-09 22:46:55Faith isn't a work brother nor is simply willing/wanting equated to faith. That was the point of my questioning regarding John 8 and the demons.
Written by Name:Tim on 2005-05-10 09:39:59Exercising the will is a work. Are we to presume that a work can be done without an effort of the will?
Faith cannot be exercised apart from the will. We may conclude that all men have a faith of sorts but that faith will not trust in God until men are made willing.
Consider:
Quote:
John 5:39,40 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
Do you suppose that you and I are of a better and more righteous character than these to whom Jesus is speaking? If so, then we shall be praised in heaven and not Jesus for the decision to save is not His but ours. We shall watch as these are cast into the lake of fire and say, "If only they were more like me. I am to be praised for I was willing to make a decision and these were unwilling to do so."
Written by Name: PastorRuss on 2005-05-10 10:14:34Tim - as before, I am going to ask that you provide Scriptural backing for statements like this Quote:
"Faith cannot be exercised apart from the will. We may conclude that all men have a faith of sorts but that faith will not trust in God until men are made willing."
Your use of John 1:12 is inconclusive as to whether the will and faith work together. The word used in 93 other places in Scripture almost always has the sense of governmental authority or rights. Occasionally, it is used as an ability. Never is it linked to the will of man.
Also, simply finding a verse that has the word 'will' in it does not give you backing for what you are saying. There is a vast difference between the will that you quote in John 5:40 (simple futurity) and the will we are speaking of (deliberate intention or wish).
Quote:
If so, then we shall be praised in heaven and not Jesus for the decision to save is not His but ours. We shall watch as these are cast into the lake of fire and say, "If only they were more like me. I am to be praised for I was willing to make a decision and these were unwilling to do so."
Scripture states this isn't so. So, our definition of faith must include this.
I'm sorry to be a nudge, but my gripe is that we've been arguing for hundreds of years about terminology that is simply not in Scripture (or at least connected in Scripture - obviously Scripture talks about the will and faith, but never together even in the regenerate). I struggled with this last night during my daily walk....is it possible for us to have a passive action that we are responsible for? That is the best way (and with a complete lack of theological panache) that I can describe what I see in Scripture. An act that is active, yet not willed, yet for which we are culpible for...I'm just throwing this on the table as a what if....any one else have any ideas?
Written by Name
Receive - Believe - Power - Born
Written by Name:Tim on 2005-05-10 11:02:19Receive comes before power.
Believe is equated with Receive by the word "even".
Who has power? Those who receive him. Who receives him? Those who believe. Who believes? Those who are born of God. How are we born of God? By the power to become. Where does this power come from? He gave them power.
The verse says, "power to become". It seems to me that you're suggesting that we "become before we have power".
Russ, are you suggesting that there is some invisible omnipotent force other than God that activates our faith for us apart from our own will? Or that faith in itself is a force that operates seperately from our will? How can man be held accountible then? He only needs to say, "I had no decision in the matter." Faith works independantly from the decisions I make.
Your circular reasoning makes me dizzy! :x
Written by PastorRuss on 2005-05-10 12:17:22Tim-
Quote:
Who has power? Those who receive him. Who receives him? Those who believe. Who believes? Those who are born of God. How are we born of God? By the power to become. Where does this power come from? He gave them power.
Well, here's how I see this verse:
- those born of God are children of God
- the ability/right/power to become children of God is given by God
- that ability/right/power is given to those who receive/believe.
So, I'm not sure how you are placing the power prior to the receiving/believing since in the passage it seems clear to me that it preceeds the giving of the power to be born again. How either within the Greek or within this passage are you stating that the power comes prior to the believing/receiving when the verse makes it a precedent to the power (Though the Greek places the believing after the right/power tois pisteuousin is an attributive participle referring with an appositional force to receiving - thus, as you've stated, believing and receiving are synonomous and describe the condition which God gives the right/ability/power to become children).
Quote:
Russ, are you suggesting that there is some invisible omnipotent force other than God that activates our faith for us apart from our own will? Or that faith in itself is a force that operates seperately from our will? How can man be held accountible then? He only needs to say, "I had no decision in the matter." Faith works independantly from the decisions I make.
Your circular reasoning makes me dizzy![
Its always dangerous to put theories out there....so if the last post is confusing or circular (though I'm not sure how), or useless to the discussion, I'm willing to drop it as unnecessary.
To answer your questions: No I don't believe that there is any other invisible omnipotent force that activates our faith - my wonder was whether faith is something that acts seperately from the will? If I am on a ledge and told to jump, I'd still desire to go through the building...but if it is life and death and I have no other choice, I might trust the fireman and jump....is that really an act of the will or an act of faith? I know the analogy breaks down...but that is what I was wondering.
Is faith a force that operates seperately from the will? I think the possibility at least exists. I recognize the tension that exists with Calvinists over free will. I hope through these posts Calvinists are also recognizing the tension that exists for those who have issues with faith being nothing but a gift of God when believing faith is expected of the unregenerate and is always attributed to man, not God.
"I had not decision in the matter"- this I disagree with - as I noted, I'm wondering whether there is a passive action that we are culpable for. So, your final statements would not fit the type of definition for faith that I'm looking for.
My struggle with all this is that Scripture clearly states that it is not through my will that I am saved. Yet, just as clearly, it calls me to believe and I am expected to believe (even as an unregenerate). The calling and the expectation are meaningless if it is something that my nature is utterly incapable of.
Faith
Written by Name: Klompman on 2005-05-11 14:52:43Pastor Russ: Thanks for pointing out that "The calling and the expectation are meaningless if it is something that my nature is incapable of." My feeling exactly.
The Lord Jesus started his ministry with "repent" Mt 4:17 and "Come, follow Me" Mt 4:19 and exhorted people: "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness ..." Mt 6:33. These instructions would be meaningless if his hearers could not respond. After all "Faith comes by hearing ... the Word of God." Rom 10:17 so the order of hearing - believing - regeneration makes sense.
Tim: Jn 1:12,13 do not indicate that new birth precedes faith. Instead "those who believe ... become children of God ... born of God."
Commentary.
Written by biblerey on 2005-05-14 18:05:11Blake has some commentary on Russ' unconditional election post. Like I've said in the past, there's hundreds of UC posts but Blake reflects specifically on Russ' words.
You can see what he says over at his site, Informed Minds