Here is Daniel's explanation of Unconditional Election:
Unconditional election - those who are elected by God for salvation are not elected based upon any work or quality of their own. There are no conditions they must meet in order to become the elect, God simply chose them (apparently arbitrarily since "there is no partiallity with him," which is very problematic). This is necessary because our depravity and the corruption of our wills is SO total that if God did not choose for us, then no one would be saved at all. Unconditional election is aimed at the same problem (our broken will) as Wesley's prevenient grace. If Unconditional election is true, then surely God, who wants everyone to be saved according to 1 Tim. 2:4, would therefore act in accordance with his own will and elect everyone for salvation unconditionally, to do otherwise would seem to imply some imperfection in God if he wills one thing (universal salvation) and then acts to ensure it can never happen. Thus if I believed in unconditional election I would immediately be a universalist Calvinist. I am of the opinion that we are elected according to the foreknowlege of God on the condition of our faith in Christ and our consequent and necessary participation in the covenant and the covenant people of God, and that all humans are called to do that by the grace of God, though many reject this calling.
The Scriptures are clear that God has chosen those whom He would save and did so before the foundations of the world, and these are "predestined" to be conformed to the image of his Son: (Ephesians 1:1-11, 2 Timothy 2:8-9, Romans 8:28-30; 1 Peter 1:2). This choice is not arbitrary, and no Calvinist would ever say so. When the Scripture says that "there is not partiality with God, " particularly in the New Testament, it is in the context of the comparison of peoples, Jews to Greek or slaves to free. (i.e. Romans 2:10-11, Acts 10:34, Ephesians 6:9). We are chosen and predestined according to God's purpose and for His good pleasure. God had a purpose in choosing whom He does for salvation, but the basis of this choice is not any foreseen quality, attribute, or work of that person--it is by grace and grace alone.
1 Timothy 2:4 is the best verse in the Scripture to support Daniel's point, but the comments in 2:4 are made in passing. They are not the primary point of the text. The point of the context of 1 Timothy 2 is not that God wants every human being to be saved--it concerns godly practice and behavior. It could be credibly argued that "all men" of 2:4 could contextually mean "all kinds of men" for Paul is urging Timothy to pray "for kings and all who are in authority" (1:2). In most cases that the term all men (or whole world, all people, all, etc) is used, it is qualified by the context to a specific group of people. Rarely, save the cases in which all of man is described as fallen, does "all" or "world" refer to literally everyone. Not even in John 3:16.
There are passages in which the entire point concerns the doctrine of election by grace. Romans 8:28-30, Romans 9, Ephesians 1:1-11 with the support of 2:1-10, John 6:37-40,44,65, John 10:1-30, for examples.
First, let's look at these passages. In Romans 8:28-30, Paul tells us that "whom (or those) He foreknew, He predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son." The predestined are then called, and the called are then justified, and the justified are then glorified. The word foreknew is proginosko in the Greek. It is simply a compound word combining pro (before) and ginosko (know). In both the English rendition cited and in the Greek, "those" or "whom" is a plural term acting as the direct object of "know." The object of God's foreknowledge isn't a mere choice or act, quality or merit; it is a set of persons. In every case that the word ginosko is used with a human being as the object of that verb, it refers to a relationship of some sort. It could be an acquaintance, or it could even be sexual, but it never refers to a knowledge of a set of facts. In fact, the word ginosko is used in Matthew 7:23 when Jesus says, "I never knew you, depart from me!" Therefore, from the context, it is clear that there are those that God does not foreknow. The same "those" that are foreknown in verse 28 are the ones who are glorified in verse 30. From this passage, it is clear that not everyone is called, either.
This verse is telling us that God knew us in a relationship with Himself in eternity before [the best term we can use to describe the eternal nature of God's knowledge] that relationship came to be in time.
Romans 9 is even stronger: Paul begins by lamenting that the Jews do not know Christ, that he would surrender his own salvation for that of his kinsman. If there were a group of people that should have known that Christ was the Messiah, it should have been the Jews, they had the Law, the service of God, and the covenants--and were the race through which God chose Christ to come. But then Paul tells us that "they are not all Israel who are of Israel." The first Israel refers to the descendents of Abraham, the second refers to God's chosen people. This is a bold statement on Paul's part.
To substantiate this claim, Paul uses the Old Testament. God rejected Ishmael, but chose Isaac--both were sons of Abraham. Then Paul refers to Isaac's children and says God chose Jacob over Esau: "for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works [grace] but of Him who calls." Paul has just demonstrated that mere kinsmanship to Abraham does not make you one of the chosen of God. Then Paul, in response to a possible objection ("Is there unrighteousness with God?"), uses the story of Moses and Pharaoh as an example for God's sovereignty in election and concludes in verse 18:
Therefore He [God] has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.
In other words: God can save whoever He wants to, and this salvation is not in a response to action by men. It is initiated by God and is applied to particular individuals. Paul knew people would say that it is not fair for God to not give everyone a chance--especially if it is God who hardens the hearts of men. "You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?'"
Paul's answer is not one that satisfies the modern-day critic of Calvinism, who often poses this very objection when confonted with the doctrine of reprobation. Paul essentially says this: We are property, and God is the property owner. Because of our status as creatures, God can do as He wishes with us. "Who are you to reply against God? Shall the thing formed say to him who formed it, 'why have you made me like this?' Does not the potter have power over the same lump of clay to make one vessel for honor, and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endure with much longsuffering those vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?"
Pauls couldn't be more clear. More to come on the UE in Eph 1 and 2, John 6 and 10, and others.
2 comments:
"Rarely, save the cases in which all of man is described as fallen, does "all" or "world" refer to literally everyone. Not even in John 3:16."
I remain unconvinced. How can you know when to interpret literally and when not to? It literally says "all." Of course Calvinists are more generous in allowing that "all" means "all" when it supports the (presupposed) TULIP theological schema. How convenient.
I hope my sarcasm dosn't come across too harsh. I realize this comes from an attempt to understand and organize the Bible's teachings comprehensively.
Apart from the issue of whether or not the verse means what it literally says there is the issue of whether predestination is individual or corporate. My complaints against TULIP are directed at an individualistic understanding (i.e. God elected Bob and Fran and Lacy, etc.). I remain intrigued by the idea that predestination (for salvation) is probably communal rather than individualistic - just as Israel as a whole people was predestined for its own vocation in salvation history. The question then becomes whether or not we are a part of that people - whether we are integrated into that Kingdom people and given that new identity as one among "many brothers." That seems more consistent to me with a pre-modern anthropology (as part of our worldview, perhaps taken for granted), which all of the Biblical writers shared - and which we in the West do not share with them by default. If I remember right, I tried to talk a little bit (and probably did a poor and unclear job) about individualistic vs. corporate understandings of election toward the end of my original post. People in the West have tended to think in individualistic terms for several centuries now, which shades the way we think theologically of course - but in Ancient Israel they did not see the world as we do. SO (I'd have to think this through longer) at first glance I think I would have no problem saying God unconditionally elected the Church as the community of faith - but individuals are included in that election conditionally - insofar as they have that faith and are a part of that covenant community.
PS - I am of the opinion that "world" in John 3:16 should be taken as literally as possible (once again I argue for literal) to mean "cosmos" - the whole universe - Christ is redeeming the entire creation that is "groaning in waiting" and has been "subjected to futility" (see Rom. 8).
Furthermore the idea that salvation is not intended for all runs counter to the symmetry of Paul's argument in Romans 5 and other places: just as sin came to "all" (as you say, literally here) through one man (Adam), so salvation comes to "all" (as I say, literally there) through one man (Christ). It seems odd to argue the word means one thing in the first half of the argument but something else in the second - that is to say that the bad news is somehow bigger or more comprehensive than the good news! I think salvation does come to all through Christ - though, as I say, many resist it and are therefore damned (because I also reject TULIP's "I"). They have committed the damning "sin against the Holy Spirit" by refusing his universal call to salvation.
And also on the bit about Pharaoh's heart being hardened it is important to note (as Paul well knows) that in the actual Exodus narrative it usually says simply "his heart was hardened" using a passive so that the agent doing the hardening is unclear. At times it specifically says that God hardened his heart (as you note) but it also says (Calvinists don't often note this) that Pharaoh harded his own heart (Ex. 8:15, 32) - so that this becomes precisely an example of the sort of "mystical" or "paradoxical" double agency (on the individual level) that I am trying to affirm -so it is sort of the anti-type to Phil. 2:12-13 where we are called upon to work out our own salvation precisely because it is God working in us. With Pharaoh we have the same idea, but working in the opposite direction.
Post a Comment