| << Total Depravity | Series Index | Part 2 >> |
After a relatively laid back discussion of Total Depravity, here we immediately jump into what is probably the hottest topic of disagreement between Calvinists and Arminians. That is, what is the nature of election? Are we predestined absolutely, regardless of anything about us, or are we predestined to be saved based on our faith? There is a lot of material to cover on the topic, so I have split this into two parts, with an addendum on Romans 9. This section I primarily focus on Calvinist arguments and the Scripture they present, while next round will cover the Arminian side.
To start, let's go back to John 6:44, which is often misused: [Jesus said:] "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." I've seen folks correctly interpret this as "all who can come were first drawn," but then invalidly convert it to "All who were drawn must come." Nothing in the verse requires this interpretation. Indeed, we see this later on: [Jesus said] "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself." John 12:32. It cannot be that all who are drawn will come, otherwise all are saved. Calvinists, however, often carpet bomb this passage with counter-examples of where "all men" or "whole world" (or equivalents) are used hyperbolically in the Bible, and thus they think this gives them some wiggle room around John 12:32. Of course, we could counter by carpetbombing with verses like Rom. 3:23. Why should we take John 12:32 to be hyperbolic (or that it only means "some" from every "nation")? Unless we wish to allow Pelagianism to escape what Romans 3:23 says, we should take "all men" to mean "each and every person," unless the context clearly dictates otherwise. If Jesus meant something other than every individual, He could have made it clear (even a Reformed theologian made this point, though I don't remember who).
Often, I've observed that Calvinists often toss up some passage that speaks of predestination, as though it supports their view. What's important here is that we Arminians don't dispute that some people are predestined (or elected-- I'll be treating them as being roughly equivalent), but what Calvinists think this predestination entails. Hence, I often get ran into circles like in this discussion that happened on Paltalk:
Sheepdog: ... Even in Arminianism God is doing all the work of salvation. all man does is choose. do you think choice is a work?You know what I felt like when I was done!? They kept running me around in circles, because the question of what election is based on-- the very question Calvinism or Arminianism rise or fall on-- has to be left unanswered in Calvinism. Most Calvinists, when pressed, will simply say it is a mystery, and move on. But is this mystery not revealed to us?
Person 1: Sheepdog, man doesn't choose God, He chose us: John 15:16 "You did not choose Me but I chose you."
SD: you are taking that verse out to context. Jesus is talking to the Disciples.
Person 2: we were chosen by God before the foundation of the world.[He possibly quoted Scripture, I don't recall]
SD: P2, based on what did He chose us?
P1: Jesus was talking to all his disciples.
SD: No, P1. he was talking to the Twelve.
P3: We are chosen according to God's will, not based on anything we do.
P2: He chose us based on his Good pleasure, Eph 1:5 "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will."
SD: We were chosen according to God's will-- but what is His will?
SD: What is God's good pleasure?
P1: We were ordained to believe, Acts 13:48
SD: Based on what were we ordained?
P2: We were ordained according to God's will
SD: But, can you tell me what God's will is...
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. Ephesians 1:3-6, NASB
Calvinists tend to argue that this passage teaches us that each Christian is elected and predestined to adoption, not because of anything we do, but because of the "good pleasure" of God's "will." Arminians often rebut that the passage speaks of corporate election, that God is electing the church here, not individuals. But is this necessary? Even if the corporate election interpretation is right (unless they have scholarship on their side, I think it is ad hoc and the rest of the chapter implies individual application [cf. 1:7]), a better route is available. I simply point out that the Calvinist begs the very question of what God's good pleasure / will is. What if God's will is "whosoever believes" is predestined to salvation? In other words, the passage doesn't say enough to really support Unconditional Election. Passages like Eph. 1:11, 2Th. 2:13, and Col 3:12 also fall into the same category.
It is ironic that Eph. 1 is so commonly quoted in this debate; yet, look what Eph. 1:9 says: He made known to us the mystery of His will... The mystery has been revealed, and is in plain sight within Scripture!
Acts 13:48 is often cited: When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. This passage suffers from the same problem as Eph. 1, but even more so: it doesn't say that particular individuals were appointed, but only a number. Could those who weren't appointed ("ordained" in KJV) to believe that day be ordained to believe later? How do you know this applies to all believers and wasn't just describing an isolated event? The passage only helps if Unconditional Election is assumed from the get-go. The next is even worse:
[Jesus said] "You did not choose Me but I chose you..." John 15:16. I initially considered this ripped out of context, that Jesus here was speaking of the Twelve, not all Christians. Little did I know how right I was! Zondervan notes, "In terms of teacher-pupil relationships, Jesus here breaks with contemporary custom, for it was common in first-century Palestine for disciples to attach themselves to a particular rabbi, not vice versa..."1 So, this explicitly is about Jesus' "election" of the Disciples to learn from him and finish His work after he leaves.
Often Paul's conversion is cited as evidence of God's unconditional election. However, this only helps if you don't consider Paul a special case (I do, and even some Calvinists admit this).
This leaves us with such passages to look at as Rom. 8:29, 1Pe. 1:1-2, and Rom. 9. Romans 9 will be looked at later.
For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son... Romans 8:29. In the NT, the term “to foreknow” originates from the Greek words pro and ginosko. The Calvinists actually make a good point on this passage in regards to how "foreknew" is used here. It is notable that ginosko is used for “to know” in John 10:27, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.” Here, intellectual certainty isn’t in view, but intimate knowledge of persons. Likewise, “to foreknow” as used in the NT (perhaps with exception to Acts 2:23) carries the same connotation of knowing someone on an intimate level, prior to one’s existence. For instance, when we look at Rom. 8:29 above, we don’t see “those that He foreknew would chose Him” (denoting a known fact), but instead “those whom He foreknew.” Matt. 7:23 also has this usage of "to know" (though in the negative). Yet, some make a leap in logic from this that "being foreknown" means "being chosen beforehand." That has to be presumed into the text, as all that is evident here is that Christians were foreknown on an intimate level.
Likewise, I've seen some Arminians argue for a corporate interpretation of the whole verse (to the exclusion of individuals). But just like in Eph., this is superfluous, as all that is evident here is that "some are foreknown and also predestined to be conformed to Christ." Again, unless scholarship is on their side, such Arminians are guilty of the same kind of non sequitur reasoning as the Calvinists.
So, what do we have? God foreknew some people (the Elect? Whosoever believes?), and predestined, called, justified, and glorified those people! I would suggest that the context implies an individual application (though a corporate one at the same time is possible-- they aren't mutually exclusive). I would further propose that "the foreknown" in Romans is the same "whosoever believes" in John, so that predestination/election to salvation/glory is made by God contingent on belief; not the other way around. It seems that Peter goes further to driving this point home:
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens,... who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood... 1 Peter 1:1-2. Here the "foreknowledge to predestination" relationship is less ambiguous. But what did God foreknow about these people? If "foreknowledge" is made contingent on election, what we would have here is a needless tautology ("predestined to foreknown to predestined"). Thus, I submit this relationship as the most Biblical and meaningful: "faith/belief to foreknown to predestined to salvation and obedience."
But does faith/belief rightfully have this place in the equation? This leads us to the next section...
Published: Array
| << Total Depravity | Series Index | Part 2 >> |
Notes and Citations:
1. Arnold, Clinton E. ed. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary. vol. 2. pp. 146-7. Zondervan. Grand Rapids, MI. 2002.
|
|
|
|