In Response to Luke’s Eloquent Apologetic for Unconditional Election.
Right off the bat, I am going to acknowledge that unlike Luke, I am not an analytic philosopher- in contrast, I am a literary analyst, which renders the prose and the style that my writing takes much less cogent, clear and systematic than Luke’s. In advance, I will apologize for verbosity, superfluity and pointless dramatic rhetoric!
Let’s start by removing the problematic terminology. For the purposes of discussion, I am deliberately avoiding the reference to the term “Calvinism”, which assumes the TULIP formulation by the Synod of Dort in 1619. Given that Calvin, that great Swiss theologian and Reformer, passed away in 1594, it follows that Calvin himself did not condense his beliefs into the form we carry with us today. Hence- let us avoid the term.
But I will point that the essence of my this short essay will be to respond to what I will refer to as the “Biblical model of Election“ as Luke presents it- I hope to a.) affirm it, and b.) defend it apologetically/philosophically.
A.) Affirming Luke’s summary:
Luke summarizes in his article on the the 17th of April 2008, his understanding of election as per the Bible. In short, it is 1.) the belief that God is sovereign over salvation. 2.) the belief that Man is responsible for his own choice, and ultimately, the fate of his soul. 3.) the two previously declared statements are not mutually exclusive.
I affirm this view wholeheartedly, not so much on the premise that rhetoric or argument has persuaded me, but on the notion that this is what the Bible says.
The Bible seems to acknowledge two categories of belief: one which assumes that God is fundamentally praiseworthy and glorious for the salvation of the elect, over whom He presides and leads to Himself in the course of time. (Ephesians 1, Romans 9, Jeremiah 31, Psalm 139, Acts 4, etc). The category assumes that humanity has fundamental choice and determinism in creating ontological possibilities. Texts where humanity is held responsible for sin (abound) support this thread. Textually, this is what the Bible holds, seemingly without any problem. You can argue till the cows come home- a hyper-Calvinist will produce X text and a hyper-Armenian will yield forth Y text; there is a reason why the debate has continued for the last four hundred years. There must be traces of both threads of argument present in the text.
Until one can come to terms with this TEXTUALLY, read no further.
B.) Can it be explained apologetically?
Clearly, the fundamental paradox is the fact that both views seem irreconcilable, or to resurrect a syllogism, “diametrically opposed”. There are a few way to respond to this:
1.) Pastorally - I’m not a pastor, so I don’t know why I’m using this term. Nonetheless, this response only applies to a select group of people, namely, Christians who have struggled with this issue and find their faith in jeopardy because of the legitimacy of either point of view. If you find that you cannot reconcile the idea of a sovereign God (strange, but not unconceivable), or the idea of a God who lets us choose to love Him (also strange,) and that as a result you find yourself falling into apostasy, it remains to be seen what the true mettle and foundation of your faith is on.
Are you a Christian because it makes sense to you intellectually? Or are you a Christian because you are convinced of the life, death and Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, and your relationship with Him is personal, and premised on faith revealed through your lifeworks? If the latter, remember then that our Lord calls us to faith of things hoped for but yet to pass (Hebrews 11:1). One of those things is a complete understanding of Who He Is. Let’s wait for that together.
However, this pastoral response warrants a pragmatic approach rather than philosophical one, and applies only to the Christian believer, whose salvation is not justified on the condition of Biblical Election- it’s on the gospel of the blood of Jesus, (Gal 1:7) so let’s move on.
2.) Edification- This response applies to persons who find that they are having trouble presenting a picture of God who acts through Biblical Election to non-Christians. For these folks, I recommend considering reading Luke’s original post, as well as what I’m about to say in point B3. But do make sure you’re not in camp B1.
3.) Apologetics/Evangelism- For the purposes of speaking, or if you are a non-Christian, and you find this rather troubling, I have this to say to you. It is I, not the Lord, and if I am wrong, I stand corrected (1 Cor 7:12).
First of all, please consider the falsity of the term “free will”, as some Arminians would defend it. What does it mean to be free? These Arminians would like to assume that it means an ability to execute an unhindered and completely non-dependent act of self-determinism, and that this act is the key to salvation itself. This is of course, a faulty premise, engendered by the intellectual legacy that we 21st century folks inherited from the realigned cosmology of 16th century Renaissance humanism, 18th century Enlightenment thinking, and Sartrean existentialism. Through these intellectual movements, (which by the way, lead us to our current mould of thinking), we are under the illusion that we make our own choices, freely and without influence from anyone. Prior to these systems, the events of the universe were attributed to Providence, to God, to Nature, and in a way, they were not completely wrong. None of our choices are so-called “free” in the sense that they are completely independently determined, or even arrived at. Instead, choices are very much determined by circumstances, motives, gender, age, emotional states, and all other kinds of influences, much less our own sovereign ability to think and feel. The Bible makes it clear that we were once “slaves to sin”, serving our own sinful nature and incapable of truly being “free” in our choices. (John 8:34) In that sense then, what “choice” are we discussing, if it is not free?
Anyone who has seen the movie “Minority Report” knows that the key device in the film is the precog’s ability to see the future and prevent crime from occurring. In the rare instance where one (Tom, of course) is able to see his future, he is able to prevent it, or change it. Or is he? No he doesn’t really. The only character who truly changes his destiny is Lumar, the baddie in the film. And he doesn’t terminate his destiny by making a “free choice”- instead he ends the thread of possibility BEFORE the predestined event occurs- is that a way of being free? Perhaps, or perhaps not. I’m more inclined to disagree. But he does have a choice- just that it’s not detached from what HOllywood describes as “Fate”.
As Luke explains, our freedom is in REVEALING the will of God as events unfold. We do have choice, as the Bible says, but it is far from free. Having a destiny, or a sovereign God does not rob you from your humanity, it merely reflects a condition of reality. After all, when I’m typing this next word, I wouldn’t say that God is making me write pumpkin instead of this. In that sense then, the true question is not so much “What is God making me do?” but “how can I know what God is doing in history?” The question is not, “Is God sending me to hell?” as much as “Do I deserve to be there?” and “Do I want to go there?” You see, to the person who is reading this, it is never an issue of “God has sentenced me to hell already” as much as it is, “am I choosing to reject Jesus”?
When a person comes to salvation, he comes on the basis of GOd’s providential work. When a person is condemned, he is condemned on the basis of his own rebellious, fallen life. And the beauty of the matter (and the pointlessness of the Calvinism-Arminian debate) is the fact that no one knows who God has saved or not until the Day itself! Furthermore, who can judge GOd? Only one who knows the mind of GOd surely. And we dont’ know the mind of God although we do know the HEART of God- which is that all might come to salvation (2 Pet 3:9, Ez 33:10,11). How then can we speak of the terms of salvation other than what the Bible- God’s explanation, has revealed? Therefore we must still with the Biblical model of Election.
Now, if you wanted to discuss the Bible’s validity as a trustworthily divine document, or how a good God can tolerate evil, that warrants another discussion altogether.
The heart of the issue then, is not the philosophical branch of potentiology, but the branch known as epistemology, or the ability to know the future. We do not know the future, so we can only conclude that our actions in the present contribute to the future. Is our past predestined then? Yes. Is our present predestined too? Yes. But does it feel like it? No. Therefore? We pray pray regarding the future, and resolve to walk according to His truths from moment to moment.
Finally, for a purely evangelistic point of view: can a CHristian then tell a non-Christian that all of deserve to go to hell? Yeah, of course- based on the Bible. Can a Christian also tell a non-Christian that he has the opportunity to “choose this day who you will serve” because God is not strong-arming him? Of course! It’s in the Bible! Is it contradictory? No!
—
FOr extra reading: take a look at John Piper’s series on TULIP
@4 years ago#theology
