For some time I have felt I should blog on the subject of election but to this point have held my counsel. I suppose my reluctance is based on the fact that I have many close friends who would not share my views on the subject and I have no desire to offend or be insensitive.
When I was younger I referred to myself as a Calvinist, I think I did so more in an effort to make it clear that I was not an Arminian rather than being a convinced Calvinist. I did not want anyone to think I belonged to the ‘lost again’ brigade, but I always struggled with the Calvinist notion of limited atonement. I could never get away from verses like, ‘He tasted death for everyman’, ‘he would have all men to be saved’ and ‘he is not willing that any should perish’. Calvinists of course have their explanations of how these verses should be understood but I am never comfortable with a system of doctrine that has to explain away clear biblical statements like these.
With a few more years behind me I have come to the conclusion that both systems of interpretation have holes in them and I believe there is a more biblical way too look at all the subjects of mans depravity, the nature of election, the scope of the atonement, God’s movings in Grace and the eternal security of believers. This short blog is in no way an attempt to answer any or all of these questions and perhaps I will pick some of these topics up in the future but for now I just want to throw out two thoughts about a verse that I think must be difficult for reformed theologians to explain.
‘Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:’ 2 Peter 1 v10
Problem.1
Why is this verse even there? If the Calvinist is correct, God has ordained by His will alone who will be saved and He sees to it that they are saved. If this is the case why on earth would we be encouraged to make our calling and election sure. The fact that this verse is in the Bible shows quite clearly shows that we have to place our faith in Christ’s finished work, as a deliberate act of our will, yes and we would never would have done it left to ourselves without the drawing of the Spirit but we still had it to do.
Problem.2
I am a great believer in taking note of the order of scripture. For example sometimes our Saviour is referred to as Jesus Christ, this emphasises His humanity, sometimes He is referred to as the Lord Jesus, this emphasises His Deity and sometimes He is referred to as Christ Jesus and here His office as Messiah is being emphasised. Notice the order in the verse, we are asked to make our calling 1st and election 2nd sure. Now if Calvinism is right surely the election comes before the calling, but that is not how the Spirit of God inspired Peter to put it. The election we are told was determined in eternity past but the effectual call is a more recent event. But Peter here suggests that it is the other way around that election follows the call.
This is where we really get down to understanding this whole debate, what is election? We have been conditioned to believe that election is to do with salvation but I’m not so sure. The Lord Jesus is described as being elect and He certainly does not need salvation, there are angels described as elect angels, but angels know nothing of salvation and the nation of Israel is described as an elect nation but we know that all Jews are not saved. So election must have more to do with God choosing individuals for a purpose, to do some task for Him.
I must admit I have not fully developed all of my views on this subject but I have reached a milestone and that is this, I do not agree with Calvin or Arminius!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I await with anticipation to hear some of the conclusions that you have drawn, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, as you have studied through the scriptures. As we consider our theology we need to “endeavour to give to every portion of the Word of God its full and proper force, without considering what scheme it favours or whose system it is likely to advance.” With this in mind we devise Biblical Theology.
ReplyDeleteHi, Bro.
ReplyDeleteProblem 1: Answer, because God ordains not only the ENDS (our ultimate salvation) but also the MEANS (hearing the gospel, obeying it, exhortation to continue in it, and doing so).
He could have made us perfect when we believed, so no need to labour and war against the flesh - but He chose not to. He chose to have us fight the good fight.
Of course He also ensures we (the elect) do so. He makes even the weakest of the brethren stand, despite all trials:
Romans 14:3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. 4 Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.
Problem 2: As Wallace pointed out elsewhere, the order is reversed in this text:
ReplyDelete2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, 14 to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
It is the latter passage that gives an order, while the former one gives merely the items.
An even clearer order is given in:
Romans 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
And the passages give light to the last part of Problem 2 - they shows that not only can chosen/elect be used of Christ, the nation of Israel or for any particular task, it is also used of God's choosing the individuals to be saved.
Hi Maurice!
ReplyDeleteI'm glad that you are, to use your own words, "a great believer in taking note of the order of scripture". To that end, I would encourage you to go back a little further in 2 Peter 1v10, to the word "brethren". The reason being, to miss this word is THE problem.
This verse is addressed to the "brethren" ... brothers in Christ, in other words, it is addressed to those who have already been saved. They have been predestined, quickened, drawn, etc. So, the problem which you have proposed (in terms of there being some kind of apparent contradiction with the Calvinist 5 points) does not arise here.
What the believers are being told to do is examine their lives to be certain that their claims to having been the subject of grace are not being contradicted by sinful their lifestyles! Or, to put it another way, they are been told to prove their claims about their calling and election.
Furthermore, there are inherent dangers in leaning too heavily towards an "inductive-only" method of Bible study. Inductive reasoning underlies much of the common law system of case analysis. Lawyers and judges (and law students) analyze numerous individual cases, and then they attempt to derive broad, generalised statements (or rules) of law that explain those cases.
One of the greatest dangers inherent in relying upon argument by inductive reasoning is the tendency to reach a general conclusion too quickly. Often referred to as "jumping to a conclusion," this hazard is particularly common among beginning law students. Consider the following conclusion derived through the process of inductive reasoning:
(1) In Case A, the court held that an oral conveyance of land was invalid. (a minor premise).
(2) In Case B, the court held that an oral conveyance of personalty was invalid. (a minor premise).
Conclusion: Therefore, ALL oral conveyances are invalid. (a major premise).
After reading a few more cases involving oral conveyances of both real and personal property, the student would likely discover that not all oral conveyances of personalty are invalid, although most (if not all) conveyances of land are invalid. The conclusion to which this student "jumped" was much too broad. It was not supported by the case law. Had the student been less hasty in reaching this conclusion, and taken time to examine more cases that addressed the question of oral conveyances of all types of property, this mistaken conclusion would not have occurred.
By way of example; with regard to the meaning of the word “all” in the Bible, especially in the New Testament, it occurs there more than 1200 times. These 1200 texts may be subdivided:
ReplyDeleteCLASS ONE: - consists of a very large number of passages, several hundreds, in which it is undeniable that the word cannot mean “all” literally. To give a few examples, we are told that ““all” the land of Judea...went out to him and were baptized.” This was certainly not literally the case, for every individual in the whole land did not come, for we are expressly told that “the Pharisees and lawyers were not baptized by him” (Luke 7:30). Again we read, “All men seek thee” (Mark 1:37). This was not literally so. Every individual in the human race, or even every individual in Judea, did not seek him. Again, we have such passages as these, “He told me all that I ever did” (John 4:39); “all things are lawful to me”; “all our fathers were under the cloud”; “all those who are in Asia have turned away from me”; and, “you know all things”.
CLASS TWO: - consists of passages in which it is very doubtful whether “all” is literally universal. It may, or it may not be. There is nothing positively to determine it. “Every nation under heaven”; “All those who dwelt in Asia”; “The care of all the churches”; “All who dwell on earth shall worship him” (Acts 2:5; 19:10; 2 Corinthians 11:28; etc.) There are examples of a large class of doubtful passages, which, of course, can prove nothing as to the literal meaning of “all”.
CLASS THREE: - consists of passages which are only determined by the context, not by the expressions themselves. The whole passage taken together fixes the meaning. But were it not for that, the literal meaning would have been doubtful. “you are all brothers”; “All these things shall come to pass”; “they all slumbered”; “When Jesus had finished all these sayings,” etc. In all these passages and in many similar ones, it is not the word “all” itself that points out the strict universality, but it is some other word that occurs along with it, such as “all these things”. In these cases, while in one sense the word has a universal sense, in another it has a limited one – limited by the words with which it is connected. It means all of a certain class, or, all of a certain number. So, we can gather from these that when “all” is to be understood literally, we must learn from the context what the word means – whether it is all of one nation or all of another, whether it is all of one class or all of another.
This tends to answer the often repeated argument which consists merely in vociferating the word “all” as if the frequency or the loudness of the outcry were enough to demonstrate the meaning of the word. Rather, that meaning must be determined in each separate case by the other words, or parts of the passage.
The mere occurrence of the word “all” does not determine the question at all. Nothing but a careful examination of the whole passage can settle it. Multiple repetitions of the words “all” and “every” determine nothing.
The same is the case with every word, when engaging in a word-study. The whole passage must be examined, as opposed to universalising the meaning of a particular word, regardless of the context.
Every blessing.