Here’s what GraceNET has to say: God has shown us in his Word that from eternity past he has elected some sinners to be saved from the condemnation that is justly deserved by all, purely on account of his gracious mercy and love, not because of any foreseen merits in those sinners. Because of the fact of total depravity, salvation must originate with God, and we read in the Bible that it is God's sovereign will alone that has determined the recipients of that salvation.
This doctrine does not render God unjust, for all are guilty and all deserve to suffer God's judgement. Rather, it emphasises the grace of God by the fact that he has chosen some for salvation.
Scripture references: Psalm 65:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; Romans 9:11; Ephesians 1:4,5,9,11; Romans 11:5; Romans 9:15,23; Psalm 103:11; 1 Peter 1:2-3; 1 Thessalonians 5:9; Jonah 2:9
My initial thoughts on TULIP’s Unconditional Election: Right off the bat the explanation states this doctrine stems from that of Total Depravity. We have already seen Total Depravity is false so we could stop but that wouldn’t be as helpful as continuing may be. It is the false idea that people need to be somewhat good in order to receive Salvation that is at the root of the fallacy in this doctrine. Romans 4 clearly states that God justifies the ungodly, He doesn’t save people who were good enough to seek after Him, ask for Salvation or see Him.
Scripture does say that some are Elected to Salvation, but in most cases Election has to do with a purpose God has for a person in the world. This person can be either saved or not. The Scriptures record Jesus talking about those He has been given by the Father. I think each of these instances specifically deal with the Disciples, but Ephesians 4 shows that God the Father gave the people who fill the offices of the Church. I believe that God does elect some to Salvation, those are the people of particular importance for God’s plan for History to be carried out. This would be a very challenging thing to prove, but it does reconcile the obvious strains between the instances of Election and that of the open call and promises of God. This explanation satisfies my curiosity on the subject because we are just not given enough information to know, and because we are given the truth that some are elected to Salvation and others just receive it.
The primary issue I have with Unconditional Election is that it teaches that Salvation is exclusive to the Elect, something that Scripture never says. This exclusivity is due to the idea that one must be good enough to ask for Salvation, and since everyone is Totally Depraved, only those who God has Elected will ask for Salvation.
Let’s check the Scripture references GraceNET uses:
Psalm 65:4
When read in isolation this looks to be an example of Election to Salvation. However it is actually about Messiah. Isaiah 42:1 shows us Who this is about. The second half of verse is about Israel. We get a clue from reading Psalm 65:3 when David writes that God will forgive “our” transgressions. This does not indicate that only selected people are exclusively elected to Eternal Salvation.
2 Thessalonians 2:13
This is a particularly interesting passage. It is possible that Paul is writing that these have been chosen for Eternal Salvation from “the beginning.” But there are some things about the passage that lead me to think otherwise. Paul says they have been chosen for “Salvation through sanctification by the Spirit” this does not match Paul’s description of Eternal Salvation as being by Grace through Faith. But that’s not all that is of interest. Verse 13 starts with the word “But” (or “and” in some translations). This is a continuation of Paul’s teaching, not the teaching. What is Paul talking about, the fact that those who did not believe the Truth are going to be given a strong delusion. Then Paul thanks God that these Brethren are saved. Saved from what? The description does not match that of Eternal Salvation. These Brethren have been saved from the strong delusion through Sanctification and belief in the Truth.
Paul seals the deal by finishing with “Therefore Brethren, stand fast…” in verse 15.
It is of particular importance to know what is being taught before it is applied. If we decide what we’re reading before we let Scripture tell us we will always find man centered Theology. This verse does not indicate that selected people are exclusively elected to Eternal Salvation.
Romans 9:11
This recounting of Jacob and Esau is the classic example used to prove Unconditional Election. However, it doesn’t apply to Eternal Salvation at all. Jacob wasn’t elected to salvation and Esau to reprobation. No what was elected is written in Romans 9:12. The older will serve the younger. This verse does not indicate that selected people are exclusively elected to Eternal Salvation.
Ephesians 1:4, 5,9,11
I’m not sure why the author of the article felt he couldn’t just reference Eph 1, but instead choose to select particular verses. This is a very strong “election” passage. Both the election and foreordination are about what the people Paul calls “we” are “in Christ.” Not that the “we” would “be in Christ” but what we would be, “in Christ” or “through” Christ. He foreordained the adoption, not us. Paul is giving praise for what has been done for us, not instructing that we in particular have had this done for us. There is nothing exclusive or particular about the language other than the fact that it has been done for the group identified as “we.” What I’m trying to say is that nothing in this language excludes anyone who is not part of the “we.”
In verse 13 the language changes to “you” as Paul starts to show these believers what God has done for them. Paul is instructing them in faith, giving them confidence. Paul shows what God has predestined his group to be in Christ, and then likewise what these believers can expect. He is building their confidence with his experience. It is of note that the “you” is never said to have been chosen before the foundations of the World.
If the verses are taken in isolation they appear to give support to Unconditional Election, however when the whole chapter is read it is clear this is not what Paul wrote about.
Romans 11:5
This is a remnant of Israel. These are Jews who have not been blinded as per the next few verses. They are not “elected to Eternal Salvation” they are elected to not be blinded. Their Salvation still requires them to believe the Gospel. In fact Paul is ministering to THESE very Jews. He calls them “you Gentiles” or you particular people without God. They have not been blinded, they can see but they are still without God. Paul is doing everything he can to reach these very Jews. Romans 11:13-14
This verse does not show exclusive election to Eternal Salvation and therefore does not support the doctrine.
Romans 9:15, 23
Paul tells how the preparations were made in Christ in various other places such as Eph 1 as we have discussed above. Scripture denies the doctrine that these verses are being cited as support for in Romans 9:30-33
Rom 9:30-33
What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. As it is written: "BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A STUMBLING STONE AND ROCK OF OFFENSE, AND WHOEVER BELIEVES ON HIM WILL NOT BE PUT TO SHAME."
God did not choose people for destruction, He laid a stumbling block and those who did not seek righteousness by Faith stumbled on it.
Psalm 103:11
I cannot begin to see how the author might think this verse lends support to the doctrine of Unconditional Election. God gives mercy to those who fear Him. This does not say that God chooses who will be saved and who will not, and therefore does not support the doctrine.
1 Peter 1:2-3
This election is to their purpose – being obedient pilgrims of the dispersion, they were spreading the Gospel as per Christ’s command (however only after affliction). How is this election carried out, through Sanctification by the Spirit and the “sprinkling of the blood of Christ” which is a ceremonial term used in sanctification. This is not about Eternal Salvation and so has no support for the doctrine of Unconditional Election.
1 Thessalonians 5:9
This is about the Tribulation, the Thessalonians were fearful that the Great and Terrible Day of the LORD was appon them. Paul reminds them that they have nothing to fear, but that the return of Christ is our “blessed hope” because we have not been appointed to Wrath but to Salvation. This is not about election to Eternal Salvation, but that believers will never come under God’s wrath. This lends no support to the doctrine of Unconditional Election.
Jonah 2:9
Jonah starts out his prayer talking about how he’ll change his ways… but God gives him salvation from his predicament (being trapped in the belly of the fish) when he humbles himself. He says “Salvation is of the Lord.” He’s asking for help and he comes to the point of only relying on God’s Grace, then God saves him. He’s not saying that God chooses who gets Eternally Saved or not, he’s admitting that God alone saves and does it because of Who He is, not who we promise to be. This does not support the doctrine of Unconditional Election.
My closing thoughts on TULIP’s Unconditional Election: This is probably the doctrine I come closest to believing in TULIP. I believe that God has elected some to be Eternally Saved. Many are called, few are chosen sort of thing. However, I cannot let my thoughts decide what Scripture says. Scripture must always define what I think. Theology that is an inch deep and a mile wide comes from the presupposition that Salvation, Justification and Repentance are always about Eternal Salvation.
Theology that is as deep and as narrow as the Truth comes only from seeking meaning from context and usage.
9 comments:
"The primary issue I have with Unconditional Election is that it teaches that Salvation is exclusive to the Elect, something that Scripture never says. This exclusivity is due to the idea that one must be good enough to ask for Salvation, and since everyone is Totally Depraved, only those who God has Elected will ask for Salvation" As this is your primary issue Kev I'll approach it first. Your understanding is a caricature of the reformed position of election. Firstly scripture is clear that nobody seeks after God Rom 3:11 and all are slaves to sin, and that even when Jesus returns and reveals his physical prescense they will still defy him Rev 6 says,
15And the kings of the earth, and the great, and the chiliarchs, and the rich, and the strong, and every bondman and freeman, hid themselves in the caves and in the rocks of the mountains;
16and they say to the mountains and to the rocks, Fall on us, and have us hidden from [the] face of him that sits upon the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb;
17because the great day of his wrath is come, and who is able to stand?
So even when its clear to them people in there sin and rebellion will still refuse God. Rather than repent these people would rather be crushed by rocks. Salvation is exclusive to the elect, as were the Israelites Gods chosen ones. But i think that the primary problem with most people like yourself Kev is your need to cling onto the notion of free will. Rather than allowing God to glorify himself in the choosing of an elect, as he did with Israel, we cant stand the idea of not having a say in our salvation.
Scripture does say that some are Elected to Salvation, but in most cases Election has to do with a purpose God has for a person in the world.
The two words election and predestination as used in the NT are used the same ie of Gods choice of particular sinners for salvation and eternal life Rom 8:29, Eph 1:4-5,11. Predestination is Gods decision made in eternity before the world and its existence regarding the final destiny of individual sinners.The question is "on what basis did God choose individuals for salvation?", your response would seem to be on the basis of his foreknowledge that when faced with the gospel they would choose Christ as there saviour.This means in your view that foreknowledge is passive foresight on Gods part of whatindividuals are going to do, without his predetermining there actions. The word "foreknow" in Rom 8:29;11:2; 1Pet 1:2,20 means "fore-love" and "fore-appoint" it does not refer to a passive foreknowledge as arminians see it. Since all are dead in sin no one who hears the gospel will ever come to Christ without an inner quickening that God imparts Eph 2:4-10. Jesus said "NO ONE can come to me unless the Father enabled him" Jn 6:65; 44; 10:25-28. Sinners choose Christ only because God chose them for this choice and moved them to it by renewing there hearts.
Hi Paulc,
I'll warn you that I won't have a lot of time to devote to this older thread but I'll answer quickly. You may be interested in this Discussion About Unconditional Election.
No one seeks after God. It is interesting that it says "no one" not just "no unsaved person" but that is perhaps a different conversation.
Believing the Gospel is not seeking after God. If you look at the passages devoted to this in the OT and the NT you will find that it is about much more than believing Him.
There is nothing in the Gospel that the Lord taught the Apostles to preach 1Cor 15:1-11, about seeking after God, doing good, or anything related to the thoughts.
The Gospel is about God saving man, not man seeking God.. serving God... desiring God... or anything of the sort.
That many people refuse to believe (they "disbelieve" is what the Scripture says) is not proof that people "cannot" believe and must be Unconditionally Elected and regenerated in order to become good enough or able to believe. Such is a poor logical argument. TULIP proponents are usually very logical in their arguments.
Logical does not equate to truthful if the premis(es) the logic is based on is faulty.
You wrote: "Salvation is exclusive to the elect, as were the Israelites Gods chosen ones."
Israel was God's chosen NATION. Not God's chosen "ones." People could join Israel, just like people can join the Church.
You went on to write:
"But i think that the primary problem with most people like yourself Kev is your need to cling onto the notion of free will. Rather than allowing God to glorify himself in the choosing of an elect, as he did with Israel, we cant stand the idea of not having a say in our salvation."
If a rich, powerful and even loving man grabs a homeless woman dying on the street forces her to live with him and love him, even if he saves her from death and provides for all her needs, even if he loves her and she comes to love him - he is a kidnapper, rapist, brute.... and many other things.
God is not like that. God is powerful enough to do such a thing, but good enough not to.
Without choice being forced to love is a violation. That being said, and true, it is the least of my arguments. The Scripture simply does not support your view, let alone promote it.
Kev
Hi PaulC,
You should read Romans 8 without any of your commentaries and such. What is the person elected to in this passage? Can you answer it from the passage instead of from your theology? You can if you read it alone.
You wrote: "The word "foreknow" in Rom 8:29;11:2; 1Pet 1:2,20 means "fore-love" and "fore-appoint" it does not refer to a passive foreknowledge as arminians see it."
See this is why theological arguments are so "fun." You're so focused on attacking a system (arminianism) at you loose sight of the primary focus.
First, Paul, I'm not an Arminian so... if you want to argue against one you've picked the wrong spot to do it. :)
Second, the word translated foreknowledge is proginosko. Hrmm makes me think of prognose... but it would be wrong to put a modern definition on the ancient use of a similar word.
So let's see what the definition actually is!
Strongs Numbers 4267
Paul, I can see why the TULIP system needs the word to mean to fore-love... unfortunately it does not, nor did it mean that, and it's not how Paul or Peter used it.
You wrote "Since all are dead in sin no one who hears the gospel will ever come to Christ without an inner quickening that God imparts Eph 2:4-10."
Once again, this is in line with your theology, but could you actually get what you wrote FROM this passage or is it just a convenient way to understand the passage in light of your theology?
I'm not being harsh with you, but I am asking the tough questions that people tend not to ask when they are learning in groups of people of like thinking. Theology is meaningless if it is not exactly what the Scripture says it should be.
Finally you wrote Jesus said "NO ONE can come to me unless the Father enabled him" Jn 6:65; 44; 10:25-28.
Paul, misquoting the Lord in order to support one's theology is NOT a good idea.
Granted, not enabled. HUGE difference. God has now "granted" repentance to the Gentiles is a statement made by observers in Acts - not revelation from God, but an observation by people who saw that God was saving even the Gentiles.
Israel could be joined, and salvation was through that nation. People could not come to God except by joining Israel. God had not permitted, or granted it. He had made Israel His choice nation. Now anyone can come to God apart from Israel.
Jesus also said John 12:30-32 30 Jesus answered and said, “This voice did not come because of Me, but for your sake. 31 Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. 32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all to Myself.”
The whole world is judged, and all are drawn.
Kev
you referred to Strongs to translate proginosko. The definition agrees with what i am saying, to know beforehand. The rest by G Archer is just commentary. Did God passivly take in our future actions? which is your interpretation or did he predestine which i believe is the correct reading.
Rom 8:29
29For those whom He foreknew [of whom He was [a]aware and [b]loved beforehand], He also destined from the beginning [foreordaining them] to be molded into the image of His Son [and share inwardly His likeness], that He might become the firstborn among many brethren
Rom 11:2
2No, God has not rejected and disowned His people [whose destiny] He had marked out and appointed and foreknown from the beginning. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel?
1 Peter 1:20
20It is true that He was chosen and foreordained (destined and foreknown for it) before the foundation of the world, but He was brought out to public view (made manifest) in these last days (at the end of the times) for the sake of you.
21Through Him you believe in (adhere to, rely on) God, Who raised Him up from the dead and gave Him honor and glory, so that your faith and hope are [centered and rest] in God.
These uses of the word foreknow are the same and agree with my original definition.See fore...know! What happens when we know beFORE!
Finally you wrote Jesus said "NO ONE can come to me unless the Father enabled him" Jn 6:65; 44; 10:25-28.
Paul, misquoting the Lord in order to support one's theology is NOT a good idea.
Kev, Jn 6:65 says,
NO ONE can come to Me unless it is granted him [unless he is enabled to do so] by the Father.
The problem is? I cant see a misquote, more like a mis-read. Thats what happens when we look through the lenses off our traditions!
Paul, I have a chapter in my book on what you're attempting to do.
I'm not going to play the game of following through proof-text after proof text until I get tired....
At my blog I expect some measure of respect between people. So when one person invests effort to answer another person's questions and then asks questions I expect them to be answered. I'm not going to restate, because you can read my last to you.
Quoting a bunch of instances of the word foreknow does not prove that it means to "fore-love." You have not demonstrated that definition (and your conclusions as to what that would mean) from the Scriptures.
Romans 8 says the person is foreknown and predestinated to what exactly? Your theology says one thing, the Text says another.
Kev
Paul, I don't allow comments with links to external resources. You can quote portions that you think are helpful but this blog is not a platform for making converts to false religious systems.
IN the comment that you submitted you wrote: I realise that you probably dont like commentarys Kev especially when they dont line up with your traditions but we shouldnt despise the gifts that God has given to the church especially those who are more gifted than us in the original languages where you seem to fall short.
Actually Paul, I don't like any commentaries. Pastors and Teachers are God's teaching model - Eph 4, not books and commentaries. Sure they can write them, but the problem is that once a book is written it sits on a shelf and is separated from it's author. Books that should have no influence because their authors are NOT Teachers or Pastors (in reality, gifted from God) but they end up being popular and influencing whole groups of Believers in God's Church.
I read many books, but the only Commentary on the Bible that I read and trust is the Bible itself.
That's not being high minded... it is being practical. I don't need to have to unlearn good things.
Now finally... I'm not sure why Calvinists almost always seem to be so rude but I would appreciate it if you would STOP assuming you know my motivations.
I probably will not allow another comment from you where you state what you believe my motivations are.
Kev
Hi Paul,
When I look at the Greek of these verses I do not see an emphasis added on the "NO ONE".... I also find that there is no word "enable" in the Text. There is the word "granted." I've already explained that to you, so please see the comments in my previous reply to you with regard to what that means.
Further, as I noted in my previous reply to you (and which you have not responded to) Christ drew all men when He was lifted up on the Cross. It was a demonstration of His love for all.
There is no lack of ability to believe in these verses. There was a lack of permission which was overcome - see my last reply to this.
Now thanks for your comments, but if you are not going to respond to what I write then I will not publish any of your further comments.
Kev
Post a Comment