Search

A Different Perspective On Election

The material we are going to read about is far too cerebral to not start out with a joke. So, here's something to put a smile on our faces before we talk about much weightier topics.

An old farmer went to the city one weekend and attended the big city church. He came home and his wife asked him how it was. "Well," said the farmer, "it was good. They did something different, though. They sang praise choruses instead of regular songs." "Praise choruses?" said his wife. "What are those?" "Oh, they're OK. They are sort of like regular songs, only different," said the farmer. "Well, what's the difference?" asked his wife. The farmer said, "Well, it's like this - if I were to say to you: 'Martha, the cows are in the corn' - well that would be a regular song. If, on the other hand, I were to say to you:

'Martha, Martha, Martha,
oh Martha, MARTHA, MARTHA
the cows, the big cows, the brown cows, the black cows
the white cows,
the black and white cows,
the COWS, COWS, COWS
are in the corn,
are in the corn, are in the corn, are in the corn,
the CORN, CORN, CORN'

Then, if I were to repeat the whole thing two or three times, then that would be a praise chorus."

The next weekend, his nephew, a young, new Christian from the city came to visit and attended the local church. He went home and his mother asked him how it was.

"Well," said the young man, "it was good. They did something different, though. They sang hymns instead of regular songs." "Hymns?" said his mother. "What are those?" "Oh, they're OK. They are sort of like regular songs, only different," said the young man. "Well, what's the difference?" asked his mother.
The young man said, "Well, it's like this - if I were to say to you, 'Martha, the cows are in the corn' - well, that would be a regular song. If, on the other hand, I were to say to you:

'Oh Martha dear Martha, hear thou my cry
Inclinest thine ear to the words of my mouth
Turn thou thy whole wondrous ear by and by
To the righteous, inimitable, glorious truth.

For the way of the animals who can explain
There in their heads is no shadow of sense
Hearkenest they in God's sun or His rain
Unless from the mild, tempting corn they are fenced.

Yea those cows in glad bovine, rebellious delight
Have broke free their shackles, their warm pens eschewed
Then goaded by minions of darkness and night
They all my mild Chilliwack sweet corn have chewed.

So look to the bright shining day by and by
Where all foul corruptions of earth are reborn
Where no vicious animals make my soul cry
And I no longer see those foul cows in the corn.'

Then if I were to do only verses one, three and four and do a key change on the last verse, well, that would be a hymn."

Election Perspectives

This past Sunday we spoke about how God loves and cares for all people of the world. We spoke of God's desire to see people come to Him in confession and repentance. While all Christians believe that God loves all people in a general way, distinctions are made as to whether God desires to see all turn to Him in confession and repentance. Typically, these discussions have broken down between those who believe in unconditional election and those who believe in conditional election.

Unconditional Election states that in eternity past, prior to the creation of anything, God decreed a number of things (this is typically known as supra-, infra- and sub-lapsarianism-for a breakdown of each, go here http://www.ministryserver.com/bible/glbible/l_.htm). One of the things that He decreed was who would be objects of His grace. Some also state that God additionally chose who would be objects of His wrath (others state that we were all objects of His wrath-He simply chooses us out of that 'grouping'). According to this approach, those who God decreed would receive His salvation are throughout Scripture called the elect. Those who are not chosen are described as objects of wrath (Scripturally) or the non-elect (theologically). This choosing of the elect is in no way dependent on anything that God foreknew about them (whether they would place their faith in Him, etc.-John 15:16) but was purely based upon His sovereign choice and thus is 'unconditional' election. There is no way for mankind to know who of those currently dead in sin are elect and so it is appropriate for us to present the Gospel to everyone. Romans 9, John 6 and Ephesians 1 are the primary sources for this perspective, though there are many other verses that are used for support.

Conditional Election also states that God decreed a number of things in eternity past. However, this approach states that God foreknew those whom He would elect conditioned upon His foreknowledge of those who would place their faith in Him. The primary Scriptural support of this is 1 Peter 1:1-2. Those who are not elect are objects of wrath but they are objects because they have refused to believe in Jesus. Only God knows who will eventually place their faith in Jesus and so it is appropriate for us to present the Gospel to everyone.

So Who's Right?

Well.let me start by saying that this is a debate that's been going on for at least 1,700 years-we're not likely to solve it on this blog! However, I do have some thoughts that hopefully contribute to the way that people think about these things.

There are problems with both approaches. If one holds to Unconditional Election, then they must also hold to the idea that God has either actively or passively (though, I've never been quite sure how God can act passively.) chooses those who will for all eternity be separated from Him. What this means is that this non-elect person was created for the sole purpose of bringing glory to God by being separated for all of eternity from God. Given God's continual offer of salvation in both the Old and New Testaments to all people in all places, this would seem to be somewhat contradictory of the nature of God. Why offer salvation to people whom God has never intended to save.?

Conditional Election doesn't hold any fewer problems. If God's election and choosing of people is based upon their faith, then there is a sense in which God's salvation of people is completely hinging upon mankind.not a very promising prospect.

But how is it possible for God to elect from eternity past and yet at the same time not base the election on what people are doing?

An important question for us to ask is, Biblically who are the elect? In the OT, the idea of being elect, or chosen, is applied to corporate Israel and to the Messiah. We recognize this because we often speak of the Jewish people as the 'chosen people.' However, this also points out something we need to be aware of-simply to be chosen does not necessitate that a person is elect (not all the chosen people were saved). Thus, we must always use the context to determine whether a 'choosing' is the same as 'election.' In the NT, three words are used for the elect: eklegomai (v. to choose); eklektos (adj. Chosen, choice, elect); ekloge (n. election). Of the 50 uses of these words, a vast majority of these are used in reference either to Israel or to the elect of the end times. A minority of these are used specifically of church-age Christians in a theological sense (again, in a way that suggests eternal election as opposed to choosing-see Luke 6:13 for a non-theological sense). There are no theologically significant (i.e. pertaining to God's choosing in eternity past) uses of election in the OT or NT where election is applied to any individual other than Jesus. Nor is there any Biblical distinction between the elect and non-elect in the unrepentant state. So, the scriptural burden of proof that God individually elected people seems to be lacking.

But this lack of evidence for individual election is what we would expect. In Ephesians 1:4, Paul states that we have been chosen 'in Him.' This is a significant term throughout the NT and especially in Ephesians 1. 'In Him' we are the righteousness of God, have life, are a child of God, and are blameless (there are many more.do a word search on 'in Him', 'in Christ' and 'in Jesus'). I am none of these things either on my own or because God has decreed it from eternity past. Instead, I am these things because my faith association with Jesus is such a spiritual connection that Scripture states I am 'in Christ.' So, the question that needs to be asked is not whether some are elect or not-Christ is the only one elect from eternity past-but how am I placed in Christ? Ephesians 1:13 tells us it is through belief in the gospel.

1 Peter 1:1-3 and Romans 8:29 in their simplest meanings recognize that God foreknew who would believe in the gospel and so from eternity past we have been elect-but again, not because God individually chose me but because God individually chose Christ and I am in Christ. Some will state that this is nothing more than the conditional election that we have described earlier. I believe it is distinctly different.

God HAS unconditionally elected-He has unconditionally elected Jesus. Our election IS conditional-it is conditioned on us being 'in Christ.' We are placed in Christ when we believe, but it is not our faith that God conditions our election on. So, the two positions are not so much wrong as focusing on the wrong thing-people-instead of focusing on the primary object of God's election-Jesus.

Therefore, it is accurate to state that God both loves all people and desires all people to come to Him in confession and repentance. 


18 comment(s) for “A Different Perspective On Election”

  • 1. Leigh Frndak on Monday, October 8, 2007 at 10:24 PM

    Man...God's wisdom is awesome! I'm so glad He has got it all figured out.
    I do have a question...
    How does one go about presenting the gospel to the unsaved? I understand why we do...it is a command and we are to obey it...but I've heard many times it said "Christ died for everyone and loves you". What do you say to a statement like this? I hope this question makes sense!

    Leigh Frndak

  • 2. Pastor Russell on Wednesday, October 10, 2007 at 12:44 PM

    Leigh - I think the answer to your question...if I'm understanding it correctly...is two-fold.

    First, I think that a person must have the words to speak. Certainly, a communication of what Scripture says is important. However, we can communicate to people the truths of Scripture without necessarily quoting Scripture (see Acts 17:22-34). I believe it is important for us to be able to communicate God in all things. In other words, to take any situation and understand its appropriate connection to who God is. Additionally, we need to be able to understand these things personally. If I say 'Christ loves you and died for your sins' but don't understand what that means in my own life, then the statement is pretty useless. I think we need to have stories about how God has and is saving us to share with others so that we can put flesh and blood on the message.

    Second, I think a person must have the actions to speak. It does little good for a person to have the right words to say but then not back that up with any noticeable change or difference in their lives. Our actions should be an outflow of the fact that 'Christ loves me and died for me.'

    Pascal said that the whole world is moving together in the same direction away from God. Because of this, everyone seems to be standing still while moving very quickly (kind of like when you sit next to someone in a car). The believer is someone who has stopped moving in that direction and thus becomes a 'fixed point' that stands out as people pass by for the very reason that she is not going in the same direction as everyone else. Our words and actions - every aspect of our life - should be a fixed point that non-believers can observe as something very different - and more like God - from anything they observe around themselves.

  • 3. Chris on Saturday, October 13, 2007 at 9:01 AM

    Pastor - Thank you for the clarity and distinctions you have brought out here. This is what I find encouraging about debates like this one. While there is scriptural evidence for both positions and those positions appear to be in opposition, are they really? I mean, I know they are. But no matter how stongly I feel about what I believe is the right answer, or how much I believe "you" might be wrong, how important is it really when my response in action and my offering to God is the same as "yours"? We still should be able to move hand in hand together into our broken world. What I sometimes find frustrating about the church in general is it appears that the more "learning" we do the more dysfunctional we become. There seems to be a tipping point somewhere that we begin focusing on differences instead of the unified message of Christ. God help us.

    Chris

  • 4. Pastor Russell on Monday, October 15, 2007 at 8:39 AM

    Chris - So much in agreement! Most of what we construct around these passages are a theology to explain that which God has not chosen to make abundantly clear. Anytime we try to make it clearer than God, we put ourselves on thin ice :) Recognizing differences and still moving ahead with proclaiming the Gospel together is so much more important than proving one another wrong. Thanks for the reminder...

  • 5. Leigh on Monday, October 15, 2007 at 9:04 PM

    Thanks so much for taking the time to explain these things. I agree with your answers. -Leigh

  • 6. Phil Frndak on Wednesday, April 2, 2008 at 9:14 PM

    Pastor Russell,

    Given your view of election, how do you explain John 6:37-39? "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day."

    Phil Frndak

  • 7. Pastor Russell on Thursday, April 3, 2008 at 6:59 PM

    Phil - good question. The assumption behind most Calvinist presentations of Jn 6:37 is that the 'all'are the elect from eternity past. However, nothing in the context suggests this and thus is included based on theology - not biblical context. I would understand the John 6 passage as follows:

    - This passage is part of a larger context. Jesus has just fed the 5,000+ and yet still the people are asking for a sign that He is the one that is sent by God. Jesus tells them that the bread that the Father gives them gives life to the world. They ask for this bread. (6:1-34)

    - Jesus declares that He is the bread of life. Those who come to Him will neither go hungry nor will those who believe go thirsty. We see here that coming and believing are synonymous (especially later in the context of v. 49-59 where eating and drinking are woven together but also the correlation between v. 40 and 44). But they have seen Jesus and His miracles and still they do not believe (v. 35-36).

    - Jesus then begins to explain who will come/believe in Him. He says that all that the Father gives Him will come/believe in Him and He will never drive anyone away who comes/believes in Him. Of course, this begs the question, who does the Father give Him? (v. 37)

    - But before Jesus answers that question, He explains why He will never drive anyone away who comes/believes in Him. It is because He only does the will of the one who sent Him. And since it's the will of the Father that He lose none and raise them up on the last day, this is what Jesus will do. And since it is the will of the Father that all who believes/comes to Him will have eternal life and raised up at the last day, it is impossible for Jesus to turn any away who believe/come to Him. (v. 38-40).
    - The people listening are not very happy with this response. Who is Jesus that He should liken Himself to the life-giving manna that Moses supplied the people in the desert? They knew His family - how can He say He came down from heaven? (v. 41-42).

    - Jesus rebukes their grumbling and then returns to the question from v. 37. No one can come/believe in Jesus unless the Father draws him, and Jesus, as He has already stated, will raise him up at the last day. (v. 43-44)

    - But how are people drawn? They will all be taught by God - all who listen and learn from Him comes to Jesus. (v. 45)

    - How will God teach? During Jesus'earthly ministry, it was directly through the teaching of Jesus. Thus, He tells them that no one has seen the Father but He Himself. Thus, He tells the truth and all who believe in His teaching will receive everlasting life. (v. 46-47)

    - Thus, He is the bread of life. Eat His flesh (come to Him - v. 35) and drink His blood (believe in Him v. 35) and you will receive life (v. 48-59).

    Your original question was, how do I apply election to the passage 'All that the Father gives me will come to me'- my answer is I don't. Its not a passage about election. Let me try to summarize the passage: The Father draws (v.44) through teaching (v.45) and all those who listen and learn (v. 45) will come to Jesus (which is equated with believing - v. 35). The Father gives (v. 37) all those who eventually believe (v. 37 cf. v. 35) - I take this to mean that when the Father draws through teaching (of Jesus in the original context - v. 46-47 - but through the Holy Spirit after His ascension - John 16:12-15) that if a person listens and learns that they are given by the Father to the Son. There are many promises of Jesus'presence and resurrection for all those who come - which are those who listen and learn (v. 45).

    Some are uncomfortable with this interpretation because it makes it sound as though our salvation is dependent on something that we do. However, our faith isn't our salvation. Christ is our salvation. Everything necessary for our salvation is done through Him, by the ordination of the Father, and through the sanctification of the Spirit. Our salvation is monergistic. However, the means through which we receive that salvation - the means through which we are placed in Christ - is synergistic: being placed in Christ requires our faith (the listening and learning of what God teaches - v. 45 - and thus the emphasis throughout this whole passage in John 6 on belief - v. 29, 35, 36, 40, 47 and 53, 54 and 56 based on v. 35 equating coming with eating and believing with drinking).

    That's kind of the long version :) so if there's anything that I haven't made clear, let me know!

  • 8. Phil on Friday, April 4, 2008 at 8:08 AM

    The passage reads that all who the Father gives will come (vs 37) and they all will be saved (vs 39). Jesus will lose none of them. I do not follow how there is room in this situation for any of the given to get away or any who are not given to get past.

    Considering your explanation, how do you interpret Acts 13:48? "When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed."

    Thanks for your time.

    Phil

  • 9. Pastor Russell on Friday, April 4, 2008 at 9:44 AM

    Phil - I don't disagree with you. All that the Father gives will come and they all will be saved. But who are the 'all' that the Father gives? The Calvinist says that Jesus never tells us and thus we should presume it is the elect.

    But I believe that Jesus does answer that in v. 44-47.

    The qualifiers in this passage are critical:
    v. 37 - all those who the Father gives will come to Jesus - to come to Jesus one MUST have been given by the Father - this suggests that there are those who will not be given by the Father and thus not come
    v. 39-40 - all who come to Jesus will be saved - to be saved, one MUST come to Jesus - this suggests that there are those who will not come to Jesus and thus not be saved
    v. 44 - no one can come unless drawn - If one is to come, they MUST be drawn - notice that it does not say that all who are drawn will come and thus it gives no indication whether all who are drawn will come or only some who are drawn will come
    v. 45 - God will teach all - no qualifier
    v. 45 - all who listen and learn will come to Jesus - to come, one MUST listen and learn - this suggests that there are some who will not listen and learn and will not come. Since to have come, one must have been given by the Father, it suggests that the 'all that are given'of v. 37 are 'all who listen and learn'of v. 45.

    I see the progression in this way:

    God teaches/draws all people (v. 45 - through Jesus, v. 46-47 and later through the Holy Spirit, 16:12-15) -->Some listen and learn, some do not (v. 45) --> Those who listen and learn are given to the Son (v. 37) --> All those given come to Jesus (v. 37, 44, 45 - this group fulfills all three qualifiers) --> Jesus promises assurance of salvation (v. 37, 39, 40, 44, 47, 51, et al).

    There is no indication in this passage whatsoever that Jesus is talking about election. It is not anywhere in the context - a rather lengthy one - of John 6 unless you're going to stretch election into 6:70. The only reason it needs to be included in the passage is for theological reasons - i.e. a Calvinist belief in election requires that this passage be translated that the 'all' of v. 37 means the unconditionally elect. However, I think the passages supports itself quite well without introducing any concept of election - Calvinist or otherwise...

    As for Acts 13:48!that's harder because of Greek tenses. In short, this passage is typically translated in the passive voice (something done to them) but it could also be translated in the middle voice (something that was done by them) which would change the meaning to something similar to 'as many as had devoted themselves to eternal life believed.'This would correlate much better with Luke's expression of middle voice faith (or lack thereof) in 13:46, 14:1, and 17:11-12. I realize this is a minority position but I can't hang the entire Calvinist doctrine of election on Acts 13:48 when there are other close passages which seem to lean away from it. If unconditional election is an accurate portrayal of election, then Acts 13:48 is supportive of it. But if unconditional election is uncertain, Acts 13:48 is hardly, in my opinion, the verse to prove it on!

    Sorry so long....its not easy to condense all this :)

  • 10. Phil on Friday, April 4, 2008 at 11:41 AM

    Pastor Russell,

    Vs 44 sates that no one can come unless the Father draws him and I will raise him up at the last day. Why would Jesus say that if the Father draws everyone? The natrual understanding of this language is that only some are drawn and it is those who are saved. In John 8:47 Jesus says that the reason you (the Jews to whom he was speaking)do not hear is that you do not belong to God. Not... you do not hear therefore you do not belong to God.

    I think that it is standing the meaning of these conversations of Jesus on their head to say that you do not believe and, because of that, you do not belong to God. Jesus has said that the reason they do not believe is that they do not belong to God (John 8: 43-44). In verse 43 Jesus says that they are unable to hear.

    It seems as if your view puts all the activity of God and man on one level. God does this; we do that and together this is the sum total of what's going on. However, the workings of God are usually in a different dimension. We are unaware of this dimension just as Job was unaware of the goings on in the heavenly realms which lead to the Sabeans and Chaldeans attacking his heards. We can assume that the Sabeans and Chaldeans were likewise unaware. Joseph's brothers were unaware of the spiritual dimension. They thought. They made a choice. They acted. They did what they wanted to do. They were fully responsible for what they did in God's eyes. Yet in another dimension God had a purpose and plan.

    We can not understand that anymore than a two dimensional being could possibly understand a three dimensional universe. We should not conclude that, because these things sound out of our control, that we are not active agents in life. Paul anticipates that question in Rom. 9:19. He does not really attempt to give a comprehensive rational answer to the question. He simply says that we should not talk back to God. He implies that there are things that we do not now understand.

    We have no fear that when all is said and done that anyone will have been treated unfairly by God. We will see clearly some day. For now, I bow.

    I sincerely thank you for permitting me to be so blunt about this issue. There is no point in beating around the bush. Our love for one another can handle an honest conversation. Our goal is the same. To love God with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength and our neighbor as our self.

    With you in Him,
    Phil

  • 11. Pastor Russell on Friday, April 4, 2008 at 1:16 PM

    Phil - I appreciate our exchange and hopefully what is lost in communication in typing doesn't come across as either argumentative or defensive....it certainly would not communicate that way if we were sitting across from each other :) Two other points - and I don't want to drag this out any further if you aren't comfortable with it...

    - I don't think its valid to simply jump from John 6 (believing in Jesus) to John 8 (whether heritage saves or not) to prove your point. The two conversations are to different people about different topics on different occasions. You need to make sure that contextually the two are speaking about the same thing. I'm not sure that you've made that point other than that one passage speaks about listening and the other speaks about hearing. That's not necessarily a link.

    - If you are not convinced by my explanation of John 6, then who are the 'all' of v. 37? How do you explain that conclusion based on the context of John 6? If the elect aren't even mentioned in this passage, what contextual reason do we have for bringing that theological point to bear on this passage? Help me understand within this context how we can be certain that the 'all' of v. 37 are the elect...

    Interestingly....even if the 'all' of verse 37 were the elect, it still does not undermine my original statement that God did not individually elect but that our conditional election is derived from the unconditional election of Christ.

  • 12. Phil on Friday, April 4, 2008 at 6:18 PM

    Pastor Russell,

    I am not used to this blog thing. I have now written two responses to you and lost them both by trying to temporarily navagate away from the page. That is very frustrating.

    As for Acts 13:48 it is interesting that none of the English language versions offer your alternate translation. Thank you for teaching me to use the Blue Letter Bible. :)

    As for John 8.. I think that the two conversations can be linked because both were groups of people (those in John 6 and those in John 8) who had heard Jesus and were rejecting Him. But we can stick with John 6 for now.

    I had wriiten a verse by verse breakdown of the verses in question but I lost it. I guess that God wanted to spare you. In essence, I do not see how those spoken of throughout John 6:37-47 are not to be understood as the same group.

    Those given, those who will believe, those who look to the Son, those who are called, those who are drawn are all the same group. That is the natural reading of the dialog. Those taught by God and listen are likewise the same group. This appears to be a clue as to the mechanism God uses to give or call or draw. None in that group escape. They (we) all are saved and none will be lost.

    This dialog of Jesus is dealing with the spiritual dimension. A dimension of which we are not perceptive. I think that it is appropriate to call this group the elect. The elect are those who are in God's kingdom, those saved, those chosen. Why is it wrong to make that conclusion? I don't consider that a theological interpretation. "The elect" is just one more name for this group that Jesus is talking about.

    So, if this group in John 6 is "locked in" so to speak. All given, called, drawn, taught by God are saved. None are lost. No one else will turn to Jesus. I must conclude that those in that group were in individually chosen (elect) by God?

    The reason people have a hard time with this is that it sounds to us as if we have no real choice. That is not a necessary conclusion. This is because we can not understand the spiritual realm. It is beyond us for now.

    A two dimensional being could not understand how two parallel lines could ever meet. Living in a three dimensional universe we can see the connection if the parallel lines are part of an open cylinder bisected by a plane.

    That may be a silly illustration but if the spiritual dimension can be thought of as a fourth dimension many of our questions will not be answered until we can see things from that vantage point.

    You have been very patient. Thank you.

    Phil

  • 13. Pastor Russell on Friday, April 4, 2008 at 10:28 PM

    Phil - sorry to hear you're having trouble with the navigation...sometimes if I know I'm going to have a longer blog input, I'll use a text editor of some sort to type it in and then copy/paste it in...though I've not had the problem you're discussing on this site, I've had it other places. Also, if you're using a newer IE program, you can open multiple tabs to help navigate to other sites....hopefully helpful hints :)...you live and learn.... :)

    Speaking of learning, remind me not to teach such resourceful tools in the future :D I'm aware that none of the English translations translate Acts 13:48 the way I am proposing - however, it is not without its proponents but naming names would probably bore you. A book that I've found helpful is Olson's 'Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism.' I have a spare in the office :)

    I like your illustration of 2 and 3 dimensions....it was worth seeing twice :) And I've used it myself often though in different contexts.

    My issue with the Calvinist presentation of election has little to do with the apparent lack of human ability to respond. Here is why I have difficulty with it:

    - It does not in any way take into account Jesus Himself being elect. If election is God's selection of individuals in eternity past for salvation out of condemnation, in what sense is Jesus elect?

    - Election, according to Ephesians 1:4 is 'in Him.' I'm pretty confident to say that I've studied every verse that I can find in the NT that uses the phrase 'in Him', 'in Christ', and 'in Jesus' (though I'm open to any verse that I may have missed that doesn't fit my following scenario). In every case, these verses describe something that is not naturally our own that we receive by being placed in Christ. Thus, election should center on Christ, not on individuals.

    - Jesus seems to know nothing of this 'fixed status' for people. To this point, Matthew 11:20-24. How could Tyre, Sidon, Sodom, and Gomorrah have repented if they were not part of the elect?

    - Ironically, unconditional election becomes very man-centric. Without getting too deeply into lapsarianism (let me know and I'll give you a link but - in short - its the order of God's decrees), UE becomes very man-centric. It is man who is at the center of God's thoughts in eternity past. I disagree with this. Christ is at the center of God's thoughts - and thus why we find evicence in Scripture that Christ is elect. All those in Christ are elect but only because they are in Him. God retains center focus in the type of election I am suggesting.

    - I am not confident that the roads that UE leads us to (the other portions of TULIP) are the best biblical answer to the revelation that God gives to us regarding salvation.

    So....to sum up, I guess I have no issue with the idea that God foreknew or foreordained the elect. Nor is my issue in the apparent difficulties of God's sovereignty and man's choice. My issue is in saying that He did this to US. I have no problem with Unconditional Election - so long as that election applies unconditionally to Christ. However, if we are speaking of our own election - that is conditional - it is conditioned on us being in Him.

    Reading this through, I realize its sounds kind of final...Not meaning to make it sound like I'm wrapping this up....but my guess is that if we tear apart John 6 any further we'll just be barking up different parts of the same tree :) I'm enjoying this, so if you have further comments on what I've got here, I'm all for it.

  • 14. Phil on Saturday, April 5, 2008 at 8:31 AM

    Pastor Russell,

    I just responded to you and then the hotel internet went down in my room. I had to add another quarter.

    Anyway, I do not know if you got it.

    In summary, I said that you change the meaning of "unconditional" when you use the term your way. Yes, we are conditionally elect in your sense, conditioned upon being in Christ. The Calvinist uses the term unconditional in an entirely different way. Unconditional, in their context, refers to being elect not on the basis of anything we have done. No conditions that we must have met to warrent election.

    The John 6 passages indicate that God does the calling, drawing, etc. which leads to all of His own fleeing to Christ.

    Phil

  • 15. Pastor Russell on Saturday, April 5, 2008 at 9:42 AM

    Phil - .....blogging shouldn't be this difficult :)

    On your point of conditional vs. unconditional....yes and no. Calvinism teaches that we are placed in Christ because we are elect...not that we are elect because we are placed in Him (which I believe to be the point Eph 1:13). It may sound like a semantical non-issue but I think the two make quite a difference.

    Reading any of the more popular Calvinist theologians will show that their understanding of UE goes far beyond what you propose. Calvinism teaches that apart from any foreknowledge of any action on the part of any person or their relationship to God or Christ, that God, in His mysterious sovereignty - but not arbitrily - chose who would be rescued from eternal condemnation (the result of total depravity). That is a very different statement than saying that we are conditionally elect based on the election of Christ - I have never read a Calvinist writer who has supported that last idea because they want to place the choice of election in a mysterious choice of God (I believe because of the necessity of doing so in order to support the rest of the implications of TULIP). I would rather place the choice of election squarely dependent on the election of Christ. The choice is not mysterious - it is boldly, loudly, and gloriously proclaimed - An elect one has been chosen! It is Christ! It is only in our association to Him that we are elect. Calvinists cannot make that last statement because election, by definition, has nothing to do with a person's relationship to Christ that is foreknown by God. And so, in Calvinism, election is purely focused on individuals. Depending on their lapsarianism, God may have already decreed the atonement of Christ and thus election is possible - but I have never read a Calvinist who has said that election is dependent on the election of Christ and a person's association in Him.

    Not sure if that all makes sense....

  • 16. Phil on Saturday, April 5, 2008 at 1:41 PM

    Pastor Russell,

    I can see how someone coming to Eph.1:13 from your point of view would see that in the verse. The Calvinist would simply say that only the elect would want to be included in Christ through faith after hearing the word of truth. Ehp 1:13 talks about the mechanics of the process as it is worked out on our level. The John 6 passages give us a clue as to the activity on God's level.

    I think that I follow the rest of what you are saying. Yes, the Calvinist would use different language to describe it all. No one should argue that Christ was chosen to be THE lamb slain before the creation of the world (1Pet.1:19-20). It was God's plan from before the beginning that, in Jesus, through His person and work, people from every nation would be saved.

    Your sentence about what Calvinism teaches is correct as I understand it. They would not object to the statement that Christ is THE elect one. They would not make the logical deductions that you make from there. They would not argue that it is only in our association to Christ that anyone can be saved. They would say that only the elect will come into such a relationship.

    I do not agree that they have come to this conclusion in response to a need to support the rest of the implications of TULIP. I think that is unfair. I think that this is what they believe scripture teaches.

    A Calvinist would say that salvation is dependent upon the work of Christ who was chosen (elect) from before the creation of the world and upon a person's association in Him. They would further say that only those whom God is pleased to draw will ever want to come into that salvation. Those folks are referred to as the elect.
    Phil

  • 17. Phil on Saturday, April 5, 2008 at 6:09 PM

    Pastor Russell,
    I do not want to get any further into theological positions. I am not qualified to do that.

    I return to John 6:35-47 and then I'll be done. I imagine that this is becoming a distraction.

    In verse 35, Jesus uses the terms coming to Him and believing in Him as synonyms.

    In verse 36, He says that those to whom He is speaking do not believe.

    In verse 37, He says that all the Father gives will come to Him. That is to say, all that the Father gives will believe in Him. It does not say that all who believe will then be given by God to Jesus.

    In verse 38-39, Jesus says that none of those given will be lost.

    In verses 40-42, everyone who looks to the Son and believes will have eternal life. Jesus has already said that the ones who will believe are those who have been given by the Father (vs37).

    In verse 44, Jesus says that no one can come to Him (believe in Him) unless the Father draws him. So, in verse 37 Jesus has said that all who the Father gives will believe and now Jesus says that no one else can come (believe).

    Verse 45 is an explanation of what is means to be drawn by God. Jesus indicates that it has been foretold that they "will all be taught by God". (Perhaps in the same way that it was revealed to Peter that Jesus was the Christ in Matt. 16:17.)

    Who are the "they" who will all be taught by God? The ones of whom Jesus is referring to as being "drawn". Finally, everyone who listens to the Father and learns from Him comes to Jesus.

    It is a stretch to say that these verses (44&45) mean that only some of the drawn ones end up being the ones who listen and learn from God. It would NOT be a stretch if we only had verses 44&45. But Jesus has just said that all whom the Father gives will come/believe (vs37). He did not say all who believe will be given.

    So, I cannot see any other way to read these words. I don't see any viable alternatives. It does not seem to be inappropriate to refer to this group as the elect. Jesus has spoken about a group that will be given to Him. They will believe in Him because they will have been taught by God. No one else will want to come to Him. None of them will be lost. None of them will reject the teaching of God and thus reject Christ because all of the given will believe (vs37).

    I am going to cheat now and send this before you have had a chance to reply to my last response. I think that I will leave it at this. We could dissect other passages and come to the same place. John 8:31-47 for example, but enough is enough. We can leave each other to the scriptures.

    I will look for your reply. The last word, so to speak.

    With much love in Christ,

    Phil

  • 18. Pastor Russell on Saturday, April 5, 2008 at 8:23 PM

    Hmmm....the last word....that's a weighty responsibility :)

    I appreciate your explanation here...it has helped me to think this through further and given me something to chew on. Thanks!

    But unfortunately, I don't think that we've helped ourselves to any further understand my original statement or your original question (we got somewhat sidetracked in John :) - we are elect BECAUSE of our association with Christ. I have many of the major Calvinist writings on my shelf on TULIP - not a one of them says this or insinuates it. Instead, they say that in eternity past God chose the elect APART from any foreknowledge of their association with Christ. And so, I would say that although the terminology is very similar that Calvinists hold to a VERY different understanding of election than I have. Ultimately - and ironically to our whole discussion - I would have no issue taking your explanation of John 6 and it could still easily fit within my definition of election. The reverse - that my definition of election fitting into Calvinism - simply is impossible if the entire system is taken into consideration.

    Thanks for a good debate!!! I've enjoyed this and you've made some excellent points. Thanks!!!

    But....the last word must be Christ!! And so....

    Together in Him!

Add a comment

Name
Comment
16251 State Highway 86, Saegertown, PA 16433
(814)763-4880
Office e-mail