Hey Michael,
Love your podcasts…and your take on Christianity in general…so, in 3 sentences or less, what is your take on the Doctrine of Election?
Can’t wait to read what you have to say.
bobby
Scripture teaches it in the context of God’s overall redemptive purposes and in the Christian doctrine of assurance.
When it is abused, it is almost always in the context of evangelism, ecclesiology or Christian experience.
It’s a doctrine that is expressed in revelation, but is understood only as a mystery, so quit explaining it.
The Internet Monk Archives 
Hi,
Love you blog and your podcasts. I believe that The Father wants everyone created to come and know him through his Son. I have never believed in the doctrine of election and really can’t reconcile The Father intentionally choosing some to be in his presence and some not.
I believe that the doctrine of election was created because man was not able to live in the mystery of some who come to follow him and some who do not follow him.
God’s love is available to all, His Spirit pursues all and only some respond – that is the mystery to me.
Love to all.
Tim
LikeLike
the church seems to have taken away the clear assurances of scripture
Off topic, yes, but I’m hung up reconciling, say, 1 John 5:13 with, um, Matthew 5:3.
Good post and comments … I’m learning … gradually.
LikeLike
Simply put, the Bible clearly states ( it is written) That it is not meant to minister that which is ‘meat’ of the word to those without understanding ( scriptual maturity
), and are not able to receive the word. Yes, we must walk in God discerning power before teaching doctrine on ‘Election’.
LikeLike
I would like to second what Jeremy Berg said about corporate election.
When Paul uses the term elect, he is using a term that would have normally been applied to Israel the people. Also election is a category that not only has a dimension of purpose and in the OT the purpose of the election usually extended to the non-elect as well. (Think about the election of Abraham in Gen 12. He was elected to a be a blessing to all. We see this same theme in Romans 11 and dozens of other places.)
Election is the calling of a particular people to be particular agents of God’s purpose for the good of all people.
When we read Ephesians with our individual Reformed blinders on those passages about election seem out of place in the larger themes of the letter. But in the context of the Jewish notion of an elect people the argument that you all are now the elect people of God together acting as agents of grace in the world precisely fits with the rest of the letter.
My three sentences.
God is loving and gracious.
God has consistently set apart a people to live as an example of righteousness and as a blessing to the whole world.
If you are in Christ you are part of the elect, blessed to be a blessing to others, saved to proclaim salvation, made alive that you might live in the world as ambassador for the gospel.
LikeLike
One more bit on Purgatory. The holy souls in Purgatory are saved, but not fully sanctified. So some of “the Elect” could go through Purgatory under Catholic teaching. Not that I expect you to believe that either, but for the sake of clarity I thought I’d toss that in.
LikeLike
AS to the childrens’ mesaage
“1) God chooses some and not others for salvation.
2) Some of you may not be elect.
3) You can never know if you are elect or not.”
I think we agree much more than we disagree on this:
I agree will all but 3 in that some very few may know by special grace that they are saved. St Theresa of Avila knew as did St Jacinta(she was told by Our Lady at Fatima). I wouldn’t expect a Protestant to believe that of course.
As for the portion of the Westminster Confession you quote, I see nothing to object to there at all. The Catholic Church does believe and teach in predestination. Although this is predestination of a very particular kind, and there are many warnings around this teaching, where God allows us to act freely in this life but He also knows our eternal destiny because He is outside of time. Definitely this is a mystery, not to be treated as a soluble problem.
One more point, or quibble really, please don’t see obedience as despair. It’s far from it. Obedience can be delightful because, when it’s love that motivates you, you want to serve and are grateful for any chance to do so. I know I’ve read that theme in your writings in relation to scripturally defined works. We Catholics see serving the Church as a service to Jesus. You don’t have to agree to see the parallel.
LikeLike
Oh, and Paul is laboring to sort out and drive home to his fellow believers that this new humanity brings together both Jew and Gentile, and the dividing walls between Jew and Gentile are no longer necessary now that God’s covenant purposes for Israel/Abraham’s offspring have been fulfilled in the faithful Israelite Jesus.
We need to leave our individualistic lenses aside more when talking of election in my opinion.
LikeLike
Steve –
Great question about Paul’s use of predestination in Ephesians. I think you should pursue that sooner than later. I believe Paul’s use of predestination there has more to do with ecclesiology than soteriology. I believe he is showing how God’s grand redemptive plan involves creating one new, redeemed humanity under the head of, or “in Chirst”, the representative of the new humanity. I believe he is speaking of a predestined, elect people (corporate group) and not about predestined individuals either for damnation or individual salvation.
What do you think Paul is getting at in Ephesians?
LikeLike
I teach election to kids, though I don’t use the word. Kids ask me whether they can get un-saved. I tell them, “If you don’t save yourself, it also means you don’t un-save yourself. God didn’t save you because you said a sinner’s prayer; He saved you before you were even born. The point where you said the prayer was just when you realized you needed saving and decided to follow Jesus.”
This doesn’t come up during evangelism, of course. It only comes up afterward.
The mystery is in God’s motives for picking us and, apparently, not picking others, or even picking others to become examples of what not to do. Or in who falls into the category of “God didn’t pick that person.” Best to never speculate and just preach the gospel to everyone, just in case.
LikeLike
Okay, i’m late to the ball game but who teaches the doctrine of election to children? Especially in light of the following quote:
“[the doctrine of election] is understood only as a mystery, so quit explaining it.”
To paraphrase the above: “i don’t really know.”
*i chuckle*
LikeLike
As one who finds libertarian free will within scripture, I reject Total Depravity, the foundation upon which Calvin and other build their theology.
I would not, therefore, ask such questions. I would point out that Christians are “called” thru the Gospel (2Thess 2:14), not some etherial “experience.”
LikeLike
“What is the official Reformed doctrine on the righteousness of the non-elect?”
My understanding – and I am open to correction by the properly informed – is that one strand of interpretation says this is more or less a trap. They look and behave as if they are faithful but they’re not really saved, and so their good works and even their beliefs are *more* effectual in damning them to Hell than if they were out-and-out evildoers.
Since they are not elect, their faith is not a saving faith, and they are in a *worse* position than those who never heard of Christ.
This raises a question: have we any signs by which we may know the reprobrate, as distinct from the elect? (apart from “if you’re not sitting in front of an evangelist, God does not intend you to be saved.”)
LikeLike
“Jesus may have died for you” Hahahahaha, as my daughter would say.
Wouldn’t it be strange if the non-elect are those who push the idea of predestination ?
We know them by their fruits, and is there a more bitter fruit than fighting tooth and nail to make people believe in predestination?
It violates the very core of loving God and thy neighbor, for who would love a God who condemned you to hell before you were born, and can there be a greater hate of your neighbor than to arrogantly look at him as angels look at demons?
LikeLike
dan and Ted: I, too, focus on 1 Timothy which talks about God our Savior who wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of Him. That is the Jesus I know. That is the God that is always there with wide arms welcoming back his wandering children. Growing up Catholic, I never even HEARD the term “election” in theology until I spent time on the Protestant-based blogs. All I knew was that Jesus died to save us all from sin, but that we could refuse his saving grace if, for some reason, we preferred the darkness. God, give us your light to live by every day. Amen.
LikeLike
It really does comes back to Jesus-shaped spirituality. One falls into a ditch anytime one tries to understand God by any other means but Jesus.
“[God] does not want to be known as he is “in heaven,” in his mere “almightiness” or even merely as “the God of predestination.” He wants to be known as the God in the manger or at his mother’s breasts, the God who suffered and died and rose again. His almightiness, his unchangeability, the threat of predestination-all these things are “masks” which God wears, so to speak, to drive us to look elsewhere, to look away from heaven and down to earth, to the manger and the cross, to preaching and the sacraments. For the point is that God simply does not want to be known and will not be known on any other level. He hides himself behind a mask which is intended to drive many away in fear to a place where he, as revealed God, wants to be known.” – Gerhard Forde, from “Where God Meets Man”.
LikeLike
Michael, thanks for identifying Miguel’s “Piper quote” as being from Charles Spurgeon. I have wondered about the source for years. I first heard it expressed slightly differently, that over the outside of the gate of Heaven is engraved, “Whosoever will may come” and over the inside is engraved, “Chosen in him from before the foundation of the world.” (Not “predestined” but “chosen”.) I first heard it 40 years ago from my pastor, Dr. Torrey Johnson, who helped found Youth For Christ. He said it was a mystery best left in the hands of God (the subject of the quote, not Youth For Christ!). I also heard Dr. Johnson say, “God has voted for you, Satan has voted against you, and you have the deciding vote.”
As a result, I have never, ever, participated in the TULIP wars.
Thanks for all you do.
LikeLike
“Jesus may have died for you..” is really about all a double predestinarian Calvinist (God destines some to heaven and some to hell)can say to people when evangelizing.
LikeLike
al,
I honestly have a hard time understanding Barth’s position on election (and his theology in general). Although I think what Andrew said is correct…although it makes Barth sound almost like a universalist…and I’m pretty sure Barth didn’t hold to such a belief.
All in all, I think what Barth was trying to get at was that even issues such as election and predestination have no relevance or point whatsoever if Jesus Christ himself is left out of these doctrines. That’s why oftentimes I get ticked off when some Calvinists exclude Jesus Christ from their doctrine of predestination, because to them it’s just God and the individual; when in reality it’s mainly about Jesus…not the individual or God (that is the tyrannical, cold hearted monster that we see when we talk about predestination w/o Jesus).
Any Barthian scholars out there who can clear this up?! I know you guys are out there!!!
LikeLike
You people are talking about election as if it were something pleasant, to be treasured in your heart as a validation of faith. That has not been my experience at all. I am fairly certain (to the extent my limited being can be certain of anything) that I am elect. I have arrived at this conclusion because God seems to thrust me into situations time and time again where I have to grow and be an instrustrument of His grace in order to come out the other side more or less intact. Growth is never a pleasant thing and responding with grace rather than justice can be stressful to say the least. Always Nineveh, never Tarshish.
So, my thing is why is God doing this to me if I am not elect? What is the official Reformed doctrine on the righteousness of the non-elect?
LikeLike
Michael, you may not be headed for Purgatory, and I may not be headed for Purgatory, but that’s not to say we’re both headed in the same direction.
You’ll probably be fitted out for the harp and wings 😉
LikeLike
As I see it, the question of election or predestination is a paradox we can only begin to understand by considering God’s unique relationship to time. Though I really can’t fully wrap my mind around this, God is somehow both outside of time as we understand it and right in here with us inside time’s boundaries. He literally sees the end from the beginning, and what we experience as moment by moment choices and struggles, He can view as a book He’s already read (or written). He already knows the choices we will make before we make them, yet he convicts and guides and strives with us as if He didn’t know the final outcome of our lives.
But we humans, however, are completely trapped inside of time and incapable of genuinely viewing things from a timeless perspective. And I suspect that the fact that we exist only inside of time has a lot to do with how God extends grace to us. Christ came to us in the flesh and inside of time to place God’s grace and salvation within the grasp of mere human time-bound choice. And in the same way that he removes our sins as far as the east is from the west, maybe He actually chooses not to read ahead in the book of our lives so that He can better deal with us in love and in the present tense.
That said, Calvinism seems to me like a doctrinal attempt to both view the world from God’s timeless perspective and to judge people’s souls from that perspective as well. As time-bound creatures, I don’t think we have any business doing that. Here inside of time, cause and effect are in full effect, and choices really are choices and should be regarded as such.
I think real salvation (and election) occurs when the Father’s choosing of a person and a person’s choosing of the Son as Lord and Savior intersect at a point both inside and outside of time.
LikeLike
Calvinists are attracted to this doctrine like a moth to the flame.
Michael, I’ve been in exclusively Calvinist circles since my conversion. I don’t disagree with the Calvinistic interpretation of election, but recently I’ve wondered why it is brought up in Scripture. Some day I’d like to take a closer look at the reason for Paul using it in Ephesians. Was it a truth to be used to condemn the rest of the human race in arrogance? Or, was it meant to be a pastoral encouragement to those he wrote to in order for them to live a life of joy?
LikeLike
People really took my above comments pessimistically. But there are some fair critiques.
I said, “There’s a huge chance you’re elect.” iMonk asked, “Why wouldn’t that sow the seeds of a lifetime of fear that a child is not elect?” Fair question. I see how it could—if you prefer to focus on the miniscule chance you’re not elect. I don’t, and discourage this focus whenever I see it. There’s far too much evidence you are elect. Just like there’s far too much evidence Jesus is risen. Too many focus on the tiny doubt instead of faith. I encourage faith. But it’s not appropriate for me to guarantee anything; only God can do that.
Secondly—I’m not Reformed either. I’m Pentecostal. I know, many Reformed folks make obedience the only sign of assurance, just as many Pentecostals make baptism of the Holy Spirit the only sign of assurance. Both are wrong. Fruit of the Spirit is the sign. Paul said those who demonstrate the contrary works of the flesh won’t inherit the Kingdom. Those who demonstrate the fruit will inherit.
I don’t know too many folks who despair because they can’t love, or have joy or peace, or be patient, kind, good, faithful, gentle, or self-controlled. Usually they’re too busy being theologically correct jerks to care. (Not to knock the folks who care about theology. I care too. But theology without love is Paul before he met Jesus.)
Okay, Patrick: I’ll try to answer briefly so as to not take things off-topic too far. An evangelist is someone who shares the good news of Christ Jesus; a false teacher concentrates more on accumulating numbers, fans, hits on their website, book sales, etc. My efforts or presence guarantees no one’s salvation (see above) but it does indicate, at least, the Spirit’s trying to get their attention by throwing me at ’em. The last question I don’t understand. Best to email.
LikeLike
al:
Barth argues that Jesus, as ‘the new adam’, is both the elect and the reprobate on behalf of all humanity. So everyone is elect, because if you try to head towards hell you find that Jesus got there first and has blocked the way. Nowhere to go but up!
LikeLike
jin, or Michael,
so what is Barth’s view of predestination?
LikeLike
So…no mention of Barth’s view of predestination? It’s revolutionary!!!
LikeLike
Please explain the Infinite God and give three examples.
…
It’s so like Paul to drop a statement like ‘predestined’ in the middle of a letter without really stopping to discuss it…it becomes increasingly clear that he had his eye on a lot of things that he absolutely couldn’t explain to anybody in any useful way.
But then, I also wonder what that word actually is in the greek, and what it means.
It often feels like after 4th century, much of the church reinvented so much of the doctrine of the bible in their own terms, outside of jewish history, outside of what Jesus possibly could have been talking to other Jews about, outside of what Paul would have been talking to Jews and Greeks about. Just painfully strange, at times.
If time is just another part of creation, then is it possible that God can see the future, as well as keep tweaking the present to create the future He desires? *head explodes*
Certainly.
Does this in any way defy or deny free will? Not as He has created it.
Can we explain it? Not at all. I, being a infinite created being living in a single aspect of time am extremely limited in terms of what I can know or experience.
If I attempt to define God only in terms of what I can know or Understand…then I am pursuing an extremely poor God.
LikeLike
correction biblical
LikeLike
The elect is man’s attempt to conquer the problematic paradox of free will and an omniscient
creator. It is also purely a literary problem by one’s own interpretation of biblacal text. Exercise your frontal loabs people but stay on the boat. Not to sound Marxist but the waters are pretty cold and dark. Life is a wonderful opera except it hurts. Jesus loves you all. Be the miracle.
LikeLike
Martha,
I was making a kind of joke. But God works in mysterious ways and I received a pardon from imonk!!!
Being Lutheran the whole point is moot. I just believe in God’s Grace. His ways are too wonderful for me to understand. I will just love and trust in Him as my Father and your Father and Jesus’s Father knows best.
LikeLike
I should have said, “…stop trying to exhaustively explain it” or “stop making it the center of scripture.”
Calvinists are attracted to this doctrine like a moth to the flame. Sometimes for good reasons (humility) and sometimes for not so good (explanations for lack of evangelism, reassurance they are the true elect.)
LikeLike
I would never say, because I don’t see the Bible itself saying, that works should be the *basis* of any Christian’s assurance of salvation. Christ’s perfect obedience and sacrifice, and our trust in His work, are the basis of our assurance. Having said that, do works not play some *role* in our assurance of salvation? 1 John seems to speak to this issue.
Honest question here– I’m unsure as to what it means to say that we should “quit explaining” the doctrine of election? If the doctrine of election is *ever* presented and/or preached on, by definition, there will some sort of explanation. The explanation might be “Catholic,” “Reformed,” or “Arminian,” (or possibly something else, if there is anything else), but it will be there, won’t it?
LikeLike
>Very few people, after all, will have either lived a perfect life or died a perfect death.
Martha….you just stated the reason neither one of us is going to a place called purgatory. One person did both, perfectly, for all those who trust in him.
LikeLike
As an aside, has any one of those twenty-something Calvinists with the Wii and the Piper ever assured the congregation that the doctrine of election is proven since he personally knows and is convinced that he is one of the Reprobate? 😉
LikeLike
Well, I think the doctrine of the keys is possibly our version of the doctrine of assurance 🙂
It is not saying “We/the Pope/the Spanish Inquisition can save you by declaring a fiat of forgiveness, no matter what you have done”; it is saying that, by the authority of Jesus, the Church in His name can say “Your sins are forgiven you” but only by exercising His power, the power delegated. It is a means of reassurance for those who say “But how can I know I am forgiven?”. If the Church ‘forgives’ someone who is not truly repentant, that does not bind God. If the Church condemns someone who has repented, that person is saved.
Purgatory is not a second chance after death; it’s only the saved who enter in there, but to be purged of the lingering attachment to sin or stain on the soul. Very few people, after all, will have either lived a perfect life or died a perfect death.
As to Luther in Heaven? Well, since he stuck up for Our Lady (in regard to her perpetual virginity), he has an advocate there 😉
LikeLike
For me, some scriptures that clarifies the matter of election besides I Tim 2:1-4, are Rom 5 the whole line of Paul’s reasoning is that death came to the whole human family by ‘one man’ and that Life is opened up to the whole human family also by ‘One Man’ Jesus Christ because His death made atonement for ‘ALL’. Jesus was not only man’s substitute in death but also by His perfect LIFE we can be accepted as being perfect as we accept HIM (Rom 5:10,17-19) That is the ‘good news’ worthy of our trust and over & over again scripture puts the decision upon the human to respond by accepting it, believing it, obeying it,(Rom 6:16). Our confidence is in Him from beginning to end. He works in us to ‘will and to do’ but He is appealing to EVERY person and does not do the choosing FOR us. He is FOR everyone to believe and be saved. Norm
LikeLike
Sue, there are Evangelicals who are elected (probably) and there are RCs who are not elected (pretty sure on that one).
Because we don’t have the corollary of “and X number of you are damned, bwahahaha!”, we don’t have the same necessity(?) of the doctrine of assurance.
Because it does make God sound unjust to say something like “If you’re sitting here in front of an evangelist, you’re probably the elect, because God wouldn’t have arranged for you to be sitting in front of an evangelist otherwise.”
What of those who don’t have the opportunity to sit in front of an evangelist? God did not see fit to arrange it for them, because God decided they should be damned?
Which only emphasises, of course, the urgency of the Great Commission: “Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all nations.”
And yes, even if we don’t have the doctrine of double predestination, there is still the problem of “If you say no-one who has not accepted Christ can be saved, how about those in distant lands who never heard of Christ? Is it just that they be damned, for no fault of their own?” which needs its own explanation.
LikeLike
I have always gone along with Luther on this one and IMONK if understand correctly. I think the only thing we should discus about predestination is that it is a mystery that we should not discus, anything we say about it, is bound to be wrong. I really think Calvin should have left it alone.
LikeLike
I should have lost you sooner than that, considering I’m not one of you.
That sentence is too short. I am all for explaining it as it refers to Jesus. Beyond that, I think the humility zone needs to kick in. I am tired of listening to twenty something Calvinists with a Wii in one hand and Piper book in the other explain that the Christian life is more about election than it is Jesus. Jesus is a minor character in their saga of God justly damning most everyone.
peace
ms
LikeLike
You lost me with the last sentence. However, I am completely squashed by working in the yard today so you get a free pass.
LikeLike
imonk,
Only small irritations? Without irritations you would never grow a pearl. But I will accept the pardon. It is good to be on the right side of a clergy person at least once in awhile.
LikeLike
Imonk I never said that the love was coming from my human weakness, I said love is what sets us free. I think the love we share is the love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, I simply quit loving my own salvation so much and opted to just started loving God. Of course the cross is the center of all are hope I just focused on Christ crucified once for, the powers of darkness have been broken and rejoice in this love. Rather than asking God if I am saved a thousand times, or trying to quote some passage to console my doubts.
LikeLike
“Sounds like we are all elect, but some have chosen not to accept the offer.”
I agree to a degree, but I’m more inclined to believe that “the elect” is not about individual salvation, but rather about the church. That is, the church has been predestined, not you or me as individuals (eg just as Israel as a nation was, but not necessarily, Jews individually). I believe that’s how Arminians read that also, but I don’t really claim either side. I just know what I’m not. 🙂
LikeLike
1 Timothy 2:1-4 works for me:
1I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— 2for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
“…God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.”
Sounds like we are all elect, but some have chosen not to accept the offer.
LikeLike
Miguel:
Westminster Confession III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.
Your first statement is classic Calvinism. Your second statement is Arminianism.
ms
LikeLike
Ok. This is just darned confusing to me. Does election say that our decision to accept or refuse Christ is predestined, our our resulting destination based on our own decision is pre-ordained by God who sees the future?
LikeLike
Miguel: That was one of Spurgeon’s anecdotes. I like it, but I’d say let’s take his advice and not talk about election in most instances until we get to heaven.
LikeLike
“If God has arranged it so that you would be in front of me, hearing the gospel, there’s a huge chance you’re elect. Otherwise why would He stick you in a room with an evangelist?”
KW Leslie, This begs every question ever, for instance:
-Your definition of ‘evangelist’ and evangelism
-The difference between an evangelist and a false teacher
-The koan-like question series starting with ‘if people weren’t around, would you be sharing the Gospel with anyone?’, and ending with ‘if ‘election’ is sure, then it’s a risible illusion to maintain the conjecture that there is a ‘huge chance’ that any of your hearers are elect, or that your efforts have anything to do with their salvation’
-The.. lets call them “theology-free” demographic realities behind who is and isn’t Christian, when they are or aren’t Christian, and how Christian they are
-etc..
LikeLike
I recently heard this in a Piper sermon, though I believe he was quoting somebody else.
It was something about how there is a gate in heaven through which all who enter must pass, and on the top of it it reads, “Come whosoever will,” but that is on the outside. Once you pass through, that same sign from the inside says, “Predestined from before the foundations of the earth.”
Piper’s point was that God would have us understand what is said on the inside, not just what we can see from this side of heaven.
I am very not educated in these issues, but could it possibly be that they are two sides of the same coin?
LikeLike
You just nailed it. It’s the triumph of an either/or. Who cares how Jesus deals with this? We apparently have a better revelation.
LikeLike
I’m not Reformed Calvinist. And I have to admit, I just don’t understand it (philosophically, I mean). The other day I was flipping through Wayne Grudem’s “Twenty Basics Every Christian Should Know” and he has a section on Election (he is a Calvinist). In trying to explain how God’s unconditional election means that he predestines some to eternal torment can possibly be true when the Bible says that God wants all people to be saved and he has the power to do so…. Grudem answers:
Both are true, but God is more concerned with His glory than with saving people. (paraphrased).
That… my friends.. is not the Gospel I hear when I read through God’s words…Nor is the one I will teach to my children.
LikeLike
Sue,
You have just been pardoned for many small irritations.
Cha-ching.
peace
ms
LikeLike
>God even if you slay me in hell I will still love and follow you in this life….Heroic self giving love is what makes us free…
I’m pretty confused here. My own love for God is not of heroic porportions. The Good News for Michael Spencer isn’t that I am going to become some kind of great example of loving God as he tosses me to hell. Now tell me that Christ went to hell for me and I am alive to that announcement. Tell me that God is for me when I am more Judas than Jesus and I may have some hope.
Yep Luther has ruined me 🙂
LikeLike
Martha,
What if God elected all Roman Catholic and none of the Evangelicals??
LikeLike
Would you still love Him if He gave you know assurance. Many years ago I prayed the sinners prayers higher than I’ve counted, quoted all the typical text, If you confess and believe …. but it wasn’t until I forgot about by self and said God even if you slay me in hell I will still love and follow you in this life, at least I will have the joy of being with you in this short time. Freedom and consolation was mine in abundance. Love is the key to freedom. Holding on to text or doctrine or are very life can entangle our freedom in Christ. Heroic self giving love is what makes us free, this is the assurance that surpasses mind, will, and emotion.
LikeLike
Given your three choices I would remain silent. None of them give the true whole picture. John 10 says all who enter Me will be saved. Our choice. Again Acts 2, all who call on me I will save, Our choice. My favorite is 1st Timothy, God our Savior who wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of Him. God’s desire that not one be lost was evident in His very ministry. He left the choice to us. A friend of mine once described it as having to work very hard to be lost. He have to repeatedly reject Christ’s wooing to be lost. He gives us every opportunity to accept Him and be saved. I tell my children the story of Christ and let them know that their choice determines their salvation. I die daily.
LikeLike
Let’s start and stop with Jesus: the incarnation, life, cross, rez, teachings, mission, exaltation and Kingdom.
But I think the thing about going wider (Creation, Covenant, Restoration) is that it makes Jesus all the more beautiful and actually does provide a better path for bringing the Incarnation, Passion, Resurrection into conversations about ‘election’ and other matters that are usually handled as if they were only accessible through precise systematic theology and dogmatics.
I don’t know if you were suggesting these things be “left out” or not … but that’s my two cents worth.
LikeLike
Aquinas was pretty much a Calvinist on this one 🙂
I’m not a Catholic on this one because the church seems to have taken away the clear assurances of scripture and replaced them with the doctrine of purgatory and the sacraments. That view of the doctrine of the keys seems to confuse the clear statement of Jesus that he has the keys with the missional use of the keys by the church. Christ gives assurance in the Gospel, by the HS. The church’s pronouncement that I am forgiven, accepted is important, but secondary. The church is frequently wrong on who is in heaven. I plan on introducing all my Catholic friends to Luther when we get there 🙂
LikeLike
“Westminster Confession III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.”
If ‘no knowledge of election, i.e. cannot be assured beyond all doubt that I am one of the Saved and cannot lose my salvation’ is one of the many reasons you’re not RC, this is one of the reasons I’m not Calvinist 🙂
At first, my instinctive reaction was “No! No way election!” but then I reconsidered. Catholicism has no problem with the first part – “some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life” – and I thought to myself, “Okay, so what about the saints? Surely those are the visible elect in this life?” (which is not to say that only those formally canonised are the elect; we believe that there are countless saints whom we do not know about).
It’s the second bit where we part ways: “(O)thers foreordained to everlasting death.” We do not consider that, before ever one of us was created, God said “You. You’re damned. No chance at all.”
That’s tied up with (1) God’s omniscience, which includes foreknowledge, does not mean that God *knowing* who will fall or turn away means God *makes* them fall or turn away (2) free will; otherwise, Adam and Eve cannot be held guilty of disobedience, since God knew what they would do and created them to be disobdient, which makes a nonsense of the whole thing. Either our first parents had a free choice to be obedient, and their Fall involved us all through the change of our nature from what it was intended to be, or they had no choice and so we do not deserve their punishment of exile.
I’m also wondering, from the various viewpoints expressed here, if there hasn’t been a little ‘development of doctrine’ going on in Reformed circles regarding election and double predestination?
After all, we RCs got the rap for Limbo – how could we be so heartless as to say that unbaptised infants might not see Heaven? – yet on the other side there appeared to be no difficulty in saying some unborn infants could be ordained to be damned from all eternity through no deed of their own?
I think Election is your Limbo 😉
LikeLike
Let’s start and stop with Jesus: the incarnation, life, cross, rez, teachings, mission, exaltation and Kingdom.
For the record, I don’t care if a person believes this, because it usually turns out fine. But for more than a few, that sort of theology ruins the recipe. Instead of smelling like Christ…..let’s just say “it stinketh.”
LikeLike
Huh. Interesting. I hadn’t read these in the confession before, but am noting now formally the disconnection from love and the strong connection to will and sovereignty.
I prefer to keep the doctrines in the context of creation, covenant and restoration.
LikeLike
Debbie:
Not being snarky here.
How is that not the doctrine of election?
Westminster Confession III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.
IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it can not be either increased or diminished.
VII. The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.
If I’m in most reformed churches, I am required to teach this to children.
peace
ms
LikeLike
Michael: In answer to your question, none of the above as that is not the doctrine of Election.
LikeLike
I would also add that when it is abused it is abused by those who, through emphasis upon God’s ‘glory’ or the particularly kind of sovereignty that is expressed in his ‘will,’ neglect the far more fundamental dimension of his relationship with us — creating and sustaining love.
LikeLike
Leaving aside the question of why anything created Image Deo could not, would not, should not possess free will:
If I can’t tell the difference between the elect and the non-elect based on someone’s actions or behaviors, then the distinction seems meaningless to me.
LikeLike
Ross: It doesn’t matter. My obedience to Christ is never sufficient to provide assurance. People who who issue assurance based on things like church attendance and reading the Bible are promoting a religion of works.
LikeLike
“And on 3), many reformed teachers make obedience the only sign of assurance.”
OK, I’ll ask. Obedience to who or what? I can think of multiple answers.
LikeLike
iMonk, I like your summary and find quite a bit to like. 🙂
For some of the comments, let me put in a bit from another viewpoint, but very brief. Why should a person whose only commitment to Christianity is that they attend church on most Sundays, give some, and behave correctly (by and large) not feel a little concerned?
Dietrich Bonhoffer said, “cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline. Communion without confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ. . . costly grace confronts us as a gracious call to follow Jesus, it comes as a word of forgiveness to the broken spirit and the contrite heart. It is costly because it compels a man to submit to the yoke of Christ and follow him; it is grace because Jesus says: “My yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
I fear that too many who worry about works-righteousness creeping into the Church are setting their churches up for a significant problem with comfortable “Christians” who can always find a reason why they do not have to get involved or do anything, and yet can be comfortable in the mansion that awaits them.
LikeLike
K.W. Leslie said, “As for (3) You can never know if you are elect or not, that’s crap. We know that we’re His because He’s given us His Spirit. (1 John 4:13) When we perform the works of the Spirit, or display His gifts or HIs fruit, or obey Him out of love instead of manipulation, we’re His.”
Whew. I can feel the despair and darkness closing in already.
But what happens when we fail to “perform the works of the Spirit”? Now we are left wondering if we are elect. Fear, despair, and anxiety begin to settle upon us in that moment. Maybe my Christian confession, faith in Christ, and walk with God are all a sham? Maybe I’ll end up at the end of my life finding out that I was never really elect? Perhaps my life was one big lie and now I am damned and there is nothing and never was anything I can do about it! I am not elect!
Anytime my works are the assurance of my salvation and/or God’s election of me, this is a recipe for disaster. I can already see all those people who want off at the next stop and the empty seats from those who got off the bus already.
Everyone, please listen to Rod Rosenbladt’s “The Gospel for Those Broken by the Church.”
LikeLike
I may be overstating on this topic but here we go, over the years in my experience Christians that take a strong 5 point position often make election the center of the faith, or at least it takes on a sort of life of it’s own, me included. I wonder if this doctrine is some how related to personal narcissism. God doesn’t love all humanity but rather me me me me, the elect of which I happen to be amongst. I was in a Christian bookstore years ago over hearing this guy rant against Tozer’s soft position on this topic but the guy was filled with a smugness even arrogance. I thought to myself even though somebody may believe this doctrine it does not necessitate that they are amongst the redeemed, if election is true the only assurance we can have is that we are being conformed to the image of Christ in true faith, hope, and love. I think we would do well to work out our salvation in fear and trembling, rather than hang our hat on a doctrine steeped in historical debate.
LikeLike
interesting stuff, thanks for posting it. i’m not sure what “abused” means in this context, perhaps it’s a bit undefined (okay, a lot). i’m not a calvinist, but i have to admit, the most evangelistic people i’ve ever personally known are some of my friends who are thorough-going calvinists. the individuals i have in mind have a rigid doctrine of election AND an evangelistic zeal that i often wish i could muster within myself.
thanks for giving us some good things to think about
LikeLike
“A huge chance.” Why wouldn’t that sow the seeds of a lifetime of fear that a child is not elect?
And on 3), many reformed teachers make obedience the only sign of assurance. If that isn’t despair, I don’t know what is. It’s one of the very reasons I’m not RC.
LikeLike
I do teach (1) God chooses some and not others, but never (2) Some of you may not be elect. If God has arranged it so that you would be in front of me, hearing the gospel, there’s a huge chance you’re elect. Otherwise why would He stick you in a room with an evangelist?
As for (3) You can never know if you are elect or not, that’s crap. We know that we’re His because He’s given us His Spirit. (1 John 4:13) When we perform the works of the Spirit, or display His gifts or HIs fruit, or obey Him out of love instead of manipulation, we’re His.
LikeLike
I didn’t mean it was always abused. I mean when it is abused, it’s almost always in that context. Will edit.
LikeLike
Hi Michael,
“It’s a doctrine that is expressed in revelation, but is understood only as a mystery, so quit explaining it.”
I like that point a lot.
“It’s almost always abused in the context of evangelism, ecclesiology or Christian experience.”
This part, however, might be slightly exaggerated. I agree that the vocal minority that emphasizes it is so overwhelmingly vocal that it SEEMS to be a majority. But I think it’s the caricatured extremists that create an illusion of the whole. Similar to radical Muslim extremists who make people think that all of Islam is radical.
LikeLike
Before we get too far, I’d like to pose a question to those who might disagree with me:
In a children’s sermon on election, which of the following would you say to all the children gathered around you?
1) God chooses some and not others for salvation.
2) Some of you may not be elect.
3) You can never know if you are elect or not.
LikeLike
Michael: I believe in the doctrine of election with all my heart. I believe it to be in scripture. I will teach it, I will explain it. I will not however, argue over it. What one believes affects how one lives, reads scripture, and teaches. It does me, I won’t hide it.
LikeLike