The End Of Election

This will be the last of the series on the views of election presented by Chad Owen Brand in Perspectives on Election.

<<<<<< Time for some to celebrate >>>>>>>>>>>

Okay. Welcome back. The last essay in the election series is written by Clark H. Pinnock, Professor Emeritus at McMaster Divinity College in Hamilton, Ontario. Pinnock argues for election being seen as corporate, open, and vocational. According to Dr. Pinnock, "Election is not about the destiny of individual persons for salvation or damnation but about God's calling a people who in the New Testament setting live according to the faithfulness of Jesus Christ and proclaim good news to the world" (279). In other words, election is open to all and missional.

It's interesting that Pinnock would place election in the category of ecclesiology rather than soteriology (Calvin) or Theology Proper (Barth). In other words, he maintains election is inclusive, rather than exclusive, (281). Within the common texts of election, Pinnock interprets them not as individualistic but as speaking of a "class" of people. As an example, Dr. Pinnock points out Exodus 19:5-6. Now therefore, if you (Israelites) obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession out of all the peoples. Indeed, the whole earth is mine, but you shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation... (NRSV) "Israel was not called to an exclusive salvation but to a priestly vocation intended to bring the whole world to God" (Pinnock 287).

When God does call individuals, he does so for service to others. In the Old Testament, God chose/elected Abraham, Moses, Nehemiah, David, and the Prophets for specific tasks within or for the community at large. In the New Testament, Pinnock points out Jesus chose the apostles to carry out God's mission throughout the world (294).

As you might imagine, the views of Dr. Pinnock are quickly dismissed by Ware, Reymond, and Talbott.

Now it's your turn. Any thoughts?

Talbott's Election (Continued)

Before we move to universalism, my friend Ted has posted an interesing post on predestination and election. You can find it here. I'm sure he would enjoy some feedback. Now on to Talbott's view of universalism.

First of all, Talbott bases his opinion of universalism largely on Romans 8:38-39. According to Dr. Talbott, Romans 5:12-21 is clear that all mankind will eventually be saved, because of God's mercy and due to mankind being created in God's image. God will annihilate all evil short of those created in His image (248). Talbott is clear that Christ will be victorious. "As some Arminians might contend, he brought to all people something less than full justification and life - an offer of salvation, perhaps, or a possibility of some kind that each individual remains free to reject - then the possibility of an ultimate defeat remains" (ibid). Of course, this view would hold that Paul's thoughts in Romans 5 (especially vv.15-18) would carry the possibility of Adam (or the affects thereof) being victorious as opposed to Christ Jesus.

Talbott goes on to point out 1 Cor 15:20-28. According to Dr. Talbott, when verse 27 states "For he has put everything under his feet...", it implies man's will corresponding with the will of God. Because Christ will eventually be victorious, all of mankind will eventually volunteer their will to God's purposes (252-253).

Arminians believe (although available to all) only some of mankind will accept the love of God and therefore be reconciled to Him. Talbott again maintains the view as defeatist on behalf of a loving God (254). In other words, if God wills all to be saved (1 Tim 2:4) then that is the only thing that will happen.

Finally, Dr. Talbott turns to the question: If salvation is the destiny for all, what causes one to live with any morality? Talbott then turns to Romans 11:22 and argues that salvation is not an issue. In other words, because all mankind will eventually be saved, the passage is about consequences for man's actions. Mankind's decisions lead to a life of turmoil or a life of peace (258). "Our free choices, then, have real consequences in our lives and they determine how we will encounter God's grace in the future; but whichever way we choose, God's perfecting love will meet our true spiritual needs perfectly" (ibid).

In conclusion, Talbott returns to the themes of God's victory in the end through Jesus Christ and the unmatchless love of God. "...neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom 8:39 NIV).

Any thoughts?

Talbott's Election (Continued)

I'd planned to post regarding Dr. Thomas Talbott's view of Romans 9-11 and his idea of Paul's theology today. Unfortunately, it's taken me more time to get my head around what Talbott is saying. I apologize for the delay. Hopefully, next week...

I really want to understand, prior to posting. Although I know that's not fully possible with some things (one's view of election might be a good example), I don't believe I can honestly do Dr. Talbott justice here. In other words, what good would a shallow post on election do if the "meaty" parts of Dr. Talbott's theology were left out?

We've all wanted to sit with some intellectual at some point and "pick their brain." I'd love to do that with all of these guys regarding election. But I'm not as familiar as I should be about Universal Election (Talbott's view). For that reason, I've chosen to err on the side of safety. I'll do my best next week.

For those of you sitting on pins and needles about the post :), I appreciate your understanding. And if anyone can fill me in on what they know about Universal Election, I would be grateful.

Universal Election?

Dr. Thomas Talbott now joins our discussion on election. If the discussion was a puddle, Talbott would be accused of jumping in with both feet.

"Christian universalists insist that election is neither limited in scope nor conditional in nature; election is, after all, an expression of God's love for the world, the whole world, and God's love is neither limited in scope nor conditional in nature" (Talbott, 207).

Dr. Talbott is quick to point out that universalists would not agree with limited atonement, while at the same time, refusing the idea of conditional election that an Arminian might believe. Talbott argues from the following premises:
1) God is love (1 John 4:8, 16)
2) God is merciful to all (Rom. 11:32)
3) Understanding Romans 9 is based on how one understands Romans 11
4) Paul teaches not for limited atonement but for unconditional election and irresistable grace.

Due to space here, we'll deal with numbers one and two. Next week, we'll discuss premises three and four respectively and the responses.

As for God is love, Talbott points out that John Calvin didn't have much to say about the Johannine statements (1 Jn 4:8, 16). In fact, only in his commentary of 1 John does Calvin mention the verses in passing (nothing in Institutes). Recently, Reformed theologian J.I. Packer has discussed the verses in Knowing God. However, Talbott maintains Packer speaks of God being love not to unbelievers, but to Christians only (211). "Packer has stumbled over a text that he finds difficult to incorporate into his overall theological perspective" (ibid.).

In regards to premise number two, Dr. Talbott maintains Augustine was the first to make a distinction between God's justice and God's mercy. According to Augustine, because all mankind are descendants of Adam, all deserve everlasting punishment. God is a righteous judge but is also a loving Father. Mankind's rebellion seemed to put God in a predicament. He must judge, while loving at the same time. However, Augustine maintains, God selects some to receive mercy, while leaving the others to receive the justice they deserve (222).

Augustine's understanding of limited atonement is hard to understand based on Romans 11:32. For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all. (NRSV) According to Talbott, Augustine was notorious for trying to argue that all didn't necessarily mean all in this passage or in 1 Timothy 2:4. Augustine held the view that all meant some of all people groups and nations but not the entirety of mankind. This argument doesn't seem to hold weight in Romans 5. Talbott maintains Paul meant the entirety of mankind when he mentioned all (231 ff).

Next week, we turn to premises three and four and hear responses from Bruce Ware, Jack Cottrell, Robert Reymond, and Clark Pinnock.

Any thoughts here?

One Reformationist View of Election

Today, we return to Dr. Robert Reymond's view of election. If you haven't noticed, I was corrected (and rightly so) by Frank. Dr. Reymond has a P.H.D. from Bob Jones but is not on the faculty. Again, thanks for the correction Frank.

The last post on election had more to do with the Westminster Confession of Faith than I had anticipated. Although Dr. Reymond quoted much from the WCOF, it's now a good time to hear his own commentary.

Dr. Reymond argues from the Reformationist view of Calvinism. He uses the Pauline texts of Ephesians 1, Ephesians 3 (especially verse 11), and Romans 9 to articulate his point of God's election of certain individuals. The doctor attempts to convince the reader of a "logical" order of God's elements of salvation. Reymond also has much to say about the word "foreknew" (proegno) in Romans 8:29, going as far as defining the word as "set his (God's) heart upon" (160).

Dr. Reymond has very little to say regarding the Arminian view of election. The phrase "the Biblically informed Christian" will come to XYZ conclusion (Surprise! It always seems to be his conclusion.) is written time and time again. The essay is written to defend supralapsarian over infralapsarianism within Calvinism.

Dr. Cottrell is the first to address his concerns with Reymond. According to Reymond, every decree is made to serve the eternal purpose of God's salvation of mankind. For Cottrell, this idea sends up a red flag. "This means that God has decreed the fall of Adam and the ensuing sinfulness of the entire human race so that there would be sinners to redeem" (202). Others (the non-elect) are "passed over" or simply not chosen by God. These things happen by God's decrees having an ultimate purpose of God's glorification. Cottrell maintains, "To some Calvinists such a view of God and his decrees may sound like pious and glorious mysteries; but to most non-Calvinists it is the height of irrationality and moral contradiction and approaches blasphemy" (ibid).

Dr. Clark Pinnock offers his opinion as follows: "It would seem that the most important issue here (Reymond's view of God's determinism) is not the doctrine of election as such but the character of God" (203). He goes on to say, "Reymond and I both admire the awesome power of God...It is not the kind of power, spoken of in deterministic theologies, namely, raw power, the power to make everything else surrender...Surely the glory of God consists not in God's all-controlling power but in God's self-sacrificing love" (203-204).

Thoughts? Remember when responding that others will (sometimes passionately) disagree. Please respect those who agree or disagree.

Election in Ephesians 1

Our survey of Perspectives on Election continues by turning to Ephesians 1. This particular chapter has been part of the heated debate regarding election for some time.

Dr. Ware focuses most of his attention on verses 4, 5, and 11. He is quick to state, "Paul brings to his mind and lips specific reasons for why God should by blessed, the first and second items he recalls and celebrates are our election in Christ (1:4) and our predestination to be adopted children through Christ (1:5)... the primary purpose for including this detail, it seems, establishes the fact that election of those whom God will save is God's choice pure and simple, a choice with which we had nothing to do and could have had nothing to do" (italics mine 13). I would be remiss if I didn't list a summary from Dr. Ware. "God works everything according to His will, but notice that nothing is said here (1:3-14) about God working things out according to our wills! In other words, all that God chooses is unconditional, including his predestination and election of us" (14).

Dr. Cottrell accuses Ware of using the "usual Calvinist spin" (61). Of course, Cottrell offers another interpretation of election - namely that Paul is speaking of a predestination of Jews and Gentiles. "I base this case on two facts: 1) the sudden shift from first person plural to second person plural in 1:13; and 2) the underlying theme of the letter in 2:11-3:21 i.e., God's eternal purpose of uniting Jews and Gentiles together through Jesus Christ in to a single body, the Church" (ibid).

Personal Observation

Dr. Ware maintains his argument of unconditional election based on verses 6, 12, and 14. However, he overlooks verse 13, despite 1:3-14 being one complete sentence. According to the NRSV, verse 13 reads, "In him you also, when you had heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and had believed in him, were marked with the seal of the promised Holy Spirit;" (emphasis mine). Now is not the time and place to debate the participle use of "believed". However, it seems the seal of the Holy Spirit is based upon one acting on their knowledge - something Dr. Ware conveniently overlooks.

Any thoughts or disagreements?

More Weekend Fodder

Two weeks in a row - say it aint so! Two Saturdays in a row with something to say (other than Boomer Sooner). I'll use this post as some sort of confession, if you don't mind.

I learn best in dialogue - conversation with those around a table (literal or proverbial), some who may agree and those who may not. I've always been intrigued by attempting to understand what people believe and why. For example, almost a year ago, God allowed me to meet a man who was a pastor of a church just a few miles from the congregation I pastored. The pastor and I began having lunch and praying for one another. From time to time, we'd discuss theology. We agreed on much. We disagreed on a few things. The friendship during the previous year has blessed me in many ways.

One of the disagreements the pastor and I had was one of election - specifically how Scripture defines the Elect. Although I was sure of what I believed, our discussions led me to begin a deeper study on the subject. Reading some of his recent posts, I know we continue to disagree; however, we're still friends.

All that, to say this. There are blogs I've run across where the purpose seems to be arguing for one view over the other - even to the detriment of relationships. That was never the case with As The Crow Flies and will never be this blogs intent. Again, everyone should be allowed at the "table" to discuss the issues as they see them. Each one should bring coffee, beer, or whatever drink of choice, pull up a chair at the table, and share their opinion. The older I get, the more I realize I need to learn.

Recently, the Thursday posts have concerned election while reviewing Perspectives on Election. I've attempted to present two sides (Calvinism and Arminian). As I recently mentioned, there will be times that I also have a comment about the articles written. The debate between Calvinism and Arminians, the question of who and who is not elect, and how those elect are determined, is often somewhat heated. For that reason, some believe these are discussions that might be avoided. In other words, "There has always been disagreement and there will always be, why throw fuel to the fire?" My respectful response is: If we don't study (even the hard things in Scripture) then we've relegated our responsibility as believers to something that it should't be.

My attempt is not to convince anyone of my opinion. I'd really like to hear the opposing view. Again, that's the way I learn and that's how my faith is strengthened. I'll attempt to complete the study, without making it too tedious.

Thanks for hearing my "confession" and for listening. And if the study is something you're even remotely interested in, please join the discussion on Thursdays. If not, the table is open Tuesday-Friday as well.

Blessings!
Mike

"Election" in Acts

Today, we continue our study through the perspectives on election.

When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and praised the word of the Lord; and as many as had been destined for eternal life became believers. (NRSV)

Bruce Ware turns to his second text in Acts 13:48. Concerning the emphasized phrase above, Ware uses the Holman Christian Standard Bible and maintains, "One indisputable aspect of Luke's statement, 'All who had been appointed to eternal life believed,' is that God's appointment of those who would receive eternal life preceded the belief of these very people" (8). He goes on to say if those believed simply based upon their decision and no act of God, then why would Luke make so big of a point (ibid)? Ware maintains Luke is pointing out God's choosing. In other words, when the Gospel is presented to the Gentiles, according to Ware, it's because the Jews (as a whole) rejected the Gospel, whereas the Gentiles (as a whole) accepted the Good News. "In short, these Gentiles believed the Gospel, while Jews rejected the same saving message because God had chosen these very Gentiles to believe" (9).

The response to Ware is taken up by Jack Cottrell. As to this particular verse, Cottrell maintains the verb form of tetagmenoi "should be taken as middle voice, not passive" (60). In other words, Cottrell translates the verse, "As many as arranged themselves unto eternal life believed" or "As many as turned themselves toward eternal life believed" (ibid). How one translates the tense of the verb from the original language seems to make a difference.

Next week, we turn to the writings of Paul. Any thoughts in regards to the verse in Acts?

Election starts Thursday!

I've looked forward to receiving a particular book in the mail for the last few weeks. Finally, the book arrived. The work is edited by Chad Owen Brand and is entitled Perspectives On Election. Five theologians write essays describing their view on the doctrine of election and then a response is given.

The Apostle Paul writes to the Ephesians "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, just as he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world...this is the pledge of our inheritance toward redemption as God's own people, to the praise of his glory" (Eph. 1:3-14).

For centuries, this text has been paramount among those who debate what election means through the New Testament. Of course there are others. But the Ephesian text seems to cause people on both sides to stake their claim to the truth. From the time Luther and Erasmus disagreed about the term and its meaning in the 5th century until the modern era, good people have disagreed.

Our task on Thursdays for the next several weeks is to look at the different perspectives and attempt to determine Paul's meaning of the term. I'll attempt to summarize the essays and the responses. I look forward to hearing your thoughts as well.