One of the reasons I like this book by Michael Horton is that he’s talking about topics that, like the holy underwear of Mormons, are not subjects discussed in public. This series will go back and forth between Roger Olson’s Against Calvinism and Michael Horton’s For Calvinism. Today I want to look at Michael Horton’s chp on election, which he calls “Loved before Time.”
Horton’s will no doubt become a go-to book for those wanting a clear exposition of Calvinism, though (as both Horton and Olson constantly emphasize) Calvinism is not the same as Reformed, covenant theology. This is a book about Calvinism and a “For Reformed Theology” would be a different book.
Is election in Calvinism good and just?
No topic is more difficult than election. Michael’s conclusion has an idea that can be brought in first; election may be a mystery but there is no mystery that the Bible affirms election. How God elected, whom God elected, and the mechanics of election — these are not readily explained. But that God elects, that’s all over the Bible. (And Michael often appeals to Romans 9-11, but he has a good sketch of the Bible’s texts on this topic.)
Arminianism teaches election on the basis of God’s grace but in conjunction with human decision (Horton: “in view of” a person’s faith that God foresees) while Calvinism teaches that God elects “unto faith.” In other words, for one it is “conditional” and for the other it is “unconditional.”
Does this mean God chooses unto reprobation? This is often called double predestination. Horton emphasizes with many in the Reformed tradition that God doesn’t choose to damnation and that God’s choice unto redemption is active while the other is simply not acting. [I don't buy the escape on this one; the choice not to elect remains a choice.] The problem for the reprobate is their own will; the only hope of the saved is the act of God.Michael is also an advocate of God’s active will and God’s permissive will. [Again, this can be pushed back: the choice to permit is an active choice.]
One of Horton’s emphases is that in Calvinism’s sense of election it is all God’s action; while in Arminianism it “depends ultimately on us” (59). I don’t like the word “ultimately” but instead of playing with loaded terms like this, I want to provide an analogy: electricity. I liken God’s salvation to electricity in a home, a monstrous home big enough for all of us. Those who experience that electricity are those who turn the switch to on. That does not make it ultimately depends on us; it’s God electricity but we are called to turn on the switch. Some do, some don’t. In other words, there can be no question in this analogy of who is responsible — ultimately and totally — for the flow of electricity. (God.)
Is election individual or corporate, and this involves whether it is for redemption for other purposes? Arminians have often taught corporate election, and Calvinists see it both as corporate and individual. I think Arminians teach both, too, but the bigger issue here is that every text Michael appeals to here can be explained as corporate as easily as individual. This issue isn’t easily resolved.
Is election fair? Judgment is all that is fair. This is typical of Calvinism. I don’t approach this one this way: what kind of God do we have if God can intervene for humans by election but who refuses? So the issue here isn’t just is it fair but also is God good and loving and compassionate and merciful? If so, what does that do to this “fair” question?
When it comes to human responsibility and election, Horton adopts a form of compatibilism: that God has ordered a world in which divine election and human responsibility work together. Our free acts are part of God’s decree. He has a good discussion of this subject.
He has an exceptional discussion of election and assurance, pushing one line constantly: this isn’t about looking into ourselves but looking unto Christ, unto what God has done, and unto the covenant commitment God has for God’s people.
Two observations:
1)
To me a lot of this boils down to this statement of yours:
what kind of God do we have if God can intervene for humans by election but who refuses?
Now strike out two words:
what kind of God do we have if God can intervene for humans but who refuses?
Calvinism does not seem to have a palatable answer to many of us.
But do other positions really have an adequate answer?
Boersma concludes in his study on Violence, Hospitality and the Cross, that a biblical theological approach towards election seems promising – God elects the poor and helpless, and he elects them with the purpose to becoma a blessing, but at the end of the day also runs in serious questions (why the ban on innocent children and women – people who seem just as poor and helpless).
Boyd in God at War admits that it still makes sense to aks why the Creator would have created a risky world (a euphemism in my opinion).
2)
Regarding your electricity example.
Interestingly, Volf, whom I believe to be a Lutheran, at least in his book Free of Charge, talks about God as a giver and us as receivers. And during his exposition, he says that God requires faith, gratitude and availability. And he denies that either of them consititute a work.
A plain reading of Scripture overwhelming presents God and humans either cooperating together or not. The story line, so to speak, shows real, relational interactions. Calvinism sees a theological subplot, i.e., all that is happening “on the surface” of the story is moved by some mysterious, divine decree. In the big Story we are told repeatedly that God is not “a respector of persons.” Yet, if some are “loved before time” while others are passed over, there is a serious glitch in the respector of persons affirmation.
I’d like to see more said about the notion of an “active choice” vs. God’s merely “passing over” others. Your construal of that seems to presuppose a more voluntarist notion of “will” rather than a more Thomistic notion.
The nature of a choice is grounded, one could suggest, in part by the object of that choice. Salvation is a “thing” – a positive good – while wrongdoing can be conceived as a “privation” – an absence of goods that ought to be there, and so in itself nothing.
If such a privation view of evil is tenable, then the asymmetry between election and reprobation is not grounded in a difference in God or how he wills. Rather, the difference in God’s willing (active vs passive or the like) lies in the nature of object willed.
That doesn’t necessarily make the notion any less objectionable, perhaps, but it might be part of the difference between varying pictures of election.
When Jesus refers to Judas in the John 17 prayer as the “one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled” is he speaking of God’s action that doomed or the action of Judas that doomed?
That last line of your post where you say Horton says “this isn’t about looking into ourselves but looking unto Christ, unto what God has done” suggests the doomed action was all Judas. In fact Jesus was trying to save Judas (the story of scripture). But consequences are real (another subplot to the fulfillment of scripture).
Just because God knows the consequences of The Falls (Satan’s as well as man’s) we should not blame God as a cosmic manipulator. And just because God takes action to save us from The Falls we should not underestimate man’s tragic tendency to reject God and then blame God for that too.
Garver,
I’m trying to figure out why you move into “wrongdoing” and “evil.”
Imagine God looking at a group of 100 people; God scans the people and assigns 25 to bliss and 75 to utter banishment. That, at least, is the effect of election. Now it might be argued that God didn’t “do” or “act” when it comes to the 75, which is what Horton argues, but instead simply doesn’t choose them.
My contention is that such a passing over is still a choice not to act redemptively. Further, I would argue God could have chosen the 75 or all. So at some point we push back into the mind and decrees of God to find some kind of act on God’s part not to elect.
If man’s salvation is based on choice – salvation is never ‘fair’, since man’s choices are never based on an unbiased, intelligent rendering of all the facts. If God knew what ‘he’ wanted even before ‘creation’, God could have created only those ‘he’ wanted and not allowed suffering. Yet, if God is ‘love’ and the kingdom of ‘grace’ exists, then both Arianism and Calvinism are nonsense notions. Heaven is ‘big enough’ for all.
re: “When it comes to human responsibility and election, Horton adopts a form of compatibilism: that God has ordered a world in which divine election and human responsibility work together. Our free acts are part of God’s decree. He has a good discussion of this subject.”
Seems to me this is the crux. Unless and until we can form some reasonable, responsible, and faithfully biblical notion of human freedom and God’s freedom (and this has as much to do with philosophy as with Scripture), then we aren’t going to offer any reliable framework in which to understand election. Paul Helm, John Feinberg, and a few others have moved us closest so far (IMModeratlyInformedO).
Scot,
The idea of “not acting” towards the 75 reminds me of the Passover in Exodus. God clearly acted to save Israel by giving them the instructions about the blood of the lamb. By not sharing this information with Egypt he was also clearly acting to judge Pharaoh and Egypt. Hard to see how final judgment is much different.
Scot,
Your post sparked a question I’ve been wanting someone to explain, hopefully that someone can be you. You state, concerning Horton: “the choice to permit is an active choice.” I understand that.
Olson in his Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (p. 116) says: “Classical Arminiansim goes far beyond belief in general providence to include affirmation of God’s intimate and direct involvement in every event of nature and history. The only thing the Arminian view of God’s sovereignty necessarily excludes is God’s authorship of sin and evil…Nothing at all can happen without God’s permission, and many things are specifically and directly controlled and caused by God. Even sin and evil do not escape God’s providential governance in classical Arminian theology. God permits and limits them without willing or causing them.” Later he describes Arminius’ view as: “God has the ability to stop anything from happening, but to preserve human liberty he permits sin and evil without approving them” (p. 120).
Help me understand the difference between Horton’s Calvinism which “permits” and Olson’s classical Arminianism which “permits.” They both seem to be saying that “our free acts are a part of God’s decree.”
“I don’t buy the escape on this one; the choice not to elect remains a choice.”
This is a stark contrast to your previous comments on sovereignty and God’s involvement in evil. I have stated, multiple times, that having a God who is sovereign and capable of intervening, yet chooses not to, is not essentially different than a God who predestines both good and evil outcomes. Your essential response has always been that being able to intervene, yet choosing not to do so, kept God from being implicated in evil in a way that meticulous providence did not.
Now that we are talking about election specifically, you won’t give Horton the same out that you have been claiming for the past several weeks.
If God’s sovereign non-interventionist policy exempts him from being culpable for evil when he clearly is not exercising his sovereign authority to prevent evil.
Why wouldn’t God’s non-electionist policy exempt him from being culpable for “choosing unto reprobation” when he clearly is simply not exercising his electing authority.
Maybe the two cases are sufficiently different that we shouldn’t expect consistency on the two issues. But your approach to God’s culpability is clearly different in the two situations.
Brian, this stuff gets tricky and I’m not an expert on the intricacies but let me give it a shot.
The Arminian has a God who decrees dimensions of this world where human free will is a good God desires, and I don’t know if natural disasters and animals are part of the same decree (nor would I speculate on such matters). God desires this freedom so much that he temporarily suspends his control over such freedoms, or he creates a circle inside which the human has freedom. One of those circles would be religion/morality. Humans choose and what they choose determines. The Arminian logic blames humans for evil more forcefully than does the Calvinist.
The Calvinist believes more in meticulous providence so that God does not surrender dimensions to free will. The “permission” of the Calvinist is some kind of determinist/compatibilist permission but all that happens is part of God’s decree, yet the Calvinist asserts (I don’t know it is logical but it’s a robust assertion anyway) that God is not implicated in any evil. (Olson actually points to some who have God causing evil for his greater glory.)
All of this creates the problem Arminians are keen to point to: if God does have meticulous providence, then God’s non-acting toward the non-elect is a kind of acting. The Arminian’s God grants the permissions connected to free will and thereby contends it excludes God from the problem of evil and more fully blames humans. (I’m aware that Calvinists have plenty of blame for humans, but I’m not as convinced their blame is as logical as the Arminians.)
Don’t get me wrong, it’s not that I think the Arminian’s case is fool proof and without problems, for it struggles with sovereignty in a way the Calvinist doesn’t.
Honestly…I find this topic to be a waste of time and energy, as well as the books that have been written. Just read the Bible and proclaim the Gospel. Teach the Word as it is stated. Whether Calvinism or Arminianism, both are man-made systems. Leave this topic for those at the Areopagus (the authors) who had nothing to do but talk about the latest ideas.
“Those who experience that electricity are those who turn the switch to on. That does not make it ultimately depends on us; it’s God electricity but we are called to turn on the switch. Some do, some don’t. In other words, there can be no question in this analogy of who is responsible — ultimately and totally — for the flow of electricity. (God.)”
- In this analogy, it’s correct to say that it’s “ultimately” God who is responsible for the flow of electricity (salvation) being present and available, but I think you have to say that it is the person who is “ultimately” responsible for the pre-existing electricity being of of any benefit for them individually.
“what kind of God do we have if God can intervene for humans by election but who refuses? So the issue here isn’t just is it fair but also is God good and loving and compassionate and merciful? If so, what does that do to this “fair” question?”
- Does anyone doubt that, should he have desired to do so, God could have created a world in which he did save everyone? If not, well that’s a whole other ball of wax. If so, he clearly didn’t. Does that impugn his compassion and mercy? Whether corporate or individual, hasn’t that question been answered by Ex 33:19?
Election is a biblical concept whether we like it or not. The problem is understanding it. But after studying Romans recently, I’ve come to believe this about election (coming from chps. 9-11).
1) Election, those God foreknew, and the remnant are all synonymous in Rom. Which leads me to believe that Paul is specifically talking about Israel. Going all the way back to the OT, the prophets proclaimed that a remnant of Israel will be kept preserved. That was true through both exiles the Israelites faced and it’s true when it comes to the new humanity, the new life Jesus’s gospel brings to the new earth (with Christ being the new Adam) – all topics Paul has discussed in Romans up until chp. 9. Paul is frustrated by the small amount of Jews being saved compared to Gentiles and he deduces as to why. He says it’s not becuase they haven’t heard and it’s not becuase no one was sent, it’s because God has chosen to harden their hearts. Why? So that the gospel can be presented to Gentiles until their full number are grafted in. Paul refers to the elect, those who God foreknew, as the first Jews who have come into faith in Jesus Christ, who have attained righteousness through faith, not through the Law. These firstfruits are the remnant of Israel that is being preserved. But this doesn’t mean that no other Jew can be saved, for Paul says the natural branches that have been cut off can be easily grafted in again. But a Jew can no longer be saved from keeping the Law, but through faith in Jesus Christ.
2) Election doesn’t mean “saved to the exclusion of others,” rather it means “chosen for the blessings of all.” If we go all the way back to Abraham, when he was first chosen by God, the promise He gave him was to make his name great and descendants even greater – but for what purpose? For the blessing of the entire world. When you see people being elected by God it’s always for the benefit of others, not to exclude others from salvation. Going back to chps. 9-11 God may have chosen to harden Israel’s hearts, but for what purpose? So that the Gentiles might be saved.
We could a whole lot further, but I think these 2 points are made clearly in Romans when it refers to election.
hi scott, you said, “god could have chosen the 75 or all.” are you serious? yes, god could have chosen the 75, instead of the 25. but, all? common sense says to choose is to decide which thing or person you want out of the ones that are available. you choose between a and b, or, a from b. if you choose a, then be is not chosen. i have a hard time to figure your further statement that god could have chosen “all.” it doesn’t make sense to me.
however, i agree with you when you said (i’m paraphrasing your words here) passing over some while saving others is in itself a choice. but can you see the difference between passing over some and appointing some to damnation (double predestination)? i think that’s what horton is trying to do, he is trying to differentiate between the two.
David #12: I agree with the sentiment of your comment, but I think it is also important to grapple with these topics since the Apostle Paul (and others) must have written them for a reason.
Personally, I don’t think the verses about election were meant for non-believers, nor were they meant to be part of the Gospel. They seem to be written to believers to: (1) show us how much we are loved by God and to illustrate that God has called us for a purpose; (2) remind us that it is God who provides salvation and that we are not self-sufficient; and (3) reassure us that having been elected, God is not going to jettison us from his Kingdom (as Scot seems to allude to in his last paragraph).
Thus, attempts to use election to draw boundaries or establish hierarchy or claim privilege seem quite misguided and contrary to the original intentions.
Neither Calvinism nor Arminianism are completely “biblical”. Calvinism seems to be to me slightly more “biblical” than the alternative but I don’t consider myself a Calvinist for reasons I’ll now go into.
I’ve found that there are many passages in the Bible which are difficult if you try to map the mind of God like a puzzle, which is effectively what you’re doing if you choose one system over the other and say “without qualification, this is the correct system”. And this goes both ways. The Calvinists will talk about certain passages and they make perfect sense, yet when discussing other things in the bible they really are forced to make some quite implausible interpretations and create some difficult justifications to make them fit within their system. Similarly, there are some passages in the Bible which align perfectly with the Arminian understanding, and others where the Arminian theologians are forced to scratch their heads and come up with less-than-perfect interpretations. Also, this is a philosophically difficult issue. This point gradually dawned on me, especially when I read a book a few years ago with four theologians/philosophers making their case for different understandings of God’s sovereignty and human free will (http://www.amazon.com/Predestination-Free-Will-Sovereignty-Freedom/dp/0877845670/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1320075378&sr=8-1).
How does a Calvinist account for God appearing to change his mind? How do we account for passages that seem to say contradictory things? Why do both systems have what appear to be inexplicable problems which weaken one aspect of God’s character at the expense of another? Why are theologians and philosophers who study this issue forced to supply complicated explanations which leave the average person’s head spinning in order to make sense of their own system? (For example the Calvinist idea that God has two seperate wills- his perfect or sovereign will and his permissive will? Somehow an all powerful being, who ordains all things needs to have two distinct wills, within himself. Somehow man has no power to overcome God’s will, except in instances where it’s convenient for Calvinists. OK slightly flippant, but my point is clear- this whole idea is simply a complicated, convuluted system created by man in order to understand God).
This problem led me in the direction of some conclusions on the matter. This post is an introduction to my views so I’ll summarise them here. My conclusions also closely relate to my view of the Bible and how it is to be interpreted, and this is yet another topic which will receive attention on this blog in the future.
Firstly, perhaps the Bible isn’t completely inerrant in the word-for-word sense which is assumed when topics like these are debated. Perhaps Paul, and other biblical authors were simply writing down their understanding about the will and God’s control. Perhaps we need to give more dues to context, and I’d strongly suggest we also need to question whether the Bible was meant to be some kind of word to word dictation or whether there is a more sensible approach to take. Many Christians seem to hold that the Bible is a word for word dictation like the Koran, but I think this view looks silly once you look into debates such as Calvinism vs Arminianism, Faith vs Works and compare the various passages on these topics.
Secondly, perhaps there is this conflict in the Bible for a reason. Perhaps this is a mystery that God is leaving open. In the absence of clear answers, and considering the difficulties of fitting each and every passage into one system or the other, this seems a reasonable view to take. We see through a glass dimly.
Thirdly, it makes sense that finite beings who are constrained by time may not be able to effectively figure out how an infinite being (who is not constrained by time), relates to time. Rob Bell gives an illustration of how someone in a two dimensional world would have no idea what they were looking at if someone from a 3D world entered into their 2D situation. Something similar could be analogous here. This all makes me wonder whether it’s acceptable and rational to plead mystery in some instances (this being one of them) rather than create complex systems which will inevitably leave us with more questions than answers.
Agus, I’m not a universalist but since God’s elective choice is redemptive, he could choose all (instead of none or a limited number) to remove them from reprobation to salvation. Yes, Horton does want to distinguish pass over from an active choice. I’m not sure it works: it’s a distinction with no difference.
Sorry that was a copy from my blog. But I thought it was entirely relevant to this discussion.
You electricity example is helpful in knowing where the Arminianism falls on the subject. However, by that example, many in my Northeastern US area found that they lost their (electric) election during last weekend’s snowstorm. I guess that’s where the analogy breaks down.
Hi Scot,
The Calvinist would say some throw the switch to get the electricity due to effectual calling (aka irresistible grace). Would an Arminian say it’s a mystery why some choose to throw the switch and others don’t because prevenient grace puts everyone in the same place regarding ability/inclination to make the choice to throw the switch?
This is a great post that gets to the heart of my lingering questions on this issue. One of them is this: How can an Arminian interpret any election text as referring toward the individual?
scot,
if ‘redemptive’ is taken to mean the worth/value/sufficiency of christ’s death, then i agree that it is unlimited. it is sufficient to pay the price for the sins of the whole world. however, if it is taken to mean the actual salvation accomplished in particular persons, then neither calvin nor arminius himself taught unlimited atonement.
I think the Molinists offer a way out of this morass with their notion of God’s middle knowledge. http://www.theopedia.com/Molinism
Ironically, one of its greatest advocates, Alvin Plantinga, is a Calvinist.
Proposed biblical evidence for Middle Knowledge:
Exodus 13:17
1 Samuel 23:8–14
Jeremiah 23: 21–22
Matthew 11:21–24
1 Corinthians 2:8
P.S. I find it interesting that C. Matthew McMahon’s purported scriptural evidence against middle knowledge can also be taken as support for it. http://lifecypha.wordpress.com/2011/04/10/the-heresy-of-middle-knowledge-dr-c-matthew-mcmahon/
With all the controversy in recent days regarding “Love wins”, and the notion that nearly all may ultimately be saved, it strikes me that the notion that should really, really horrify and offend us is the notion of double predestinaton. That really is a horror fitting for Halloween.
Ditto to TJJ in #25. Whatever Romans Chapter 9 means, it does not mean double predestination. How about being about nations and not individuals?
Scot,
In regard to nomenclature, I think that “ultimately” is an excellent word to describe the definitive difference between the Arminian and the Calvinist perspectives.
Your illustration of electricity shows this admirably. Certainly, in Arminian theology, what God does for the salvation of sinners is immense by comparison with what saved humans do. But it is that minuscule human contribution that determines the outcome. In the end (one sense of “ultimately”), whether or not a person is saved is determined completely by that person. God’s work of providing electricity is massive by comparison with the small effort of flipping the switch, but it does not suffice to get anyone saved. It is whether or not people flip the switch (not what God does) that determines who is saved.
That is what I take Mike to mean by “ultimately” and he is picked a good word for it, IMO.
I admit that it is hard for me to be charitable in this. Any doctrine that so clearly discriminates against some so ultimately (if you will), purely for reasons of happenstance ,in most cases, must be wrong. And those who take readings that can be interpreted differently and insist that the correct interpretation means that they are elevated over the least of these, primarily due to chance, are surely deeply wrong.
A doctrine such as this has terrible evil in its adoption. It leads to behaviors that we do not want in this world and attitudes toward people that despicable. It has not place in religion in my view.
And the adherents do have a choice in the matter. They are choosing to believe this. But then again, they are elected before time by god over others so they are quite special. I simply find this deeply offensive.
Terry,
But in Calvinism God provides the electricity and flips the switch … and I would say that counters how the Bible throws the responsibility for flipping the switch on humans, not to mention the human experience of it all.
Terry,
And I would say, as an Anabaptist with Armininan leanings, that only a Calvinist can possibly think that is “ultimately.” For me, “ultimately” is all God. Ultimately is the electricity not the flipping of the switch, and I’ve worked on rooms enough to say that by flipping I don’t think I’m doing anything.
If what is meant is that nothing redemptive happens until someone responds, then fine but I would not use the word “ultimately” for that.
Scot @ 29,
You certainly put your finger on the heart of the issue here, Scot, namely the authenticity of the human act of will. Unquestionably, redemption does not occur without the human responsive act of repentance and faith. Those who refuse to repent and believe are accountable for their having rejected God’s invitation. There, Arminians and Calvinists are in agreement, but Arminians are puzzled that Calvinists would say this when those who do not belief could not believe, because God does not efficaciously enable them. (You’ve spoken to this.)
Those who do believe, however, look back upon their action and realize that God had graciously given them repentance and faith, which he has not done for everyone, and they are humblingly amazed at the greatness of God’s unmerited favour. Nevertheless, during the time of their repenting and believing, they were keenly aware of freely exercising their will (hence your comment about “the human experience of it all”).
It is a conundrum, I grant you that. For some reason, Calvinists and Arminians hear the metanarrative differently. I became a Calvinist kicking and struggling, because I eventually concluded that the big picture of the biblical story is one in which God is meticulously in control and always achieves what he sets out to do. Within that framework, unconditional election makes sense, because it becomes inconceivable that God could be trying his utmost to save everyone. And there is where experience kicks in for me by way of confirmation of my reading of Scripture. As I look around, it is obvious to me that God is not doing everything he could do to save everyone.
Here is why I don’t get anywhere near as exercised about the existence of many Arminians within evangelicalism as some of my fellow-Calvinists do. I see God using the earnestness with which serious Arminians pursue the unsaved whose eternal destiny may lie in the success of their own efforts to convince sinners of their need. But I also hear Arminians who have been saved testifying to the great grace of God in saving them, and his perseverance with them when they resisted. On the other hand, Calvinists believe that God ordains means as well as ends, and so we too believe in the urgency of evangelism and feel compelled by the love of God for sinners. I learned from Neal Punt to assume that everyone is elect until they have been proven otherwise. That does not happen until their death, and even then we cannot know for sure what transpired between their souls and God.
So, when Arminianism and Calvinism are lived out faithfully both theologies serve God’s purposes in the world and I rejoice. As a Calvinist, I am convinced that if God had wanted all his children to be Calvinists he could have accomplished it, through less ambiguity in Scripture and greater illumination by the Spirit. Arminians may be right and I (and fellow Calvinists) may be wrong. Thankfully, God will still get his work done and my theological error will not prevent him from doing so.
Fair enough Scot @ 30. You said: “If what is meant is that nothing redemptive happens until someone responds, then fine but I would not use the word “ultimately” for that.”
That is what I mean, and I think “ultimately” works to describe it, but I respect your difference of opinion on the matter.
The point for me is that, in Arminianism, God tries equally hard to get everyone saved, otherwise he would have been unfairly favouring some and that would be unconditional election. So, the critical difference between the saved and the unsaved, the determining factor, is not God’s action but human action. I find ultimacy a good category to describe that difference. But I really don’t want to be ornery about it.
Incidentally, did you know that John Wesley thought some people might be unconditionally elected. That didn’t trouble him, as long as none who were saved had not been prevented from it by not being elected. The nice thing, from a Calvinist perspective, about Wesley’s approach is that no one who has believed in Christ can be sure that it didn’t happen for them in the way Calvinists believe it always does. Neat, eh?
Whoops, my second last sentence in 32 should read: “That didn’t trouble him, as long as none who were not saved had been prevented from it by not being elected.
Terry, I’m chuckling about your theory that if God wanted all of us to be Calvinists he could have done that.
my brother, a zealous Calvinist would say that flipping the switch was a work. I could boast in heaven that I was smarter or wiser or better than those in the room that didn’t flip the switch. If I could boast for my action, it is a work and not fully by grace.
Hogwash of course. But that line of argument has many a Calvinists I know surely in that camp.
After years of debating with him, usually repeating ourselves ad nauseum–I told him no more–so we have stopped. By the way, He is my twin and i minute older. (Am I Jacob?) haha
#35 correction
i = 1
Actually, i = square root of -1
I am just so amazed that before the foundation of the world God meticulously determined I would not be a Calvinist. (smile) And it is amazing that most human beings saved on the earth today are followers of Christ through non-Calvinist churches, evangelists, teachers and pastors. Wow.
More seriously, why do Calvinists tend to focus only 4-5 books in the Bible; Selected parts of Genesis and Exodus, parts of Galatians, Romans 9 and 11 (skimming lightly over Romans 10), and Ephesians 1-3? What about Romans 1:18ff? “Because of this, God gave them over…” “Therefore, God gave them over…” If God were a Calvinist it would read, “God gave them over, therefore…” But it says they knew God and the suppressed the truth — not that the truth was suppressed for them by another agent. I know, the nonsense of secondary causes that are not causes comes into play here, right?
Finally, look at Jesus. If He (a member of the Trinity involved in the decrees from eternity past) gets so angry at injustice and sin and man’s wrongdoing, how can He be the cause of it and act this way with integrity (chasing the money changers for example). And how can he pretend to be unaware of who touched him when the woman with the issue of blood made contact with his garment, and power left him? Either He is putting on a charade or He actually is engaging with human beings in day-to-day life, like the BIBLE teaches — WOW…what a powerful, wise God who does not have to CAUSE (read manipulate) all things in order to exercise CONTROL over all things — a much more powerful and compassionate God that the puppet-master of Calvinism.
As a believer with Arminian leanings, I am quite grateful for the irenic Calvinist among us (like Michael Horton, Terry Tiessen and others)who engage in this family discussion with grace and charity toward those of us who differ significantly with them on fairly weighty theological issues. While we differ, I value the clarity they bring to the discussion. They help me understand and appreciate why we see these issues differently. I have often benefited from their insight and their generosity of spirit. This is not always the case (since folks on both sides the issue sometimes neglect the better angels of their nature when this topic arises), but I wanted to express my appreciation for the collegiality expressed in many of the posts . . . very heartening. I think this remains an important discussion and appreciate your willingness, Scot, to moderate both sides of the issue.
#38: It’s a caricature of Calvinism to say that God is a puppet master and we are merely dancing along on our strings.