Category: Unconditional Election

There was recently a discussion in which common grace vs special (or saving) grace was bandied about. Curiosity got to me, and I wondered just how special is God’s saving grace? And so, I looked up some numbers to calculate a ballpark figure. I’ll assume, for argument’s sake, that half of the world’s population of Evangelical Christians comprise God’s “elect”.  Therefore, if my math is correct; 0.5(600M/7.6B) = 3.95%. That is, God’s election is only extended to about four percent of the world’s population.

Put another way, for every soul born throughout the world, there is a likelihood of ~96% that the child is NOT of the elect. Well, at least I now know my approximate odds of God having found favor with me before the foundation of the world.

Dear Jim,

I too have been a greeter at church. All too many greeters, however, seem content to sit at the door and say, “Good morning.” I rather enjoyed engaging with new attenders – the “newbies”. I sense we have something in common here and would absolutely agree that words of affirmation – such as you used with those teenage girls are huge. In fact, that’s one of the types of love languages that Gary Chapman talks about in his book The Five Love Languages.

As best as I’m able to comprehend, I try to live my life by the precepts within the Bible. It’s just easier. And, no guilt! Doesn’t mean I’m perfect. And, thank God, I don’t feel the need that I have to be perfect. Forgiveness is a wonderful thing – both in the giving and the receiving of it. Sadly, I am certainly more skilled in the receiving of forgiveness.

I appreciate the compliment regarding my analogy of the petri dish. Analogies eventually break down. But for now, that’s the best way to understand what you’ve stated to me as to God’s application of his sovereignty over man. That said, I have never before considered your perspective that the reason God ‘sovereignly does’ all this stuff is to prepare for what he has planned in heaven. I’ll admit, the thought is intriguing. But, at this point I’m inclined not agree. Perhaps the notion is still too much of a fatalistic position for me to swallow. The nature and character of God, as I understand him, isn’t at all fatalistic. Perhaps in my ignorance I could agree that in the OT God had things planned out much more so. But within the NT, I see Jesus with the woman at the well, bringing sight to the blind, feeding many, calling out the Pharisees for their hypocrisy, reasoning and helping his disciples to understand that he is indeed the Messiah. He came that we might have life. He loves all and wants none to perish. Perhaps it’s along the lines of in the OT God treated people like children. However, in the NT, I sense that God is much more so treating people like adults. Whatever …. minor ramblings. Sorry.

You and I will certainly disagree on the interpretation of any number of verses and how they may, or may not help justify Calvinistic doctrines. In part, that is why I used the analogy of the petri dish. Perhaps other analogies might work better. But this one seems to make sense – at least to me. If I may, allow me to toss out another analogy on how I see the application of Calvinism in general and unconditional election in particular.

Much as my own son has disowned me, I will always hope that he’ll change or otherwise, as it were, return much like the prodigal son. To which, I simply can’t image a father ever turning away from one of his own kids. I suspect that both you and I would be reviled at a father returning home from the hospital with his newborn twins – one of whom he favored over the other. The father made his determination long before the twins were born. The favored child received his father’s love and attention. He was given the best of everything. No benefit was withheld. The father even changed his will so that everything would be given to the favored child. All the while, the not-favored child was left wanting, not cared for, and would have to live in the garage. Further, there would be no interaction with his father.

Truly, Jim, I would welcome your thoughts on how this analogy is not a natural outcome or construct of Calvinism. I’ll look forward to your response.

“I agree, just because I hate something doesn’t mean it’s false.”

That was my opening line responding to a Calvinist who stated that my anathema to the doctrines of Calvinism were because my “issue” is with God and not with Calvin. Seriously? Then, it ‘clicked’!

The difference in how Calvinists and non-Calvinists view the constructs and justification of Calvinism is that Calvinists start with Calvinism and try to make sense of Scripture. I start with Scripture and try to make sense of Calvinism. Calvinists have their “bullet-points” (TULIP) and go to great lengths to show that Scripture is indeed speaking “truth” to Calvinism. Scripture ought to be the foundation for all Christians. Further, the tension between Calvinism and what the Bible teaches is huge and I simply can’t understand how it is that Calvinists can hold to their tenants given the obvious tension of competing verses.

A Rachel Held Evans blog post several years ago got right to the core (for me) of what constitutes Calvinism.
– God creates disposable people, people without any hope.
– God sovereignly ordains, every war, abortion and rape.
– God does not love the world but instead hates it and delights himself and finds glory sending people to hell.

Calvinists believe that God predestined them to heaven. But I find it ironic that Calvinists will rarely admit the opposite truth as well that God predestines (i.e. determines from the foundation of the world, no less) to send the vast and overwhelming majority of people to hell? Call those who’re elect “the remnant”. I guess that sounds more spiritual. And yet, is there anything more clearly stated in the Bible (John 3:16) – for God so loved the world? And no, that doesn’t mean everyone automatically enters heaven. Rather, Jesus has paid the price and God allows the free-will choice of every individual. God wants none to perish (2 Pet 3:9). No one is intentionally excluded – as Calvinism would have you believe. In the end, it’s difficult for me to ascribe to Calvinist theology if only because my understanding of Calvinist theology makes God out to be arbitrary and capricious.

Lastly, every Calvinist I know is adamant they’re part of “Team Elect”. However, Calvin writes (Institutes of Religion 3.2.11) that God not only reveals himself to his elect, but that God also reveals himself to the reprobate. Further, God instills within the reprobate a sense of God’s goodness and mercy to the point where the reprobate even believes God loves him and has mercy for him? According to Calvin, then, the reprobate is only enlightened with a present and not eternal sense of grace. Therefore, any conviction the reprobate experiences will never lead to salvation. God, per Calvin, is a manipulator and otherwise toys with those he plans to send to hell. How nice.

Consider then – it only stands to reason that some who think they’re part of “Team Elect” are actually on “Team Reprobate” Per Calvin, God has given various reprobates a sense of right and wrong, a sense of godliness. Perhaps these reprobates sense an inner spirit indwelling within. But unless those on Team Elect disagree with Calvin (and I’ve yet to find any Calvinist who’s in disagreement with Calvin), how can anyone have any sense of eternal security? How does confusion not reign supreme in making the distinction between knowing whether one is a member of “Team Elect” or that God has instead determined (before the foundation of the world, no less) that you’re a member of “Team Reprobate”?

 
I recently read this D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones quote which is certainly a tenant of unconditional election within Classical Calvinism. Any reader of this blog will know the Calvinist’s definition of election is a bit of a thorn in my side. To which, if the above statement by Lloyd-Jones is indeed true, then logically, the opposite of his statement is also true. Kind of like John 8:32 which states you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free. So, if the truth sets us free, then its opposite is also true wherein error binds or otherwise does not make us free. So, because it’s clear that people go to Hell, then I think it safe to infer from Lloyd-Jones to the effect that God has marked a select few to salvation before the foundation of the world, then it is also clear that God has determined (selected?) that the [some/many/most/overwhelming majority] are not born again and that they won’t believe in Him. In short, God chooses who’ll be saved. And therefore, by default, God also chooses who’ll be damned to Hell.

For many, this is the heart of free will vs predetermination. I reject the Calvinist notion of election in part because the Bible is replete with verses commanding folks to repent of their sin and to believe – in salvation through faith. If indeed, as Calvinists claim, that salvation is ‘given’ to only a select few, they why so many verses exhorting people to believe?

I’ve been told by Calvinists that, “If we can add anything to our salvation, then we are saying that Jesus’ dying on the cross was an insufficient propitiation for our sins.” I don’t disagree that our finite minds can fully comprehend an infinite God. Perhaps it is true that the two lines of God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility can only intersect in the mind of God. But I don’t sense that there is so much difficulty in understanding that a) God has offered to everyone a way of salvation and b) it is man’s responsibility to accept that offer.

Edwin Lutzer from Moody College has stated that predestination is a difficult doctrine to understand and that there is a lot of mystery involved. Lutzer definition of predestination is, “God predetermining what happens on earth and that he predetermines you and your salvation”. He references Eph 1:4 as part of his justification for believing God determines specific individuals for salvation – which says – For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.

I remember being in a special reading where the teacher suggested I try omitting the prepositional phrases to better understand the “main point”. As is, a preposition links nouns, pronouns and phrases to other words in a sentence. We may lose details – but I don’t think that is the case here: (For) He chose us (in Him) (before the creation) (of the world) to be holy and blameless (in His sight).

Without the prepositions, then, Eph 1:4 says; He chose us to be holy and blameless.

The word “chose” in my Webster’s dictionary has different meanings including: “to select freely and after consideration” and “to decide”.

Therefore, using Webster’s common English understandings for the word “chose”, I believe a fair interpretation of this verse is that God decided that we were to be holy and blameless before he created the world.

In other words, God predestined that we were to be holy and blameless before he created the world. As I understand it, how that comes about was with the law in the OT and faith in Christ in the NT. I see nothing here that God has already decided who’s “elect” and who’s “reprobate”. Given that the Bible is replete with commands to repent and to believe would seem to support a personal requirement of a free will decision to accept God’s offer of salvation.

So, how then does all this fit together? Well, much like an algebraic statement must reconcile itself to be considered “true” (i.e. the right answer), so too must our theology add up, reconcile and resolve itself. I recently read, “Theological words have established meanings.” When we don’t agree on definitions then it only stands to reason that we’ll end up with variance of thought. That is, when explanations don’t add up and don’t reconcile, then there are potential contradictions which could be indications of error. As to who has the correct definitions – in this case regarding the word ‘predestination’, well, that seems to be the question of the day.

To which, I find these thoughts from Jerry Edmon regarding a Calvinist’s understanding of predestination to be interesting:

If predestination is true, one is either eternally saved or eternally damned before birth.

If predestination is true, then the concept of choice is a cruel deception.

If predestination is true, then the thought of being a free moral agent is simply a pretense.

If predestination is true, then reaching out to the non-elect is nothing more than an exercise in religious recital.

If predestination is true, then the sharing of the gospel by the elect can only stir up false hope within the reprobate.

If predestination is true, then why bother sharing God’s love unless it is just some misdirected sadistic tease to those who can never have eternal life?

If predestination is true, then preaching the gospel only dangles a mirage about the river of life to those dying of thirst who’re not able to partake of its stream.

If predestination is true, then the term “whosoever” from John 3:16 is a lie.