Like Button
Friday, June 30, 2006
Tiptoe through TULIP - U
Unconditional Election
What It Does Not Mean
The term “Unconditional Election” raises all sorts of alarms in people’s minds. “What do you mean ‘unconditional’?” “Hey, just what is ‘election’ anyway?” Let me point out first of all what the concept does not mean. First, it does not mean there are no conditions on salvation. It does not deny the fact that people need to exercise faith and receive Christ. That is not the idea behind “unconditional”. Therefore, it obviously doesn’t mean that we have no part in our own salvation. We are called to choose, and we must.
The concept of election also disturbs people. The first objection is “It excludes people who would have chosen God.” Two points here. First, from Total Depravity we have to conclude that natural Man will not choose God, so no one who “would have chosen God” is excluded. Second, there is nothing in the biblical doctrine of election that holds that God actively excludes anyone. While He actively chooses, He doesn’t actively push people away. The second objection is “If people are elect, why preach the gospel?” There are two simple answers here. First and foremost, we preach the gospel because we are commanded to preach the gospel. Secondly, since we don’t know whom God has elected, we need to tell everyone. So the principle of Unconditional Election doesn’t preclude the preaching of the gospel. (1 Cor. 1:23-24)
The other thing that is commonly held is that God chooses who will be saved based on His foreknowledge of who will choose Him. Unconditional Election specifically does not teach this. There are two reasons. First, if election was based on Man’s choice, then it wouldn’t be “unconditional”. Second, if the first point, Total Depravity, is true, then no one would choose God on his own without specific and intentional intervention by God.
What It Does Mean
What then is meant by Unconditional Election? Election means that God alone chooses who will come to Him (John 15:16). This is clearly evident in biblical history, where God initiated every encounter from Adam to Noah to Abraham to Moses to the judges to Samuel and all the way to Jesus’ selection of disciples. “Unconditional” refers to the fact that God’s choice is not conditioned by anything in the person. This is logically required if Total Depravity is true, since there would be nothing in the person to commend them to God. According to Rom. 9:10-24, God chooses according to His good purpose (verse 11) without any regard for Man’s choices or efforts (verse 16).
This doctrine is very important. Look up these passages yourself and see what they say: Eph. 1:3-6, 11; Acts 13:48; John 1:12-13; 10:26; 8:47; 17:6; Rom. 8:28-33; 2 Thess. 2:13. The simple fact is that election is a biblical doctrine. How people interpret that term varies, but try looking through Scriptures at the number of times it refers to “God’s choice of you” or the equivalent. Election is certainly biblical.
Objections Answered
Let’s look at a few of the most common objections to Unconditional Election and see what we can see.
1. “The Scriptures say repeatedly ‘whosoever will’. Doesn’t that mean anyone?”
To say that “’whosever will’ means ‘anyone can’” is to draw an implication rather than to take it from the explicit. All that “whosoever will” says is that “whoever does X will have Y.” There is nothing in the statement that requires “anyone can”. Instead, Scripture explicitly says, “no man can”. We saw that in John 6:61-66, where “no man can unless.” We see that in John 6:44 where “no man can unless the Father draws him.” (Note: the word “draw” is better translated “dragged”. See its use in Acts 16:19.) In fact, according to Paul, “the flesh cannot please God” (Rom. 8:5-8). Therefore, although “whosever will” might imply anyone can, the explicit teaching of Scripture says they can’t.
2. “Doesn’t Rom. 8:29 say that God’s choice is based on His foreknowledge?”
The concept that God merely “knows in advance” (prescience) doesn’t answer the question of how a person who is completely disinclined to God would choose Him. In fact, if God’s choice is based on Man’s choice of God, there is merit in the man, and it cannot be considered grace. Look at Rom. 9:16 and John 1:12-13 where it explicitly says it is not based on Man’s choices. Instead, the concept of “foreknow” in Hebrew terminology is slightly different than our English equivalent of prescience. To the Hebrew mind (Paul was Hebrew), to “know” means to be intimate. Therefore, to “foreknow” would mean “to be intimate in advance”. This isn’t passive – it’s active. God’s foreknowledge isn’t mere prescience. He is actively involved.
3. “It’s not fair that God would choose some and not others.”
This is actually a disturbing accusation. Inherent is the implication that God owes everyone Heaven. The simple fact is that we all deserve Hell. God is not by any means obligated to save anyone. Justice alone demands universal condemnation. We seem to forget that so easily. Therefore, if God chooses to intervene in the lives of some, He has not treated anyone unfairly. God is free to exercise mercy, but He is not obligated to exercise mercy. As He told Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." (Rom 9:15) The accusation that God is not fair if He chooses to save some is founded on an inflated view of Man.
Labels:
Reformed Theology
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
"The accusation that God is not fair if He chooses to save some is founded on an inflated view of Man."
This is the hardest thing to get over! It still baffles me from time to time, but....I know that it was not fair that God saved me. I know I didn't do anything to deserve it. So all I can really say is, "Praise God for saving a sinner like me!"
How do you suggest one contend with the argument that if God chooses people to be saved and chooses people to not be saved but be damned by a world he created and knew we would sin in, then He is a sadist?
Kristal,
The argument doesn't work. It is not true that people are "damned by a world He created." They are damned by their own sin, not by the world in which they live. God is left with two options: 1) Do as He has done, or 2) eliminate free will. Would the arguer suggest the second?
Further, there is a problem with the use of the term "sadist". The first definition is for one that derives sexual gratification from inflicting pain. I cannot imagine that anyone would suggest that of God. The second definition would be "an enjoyment of being cruel". The argument you ask about might refer to this concept, but if so, it isn't proved. You see, just because someone allows pain doesn't mean they enjoy it. Any caring parent can tell you that. The argument says that because God allows pain He is a sadist. That would mean that because parents allow the pain of injections to their children, they are sadists. Clearly that doesn't work.
So the argument doesn't work because it distributes the blame to "the world" rather to the individual who earns damnation, and it doesn't work because the alternative could only be the removal of free will, and, finally, because allowing someone to earn damnation does not require that you be a sadist.
Does that help?
Post a Comment