I was reading in 1 Peter and came across this:
4 And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For this is contained in Scripture: "Behold, I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious cornerstone, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed." 7 This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve, "The stone which the builders rejected, this became the very cornerstone," 8 and, "A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed (1 Peter 2:4-8).Pay close attention to that last statement: "To this doom they were also appointed." We find the same type of statement in Jude. "Certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for condemnation" (Jude 1:4). The suggestion in these passages is that people were appointed for damnation.
I'm not proof-texting here. I'm not saying, "See! It's all true!!" I'm not trying to bend anyone with my skillful argumentation. I'm not suggesting why or how or offering argumentation on God's line of thinking. All I'm doing is asking the question ... What if it is true?
I've actually heard people -- self-proclaimed Christians -- say, "If that's what God is like, then I want nothing to do with Him!" I've heard them, in essence, affirm without equivocation, "I will only take God on my terms! If He violates my terms, I will not allow Him in my life." And I think, "Seriously, folks, is that what you want to say???"
If God were to choose to save some and leave the rest for certain damnation, would you say, "No, Lord!"? If it is true, would it cause you to stumble? Would you throw God out on His ear, or would you conclude, "Let God be true, though every man a liar"? I just wonder.
16 comments:
While I have seen many contemplate the possibility that some of those who claim to not be elected actually are—I see few face the reality of their own lack of election in light of their firmly held belief.
What if it was true? What would be your thoughts, Stan, if on Judgment day, despite your full persuasion in the deity and resurrection of Jesus, and your commitment to that prospect, what if God said, “Meh. You believed the right things. You did everything humanly possible. I just didn’t elect you. Sorry.”
This is certainly a Calvinist question, isn't it, and one that isn't answered in the Bible. How do we reconcile a God who apparently ordains evil things to happen, and causes humans to do evil things; yet is not responsible Himself for them, and holds a human responsible for the evil he/she commits?
But the alternative is to say the God somehow limits his sovereignty to allow evil or give us truly "free" choice, and if God can limit his own sovereignty then is He really sovereign or limitless at all? It would seem to me that the unanswered questions which are 'easier' to accept are those that place the mystery in the workings of God's will, rather than in those that question God's abilities. JMHO and all that, of course.
Well, dagoods, Peter says, "Be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure" (2 Peter 1:10). The suggestion, then, is that you can make your election sure ... that you can verify that you are elect. I personally have questioned my own election many times. Indeed, most of the big names in Christianity questioned their own salvation. I personally worry about anyone who doesn't. So I don't suppose it would come as any big surprise to me if I got to the Judgment and God said, "No, you aren't one of the elect." (You MUST know that He wouldn't say, "You did everything humanly possible" since standard, across-the-board, Christian theology holds that we can do nothing to obtain either our election or our salvation.)
Watch it, Science PhD Mom ... you're pretty darn close to being a Calvinist. :)
Stan: (You MUST know that He wouldn't say, "You did everything humanly possible" since standard, across-the-board, Christian theology holds that we can do nothing to obtain either our election or our salvation.)
Not sure there IS such a thing as “standard, across-the-board, Christian theology” but I’ll talk about the idea “we can do nothing to obtain either our election or salvation.” In point of fact, this is hugely debated, and has been for millennium. What is the human role (if any) in salvation?
Are you saying it is completely catch-as-catch-can? God picks willy-nilly and regardless of belief, regardless of faith, regardless of actions of any sort—some are saved and some are not? How do you explain Rom. 10:9? Are you saying it is a gift that need not to be received (since “receiving” requires at least some action on the part of the human), as it will be given or not, whether accepted or not?
Is your Calvinism sufficiently dogmatic to hold the proposition you have an equal chance of being saved or not? That I have an equal change? The odds of my being in heaven and you in hell are the same as you being in heaven and me in hell?
Or do you think the human has to do something--no matter how small?
I'm saying that if Election is true, then God chooses whom He will choose for His purposes, not based on the one chosen. There are, of course, responses from the human who is chosen, but they are a "given" in the sense that they will certainly happen. Faith, for instance, would be a given for the Elect (as would repentance, receiving, etc.). The point, however, is that it is not my faith that produces a response in God that biases Him toward me.
I'm sorry. I honestly don't know what you mean by "sufficiently dogmatic" or, more to the point, "equal chance of being saved or not". It sounds like random, You even use the term "willy-nilly". I would never suggest that God chooses "randomly" or "willy-nilly" or by chance. I can't imagine how to think of "the odds" in this contemplation. I'm sorry I can't be more helpful there.
Stan: I would never suggest that God chooses "randomly" or "willy-nilly" or by chance. (emphasis in original)
Then how does your God choose? If it is dependent on anything,--anything at all--the human does, then the human has to do something to be elect.
If it is not something a human does, how does it look anything but random to us? You may say God has some unknown, unverifiable standard (say “Each person with a certain undiscoverable chromosome”) which would remove it from randomness from a God’s perspective, but as it is unverifiable and undiscoverable to us, would leave it random to us.
You still did not deal with Rom. 10:9 which mandates a human performing an action in order for salvation to be effective. It does NOT say, “If you are elect, you are saved and then God will have you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your Heart God has raised Jesus from the dead…” It has the action as a necessary preceding requirement for salvation.
I am saying that His choice is not dependent on anything the person does. "It depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy."
I'm fascinated by the measure you choose to take -- essentially "If it is not verifiable to us, it is random." Surely you can see that this is not necessarily the case. I work at a university. I am unable to comprehend what the scientists here are doing. (Hey, I'm just a software guy.) Since I am unable to comprehend ... it's random, right? No. Just because the rationale is not part of my experience doesn't make it irrational (random). The biblical phrase is "according to His purpose." The finite can never fully grasp the infinite.
I did respond to Rom. 10:9. I said, "There are, of course, responses from the human who is chosen, but they are a "given" in the sense that they will certainly happen. Faith, for instance, would be a given for the Elect (as would repentance, receiving, etc.)." You are assuming "cause" and I am saying "effect". God chooses (cause) and gifts the chosen with faith (cause) which the chosen exercises (effect) resulting in salvation (effect).
Stan: God chooses (cause) and gifts the chosen with faith (cause) which the chosen exercises (effect) resulting in salvation (effect). (emphasis added)
Thanks Stan. You made my point. The “chosen exercising” is a human doing something that, in your words, “result[s] in salvation.” Hence human involvement.
Random does not equal irrational. Simply because we don’t understand something does not make it random nor irrational. But when you say we cannot comprehend it, you cannot claim it is NOT random. Because you don’t know. Look at it this way:
1: “We do not know how God chooses…”
2. “God does not choose randomly…”
Do you see how those two statements contradict? If you don’t know how your God is choosing, you cannot know whether it is random or not! I was not claiming it was random or not: I was claiming if you don’t know you can’t claim it is not random.
And you did not deal with the clear chronological precedent in Rom. 10:9. It is NOT placed in the form of a response, but a condition precedent.
Tough issues. Wrestled with for years. Thanks for your input on the topic.
We're talking two different topics: 1) Election and 2) salvation. I said Election doesn't depend on human involvement. God doesn't choose who to save based on human involvement.
And the two statements are not contradictory. I can say that I don't know the criteria that God uses, but I do know that it's not random. How is that contradictory? I can say that I don't know the full will of God, but I do know that it's good. Not contradictory. I don't know how God chooses whom he chooses, but I do know that He does it with purpose. Ergo, not random. I don't know all the particulars, but I do know a thing or two. Not contradictory.
On Rom. 10, again, the chronology is on salvation, not Election. Faith precedes salvation. I'm saying that Election precedes faith. Again, not contradictory.
Stan: We're talking two different topics: 1) Election and 2) salvation. I said Election doesn't depend on human involvement.
Actually you said:
Stan: …since standard, across-the-board, Christian theology holds that we can do nothing to obtain either our election or our salvation. (emphasis added)
Are you saying human involvement IS required for salvation, but not for election? Can a person be elected by God, but then not be saved due to their own actions? (I think you would have to explain Rom. 8:28-30 then.)
Is your concept of election God picking some people who might get a crack at salvation (all others are doomed), but the rest is up to them?
Stan—you can say whatever you want about your God. You can say you don’t know his favorite color, but you DO know it isn’t purple. You can say you don’t know what law God was following when he killed David’s baby, but you DO know it was moral. You can say you don’t know how God determines who goes to Hell, but you DO know it is not based upon fingerprint swirls.
But can you provide any demonstration or argumentation in support of the second proposition? See, prefacing something with “I don’t know…” completely undercuts any assertive claim.
You may still be able to demonstrate it—it simply needs more support. Let me give an example.
Assume you told me you drove to the store yesterday. You live in Arizona—I know nothing about you. Yet I can say with confidence, “I don’t know how fast you drove; but I DO know it was not over 200 miles per hour.”
Why? Because cars driven on roads cannot exceed 200 mph, let alone traffic, road conditions, etc. (Note: and I could still be incorrect. Perhaps you have a race car in your garage…) I can demonstrate and argue for the proposition following the “I don’t know…”
However, what I can’t say is, “I don’t know what color your car was, although I DO know it was not red.” Why? Because I don’t have a clue as to the color of your car! Or “I don’t know how far you drove, but I DO know it wasn’t over 100 miles.” Why? Because I don’t have any way to determine how far you drove!
This is why I focused on verifiability. The reason I know you did not go over 200 mph, is that I can demonstrate, by example, mechanics, experience, knowledge, etc. the unlikelihood of the prospect. We can verify it. If I was that interested, I could hire private investigators to snoop through your life. If we learned there are no red cars in your neighborhood--that increases the verification you did not drive a red car. If we followed you around for a month and discovered you never went to a store more than 50 miles away--that increased the probability you didn’t travel 100 miles to a store that day. (Note: while we increase the probabilities, there is always room for error. Perhaps you borrowed your brother-in-law’s red car. Maybe you went to specialty store 112 miles away that day.)
This is why I asked what your God uses as criteria for election. If you don’t know, if you haven’t a clue, there is no way to say it is or is not random. If you are claiming you DO have a clue, I would like to see more than bald assertion. What arguments can you use to demonstrate election is not random? What alternatives would you propose your God is using for election?
The problem remaining, if we can’t verify it, this all becomes an exercise in mental mechanics. I can equally say, “God randomly chooses in election” and it is equally viable.
dagoods: "Are you saying ..."
You must admit that it's a bit humorous that you would be hanging carefully on every word when you are so strong in denouncing that words have definite meaning. But I do have to ask ... are you actually asking those questions? Do you actually think that I might believe that a person elect of God might not get saved? Seriously? It seems as if you're quibbling about words. It seems that a self-professed ex-Calvinist should understand the assertions of Calvinism even if they don't believe them. It seems like a person who claims that they once believed all the right things would understand what "all the right things" claim, even if they no longer believe them. You appear not to understand them at all. If that is the case -- you don't understand them at all -- I'll be glad to explain further. It just feels like you're being argumentative over words rather than substance.
dagoods: "See, prefacing something with “I don’t know…” completely undercuts any assertive claim."
I ... I guess I'm a bit dull-witted. It appears that you're saying "If there is something I don't know about something, then I know nothing about that something." I was saying, "I can't tell you what criteria God uses, but I do know what He doesn't use." But in your view, "I don't know" requires that "I don't know a thing" ... and I'm not understanding that assertion.
As to the ability to determine something about how God chooses without knowing everything, I call on two factors (not in any order). 1) I know God. There is nothing in what I do know of God that is "capricious" or "random". 2) Romans 9 says that God chooses in order that His purposes may stand. That says that God chooses based on His purposes. "Based on" says "not random".
But I need to heartily protest your claim that it is a "bald assertion." The hair loss of any of my assertions is none of your business. (This last paragraph was intended to inject humor.)
We are, however, back to the original problem, aren't we? What you accept as "evidence" (I won't claim "proof") is not the same thing that I (and others) accept as evidence. I say, "I know God" and you say, "Yeah, right!" I say, "The Bible says ..." and you say, "So?" Your standards and mine differ. So the fact is that I have sufficiently verified reasons to believe that God chooses for His own purposes without being random and without choosing based on the person ... whether or not you accept those verified reasons. You know ... just like I don't accept the sufficiently verified reasons you have for dismissing Christianity ...
Stan, you were the one claiming to differentiate between election and salvation. Read back through the comments. I was attempting to clarify your position. Yes, my Calvinism held them to be the same. YOU were the one that said election did not depend on human involvement, but Salvation (as described by you) did. I was trying to get clarification.
So we are right back to the beginning—what human involvement is required in election/salvation? If you say “None” then you would have to re-explain Rom 10:9 as well as you statement, “which the chosen exercises.”
Stan, I think words are extremely adequate to communicate. If you say “Stop” and then say “Go,” I understand the meaning of both words (and would hope you do as well) to question the contradiction.
What I disagree with is Argument by Definition--the claim a concept MUST mean something because it was defined as meaning that by Merriam-Webster in 1965. I have explained that before.
Stan: It appears that you're saying "If there is something I don't know about something, then I know nothing about that something." (emphasis in original)
Not at all. Hence my attempt at explaining by the cars. Simply because I don’t know the color of car or distance you drove to the store, I DO know you didn’t drive 200 mph. How? By verification through experience!
You may claim being random does not suit your God’s purpose, but you have no explanation for why not. Why couldn’t a God use randomness as perfectly suited to its purpose?
If you think I am arguing over words, rather than substance, we may as well end the conversation here. I am pointing out that the evidence you are presenting is ONLY sufficient to persuade those who already believe the same as you. How substantial is that? You change from co-mingling election and salvation to differentiating and then back to co-mingling as needed to respond to my questions.
What reasons do you have to say your God could not use randomness as part of fulfilling His purpose? Especially in light of the fact you haven’t a clue as to what basis he does use.
At the front end, then, I would urge you, dagoods, to reconsider your claim that "I believed all the right things" when you thought yourself a Christian because this is at the beginning part of Reformed Christianity.
Some time ago I did a post on an illustration where a house was at the bottom of a hill at the top of which was a giant boulder held in place by a small key stone. I asked in that story, "If a guy removes the small keystone and the boulder destroys the house, who is ultimately responsible?" I'm not asking that here. I just want to use the illustration. Let's put this in a sequence. In order for the house to be crushed ("salvation"), the boulder has to roll on it. In order for the boulder ("faith") to roll, someone has to pull the key stone ("Election"). It's a sequence. In order for anyone to be saved, they need to have faith (Rom. 10:9). In order to have faith, they need to be gifted with faith. In order to be gifted with faith, they have to be chosen. Each is a distinct part which interacts with the rest. As in the boulder illustration, once the key stone is pulled, the process that follows is certain. When someone is elect, the process that follows (faith -> salvation) is certain.
As for the randomness of God, we are at a word problem, I think. I define "random" as "proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern." To me, then, you suggest that it might be God's definite aim ("purpose") to proceed without definite aim. I can't fathom that concept, so it doesn't occur to me. Nor can I figure it out as barely reasonable, so I can't answer it. Now, if, by "random", you mean "not for reasons I understand", I'll give you that. But I don't know anyone that defines random that way. "Random", to me and anyone else I know, means "haphazard, chance, without reason." If I have a God who is omnipotent and whose will is always accomplished, there is no such thing as "random". I'm not trying to be cute here. I just don't understand the word "random" as it pertains to "God's choices" since God is never in any way random if He is God. I mean, I just can't even begin to think about an omnipotent, omniscient being who sits there with hands over His eyes going, "Eenie, meenie, minie, mo ..." That doesn't work in my brain.
Finally, when I say I don't have a clue as to what basis God uses to choose, I am speaking in individual terms. I don't know why He chose me. I don't know why He chose my mom. I don't know why He chose ... any individual you might pick. (Similar to the problem of "Why do bad things happen to good people?" where I answered "They don't" on the basis that there are no good people. It made people think I was saying "Bad things happen to people because they're bad. I wasn't.) I don't know why God chooses any individual He chooses. I know He has a plan. I know He has a purpose. I know that He uses a variety of people-types (happy, melancholy, thinkers, simple, outgoing, introverted, etc.). Truly, the singular thing I am trying to avoid here is the nonsensical claim that someone might have that "He chose me because I am special." We have the clear statement that "none should boast."
Stan: At the front end, then, I would urge you, dagoods, to reconsider your claim that "I believed all the right things" when you thought yourself a Christian because this is at the beginning part of Reformed Christianity.
I am uncertain as to what is meant here. Why? Because I wrestled with the idea of human interaction within the concept of election/salvation? Because I (as well as all my friends on this issue) was not satisfied with what other humans informed us we must believe because we were Conservatives or Baptists or Calvinists or whatever label chosen to smack upon our forehead?
Frankly, my position on election/free will is of little interest to me. I initially entered this conversation wondering how much you contemplated the possibility of you not being saved whereas an individual such as me, who apparently believes all the wrong things (by being an atheist), could be elect. You quoted the statement about “doing everything humanly possible” and since that topic was of interest to me, not being wedded to form, I followed the line of thinking.
If you are worried about whether I believed the right things, I will try to put you at rest—I am sure (in this area) I did not. Due to certain verses in the Bible, and their obvious implications, I held that before creation, certain humans were elect. Rom. 8:29-30; Eph. 1:5,11. Predestined to, at an appointed time, be saved. Since election was ONLY demonstrated at the time of salvation, the idea of election occurring prior to salvation (more on the timing in a minute) or part of a process as described by you was not accurate. While perhaps an interesting intellectual esoteric conversation, the idea one could be elect and then either die or subvert or avoid salvation was not feasible. (A process requires time.)
A parenthetical pause in this mix regarding timing. Since time is required for God to make a decision, God needed time to create time. Therefore, in our view, God was somehow “outside” of time. (What that means and how it works was again left to a shrug of the shoulders—who knew?) That God viewed all things as occurring at the “same time,” as it were. Yesterday’s actions were seen in the same instance (from God’s perspective) as the crossing of the Red sea, or my birth or tomorrow’s headlines. Therefore election/salvation would have been seen at the same moment as a person making the decision to follow Jesus.
However, the problem this raises (which I won’t go into now, since this comment will be way too long anyway) is of a fatalistic God. Can God change something occurring in this string of time, if he saw it all in the same instance? One of those repeated late night conversations we had.
Part of the reason we needed God outside of time was Rom. 8:29-30. We have foreknowledge (of God) leading to predestination leading to calling, leading to justification, leading to glorification. Read in the simple manner written, it would appear God first saw into the future who was going to chose him, (foreknowledge), then he decided to chose them, (predestination) at which time they were elect (called.)
This left us with the problem, though, of God’s ability to interact within history (this almost makes God reactionary to human will, whereas God is clearly pro-active in instances. Pharaoh and Tower of Babel come to mind.) It also complicates salvation by leaving it determinate upon human will; removing sovereignty of God.
On the other hand we have verses which indicate God has desires, specifically in the area of salvation, that more would be saved than are. (1 Tim. 2:4). How do humans circumvent the desires of a sovereign God who has already seen all time?
On the third hand, we have Rom. 10:9. I know you think this is a necessary result of election, but the grammar doesn’t allow it. Sorry. This was a specific action by a human, which results in salvation. Somehow there is human involvement. (We also have the interesting story of Acts. 16:30-31 in which Paul says “You must believe to be saved.” Paul doesn’t say, “If you are elect, you are in; otherwise you are out.” Paul gives a human requirement to salvation.) John 3:18 requires belief. I could go on and on, but this is sufficient for now.
Some verses state God elects. Some state humans choose. We resolved this by claiming a paradox. We can’t “cut out” verses from the Bible. Nor could we see a way to have some verses “trump” the others. (Despite what certain groups told us.) We have two seemingly contradictory statements. We figured it was one (of the many) fascinating things to discover in the next life—how could both be true? We resolved this (unsatisfactorily) by claiming it was not resolvable.
Now…of course…it is obvious these are different authors with different ideas as to how God worked. No paradox—different opinions.
Again, I wasn’t really interested in telling you my former opinion on election/free will. I already know it; not interesting. I was more curious as to how you resolved it.
Your rock analogy doesn’t work. Normally I don’t pick apart analogies. I try to understand the point the person is making—not nit-pick how it doesn’t compare. However, in this instance, I do think it instructive for what I am questioning to point out the difference I see. I get that you were saying one thing leads to another leads to another, and the initial action has an inevitable final result, even though a number of actions make occur between the initial action and the final result.
However, your rock has no choice. No will. If there is a groove in the hill that leads the rock to destroy Village A as compared to Village B, it will destroy Village B every time. The rock has no choice. Verses within the Bible indicate there is human choice. That the “rock” (as it were) can choose which village to roll over.
You even indicate the “the chosen exercises.” If it was inevitable that the chosen exercise, why say they must exercise for salvation? Why does the Bible indicate it?
For that reason, the analogy was…incomplete…in my opinion.
Finally, the randomness of God:
Stan: To me, then, you suggest that it might be God's definite aim ("purpose") to proceed without definite aim. I can't fathom that concept, so it doesn't occur to me.
This seems to me to be picking and choosing what instinctively appears to you as a human either must or must not apply to a God—all, still, without any verification. First you say you can’t know criteria God uses. Then I say, “It could be random.” You say it can’t be that, because you, as a human, can’t fathom the idea of a God having randomness be part of His purpose. But you just stated you can’t know the criteria of what God was using, either!
As a human, can genocide be moral? We would say, “No,” but because Christians define their God as moral, they are placed in a situation in which they must claim God ordering genocide, at one time, was moral. What we as humans naturally claim, Christians say, “No, no—God is incomprehensible in this regard. While we may think one way as humans, God is different.”
Now, in a different situation, we are told, “What we think as humans (i.e. God cannot be random in his purpose), must apply to God.” Why?
Again, if you start with an incomprehensible God, because it does things we as humans do not understand, it is unpersuasive to say a God must do something like a human does! Your inability to fathom the concept is hardly moving when you have an incomprehensible God.
I always enjoy our conversations. They are intelligent without being intellectual. We are in disagreement without being disagreeable. I know I have respect for you and your views, and I believe you have the same for me. It seems, though, in every conversation that we come to an impasse, a point at which we can go no farther. I'm no longer communicating anything to you and you're no longer communicating anything to me. It looks like this one is there.
I won't go into the time issue because I never brought up the time issue. When I speak of a sequence in this case, it is a logical sequence, not necessarily a temporal sequence.
(As for "foreknowledge = election", that's a "Middle Knowledge" position that, typically, Calvinists reject. It's a happy Arminian position, but, as you point out, makes God reactionary to human will and demeans His sovereignty. It is, therefore, not a classic Reformed position.)
I'm still at a complete loss regarding "random" versus "criteria". It appears that the idea that "the finite can never fully grasp the infinite" requires that the finite can have no understanding at all about the infinite. Because I don't know what criteria God uses when He chooses a person, I must not know anything at all about God or how He chooses. Because I don't have full and complete knowledge of God, I cannot know that an omniscient being cannot operate randomly. (Look, "random" means if I ask God "On what basis did you choose Peter?" He would say, "I don't know." It's not a matter of "Humans don't work this way." It's a matter of logic. A non-random being operating randomly is a contradiction.)
You didn't like what they told you regarding Election and choice. You didn't find the answers compelling. You found them to be contradictory. On my end, 1) I have never heard the answers you were given, and 2) the answers I have are not contradictory. Therefore, I have no problem correlating them. Admittedly it may be because I believe or it may be because I'm too stupid to see the problem ... but I don't see the problem. Nothing you've offered seemed like a problem to me. So I think we've killed this horse and are on the verge of beating it.
Post a Comment