When the biblical doctrine of Election comes up (please keep in mind that the doctrine of Election is biblical from the start), there is one, single, most common objection voiced -- "That's not fair!" And, let's be honest -- it can seem unfair.
From the beginning God has chosen some. He chose Noah because "Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord." He chose Abraham and, by extension, Abraham's offspring. In fact, God makes it clear (Deut 7:7) that He didn't choose them because they were great. No, they were meager. He chose prophets. He chose disciples. He chose ... the list goes on and on. So certain are the New Testament writers of this doctrine that they simply assume it in almost all their writings. It's a given. So when Paul brings it up, he faces this question in Romans 9. Having told his readers that God chose Jacob over Esau purely on the basis of His purpose of election (Rom 9:9-13), he assumes the question: "What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there?" Or, in today's vernacular, "That's not fair!"
One of my great joys for the last several months has been the opportunity to have breakfast on Saturday mornings with my youngest son. It's a time to catch up, to talk, to share, to laugh, to think things through together. It's great. Recently he brought up this very topic. "That's not fair!" He asked himself, then, "What would be fair?" and found no satisfactory answers.
Let's think it through for a moment. Assuming that God does not choose people to save -- that it is purely our own choice and God simply "chooses" those who choose Him -- on what would we base our claim to "fair"? Would we consider it fair that we get to choose? First response, of course, is "Sure!" But wait! So you grew up in a pastor's house and the guy down the street grew up in an atheist home. Now is it fair? What about the guy who gets the gospel message through a botched up message? Now is it fair? What about the proverbial pygmy in Africa who never heard? Now is it fair? "Sure, it's fair. We each get to make our own choice!" Yes, but some are never offered the option of the choice. Now is it fair?
Me? Personally? I don't want fair. I don't want just. I find that we are all people worthy of damnation. I don't see me as better than those who refuse or those who never even get the chance to refuse. And if "fair" was the goal, the requirement would be that all would be damned.
Is it fair? I don't even think we have a method of measuring fair in this case. I don't think we have a valid basis to determine if it's fair. And, most of all, I don't think, when we really get down to it, that we really want fair. Give me unmerited, amazing grace any day. You can keep your "fair", whatever that means. Is it just? Sure. The Bible is certain about that. But you can keep your "fair" and I'll go with sheer gratitude for His mercy, grace, and love in choosing to save anyone at all, let alone me.
8 comments:
I think the issue of "fair' looms more largely not in the cases of those who have not heard the Word, or the kid born into an atheist home, but rather in those who do believe and seek to live according to His Will for His sake. The doctrine of election does indeed suggest that this "good and faithful servant" might not be among the elect.
You bring up a number of biblical characters as examples of God choosing. I don't know that you can use them for that purpose because they were specific examples of people chosen for specific purposes that were illustrated for us in Scripture. What's more, which of those characters were chosen without some direct, or very near direct contact by God Himself? How could one say no if asked directly by God? That is, if God were to ask, would there be any doubt Who was asking?
The rest of us aren't called in so distinct a manner. That cartoon with the angel on one side competing to influence us against the demon on the other side is really a fair illustration of the "choice" WE must make.
I will say, however, that I don't equate fair for us to be the same as fair for Him. As there is no way we can fully know the mind of God, there is no way we can assess what is or is not fair to Him. That is why it is not necessarily beyond the realm of possibility that one of those pygmies might be saved by living the closest approximation of a "Christian" (for lack of a better word) life possible for him.
"The doctrine of election does indeed suggest that this 'good and faithful servant' might not be among the elect. "
I have to say, what a completely bizarre comment! Given the rest of the concepts (like "Total Depravity"), such an idea wouldn't even occur to me. You are suggesting that, if the doctrine of election as I've explained it is accurate, then it is quite sure that there are genuine believers working genuine good ("according to His Will") who are actually not elect? For this to be true, you and I would have to have a radically different basis of understanding. Since I clearly have stated that "no man can" and that "there is none who does good" and the like, I cannot imagine how one could be good and not elect.
As for the angel and demon analogy, you do know, I'm sure, that this is not a cartoon about doing good and receiving Christ or choosing to do bad and rejecting Christ, right? The cartoon is about moral choices. I mean, if you think that's the case, then isn't choosing to receive Christ a "good work" and you are at least admitting that we are saved by that good work?
Still, all in all, I think you have a much higher opinion of the capabilities of Natural Man than I do. I still can't set aside all those biblical statements about "inclined only to evil", "hostile to God", "dead in sin", "none who does good", "no man can", "cannot understand", and all to say, "But, of course, anyone has the inherent capability of choosing Christ. What's the big deal?"
Why is it that when anyone wants to disagree here, they pull out the "no one can know the mind of God" card right off the bat. Most of the time that I see that, its someone seeing something in Scripture that doesn't agree with their worldview, so instead of changing their view, they chalk it up to God being unknowable. Yes, there are many things God does that we can't understand, which is inherent in Him being HOLY. But that doesn't mean He hasn't shown quite clearly in Scripture those things which He wants us to understand. (Its not just you Marshall, this is just after years of following Stan and his commentors.) God being not fully knowable should be a last step, not the first.
David,
I am relatively new to this debate between the Calvinist-type of understanding versus the Arminian-type (to the extent that I'm never sure if I'm spelling the latter correctly). There are many more scholarly than I who, without being left-leaning "anything goes" Christians, who believe there is some room to expect that those, like the pygmies of which Stan referred, might still have a legitimate shot at salvation without knowing Christ as we do. I don't say that it's true, but that we can't know the mind of God on such matters. It is not a defense of believing what isn't true, but only that I won't assume what I can't possibly know.
This debate is not something that is settled, except to some radical adherents to either side. Stan insists it is clear, but not to the point that some have given me undue crap that I can't see the obvious. It isn't obvious or the debate would not still go on with members of both factions convinced of their certainty.
I am in the middle still trying to find my way.
To be fair (or, at least, more clear), I have to say that the idea that "one of those pygmies might be saved by living the closest approximation of a 'Christian' (for lack of a better word) life possible for him" is simply impossible. That cannot be called anything but "saved by works". Whatever else we might surmise, that is definitely ruled out in the mind of God. That Christ may have an alternative means of saving apart from works may be the case, but "living a nearly Christian life" isn't one of them.
(By the way, without divine election, it is not possible. With divine election, I can see possibilities.)
Stan,
You say my comment is bizarre, but then go on to show why it isn't. My understanding of "there is none who does good" suggests that there is nothing we can do that is good enough to save us. We cannot do enough charitable works, for example, while leading a sin free life that will "buy" our way into heaven. I don't disagree if that is what your understanding is. But that does confirm the notion that doing so does not mean we are among the elect. YOU, by your understanding, have taken works completely out of the equation to an extent that leaves this conclusion viable.
And once again, I don't discount what the Bible says about Natural Man. I have a problem with what you think it is saying about him. I agree with the description, but don't believe it mean anything more than a description of one in that state. But I don't assume it means that while in that state, such a person is devoid of curiosity and wouldn't wonder what the hell is up with that Christian dude over there not wanting to be drunk and get laid? Or, that Total Depravity even means that one couldn't be a "natural man" if one appeared to be very Christian-like in his behavior. Could not a totally depraved natural man not also be curious enough to be drawn to investigation wherein he would hear the call? or find himself now called?
So I haven't set aside anything, only that I haven't heaped on assumptions on top of it all. It seems the Calvinist types do this and I'm still trying to find that connection that helps determine the difference or point of epiphany that results in the natural man becoming the spiritual. In that, I am still left feeling as if both sides of the debate are not wrong, but not totally correct. I remain in the middle.
To a very large extent, as much as I am into this debate and learning from it, I don't know that it means all that much in the grand scheme of things. I still believe. I still hope to influence others to believe to whatever extent God works through me to do so. And I still consider this blog almost required reading for me.
Since by "there is none who does good" I understand Paul to mean "there is none who does good", then the concept of a person who does lots of good without being regenerated is completley outside my comprehension.
Can a person think he is a Christian and not be? Absolutely! Jesus spoke of them in Matt 7. Since Satan is "the father of lies", then unbelievers will swallow lies. Got it. The biblical "test" for a believer is not a better life, but a changed heart. That's something that unbelievers cannot fake. And I've known many who tried, almost always concluding, "Well, I tried that 'born again' thing and it didn't work."
Can Natural Man know something about God? Without a doubt. Paul says they cannot Understand, but that's no indication that they don't know. (There are, biblically, three tiers: knowledge, understanding, wisdom. Each is a different level. And Natural Man can know things without coming to understand them.)
You used the phrase, "point of epiphany". Isn't that interesting? It's almost universal. It's a point, a sudden "lights on" moment. For reasons unclear to any of us, suddenly "I get it!" I would call that "regeneration". You would see it as self-generated in some sense. And since I can't figure out how to line up all the blockages in the way for Natural Man, nor how to figure out how "I get it" cannot be taken as a reason to boast, I can't go with your view of it. But, hey! That's just me, right?
Marshall, on the Natural Man thing, I think you might be missing the point that Stan would consider EVERYONE in that category before they are regenerated. He is not above it, you aren't, Paul wasn't. We were all Natural Man at one point, and only by the calling of God, the death and resurrection of Christ, and the regeneration of the Spirit, can we overcome being Natural Man. The Natural Man, in and of himself, is totally incapable of coming to the conclusion that Christ is Lord and Savior, and can only reach that conclusion by the effectual calling of God. "Coming" to Christ in any other way is impossible, since it would be a person DOING something, and yes, making a choice would be doing something, for their salvation. A person cannot choose Christ without God giving them the ability to do so. Living a "Christian" life isn't good enough to be saved. That would be working your way into salvation, and the Bible is quite clear on the impossibility of that option.
Most answers are obvious, the only reason they continue to be argued is that there are wolves in sheep's clothing, and the taint of our sin nature clouds our judgement. There are still people that claim Christianity and that Christ was not God. Are the Scriptures unclear on that point? There are "Christians" that claim that everyone will be saved, and will point to passages in the Bible as "proof". Is that point unclear? Yes, there are things that aren't clear in Scripture. But most are clear, specifically the 5 points of Calvinism. The only reason they are still debated is because we allow our doctrine to be swayed by our personal thoughts on how God should be, rather than taking what is clearly spoken out for us in Scripture and changing our thinking about how God is.
Post a Comment