The so-called "Five Points" aren't just 5 random ideas. They are a rational line of thinking. They feed into each other. They begin with the premise of "T," what I prefer to call "Radical Depravity." We are dead in sin, incapable of even understanding the things of the Spirit, without hope or the inclination to change. In fact, we are hostile to God (Rom 8:7). The obvious next question is, "Now what? What hope is there?" Enter the concept of "U." The "U" refers to "Unconditional Election," but that, again, can be misleading.
In its memory tool form, Unconditional Election refers to the question, "What is it in me that causes God to choose me?" Before we answer that, let's set aside an immediate objection. "God doesn't choose! I do!" Nice thought, but consider two facts. First, if the Scriptures on the "T" part are accurate (biblical), we lack the capacity to choose. Second, and the real objection, is the objection that God does the choosing. Don't be deceived. The doctrine of Election is not a Calvin thing. It is throughout Scripture. God chose Noah. God chose Abraham. God chose the nation of Israel (Deut 10:15), and not because they were so wonderful (Deut 7:7-8). In the New Testament, Jesus told His disciples that they didn't choose Him, but He chose them (John 15:16). The doctrine that God chooses whom He will save is all over Scripture. We can discuss how He chooses, but there is no room to question that He chooses. The claim, then, is that God chooses whom He will save not on the basis of anything in the ones He chooses. His choice is not conditioned on the chosen. It is "unconditional" in that sense. Maybe "Sovereign Election" would be better.
Scripture repeatedly says that God's choice occurred before time began. It says, "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world ..." on the basis of "the kind intention of His will" (Eph 1:4-5). The Revelation says the names of those who will be saved are "written from the foundation of the world in the book of life" (Rev 13:8; Rev 17:8). Scripture says we are chosen "not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace (2 Tim 1:9). In his example of Esau and Jacob, Paul wrote, "... though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God's purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls ..." (Rom 9:11). Paul concludes, "So then it (God's choice) does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy" (Rom 9:16). God chooses, then, not on anything in us -- anything we do or are -- but according to His purposes.
Those who object often call such a God "capricious." "That would mean God's just playing with us without cause or reason." No, it doesn't. It means that we are not the reason. It means that He does have reasons and purpose; it's just not us -- our merits, or our choices ("the man who wills or the man who runs"). His reasons are entirely His own. "Unconditional Election" doesn't mean "random" or "capricious." It means that God does not choose whom He will save based on the objects of His choice. It means that He clearly chooses whom He will save and He is sovereign in that choice. Which, as it turns out, is very good since, left to our own devices, our own depravity would preclude God from choosing any of us.
________
For more reading on this principle, you can try Acts 13:48; 2 Thess 2:13; Rom 8:29; John 15:16; Eph 1:11; Jer 1:5. There are certainly more. Do your due diligence.
6 comments:
For reasons I don't quite grasp, Dan keeps complaining. He's sure I'm making this stuff up. It's purely someone's "tradition." Scripture says otherwise. I don't tell you, readers, to point out Dan. I ask you not to do what Dan is doing. "I know verses that seem to contradict what you say, so you're making this up and you're wrong." That merely proves what Dan doesn't mind proving -- Scripture is unreliable (has errors) and you're free to ignore some texts and embrace others. Don't do it. Either God's Word is God-breathed and complete (2 Tim 3:16-17), or it isn't. If it isn't, find yourself another source, but don't claim the Bible as your source. That's a claim to an unreliable source from, ultimately, an unreliable God.
"They are a rational line of thinking. They feed into each other."
This may be one of the most significant issues in the whole discussion. That the 5 points don't make any sense if separated. It's why I laugh at "4 point Calvinists", and those who insist on focusing on one point to the exclusion of all of the others.
The "T" is really bad news, if taken out of the context of the other 4.
The problem with Dan's criticism, is that it pretends like the summary of what scripture says (TULIP) can be separated from the scripture that it's based on. As David mentioned, this is a mnemonic device intended to point to what scripture says, not a replacement for scripture. It's something that humans came up with intended to point people toward scripture, not to replace scripture.
That he continues to comment here just points out the accuracy of the "doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results" definition of insanity.
This is one of the doctrines of grace that I can't seem to understand how anyone can disagree with based on Scripture. If there is any condition you meet in order to be elected, then salvation is predicated in your action or choice, which flies in the face of all of Scripture. The view that God elected those that He knew would choose Him means that they are ultimately responsible for their salvation. Which to me means that God doesn't receive all the glory in salvation and that I have something to boast in for my salvation.
As you have demonstrated to us, the doctrine of “election” (or “predestination”) is clearly taught in Scripture. Once again, I think that alternate phrasing of “Unconditional Election” is helpful--either your “Sovereign Election” or Sproul’s “God’s Sovereign Choice.”
I noticed that in both Part 1 (yesterday) and Part 2 (today), you used the phrase, “left to our own devices,” as it relates to our inability to overcome our depravity. Yesterday you showed us that, “left to our own devices,” our depravity would preclude our choosing God. Today, you wrote that our depravity “would preclude God from choosing any of us.” I can see clearly how a misunderstanding of the first doctrine leads to a misunderstanding of the following one which builds upon it.
One of those “devices,” I believe, is human wisdom--i.e. interpreting Scripture and forming God in our own image; therefore, it strikes me that much anti-Calvinistic arguments are based on our idea of what ought to be true--and include those common objections such as “God doesn’t want robots,” “God should save everyone,” “that isn’t fair,” etc. To those who charge that God is “capricious” or “random,” I say, perhaps in fact He is, and that is not for me to judge. It is not my place to demand that God satisfy my reasoning, human logic, or sense of “right” or “wrong”--i.e. to elevate what I deem ought to be true above what God says is true.
Just a note. "Election" and "Predestination" are often used interchangeably, but they're not quite interchangeable. "Election" references God's choice of who will be saved. "Predestination" references ... everything. That is, "Election" is part of "Predestination", but the latter includes all the things that God has destined in advance. (For instance, Rom 8:29-30 refers to being predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son.)
On your comment about God being capricious, He clearly bases His choice on His purposes, while "capricious" or "random" would suggest no purposes. But, I once heard a preacher talking about God's explanation of "husband over wife". He said, "Some people think that husbands have all the rights over women." He said, "If that's what it says, we ought to believe it." He went on to say, "That's not what it says, but we must take God's Word over society's objections every time." I agreed.
Thanks for the notes. I should have typed (and “predestination”) rather than(or “predestination”). (I do understand the distinction in the terms.) Also, to clarify, I was not myself calling God “capricious” or “random”--just saying that even if He were, that would be His prerogative as the Supreme Being; He doesn’t need to fulfill my expectations of Him. (And knowing that God is good, I do trust His purposes are also good.) Sorry not to be clearer there.
Post a Comment