Guess who got an election/predestination passage?
So, after more study on this topic I found one article that helped me a little.
The thing about the doctrine of election is that the scripture is really quite clear that it is absolute truth. God has chosen us. Salvation is all about God's power. We are spiritually dead, and when people are spiritually dead they are simply unable to respond in any way. The only way we can possibly respond to the call of salvation is through the power of God, as His elect.
I found an excellent article by John MacArthur that very accurately diagnosed my "problem" with the doctrine of election. And you know what? It's not it's incomprehensibility.
there's nothing in the doctrine of election that's any more mysterious, any more incomprehensible to me than the concept of a being that is eternal. Beyond that, how am I to comprehend that God is infinite? That is to say that there is no limit on His being. There is no confining of His being. I live in a time-space environment. That's all I comprehend. Everything has time or space features. God has neither of those. That's an impossible doctrine for me to understand.
I believe, that the reason the doctrine of election is a bone in people's throat does not have to do with its incomprehensibility. It has to do with how it offends human will and ego and pride. I believe, that's the bottom line. It's not about its incomprehensibility, because I can't comprehend how Jesus can be fully God and fully man. I can't comprehend how God can make Jesus the sacrifice for my sin. I can't comprehend how God can create. The whole of creation, to me, is incomprehensible.....
So, when I come to something like the doctrine of the incarnation, or when I come to something like the doctrine of salvation, when I come to something like predestination, election, it is no more incomprehensible to me than any other doctrine. And, I think, the problem lies in the fact that the pride of man and the self-will of man and the self-determination of man, which is a reflection, may I say, of his warped amagio dea [sp?] it's the warping of the image of God so that he gives to himself more credibility than he deserves. That's the bent that has been induced into man's nature by sin. He is offended by the fact that he can't make that choice. Ultimately, it's the offense of it, not the incomprehensibility of it. (emphasis mine)
Ouch! But so very, very true. My problem with the doctrine of election is not it's incomprehensibility (though it is!), it's the fact that it offends my human ego, my human pride, my humanly flawed sense of fairness.Having said that, the doctrine of election is definitely still utterly incomprehensible to me.
But, as this MacArthur article says, and I've always been taught and still believe, the Bible also teaches human responsibility (thank goodness right?! - our humanity speaking)....
If God's choice of the elect is unconditional, does this rule out human responsibility? Paul asks and answers that very question in Romans 9:19-20. He says God's choice of the elect is an act of mercy. Left to themselves, even the elect would persist in sin and be lost, because they are taken from the same fallen lump of clay as the rest of humanity. God alone is responsible for their salvation, but that does not eradicate the responsibility of those who persist in sin and are lost--because they do it willfully, and not under compulsion. They are responsible for their sin, not God.
The Bible affirms human responsibility right alongside the doctrine of divine sovereignty.
As another of MacArthur's articles puts it....Salvation is by the elect, predestined, purpose of God. Damnation is by the unbelief of men. Now you say, "How do you resolve that?" I don't resolve that! I can't resolve that. But, I know God is perfect and He resolves it perfectly and that's the best we can do with it.
And as David Legge says...
balance, in the relation to God's sovereignty and man's responsibility, is not meeting somewhere in the middle and denying both, it's believing both extremes and rejoicing in them. Like Spurgeon said, it's like a train track and the two lines run beside one another, God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. They run parallel, but they never ever meet, they never come together, you can't make sense out of them, but you need both of them for the train to run - and you need both of them for the Gospel to work.
(emphasis mine)
So, I still don't know how it works. I don't know how both the doctrine of election and of human responsibility can simultaneously be true, but I know they are.
And I know that however it does work, it is right, it is just, and it is fair - because God makes it so.
William Perkins said "We must not think that God doeth a thing because it is good and right, but rather is the thing good and right because God willeth it and worketh it."
Tomorrow's passage: Ephesians 3-5:14
3 comments:
I think MacArthur, in one of those links I posted in a previous comment, says exactly that same quote you give at the end. (though he uses more modern language!)
It's all hard to accept ~ I wonder why, in our Mennonite circles however, we've chosen to just outright deny this particular incomprehensible doctrine? (obviously, I'm speaking now to those participants of this blog whom I'm related to and whom I've grown up with, attending the same or similar churches and denominations!)
Whenever I bring this subject up and point out its undeniable presence all over the New Testament, people are instantly angry, even when I assure them that I'm not denying the doctrine of human responsibility, but rather have decided to accept both, even though they don't work together in my limited understanding. It's bizarre ~ like we've uncovered a conspiracy or something!
I think I understand now, though, why Piper said (in a Q&A clip that I really resented him for for a while) that Calvinists have a better understanding and appreciation of God's grace than Arminians do. I really resented that statement initially, but given recent developments, it's starting to make more sense. The whole free-will argument is very man-centred, whereas the doctrines of sovereign election and absolute inability are decidedly more God-centred.
Great post btw Tammy.
From the scripture I loved this:
"I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit[f] of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. 18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people, 19 and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is the same as the mighty strength 20 he exerted when he raised Christ from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21 far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every name that is invoked, not only in the present age but also in the one to come."
IT gave me scripture to pray for my sisters, brothers, husband and kids.
On your post .....
I don't know if I've said this before in comments or posts but our pastor (John Mark Wiemann) gives a great illustration of these two concepts that I think he learned at MacArthur's seminary. It goes a smidget further than the parallel train illustration.
We have a mountian and the top of the mountian, the peak is covered by a cloud. One side of the mountain is man's responsibility, and the other it's God's predestined will. Where, how and at what point those two meet has been kept a mystery to us (clouded) in the scripture. It will be revealed later on.
The discussion is absolutely right in that our pride and warped sense of fairness are our root problem with predestination.
I think Piper and MacArthur are names a little scary to bring up in Armenian circles but I'm glad you guys are being brave and backing it with scripture. We look to no man, we look to Christ and what the Word says!
The fact is, any time we give a balanced lean toward God's part it makes us humble and we don't like to be humbled. We like to think our efforts are rewarding us here and now even if it's just we ourselves reaching around and patting our own backs.
To do from the pure motivaton of glory for God and not ourselves takes the understanding that it's by Him and for Him, to Him and through Him.
The solution really is to just take the we, me, us out and THERE>.... now you have it.
Tammi - I haven't been brave enough to bring it up yet!
Alicia - I love that prayer as well. A great reminder for me to pray more for people's spiritual health than their physical health (though I'll still pray for that), and to focus on others more than myself.
Post a Comment