Unconditional Election

[Arial]

The objection to this doctrine of grace, is to both words in it.

In Arminianism (and I use the term loosely, as there are many forms of it, few of them adhering to the historic Arminianism) unconditional is resisted, because it is seen as based on nothing, or arbitrary. What it does mean is that the conditions of election are not based on the merit of the person. It does not have conditions that must be met. It is by grace alone, according to the will and good pleasure of God.

Election is objected to because it is seen as unfair, and makes God responsible for the sin of people, since if He doesn't elect them to salvation, then they have no choice in the matter, other than to reject Christ. And yet in the majority of cases, Arminianism also believes in election. In that view, God only elects those who believe, and not all people without exception.

That form of election presents God as omniscient, looking down the corridor of time and seeing who will choose Christ, or have faith in Him, and then electing them. Of course that would not be actual election by God, as it would be, in His economy, after the fact, or according to the known facts.

However, that is contrary to Scripture. In Romans 9 Paul explicitly lays out the doctrine of sovereign election. I can hear the cries already! "That is the proof text Calvinists always use and it is talking about choosing Israel, not those in Christ!"

Is it? Let's take a closer look. Indeed in verses 6-13, Paul speaks of the promise as coming through Isaac, and of Rebeckah having twins, and before either had done anything good or bad, choosing Jacob, the younger, over Esau the elder, who should have inherited the blessing. And we know that the twelve tribes came from Jacob.

Paul is not speaking of the election of Israel here, as we shall see. That God elected Israel is a given. Not only that, Paul has just said, 7b-8 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but 'Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.' This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. Paul is talking about those who are children of the promise through faith. He is using Esau and Jacob to illustrate his point that,--- what?

11-12 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad---in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls---she was told,"The older will serve the younger."

What follows immediately is Paul anticipating an accusation.14-15 WHat then shall we say? Is God unjust? May it never be! For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." If Paul were merely discussing God's right to choose Israel over other nations, the accusation he anticipated would not even be an issue. If he were not saying the same thing concerning election of individuals, that unconditional election teaches, the objection would not have been raised. It is the very same objection the the U of Tulip is greeted with. But there is more, in case there is still any doubt.

16-18 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he has mercy, and he hardens whom he hardens.

There is ample proof of unconditional election, and election, in Scripture. But here in this one place, Paul is expounding on and explaining unconditional election. Neither Calvin or the Reformers made up the doctrine. They got it straight from Paul.

Election is all of God, by grace, through faith. We contribute not one jot or tittle to our being saved. Nothing of our will, nothing of our desire, nothing of our efforts. We are but baby birds in the nest, with mouths wide open.

 

[Josheb]

Good op.

Citing the volitionalism's problems with misunderstanding Unconditional Election (UC), misunderstanding omniscience, conditionality, divine dependence, and even the justice of God are all correct. It could use a little clarification and added details on a few points but it correctly identifies some of the foundation-level problems with volitionalism. I, personally, do not include the more volitional soteriologies (Wesleyanism, Traditionalism, Provisionism, and Pelagianism with classic, Reformed Arminianism, but that's a personal thing and the nuances and distinctions may be lost on some without elaboration (I was recently asked to explain the Wesleyan influence and its differences between the Augustine-influenced views on soteriology to a group of more Reform-minded believers). I've made some recent observations recently because I like to read/hear sources that compare theological doctrines. One observance is that no one ever asks Leighton Flowers to contribute to these books. Sure, there are videos of comparative discussions. but they're not very substantive. It's hard to find any comparative work specifically on UC, especially one that gets all sides correct and doesn't argue strawmen. I was recently perusing the "free grace" pov, and found the Wiki article both sad and humorous (perhaps "laughable" is the better adjective) because its comparison with TULIP makes the classic mistake of thinking TULIP is human-centric (instead of God-centric). That failure is rather odd because the Wiki article on the five points does a much better job. I guess the contributors to those two articles did not consult each other . Given the existence of internet sources like monergism.com and ligonier.org where the correct information can be found in minutes (if not seconds), there's no longer any excuse for straw men.

I will say I have met plenty of Arminians (and a few Traditionalists) who do not buy the "God looked down the timeline" dross and understand it makes God NOT omniscient, but the alternative is a sort of magical thinking, "He just knows" to does not fully commit to His sovereignty (He knows because He made everything to work according to His will, purpose, plan, and goal for creation). Faith is not gifted, and it's not predicated on regeneration. What God "knows" in volitionalism (both Arminianism and its more Pelagian alternatives) is that the sinner will believe with his own still-sinful dead and enslaved) faculties. It also means God "knows" God will be dependent on the sinner. Inherent to this pov is the often-unstated belief God cannot or does not coerce salvation. This is used to justify His dependence on the sinner's sinful choice of the sinful flesh. In other words, once the thread of how and what God knows about the "future" belief of the sinner is pulled the entire doctrine unravels with a series of untenable presuppositions.

As far as the meaning of "elect" goes, I think one of the most informative observation is the fact "elect" is spoken of by Jesus in the gospels more than it is in the epistolary. That fact is surprising to many. It means the elect were know in some way shape or form prior to Calvary. Another observation is the word "elect" is most often used as a noun, not a verb or adjective. We read of "the elect," as a specific distinct group. Another observation is that the implicit nature of the elect is that God elected or selected the elect and that is juxtaposed throughout scripture with men electing/selecting men who fail. There is also very little "campaigning" in scripture so soteriological election should not be thought of in the democratic sense. The volitionalist says the sinner chooses God so God will choose (elect or select) the now-believing still-dead-in-sin sinner based on his still-fleshly choice. In other words, God uses sin to save from sin.

As to the matter of "fairness," the blunt, extremely distasteful fact is that what we deserve - the thing that is "just" and "fair" is wrath and destruction. Salvation from wrath and sin is decidedly unfair, but it is unfair in our favor! We do NOT deserve salvation. We do not deserve the opportunity to live long enough to make a choice. We don't deserve any opportunity to choose anything. The fact we draw one breath is itself an act of undeserving grace that is decidedly unjust and unfair. The volitionalist sensibility of fairness is what is fair in comparison of one God-offending sinner to another God-offending sinner. What is "fair" to God? If it were not for the fact grace, mercy, and love are enshrined in God's laws (and Law) then there would not be any just basis for Him to save anyone!

We might part ways over the use of Romans 9 because Romans 9 specifies "mercy," not salvation. I, personally, don't think this is critical because mercy is a constituent and predicate condition of salvation by grace, but care must be taken so as not to conflate or confuse mercy and salvation. It should also be noted that the particular type of mercy Paul is writing about is that which is inextricably tied to the covenant relationship and, by extension, salvation. The larger, more diverse truth and facts of Esau and Jacob is that a lot of mercy was shown Esau. Either of those boys could have been struck dead (by their father or their Father) for what they did with birthright. Neither were deserving of anything and we later learn God blessed Esau with enormous wealth, and Esau acknowledged his blessings came from God, so he'd been shown mercy, too. It simply was not mercy that got him into the covenant promises God had given his father. Not all mercy is the same. Salvific mercy stands apart from all others. The earthly judge who grants leniency out of mercy must do so within the limitations of God's laws (he's not free to be wanton with judicial mercy) and he is granting mercy to an individual who will inescapably die and go to hell unless saved from sin and eternal wrath by God. That's a very limited, very different mercy. Mercy is, of course a predicate of salvation for without any mercy nothing else would or could ensue and Paul makes it very clear that mercy is NOT predicated on what or how a sinner acts, or how or what s/he wills. That means the volitionalist must find a place for choice somewhere between mercy and salvation and must do so without leaving open the premise God will be fruitless or fail with His mercy. The hugest whole in Arminianism is where is the middle group of people to whom God has made Himself known but they've rejected Him and then walked away retaining a knowledge of God sufficient for regeneration or salvation. The more Pelagian views don't have as much trouble with this because they don't hold to a divine moment of prevenient grace liberating the still-sinful sinner. They don't think sin is depraving or incapacitating. They do, however, still have the problem of God dependent on the sinner and the extremely blunt declaration God's covenantal mercy does NOT depend on how the sinner acts or wills.

In His mercy He elects, or selects, the elect based on is will and purpose, not that of the sinner's and the elect are a group of people already known to exist.




Hope the redundancy is not minded.
.

 

[Arial]

It could use a little clarification and added details on a few points but it correctly identifies some of the foundation-level problems with volitionalism.

Yes, I know. It was intentional, leaving room for objections, and counters, to come forth that would open the door to them. But, alas, it seems most of the A'ists have given up or simply aren't interested in the debate. So, thanks for walking through the door.

I will say I have met plenty of Arminians (and a few Traditionalists) who do not buy the "God looked down the timeline" dross and understand it makes God NOT omniscient, but the alternative is a sort of magical thinking, "He just knows" to does not fully commit to His sovereignty (He knows because He made everything to work according to His will, purpose, plan, and goal for creation).

Or as Open Theism says, yes, God is sovereign and omniscient, but He can only know what is knowable. Which completely removes both His sovereignty and His omniscience. In any view they present and defend, they have God learning things.

Faith is not gifted, and it's not predicated on regeneration. What God "knows" in volitionalism (both Arminianism and its more Pelagian alternatives) is that the sinner will believe with his own still-sinful dead and enslaved) faculties

It is easy to prove from Scripture and from actual knowledge of God and man, as given in the Scripture, that this is an impossibility. One would think it would be a simple matter of pointing these things out, to disabuse of the error. Light bulb moments received with awe and joy. (It did have that effect with me and many others will testify to the same.) But 99.9% of the time, in real life and forums, such is not the case. My hope is that there will be light bulb moments, even if they are never acknowledged. And that in reading what Reformed put forth some may walk away from the conversations because they began to see the possibility that they don't have a leg to stand on, and begin to ponder. Which, would be an act of God, as it is with all who switch from that side, to this side.

It also means God "knows" God will be dependent on the sinner.

In fact it has actually been written and often repeated, that it is God's good pleasure to submit His will to ours, because He wants people to come to Him because the love Him, not because He coerces them. WHich,of course, is a plan of redemption that anilates the actual plan of redemption, which is to put to death sin and death from all His creation. To undo what Adam did. It is nonsense to think that the sinner can contribute anything of his own will or efforts to accomplish that. It is at its root, a misunderstanding of the crucifixion.

I have to sign off for now, but will get back to the rest of your post later.

 

[Josheb]

.....It was intentional, leaving room for objections, and counters, to come forth that would open the door to them.

I look forward to any engagement.

But, alas, it seems most of the A'ists have given up or simply aren't interested in the debate. So, thanks for walking through the door.

Well, to be fair, although not wholly justified, the perception this Reform-dominated does not facilitate volitionalist contribution is somewhat justified. It's the law of reciprocity; we reap what we sow. I say, "not wholly" because synergists are not permitted to join exclusive forums like the Puritan Board. At least here the opportunity to post dissent exists and membership is open to nearly all.

Or as Open Theism says, yes, God is sovereign and omniscient, but He can only know what is knowable. Which completely removes both His sovereignty and His omniscience. In any view they present and defend, they have God learning things.

Well, I would agree that omniscience covers only what is logically knowable by an infinitely powerful God. God, for example, should not be expected to know how to make a spherical cube, nor the ability to make such a contradiction. Open theism errs because it looks at knowledge through the limiting filter of time and not timeless eternity. It subjugates the Creator to the creation. I will conceded I haven't read everything Open theists write but I have never read an Open theist discuss the lack of past, present, and future for the externally existing I Am. Huge mistake on their part, imo.

It is easy to prove from Scripture and from actual knowledge of God and man, as given in the Scripture, that this is an impossibility.

Yes, it flies in the face of impeccability and immutability. All the terms have to be redefined to fit the theology, not the other way around.

In fact it has actually been written and often repeated, that it is God's good pleasure to submit His will to ours...

I too have had those kind of conversations with synergists. It's one of those claims to which I always ask for explicit scripture and then get harangued for being arrogant and trying to control the conversation when the fact and truth is there is no scripture ever explicitly stating God limited Himself and subjugated His salvific will and His purpose to the sinner, the sinful human. It's one thing to say God agrees to abide by one He has already saved, purchased, regenerated, justified, sanctified, adopted, etc., etc., but it is an entirely different premise to claim God limited Himself and subjugated His will and purpose to a sinful sinner. The Creator submits Himself to the flesh of a sinner.

That is prima facie absurd.

Which, of course, is a plan of redemption that anilates the actual plan of redemption, which is to put to death sin and death from all His creation. To undo what Adam did.

Great observation.

It is nonsense to think that the sinner can contribute anything of his own will or efforts to accomplish that. It is at its root, a misunderstanding of the crucifixion.

I completely agree, especially since that effort is entirely one of sinful flesh.

 

[His clay]

The objection to this doctrine of grace, is to both words in it.

In Arminianism (and I use the term loosely, as there are many forms of it, few of them adhering to the historic Arminianism) unconditional is resisted, because it is seen as based on nothing, or arbitrary. What it does mean is that the conditions of election are not based on the merit of the person. It does not have conditions that must be met. It is by grace alone, according to the will and good pleasure of God.

Election is objected to because it is seen as unfair, and makes God responsible for the sin of people, since if He doesn't elect them to salvation, then they have no choice in the matter, other than to reject Christ. And yet in the majority of cases, Arminianism also believes in election. In that view, God only elects those who believe, and not all people without exception.

That form of election presents God as omniscient, looking down the corridor of time and seeing who will choose Christ, or have faith in Him, and then electing them. Of course that would not be actual election by God, as it would be, in His economy, after the fact, or according to the known facts.

However, that is contrary to Scripture. In Romans 9 Paul explicitly lays out the doctrine of sovereign election. I can hear the cries already! "That is the proof text Calvinists always use and it is talking about choosing Israel, not those in Christ!"

Is it? Let's take a closer look. Indeed in verses 6-13, Paul speaks of the promise as coming through Isaac, and of Rebeckah having twins, and before either had done anything good or bad, choosing Jacob, the younger, over Esau the elder, who should have inherited the blessing. And we know that the twelve tribes came from Jacob.

Paul is not speaking of the election of Israel here, as we shall see. That God elected Israel is a given. Not only that, Paul has just said, 7b-8 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but 'Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.' This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. Paul is talking about those who are children of the promise through faith. He is using Esau and Jacob to illustrate his point that,--- what?

11-12 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad---in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls---she was told,"The older will serve the younger."

What follows immediately is Paul anticipating an accusation.14-15 WHat then shall we say? Is God unjust? May it never be! For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." If Paul were merely discussing God's right to choose Israel over other nations, the accusation he anticipated would not even be an issue. If he were not saying the same thing concerning election of individuals, that unconditional election teaches, the objection would not have been raised. It is the very same objection the the U of Tulip is greeted with. But there is more, in case there is still any doubt.

16-18 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he has mercy, and he hardens whom he hardens.

There is ample proof of unconditional election, and election, in Scripture. But here in this one place, Paul is expounding on and explaining unconditional election. Neither Calvin or the Reformers made up the doctrine. They got it straight from Paul.

Salvation is all of God, by grace, through faith. We contribute not one jot or tittle to it. Nothing of our will, nothing of our desire, nothing of our efforts. We are but baby birds in the nest, with mouths wide open.

I agree in large part with most everything. That is until the final paragraph. I would agree that in unconditional election we "contribute not one jot or tittle to it." However, the above post says that of salvation. This may be entirely a semantic issue. When you say "contribute not one jot or tittle to it" and "Nothing of our will, nothing of our desire, nothing of our efforts" I find this to be troubling. If you were to say that we don't contribute anything meritorious, then I would be fine. But humans are not entirely passive beings in the "salvation" process. (which points to two terms of clarification: what is meant by "contribute" and what is meant by "salvation") The opening of the paragraph begins with "through faith" which comes from Ephesians 2:8. Faith is not mere mental assent as the passage over demons and believing in James presents. Saving faith in Romans looks to Christ and His sacrifice, apart from meritorious works. However, faith is something that a person does when God gifts the faith to the person (eph 2:8). There is an active component to faith where the will is involved, which leads me to the conclusion that the part stating, "Nothing of our will, nothing of our desire. . ." is either in error or stated in a way that lends itself toward misunderstanding.

Again, if "salvation" in the final paragraph was meant as a synonymous term with "unconditional election," then I'm fine with the statement. And if "contribute" refers to meritorious acts on the part of the sinner, then I am again fine with the statement. However, if "salvation" is more general, and if "contribute" means something significantly broader than meritorious acts, then I have to stand with my prior evaluation. The statement is either in error or stated in a way that lends itself toward misunderstanding.

 

[Arial]

Well, I would agree that omniscience covers only what is logically knowable by an infinitely powerful God. God, for example, should not be expected to know how to make a spherical cube, nor the ability to make such a contradiction.

Of course. But that is not the way they are using it. They are saying He can't know what hasn't happened yet. Another way of saying what you said, they can't fathom anything through a lens other than time, and finiteness,with anything other than lip service---knowing the right words---but never actually applying them correctly. I had countless encounters on these things with a character who went by Shroom on two now defunct forums. I see he is on CARM so you may have come across him. He never stops, like the energizer bunny, even when he has been reduced to "Yes it is." "No it isn't" "That's Calvinism." responses.

I started reading The Progress of Redemption by Willem Vangemeren today. Here is an interesting comment that is so ver true.
"Far too often, the student of the Bible opens God's Word only in order to find the answer to an immdeiate problem. Contexts and relationships are disregarded. Many students of the Word are like people walking through a museum reacting only with likes and dislikes."

Bt relationships he means the stutural elements he means the structure of biblical thought. "If one can feel the heartbeat of the books by understanding their cultural, historical, and literary background, as well as how one portion relates to other parts of Scripture,one can better understand and appreciate the book." It is the same way in which we have to learn, say, the sciences. Why not the Bible? I have found, as time marches on, and I do due diligence, these things become instinctual. We become more and more familiar with the whole counsel of God, so we can compare one thing with another, keeping a consistent whole. And we read the works of others gather in the nuances. We hear the claims made against Reformed theology, the doctrines of grace---all the ologies in redemption---and can quickly know "That cannot be because---". And what we don't know that we also know we need to know, we look for. That is the grace of God working in us as we pursue Him.

But it is work at the beginning, and really all the way through, though what was labor, at least for me, I find becomes a delight. And so many Christians in this modern, fast paced, anxiety inducing, world, just want the blessings and not the work. God keeps us all anyway.

 

[Arial]

Again, if "salvation" in the final paragraph was meant as a synonymous term with "unconditional election," then I'm fine with the statement. And if "contribute" refers to meritorious acts on the part of the sinner, then I am again fine with the statement. However, if "salvation" is more general, and if "contribute" means something significantly broader than meritorious acts, then I have to stand with my prior evaluation. The statement is either in error or stated in a way that lends itself toward misunderstanding.

My bad. That should say "election" in the last paragraph, not "salvation." Got ahead of myself, or inadvertently changed the subject. I will edit the remark.

What do you mean by we are not entirely passive beings in the salvation process?

 

[Arial]

As far as the meaning of "elect" goes, I think one of the most informative observation is the fact "elect" is spoken of by Jesus in the gospels more than it is in the epistolary. That fact is surprising to many. It means the elect were know in some way shape or form prior to Calvary. Another observation is the word "elect" is most often used as a noun, not a verb or adjective. We read of "the elect," as a specific distinct group.

Amen.

As to the matter of "fairness," the blunt, extremely distasteful fact is that what we deserve - the thing that is "just" and "fair" is wrath and destruction. Salvation from wrath and sin is decidedly unfair, but it is unfair in our favor! We do NOT deserve salvation. We do not deserve the opportunity to live long enough to make a choice. We don't deserve any opportunity to choose anything. The fact we draw one breath is itself an act of undeserving grace that is decidedly unjust and unfair. The volitionalist sensibility of fairness is what is fair in comparison of one God-offending sinner to another God-offending sinner. What is "fair" to God? If it were not for the fact grace, mercy, and love are enshrined in God's laws (and Law) then there would not be any just basis for Him to save anyone!

That is one of the places I was hoping the OP would lead to. So thanks again.

Sinners deserve the wrath of God. Of course, if one has a one dimensional view of God as benevolent, wouldn't hurt a fly, loves everyone unconditionally, as many Christians do, they do not really believe that He would exhibit wrath period. Nevertheless, it is true. Everyone is a sinner against a holy God. (And probably a great many do not know what it means that God is holy. Or that we are dependant upon Him for everything, even the next breath we take. Or that we are wholly and completely obligated to bear His image and likeness.) He is perfect love, but He is not only perfect love. He is also perfectly just, and perfectly righteous. Righteousness with God is to be just. And love with God is to hate what is not righteous, and to destroy it.

It is God's justice than hangs over the head of every sinner. In Christ, and only in His atoning work and resurrection, those justified before God through faith Him, receive mercy. Not because their sins are winked at or simply forgiven as we forgive one who offends us, but because they have met justice in Christ. God is neither unfair or unjust in election. Now if election were conditional, that would be "unfair", because God would not be judging everyone by the same standard, and doing so by weighing the good against the bad. There would potentially be people in His kingdom who never knew Christ, but were very "good" people. And it would still be God's choice.

We might part ways over the use of Romans 9 because Romans 9 specifies "mercy," not salvation. I, personally, don't think this is critical because mercy is a constituent and predicate condition of salvation by grace, but care must be taken so as not to conflate or confuse mercy and salvation. It should also be noted that the particular type of mercy Paul is writing about is that which is inextricably tied to the covenant relationship and, by extension, salvation.

Agree. But Paul is specifically speaking of God's sovereign election, writing to believers who are saved. Paul is attaching mercy to election in this instance. And yes, it is a covenant relationship.

The larger, more diverse truth and facts of Esau and Jacob is that a lot of mercy was shown Esau. Either of those boys could have been struck dead (by their father or their Father) for what they did with birthright. Neither were deserving of anything and we later learn God blessed Esau with enormous wealth, and Esau acknowledged his blessings came from God, so he'd been shown mercy, too. It simply was not mercy that got him into the covenant promises God had given his father. Not all mercy is the same. Salvific mercy stands apart from all others.

Agree.

Mercy is, of course a predicate of salvation for without any mercy nothing else would or could ensue and Paul makes it very clear that mercy is NOT predicated on what or how a sinner acts, or how or what s/he wills. That means the volitionalist must find a place for choice somewhere between mercy and salvation and must do so without leaving open the premise God will be fruitless or fail with His mercy.

Right. I suppose, and think I have even had it said to me, that the mercy is in God making mercy possible through the person and work of Jesus, and offering the gift of faith. His mercy, according to that, would be that He gave us a choice. But as you say, that assumes that God's mercy can be in vain. In which case it does not even qualify as being mentioned as mercy, anymore than a gift offered but not given, by His grace, can be called grace.

The hugest whole in Arminianism is where is the middle group of people to whom God has made Himself known but they've rejected Him and then walked away retaining a knowledge of God sufficient for regeneration or salvation

I know!!! They have a people who believe something that Scripture says brings them into the kingdom, a direct result of regeneration according to Scripture, and at the same time rejecting it.

 

[His clay]

My bad. That should say "election" in the last paragraph, not "salvation." Got ahead of myself, or inadvertently changed the subject. I will edit the remark.

What do you mean by we are not entirely passive beings in the salvation process?

What do I mean when I write of the "salvation process" and "not entirely passive beings"?

First, the term "salvation" has a semantic range. This just means that it has more than one potential meaning. Sometimes, salvation is used narrowly focused with respect to justification. To be saved is to justified. Sometimes, salvation is more future oriented, as in final salvation. Sometimes, theologians use the Latin "ordo salutis" (order of salvation) to refer to the various steps beginning with election and ending in glorification. It is the final use of the term to which I am referring.

Second, the salvation process, in part, is referring to God's ultimate initiative. God is back and behind every step bringing those He has chosen to Himself. Election is unconditional. New life is imparted by God and a new nature. Faith is gifted so that a person believes. God justifies (judicially declares one to be just). On the basis of and because of God's gracious activity, man works out the salvation. Philippians 2 tells believers to work out their own salvation, for it is God who works in them to will and to do of His good pleasure. Here, we see a DEPENDENT synergism. God is the foundation upon which human works are done. It is a both/and scenario. Yes, I've used the term "synergism," but it is radically different than one where God contributes in one domain, and man contributes in another domain. No, when I say DEPENDENT, I'm addressing a causal relationship between human action founded upon God's grace, where both God and man are acting. Hebrews 11 points (among other things) out that "faith" is demonstrated through living, and this living takes place between the prior mentioned elements and glorification. Yes, the sanctification process itself can be understood in the context of God's overall working in a believer's life and is another aspect of the order of salvation.

This does not even begin to address everything, but I think that the response here gives a decent enough answer to your question.

 

[Arial]

What do I mean when I write of the "salvation process" and "not entirely passive beings"?

First, the term "salvation" has a semantic range. This just means that it has more than one potential meaning. Sometimes, salvation is used narrowly focused with respect to justification. To be saved is to justified. Sometimes, salvation is more future oriented, as in final salvation. Sometimes, theologians use the Latin "ordo salutis" (order of salvation) to refer to the various steps beginning with election and ending in glorification. It is the final use of the term to which I am referring.

Second, the salvation process, in part, is referring to God's ultimate initiative. God is back and behind every step bringing those He has chosen to Himself. Election is unconditional. New life is imparted by God and a new nature. Faith is gifted so that a person believes. God justifies (judicially declares one to be just). On the basis of and because of God's gracious activity, man works out the salvation. Philippians 2 tells believers to work out their own salvation, for it is God who works in them to will and to do of His good pleasure. Here, we see a DEPENDENT synergism. God is the foundation upon which human works are done. It is a both/and scenario. Yes, I've used the term "synergism," but it is radically different than one where God contributes in one domain, and man contributes in another domain. No, when I say DEPENDENT, I'm addressing a causal relationship between human action founded upon God's grace, where both God and man are acting. Hebrews 11 points (among other things) out that "faith" is demonstrated through living, and this living takes place between the prior mentioned elements and glorification.

This does not even begin to address everything, but I think that the response here gives a decent enough answer to your question.

I agree with all of that. But election is unconditional---has no prior conditions. And therefore, neither does salvation---being saved. We live in this age in a right now, not yet tension. We are saved, but have not yet received the full inheritance of the age to come. We live out our lives here as children of God should, but it is God who works in us to will and to work, and His word that teaches us.

 

[Josheb]

Of course. But that is not the way they are using it. They are saying He can't know what hasn't happened yet................................

Which is just absurd. God makes time but does not know what He makes. Time as a measure of cause and effect is made by The First Cause but the Uncaused First Cause does not know what are all the causes and all effects He causes...... from His extra-temporal position outside of creation.

It's not a well though-out point of view.

Op-relevantly, it does not solve the synergist problems of a self-limiting God dependent on sinners.

 

[Josheb]

Amen.

That is one of the places I was hoping the OP would lead to. So thanks again.

Sinners deserve the wrath of God. Of course, if one has a one dimensional view of God as benevolent, wouldn't hurt a fly, loves everyone unconditionally, as many Christians do, they do not really believe that He would exhibit wrath period. Nevertheless, it is true. Everyone is a sinner against a holy God. (And probably a great many do not know what it means that God is holy. Or that we are dependant upon Him for everything, even the next breath we take. Or that we are wholly and completely obligated to bear His image and likeness.) He is perfect love, but He is not only perfect love. He is also perfectly just, and perfectly righteous. Righteousness with God is to be just. And love with God is to hate what is not righteous, and to destroy it.

It is God's justice than hangs over the head of every sinner. In Christ, and only in His atoning work and resurrection, those justified before God through faith Him, receive mercy. Not because their sins are winked at or simply forgiven as we forgive one who offends us, but because they have met justice in Christ. God is neither unfair or unjust in election. Now if election were conditional, that would be "unfair", because God would not be judging everyone by the same standard, and doing so by weighing the good against the bad. There would potentially be people in His kingdom who never knew Christ, but were very "good" people. And it would still be God's choice.

Agree. But Paul is specifically speaking of God's sovereign election, writing to believers who are saved. Paul is attaching mercy to election in this instance. And yes, it is a covenant relationship.

Agree.

Right. I suppose, and think I have even had it said to me, that the mercy is in God making mercy possible through the person and work of Jesus, and offering the gift of faith. His mercy, according to that, would be that He gave us a choice. But as you say, that assumes that God's mercy can be in vain. In which case it does not even qualify as being mentioned as mercy, anymore than a gift offered but not given, by His grace, can be called grace.

I know!!! They have a people who believe something that Scripture says brings them into the kingdom, a direct result of regeneration according to Scripture, and at the same time rejecting it.

As I said, I look forward to synergists participating.

 

[Arial]

As I said, I look forward to synergists participating.

Got it.

 

[His clay]

I agree with all of that. But election is unconditional---has no prior conditions. And therefore, neither does salvation---being saved. We live in this age in a right now, not yet tension. We are saved, but have not yet received the full inheritance of the age to come. We live out our lives here as children of God should, but it is God who works in us to will and to work, and His word that teaches us.

"I agree with all of that. But election is unconditional---has no prior conditions." Agreed! I'm totally in agreement with unconditional election. Because you and @Josheb have already discussed issues relating to God's asceity, time, and creational dependence, I won't delve into those topics. They've already been covered.

However, I do wish to bring up one quibble with the conditional election viewpoint. The main interpretive ssue for that viewpoint is how to preserve libertarian freedom, and in particular the human ability to make an ontologically ultimate choice that can be otherwise than what is chosen. It is precisely this view of freedom (libertarian freedom) that I find rather odd. The reason for the oddity is that, on one hand, the Arminian holds that freedom is imperitive for the creature to posses, so that his/her actions are not robotic and truly genuine. On the other hand, God does not have this freedom when it comes to their view of election. And here is the question. Could God have chose otherwise than what He knew the person would choose? Simply asking the question makes it rather clear that the Arminian has sacrificed God's libertarian freedom (assuming their view's critical assumption for the sake of arguing against it) for the sake of human freedom of choice. Again, can God choose otherwise than what He knows the person will choose? If yes, then reality it screwed up, and election ceases to be election. If no, then an obvious double standard is in play, and now the Arminian's own objections--robotic, fatalism, and non-genuine--comes against their own view.

"And therefore, neither does salvation---being saved." Your statement here is easily countered by the Bible. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." In this verse, salvation requires the prior condition of belief. This points to the issue of being clear on our meanings of "salvation," which goes to my last post. The defintion does have a semantic range. Sometimes it can refer to the whole (election to glorification), and in this sense your statement is correct. Viewed holistically, salvation has no prior conditions because it is founded upon God's self-sufficient nature. He is the Creator and sustainer of all things, and thusly all things are dependent upon him. There is no such thing as autonomy from God. Assuming the holistic viewpoint, God stands as the ultimate being in the universe, and thusly salvation is built upon Him. God is ultimate, and there is no other. However, the verse makes it clear that "salvation" can be understood in a smaller sense, and in this sense it is really not so much God-centered. The verse mentioned above is pressing the responsibility of people to believe, and in this sense it is man-centered. Almost the whole of my point is that we need to be very careful how we use the term "salvation," for it really does have a range of meaning.

"We live in this age in a right now, not yet tension. We are saved, but have not yet received the full inheritance of the age to come." The already/not yet

"We live out our lives here as children of God should, but it is God who works in us to will and to work, and His word that teaches us." Agreed!

23 Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
24 He who calls you is faithful; he will surely do it. (1Thes 5:23-24 ESV)

 

[Josheb]

However, I do wish to bring up one quibble with the conditional election viewpoint. The main interpretive ssue for that viewpoint is how to preserve libertarian freedom, and in particular the human ability to make an ontologically ultimate choice that can be otherwise than what is chosen.

Why "preserve" something that is not relevant?

It is precisely this view of freedom (libertarian freedom) that I find rather odd. The reason for the oddity is that, on one hand, the Arminian holds that freedom is imperitive for the creature to posses...

I don't mean to split hairs (or maybe I do ) but that should read "....the Arminian assumes that freedom is imperative..." or still more accurately, "...the Arminian assumes that freedom is imperative and then holds what is assumed is relevant..."

AND... it is very difficult to get them to examine the assumption(s).

, so that his/her actions are not robotic and truly genuine.

Which is a red herring because no one think humans are robots or being controlled to the degree volitional agency doesn't exist.

On the other hand, God does not have this freedom when it comes to their view of election.

Right!

He is dependent on the creature, and not just any creature; He's dependent on the sinful creature to the point He is not free to do as He pleases unless or until the sinner chooses and acts to enable God.

Could God have [chosen] otherwise than what He knew the person would choose?

From the monergistic perspective the question is another red herring because God did not make any choices based on what He knows anyone else will do or not do. The better question is, "Can the sinful creature do other than what God omnisciently knows the sinner will do?" and "Can the sinful creature do other than what mortal and slavish sin causes him/her to do?" That last one is asking, "Can the sinner not be a sinner?" and that commonly gets heard as, "Can the sinner not sin for one specific choice?" and the answer is (purportedly), "Yes!" but that affirmative answer is incorrect because once a sinner working with sinfully corrupted flesh even the righteous choice/act is filthy rags. God needs nothing sinful to save the sinner from sin and the premise God uses sin to defeat sin and save the sinner from the sin by which the sinner is mortally enslaved is circular and self-contradicting.

Simply asking the question makes it rather clear that the Arminian has sacrificed God's libertarian freedom (assuming their view's critical assumption for the sake of arguing against it) for the sake of human freedom of choice.

Yep.

Again, can God choose otherwise than what He knows the person will choose? If yes, then reality it screwed up, and election ceases to be election.

....and we cannot rely on anything He says in His word.

If no, then an obvious double standard is in play..

Well said.

 

[Arial]

The reason for the oddity is that, on one hand, the Arminian holds that freedom is imperitive for the creature to posses, so that his/her actions are not robotic and truly genuine. On the other hand, God does not have this freedom when it comes to their view of election.

True. That is behind the belief, whether they acknowledge it or not. It presumes man must be more free than God, or else our actions are not genuine. To me it is, among other things, a confusion between "ordinary" will, in which we freely make choices, and our will that must be free in order to freely choose God. We would not be human as God created humans to be, if we did not freely make choices, and Adam would never have sinned. He would obey in the same way as other creatures do. Through God given instinct. But man was not made as other creatures. He was made to mirror the righteousness of God.

In libertarian free will, this is not recognized or at least not considered. They do not agree with total depravity. And those branches of free will, such as historic Arminianism, that do agree with total depravity do not actually incorporate it into their doctrine. Or like the RCC, and provisionists, say provisional grace was given to all. In any case, at the point they replace our will as free, instead of God's will, God is effective removed from the crucifixion as effectual.

Could God have chose otherwise than what He knew the person would choose? Simply asking the question makes it rather clear that the Arminian has sacrificed God's libertarian freedom (assuming their view's critical assumption for the sake of arguing against it) for the sake of human freedom of choice. Again, can God choose otherwise than what He knows the person will choose? If yes, then reality it screwed up, and election ceases to be election. If no, then an obvious double standard is in play, and now the Arminian's own objections--robotic, fatalism, and non-genuine--comes against their own view.

As Sproul said to a class when he was teaching on unconditional election. "Election is based on free will." Here he paused and grinned at the baffled faces before him. Then turned to write on the blackboard. "The free will of God!"

"And therefore, neither does salvation---being saved." Your statement here is easily countered by the Bible. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." In this verse, salvation requires the prior condition of belief.

Which is countered by, "By grace you are saved, through faith, and that is the gift of God not of works, that no one should boast." Which makes believing (faith in the person and work of Jesus), not of ourselves, but is given by God at regeneration, at which point it becomes a faith we have. IMO it is not "salvation" that needs to be clarified or defined, (that is done through various scriptures as to its process from elected through glorified.) It is the question of recognizing that when it says "Believe on the Lord---" it is not imperative that that be seen as a prior condition. It simply states that if you believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, you are saved. In that sense, it also does not imply a choice as it is said to.

However, the verse makes it clear that "salvation" can be understood in a smaller sense, and in this sense it is really not so much God-centered.

It can be, but that would be incorrect.

The verse mentioned above is pressing the responsibility of people to believe, and in this sense it is man-centered.

I don't think it is, except in the sense that the gospel is not being withheld from any. Everyone is obligated to God to believe, whether He elects them to adoption as His children or not. No one is out from under the command. The fact that He does not give this faith to everyone, does not change that.

 

[His clay]

. . . .

Which is countered by, "By grace you are saved, through faith, and that is the gift of God not of works, that no one should boast." Which makes believing (faith in the person and work of Jesus), not of ourselves, but is given by God at regeneration, at which point it becomes a faith we have. IMO it is not "salvation" that needs to be clarified or defined, (that is done through various scriptures as to its process from elected through glorified.) It is the question of recognizing that when it says "Believe on the Lord---" it is not imperative that that be seen as a prior condition. It simply states that if you believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, you are saved. In that sense, it also does not imply a choice as it is said to.

It can be, but that would be incorrect.

I don't think it is, except in the sense that the gospel is not being withheld from any. Everyone is obligated to God to believe, whether He elects them to adoption as His children or not. No one is out from under the command. The fact that He does not give this faith to everyone, does not change that.

Arial,
I am in general agreement 95% (rough estimate) of the time with your posts. I say this so as to guard from any kind of overstatement. So while I will be presenting a critique of your words, quoted above, please remember that we are both largely on the same page.

First, Ephesians 2:8 does not counter Acts 16:31. It supplements it and helps us to properly understand the human response of faith.

Second, 2:8 points out how faith is ultimately sourced in God, and just because God is the ultimate source does not therefore mean that the human response of faith is excluded. Quite the opposite, the human response of faith is built upon the ultimate sourcing found in God's gift.

Third, clarifying the meaning of "salvation" helps us to communicate better and more clearly, and clarifying helps us to realize that the term is not a monolithic entity (protects from the technical usage fallacy D. A. Carson points out in his book "Exegetic Fallacies"). It is a term determined and shaped by the context in different ways depending on how the biblical author or theologian wants to address the issue.

Fourth, Acts 16:31 utilizes the Greek word "πίστευσον" which is aorist, active, imperative, 2nd person singular. The parsing of the verb indicates that it is imperative. The verb is not in the indicative. Hence, the verb here is indicating what ought (imperative) to be done not what is (indicative) done.

Fifth, Acts 16:31 utilizes the Greek word "σωθήσῃ" which is future, passive, indicative 2nd person singular. This simply means that we are dealing with the future tense of the verb. Hence, the NET, ESV, and CSB all translate the verb "you will be saved." Other versions will use "shall be saved" or "shalt be saved."

Sixth, Acts 16:31 is in the context of the Paul and Silas presenting the gospel in Phillipi. We have the the amazing work of God in the life of Lydia presented. And we also see Paul, after a great deal of patience, casting out a demon. This enraged her owners, and her owners caused quite a ruckus. Paul and Silas were dragged into the market place and mistreated, which finally resulted in them being cast into prison. And we know the account from there. In verse 26 God works, and an earthquake takes place, and everyone's bonds cease to bind. After stopping the jailer from killing himself, Paul and Silas respond to his question (v30), "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" And in this context, their response is verse 31. "And they said, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.'" The context and the use of the imperative "believe" leads me to hold to the position that this passage is focused upon the human side. Such a focus does not exclude the divine side of the equation. It only shows that this passage is focusing in upon the responsibility (what the jailer was responsible to do) Paul and Silas were presenting before the jailer. Hence, I hold that my earlier statement, "However, the verse makes it clear that "salvation" can be understood in a smaller sense, and in this sense it is really not so much God-centered." is correct. Again, we are not doing a disservice to God's work and His amazing grace by focusing upon the human side of the equation. The passage is focusing upon the jailer's responsibility, which by no means combats the other passages, which present a fuller perspective (i.e. Eph 2:8).

Concluding Comments: I hope that you can see my reasons here. And I will repeat what I stated earlier, I largely agree with you on a great many things, but here we must part ways for the above reasons. We are both Calvinists. We both hold to unconditional election (the main focus of this thread), and I always appreciate your posts. And I welcome your critiques of my own words. Iron sharpens iron.

 

[Arial]

First, Ephesians 2:8 does not counter Acts 16:31. It supplements it and helps us to properly understand the human response of faith.

It was not Acts 16:31 that was being countered, but the interpretation given of it. That being that Acts 16:31 "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." It is you who were saying that countered Eph 2:8 by saying Acts 16:31 showed a precondition to being saved. Faith is required, but Eph 2 shows that faith to not be ourselves, but is given by God. It had to do with the statement below.

But election is unconditional---has no prior conditions. And therefore, neither does salvation---being saved.

Second, 2:8 points out how faith is ultimately sourced in God, and just because God is the ultimate source does not therefore mean that the human response of faith is excluded. Quite the opposite, the human response of faith is built upon the ultimate sourcing found in God's gift.

Of course it is. That is why I gave it.

Third, clarifying the meaning of "salvation" helps us to communicate better and more clearly, and clarifying helps us to realize that the term is not a monolithic entity (protects from the technical usage fallacy D. A. Carson points out in his book "Exegetic Fallacies"). It is a term determined and shaped by the context in different ways depending on how the biblical author or theologian wants to address the issue.

I did not realize it was unclear. I am not sniping at you, but what you are suggesting is a full exegesis of salvation in it's processes, the whole of the doctrines of grace, when the OP is addressing only two, specific aspects of it----what does it mean and how does it hold up to objections.

Concluding Comments: I hope that you can see my reasons here. And I will repeat what I stated earlier, I largely agree with you on a great many things, but here we must part ways for the above reasons. We are both Calvinists. We both hold to unconditional election (the main focus of this thread), and I always appreciate your posts. And I welcome your critiques of my own words. Iron sharpens iron.

I can see your reasons, and I have no objection to the critique or disagreement with what was said. However, it goes way off the narrow focus of the OP.