- Joined
- May 27, 2023
- Messages
- 5,687
- Reaction score
- 3,927
- Points
- 113
- Faith
- Christian/Reformed
- Country
- US
- Politics
- conservative
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.
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.
Last edited: