Election: Conditional or Unconditional?
by
As one who has discussed many philosophic issues with Mr. Guthrie in past times, it is a privilege and an honor to participate in this debate by way of reflection and commentary. I have personally wrestled with the topic of election and have found it to be a fascinating endeavor, often spurring me on to a deeper appreciation of the biblical texts. For the purpose of clarity and precision, I will follow the definitions that Guthrie has supplied in his opening statements.
A. Reasons to Believe that Unconditional Election is False?
Guthrie's case that (A) theological determinism is incompatible with creaturely freedom seems to be well argued so I will not add to it. So what of (B), his contention that salvation is a "viable option for any person?" The verses that support (B) are numerous and compelling.[1]
For example, the Apostle John writes,
"Whoever believes in him is not condemned" (John 3:18).
"…believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father" (10:38).[2]
"When the crowds asked Jesus, 'What must we do to do the works God requires?' He answers, 'The work of God is to believe in the one he has sent'" (6:28-29).
"[Jesus] is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world" (I John 2:2).
"For God so loved the world that he gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save it through him" (John 3:16).
The usual response is to say that these verses are not talking about everyone "without exception,"[3]but about the elect. However, John unequivocally denies this. In Chapter One, John writes that some who were in the world are not believers - they "did not recognize [Jesus]," nor did they "receive him." Yet to those in the world who did "receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God" (v10-12). Therefore, the world encompasses believers and unbelievers, and Christ died to save them all.
Now, Pike does point out one exception to this in John 6. He quotes v44, "No one can come to me [Jesus] unless the Father who sent me draws him." Guthrie replies that the same Greek word for "draw" also functions in John 12:32 where Jesus says, "I…will draw all men to myself." Therefore, God draws all people to himself, yet only some respond. But Guthrie's response ignores Pike's observation that the Father's "enabling" is directly linked to the unbelief of Christ's audience. When our Lord said "…there are some of you who do not believe…" he was quick to add, "this is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him" (v64-65). John seems to be suggesting that those who did not believe were not enabled by the Father, in which case, God doesn't want all to be saved. I admit to being confused by this passage (especially in light of what was previously said in v28), yet I think such tensions are typical of Johannine literature. So it is safe to say that, with the exception of one isolated passage, the overall testimony of John is supportive of conditional election.
Finally, the Apostle Paul testifies that God "wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2: 4). Again, this passage cannot be explained away as referring only to the elect. The first two verses show plainly that "all men" represents "everyone" including "kings" and "all those in authority."
B. Reasons to Believe that Unconditional Election is True?
Peter Pike has argued for unconditional election on the basis of Scriptural evidence and what he calls the "logic of choice." He says that a person is free (soteriologically) as long as they act upon their "strongest desires." But this concept of freedom is clearly inadequate. Consider the following counterexample: An invisible neurosurgeon has strapped tiny electrical wires to my brain. His expertise in cognitive science enables him to cause (in the strongdeterminist sense) every one of my actions, all the while ensuring that my actions are accompanied by a strong "desire" to do as I do. Our intuitions tell us that I am not free in this situation. Hence, "doing what I want to do" is not a sufficient criterion for freedom or responsibility. As Kai Nielsen has point out, such desires are given to us by "circumstances which we cannot help."[4]
Having already discussed John 6, do any other scriptures support unconditional election?
Pike cites Hebrews 12:2 to argue that "only if Christ is the author of our faith…can we be truly be saved by grace instead of works." But Guthrie is right to say that responding in faith is not a work in the biblical sense (Rom 4:5). Furthermore, one must distinguish, as Guthrie does, between the atonement and its application. Putting one's trust in Christ does not add to the work of the cross, and neither does it cheapen the Holy Spirit's role in soliciting that decision through his prevenient grace. Pike's response to this is unimpressive. He maintains, "work is something we do, so if faith is not a work, then it must come outside ourselves - it is a gift (i.e. Ephesians 2:8-9)." This argument is not logically valid, but nevertheless, one doesn't have to believe in unconditional election to hold that faith is a gift: without the cross and the work of the Spirit, no one would have the option of responding in faith. Thus, the ability to choose Christ is definitely a gift.
Does Romans 9 bolster Pike's case?
I agree with Guthrie that verses 11-16 are not talking about individual salvation. Rather, election in this context denotes God's sovereign decision to use Israel in making salvation available to the all nations. Even though the Jews were (chronologically) the first ethnic recipients of God's revelation, the preceding verses (v4-8) were meant to show that election is not restricted to the nation of Israel,[5] and in this sense, "not all who descended from Israel are Israel." Verses 10-16 underscore the fact that the Jews were not chosen because of their good works.[6] This is made clear in v12 when God picks Jacob instead of Esau to be the instrument of His blessing - and He does so without precognition of any good works. Does this make God "unjust"? (v14). Of course not! He can choice whatever vessel he wants - righteous or unrighteous - to disseminate his salvation to the Gentiles. And this choice does not "depend on man's desire or effort" (v16).
Verses 17-22 do talk about individual salvation, but it is unclear whether Pharaoh is unconditionally damned. First, we should note that Pharaoh hardened his heart before God hardened it (Ex 7:13-14; 8:15; 9:12). Second, subsequent "hardenings" are likely an example of how God withholds his mediating grace from sinners who consistently rebel against his graceful initiatives (Romans 1:24, 26, 28). In this way, God is allowing Pharaoh to harden himself. Third, the image of a potter and his clay seems highly determinist, but here I think Paul knew the limitations of this metaphor. Recall that Isaiah juxtaposes the potter-image with that of a Father and his child: "Yet, O Lord, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand (64:8). The Bible presents both of these images as indicative of our relationship to God - God is completely sovereign, but his children can freely rebel or obey. Finally, the fact that Pharaoh was "prepared [beforehand] for destruction" (v22) is perfectly consistent with a conditional account of predestination. In all, I fail to see an argument for unconditional election in Romans 9.
[1] The reader may consult the debate for a more comprehensive selection. Guthrie could have also mentioned Romans 5:17-18, as well as Ezekiel18:21-32 where God literally pleads with the wicked to repent.
[2] Here I think Jesus is linking belief to one's cognitive ability to weigh evidence. One's capacity to reason is obviously negated if one does not have free will in the sense that Guthrie has defined. Therefore, believing (in this passage) requires creaturely freedom.
[3] See D.A. Carson's The Gagging of God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1996)., p288, for a defense of this view.
[4] See Nielsen's article "The Compatibility of Freedom and Determinism," in Introduction To Philosophical Thinking ed. Ralph W. Clark. (New York: West Publishing Company, 1987). p154.
[5] Salvation extends to all who belong to Christ (Galatians 3:29).
[6] See also Deuteronomy 9:5-6.
Thomas
Rauchenstein
Trinity Western University
rauchens@yahoo.com
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8160