First Rebuttal - Shandon L. Guthrie

In my opening statement I had suggested that there are no good reasons to think unconditional election is true and that there are good reasons to think unconditional election is false (that some form of precognition is to be evinced). Pike does not seem to deny the definitions I laid out in my first statement except a passing remark about creaturely freedom (more on this in a moment). So let me look at Pike's first rebuttal and contrast it to my case.

I. NO GOOD REASON TO THINK UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION IS TRUE

Pike had suggested that salvation cannot include an individual's decision and that Romans 9 decisively precludes a precognitive view of election. I responded by clarifying the distinction between the atonement and accepting salvation and that Romans 9 is intended to expand the controversy of ethnic election in the Jewish faith to anyone else that would avail himself to God. Pike seems to have dropped these points.

Well, Pike does advance additional support for theological determinism. He cites Proverbs 16:9, 20:24, and Jeremiah 10:23 as theological support, that God determines our paths. However, the term "determines" does not have the connotation of determinism in the philosophical or theological sense because of the context in which God fashions our future. God directs and influences us in our pursuit of righteousness but He never compromises our freedom to choose otherwise. Psalm 23:3 reflects the same sentiment about God's guidance in our lives when David muses, "He guides me in paths of righteousness." That our free will is not compromised is evident in David's obvious sinful blunder of his adulterous affair with Bathsheba coupled with the execution of Uriah. The authors of these passages do not seem to be insinuating that the freedom of the will is incapacitated by our proclivities. But I generally agree with Pike that these passages bespeak the sovereignty of God.

Pike then answers the question "How anyone can come to Christ?" by explaining that the Father gives those to be saved to the Son (John 6:37-40). But is this determinism? Not at all. The manner in which God brings people to the Son is clarified in the surrounding verses:

And the contingency of belief is vouchsafed by the other New Testament writings I noted in my opening statement. So, what does it mean for God to "enable" or "draw" people? It must be noted that God, in a sense, draws all persons to salvation (John 12:32 - "I . . . will draw all men unto myself"). In another sense God only draws the saved unto Himself. The distinction can be seen in the analogy of advertisement. Ads draw all persons to their products but only a few respond to them. In the sense that only some people were drawn elucidates John 6.

Thus, I must confess that none of these reasons compel me to believe in unconditional election.

II. GOOD REASONS TO THINK THAT UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION IS FALSE

(A) Theological determinism contradicts creaturely freedom. I first suggested that creaturely freedom and theological determinism are logically incompatible. Pike did not deny this except to suggest that freedom cannot mean "autonomy." But autonomy, or self-government, is irrelevant to the specific ability of the creaturely will. What Pike has to clarify, if he means autonomy is synonymous with the definition I have laid out, is how a creature is free and yet disabled from choosing salvation. And I can't imagine how he can do this!

(B) The New Testament advocates creaturely freedom. I then stated that the New Testament avails salvation to anyone and Pike responded only to 2 Peter 3:9. He says that this passage, given "dear friends" in verse 8, limits "everyone" to Christians only. I have two responses here. First, it makes no sense to desire Christians to come to repentance if they are already determined for salvation. Secondly, verses 3-7 suggest that the "everyone" embraces "scoffers" who "follow their own evil desires" to which God has been patient with so that they, too, would have the opportunity to "come to repentance."

So it seems to me that denying unconditional election is justified.