Concluding Statement - Peter Pike

First off, I would like to thank Mr. Guthrie for his time in this debate. I hope it has been useful both for himself and me, as well as anyone else who reads these exchanges. I shall now submit my final conclusions based on all the evidence Guthrie has given as well as all Biblical evidence I have read.

The first thing to note is that while Guthrie is correct in saying that the phrase "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy" does not in and of itself prove unconditional election, the very next sentence Paul writes (Romans 9:16) does and it is this verse that Guthrie has neglected to refute. Paul writes clearly, "It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy." This is what makes God's election unconditional. It is not dependent on man's desire or effort.

The fact that this is talking about salvation is evident by the fact that Paul also refers to God hardening whom he wants to harden (verse 18) as well as the complaint he expects to hear. "One of you will say to me: 'Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?'" (verse 19). Now it would be a simple thing for Paul to say, "Let me clarify: I do not mean that God ordains things against your will, rather He does this just to make His grace known to all types of men." But instead, Paul answers, "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?" This is a very unusual answer if, as Guthrie asserts, this passage is just referring to the fact that God is not limiting His grace to the Jews. It makes perfect sense if Paul is talking about unconditional election, however.

I must admit that I was surprised when I read the following line that Guthrie has written, since it fits more with a deterministic theology than a free-will theology. Guthrie wrote, " If God did not want us to choose certain courses of action then God would have altered the circumstances so that we would have done otherwise." This is something I agree whole-heartedly with! The problem is this: if God can alter circumstances so we would do otherwise (such as choosing Him instead of not choosing Him), then why does He not do so? In other words, if God wants us to be saved, then why not alter circumstances so that all are saved? The unconditional election camp has no problem with this--God unconditionally chooses some to be saved and ensures their salvation. If our salvation is conditional, however, and God wants all saved, then why doesn't God follow Guthrie's advice and change everyone's circumstances so all can believe?

Guthrie asks, "If the person could not choose whether to be saved or not then how can she be guilty of her actions that were caused by someone else?" This argument, however, does not follow. If a person's actions are caused by someone else, then they are not guilty of sin. The fact is that the actions are not caused by someone else--everyone wants to sin willingly. Besides that, people are guilty for sin even if there is no chance for salvation. Sin is breaking God's commands. If God did not provide an atonement for sins, we would still be guilty of sin! Therefore, regardless of whether or not a person can chose to be saved, if a person sins, he or she is still guilty of sin.

Guthrie also maintains that a work is categorically different than faith. To this, I would agree, and yet I think the question must be asked--why is it different? A work is something we do, so if faith is not a work, then it must come outside of ourselves--it is a gift (ie: Ephesians 2:8,9).

And finally, I would like to turn our attention once more to John 6. This, coupled with Romans 9, seals the case in my opinion. Christ says, "Yet there are some of you who do not believe." John states, "For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and which would betray him. [Jesus] went on to say, 'This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled Him.'" (John 6:64-65). As I stated earlier, this passage can only make sense in the light of unconditional election. Why else would Christ say "there are some of you who do not believe. This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled Him." This passage shows that only if God draws can a person be saved--and it also shows that God's drawing is effective, for those who do not believe do not believe because they were not drawn.

So to conclude, I think it is fairly evident based on Scriptures such as Romans 9, John 6, and Ephesians 1-2 that the only way we can be saved is through God's unconditional election. It also fits logically, when one takes into account Total Depravity, as well as the fact that we are saved apart from works. Based on these passages and this logic, I think the only conclusion we can come to is that God will have mercy on whom He has mercy, and He will harden whom He hardens, and all of this to His glory.

I thank Guthrie for his time, and I have enjoyed this. I would suggest to any readers that they further study this issue (both sides of it), for a limited debate is not a good forum to get into all the details that we would each like. However, this is a good introduction to the topic at hand. May God be blessed by this exchange!