In June of 2012 a piece was posted on this blog called "ELECTION."
Aware of my own limited understanding of the matter I asked Eric, a
personal friend who is more qualified, if he would offer his under-
standing on the matter. Herein; his response. (Thanks Eric.)
Don,
I am happy to reply to your request. One word of clarification, I am
an ordained Presbyterian ruling elder, but not an ordained Presbyte-
rian teaching elder (minister). However, I am an ordained Baptist
minister, and can represent the doctrine of predestination from mult-
iple perspectives. What follows is not an extensive treatise of the
subject , rather it is a synopsis intended to provoke research on the
matter.
The important thing in any interpretation and application of Scrip-
ture is to let the text speak for itself in context. (The immediate con-
text, book context, entire Bible context.) Letting the text speak for
itself is sometimes shocking, because it reveals the mind of God -
who is altogether unlike us - and we mere mortals can become con-
fused, even outraged because the clear teaching of Scripture con-
flicts with our "knowledge" - our poorly conceived ideas. So asking:
1. What does the text say?; and,
2. What did the text mean to the original audience?;
must be addressed before we can answer;
3. What does the text mean to me?
I believe you have done this.
Even though you've come to it "late" in life, the truth of this passage
resonates with your spirit because it is of the Spirit, and it consistently
corresponds to your Christian experience. Thus, predestination is not
Baptist doctrine, or a Presbyterian doctrine, or a Lutheran doctrine.
(although all these denominations and others began by holding fast to
the doctrine), it is a biblical doctrine, therefore, it is a Christian doc-
trine.
When taken at face value, the doctrine is self-evident. In essence, the
Bible means what it says. When the Bible speaks literally, it should be
taken literally. When it speaks figuratively, it must be taken figura-
tively. We usually don't have a problem discerning between literal and
figurative language, although figurative language does take extra
effort to interpret properly. What we humans have the biggest pro-
blem with, is accepting the revealed will of God when it conflicts with
our conception of "fairness" or some other misguided notion - regard-
less of whether the biblical language is literal or figurative. We might
as well be at odds with the doctrine of the virgin birth as to be at odds
with predestination. Yes, it's that clear.
The one "fairness" issue that causes most people to go off the theolo-
gical rails is the doctrine of free will. Misunderstood, this doctrine
causes confusion and theological conundrums that are altogether
unnecessary. Rightly, that is, biblically (in context) understood, the
doctrine adds to the understanding of predestination, as well as other
doctrines. So let's look at free will.
The wrongly-understood version of this doctrine is that mankind has
a completely free and capricious will. Simply put, the thought is that
a person, by the very nature of being human (i.e. created in the image
of God), can choose to do whatever he likes. After all, it would be
"unfair" of God to make us otherwise. While there seems to be some
validity to this position based upon experience, there are severe limi-
tations to human "free" will that must be understood. Not to mention
the rebuke due the ridiculous notion that we can ascribe unfairness
to God! First, nowhere in the Scripture is this version of human voli-
tion taught. Go ahead, look for it. I'll wait...
Yes, there are imperatives throughout the Bible where God com-
mands us to act or think or be a certain way, but there are no passa-
ges saying we are able to do so...of our own free will. The "desire"
to act or think or be a certain way may be present, but the "ability"
is not fully present. Just because there is a command of God regar-
ding something does not imply the human ability to successfully con-
form to the command. To believe so is to engage in mere human folly.
In fact, at times God commands something for the explicit reason to
teach us that we are incapable of obedience to the command. Two
classic examples of this come to mind. First, The Ten Command-
ments: Ten seemingly simple things that God wants us to do, or not
to do. Seems Einsteinian in it's elegance and simplicity, right? Just ten
things, people. Ten, how has humanity done keeping just those ten
commandments? Not too well. As Mel Brooks said when he played
Moses in a parody of "The Ten Commandments," when he acciden-
tally dropped one of the tablets. "How about FIVE?" We have diffi-
culty with these commandments-be they ten, or five-especially when
we take Jesus' teaching on them to "heart." As He said, If we vio-
late them even in our hearts, we are guilty of breaking the Law of
God. Can you say, "Bad News?"
The news gets worse. The second classic example: The One Com
mandment. This came long before the Ten Commandments. If free
will meant the ability to choose to do good or evil, surely we would
have the ability to keep just ONE. Wrong. In the Garden of Eden,
our progenitors were given but one thing to not do - eat the fruit of
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. How'd that work out for
us? Even those in a sinless state (the freest condition ever known
to mankind) could not (let me repeat the key word: "could" not)
infallibly, consistently choose/will to please God. Since the Bible
teaches that we sinned in Adam's sin, we all are guilty of the first
error in free will sin. Since that time, the time when we (in Adam)
failed to exercise free will in a manner pleasing to God, all we have
been able to do is exercise our "free" will in a manner displeasing
to God.
This concept is pointed out repeatedly in Scripture, but I'll just
mention these two well-known examples by way of reminder: All
our "righteous" deeds are as filthy rags; and, there is none righ-
teous. No, not one. The idea is expressed theologically as the total
depravity of man. This does not mean that each person is as bad as
they could possibly be, but that we are each completely incapable of
self-reclamation... We're at God mercy due to our separation from
Him. Adding to the consternation of wrong-headed "free" will thin-
kers, this separation is from birth - or more correctly, from before
birth. David laments this in that he bemoaned the fact that he was
conceived in sin. This does not mean that his parents were sinning
when he was conceived, but that he was a congenital sinner. Worse,
he was a sinner just by being conceived by the race of Adam. This
causes all manner of wailing and error from those who ask about the
state of deceased infants and children. Many of these well-intentioned
people will speak of he departed child's "innocence." Nothing could
be more contrary to Scripture. When confronted with such questions,
my reply is always the same: I take great comfort in Jesus attitude
toward children; it is no problem for me to trust their eternal estate
to the one who commanded that the children be allowed to "come un-
to me, for such is the kingdom of heaven." Never has this answer
been met with a negative response from a Christian. (It should also
be noted that the time for teaching this truth is not when someone's
child has just passed away. Rather, it should be addressed in syste-
matic teaching of Scripture as it arises naturally from the text. Like-
wise, children who die - and adults for that matter - do not become
angels. Angels are a specific class of created beings extant in the
both the spiritual and physical realm. People do not become angels,
but as long as one is denying predestination, one might as well propa-
gate such heresy, right?)
So, the gist is this. Since the fall of mankind in the Garden, human
"free" will has only meant the ability to displease God. In other
words, God, whose universe obeys His every command and in Whom
all things consist and have their being, (think about that for a
moment) allows His human creation to defy Himself...for a reason.
Omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent GOD allows us to rebel against
His holy will: this is the essence of "free" will for humanity. If one is
exercising free will, one is invariably exercising insurrection against
God. Sorry to burst the pride bubble of those who boast of their free
will, but that's all it is, post-fall.
What are we to do, then? If this is the case for humanity, what can
we possibly do to overcome this dreadful condition of being separa-
ted from God that we can in no way make Him pleased with us, but
can only displease Him even though our desire might be to try to
please Him? Though it won't fully resolve the issue, the first thing
we should do is to stop asking the wrong questions. Like: What can
"we" do? Instead, we need to look to the Word of God to see what
has already been done. Herein lies the Good News!
Remember, these comments are not an extensive treatise of pre-
destination. There have been many scholarly volumes produced on
the subject and I do not intend to re-invent this theological wheel.
My comments are a mere synopsis intended to provoke further bib-
lical research on the matter. With the perspective offered by these
comments in mind, I commend an immediate refresher-reading of
Ephesians and Genesis 1-12, followed by a thorough reading of the
gospels as a good place to start. Remember to let the text speak
for itself in context, in spite what you "know," whether you come to
an understanding of the Christian doctrine early or late in life, the
result will be the same - a staggering humility coupled with unboun-
ded praise and thanksgiving to God.
-Eric
Thanks for looking; donporter 2.26.14
Aware of my own limited understanding of the matter I asked Eric, a
personal friend who is more qualified, if he would offer his under-
standing on the matter. Herein; his response. (Thanks Eric.)
Don,
I am happy to reply to your request. One word of clarification, I am
an ordained Presbyterian ruling elder, but not an ordained Presbyte-
rian teaching elder (minister). However, I am an ordained Baptist
minister, and can represent the doctrine of predestination from mult-
iple perspectives. What follows is not an extensive treatise of the
subject , rather it is a synopsis intended to provoke research on the
matter.
The important thing in any interpretation and application of Scrip-
ture is to let the text speak for itself in context. (The immediate con-
text, book context, entire Bible context.) Letting the text speak for
itself is sometimes shocking, because it reveals the mind of God -
who is altogether unlike us - and we mere mortals can become con-
fused, even outraged because the clear teaching of Scripture con-
flicts with our "knowledge" - our poorly conceived ideas. So asking:
1. What does the text say?; and,
2. What did the text mean to the original audience?;
must be addressed before we can answer;
3. What does the text mean to me?
I believe you have done this.
Even though you've come to it "late" in life, the truth of this passage
resonates with your spirit because it is of the Spirit, and it consistently
corresponds to your Christian experience. Thus, predestination is not
Baptist doctrine, or a Presbyterian doctrine, or a Lutheran doctrine.
(although all these denominations and others began by holding fast to
the doctrine), it is a biblical doctrine, therefore, it is a Christian doc-
trine.
When taken at face value, the doctrine is self-evident. In essence, the
Bible means what it says. When the Bible speaks literally, it should be
taken literally. When it speaks figuratively, it must be taken figura-
tively. We usually don't have a problem discerning between literal and
figurative language, although figurative language does take extra
effort to interpret properly. What we humans have the biggest pro-
blem with, is accepting the revealed will of God when it conflicts with
our conception of "fairness" or some other misguided notion - regard-
less of whether the biblical language is literal or figurative. We might
as well be at odds with the doctrine of the virgin birth as to be at odds
with predestination. Yes, it's that clear.
The one "fairness" issue that causes most people to go off the theolo-
gical rails is the doctrine of free will. Misunderstood, this doctrine
causes confusion and theological conundrums that are altogether
unnecessary. Rightly, that is, biblically (in context) understood, the
doctrine adds to the understanding of predestination, as well as other
doctrines. So let's look at free will.
The wrongly-understood version of this doctrine is that mankind has
a completely free and capricious will. Simply put, the thought is that
a person, by the very nature of being human (i.e. created in the image
of God), can choose to do whatever he likes. After all, it would be
"unfair" of God to make us otherwise. While there seems to be some
validity to this position based upon experience, there are severe limi-
tations to human "free" will that must be understood. Not to mention
the rebuke due the ridiculous notion that we can ascribe unfairness
to God! First, nowhere in the Scripture is this version of human voli-
tion taught. Go ahead, look for it. I'll wait...
Yes, there are imperatives throughout the Bible where God com-
mands us to act or think or be a certain way, but there are no passa-
ges saying we are able to do so...of our own free will. The "desire"
to act or think or be a certain way may be present, but the "ability"
is not fully present. Just because there is a command of God regar-
ding something does not imply the human ability to successfully con-
form to the command. To believe so is to engage in mere human folly.
In fact, at times God commands something for the explicit reason to
teach us that we are incapable of obedience to the command. Two
classic examples of this come to mind. First, The Ten Command-
ments: Ten seemingly simple things that God wants us to do, or not
to do. Seems Einsteinian in it's elegance and simplicity, right? Just ten
things, people. Ten, how has humanity done keeping just those ten
commandments? Not too well. As Mel Brooks said when he played
Moses in a parody of "The Ten Commandments," when he acciden-
tally dropped one of the tablets. "How about FIVE?" We have diffi-
culty with these commandments-be they ten, or five-especially when
we take Jesus' teaching on them to "heart." As He said, If we vio-
late them even in our hearts, we are guilty of breaking the Law of
God. Can you say, "Bad News?"
The news gets worse. The second classic example: The One Com
mandment. This came long before the Ten Commandments. If free
will meant the ability to choose to do good or evil, surely we would
have the ability to keep just ONE. Wrong. In the Garden of Eden,
our progenitors were given but one thing to not do - eat the fruit of
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. How'd that work out for
us? Even those in a sinless state (the freest condition ever known
to mankind) could not (let me repeat the key word: "could" not)
infallibly, consistently choose/will to please God. Since the Bible
teaches that we sinned in Adam's sin, we all are guilty of the first
error in free will sin. Since that time, the time when we (in Adam)
failed to exercise free will in a manner pleasing to God, all we have
been able to do is exercise our "free" will in a manner displeasing
to God.
This concept is pointed out repeatedly in Scripture, but I'll just
mention these two well-known examples by way of reminder: All
our "righteous" deeds are as filthy rags; and, there is none righ-
teous. No, not one. The idea is expressed theologically as the total
depravity of man. This does not mean that each person is as bad as
they could possibly be, but that we are each completely incapable of
self-reclamation... We're at God mercy due to our separation from
Him. Adding to the consternation of wrong-headed "free" will thin-
kers, this separation is from birth - or more correctly, from before
birth. David laments this in that he bemoaned the fact that he was
conceived in sin. This does not mean that his parents were sinning
when he was conceived, but that he was a congenital sinner. Worse,
he was a sinner just by being conceived by the race of Adam. This
causes all manner of wailing and error from those who ask about the
state of deceased infants and children. Many of these well-intentioned
people will speak of he departed child's "innocence." Nothing could
be more contrary to Scripture. When confronted with such questions,
my reply is always the same: I take great comfort in Jesus attitude
toward children; it is no problem for me to trust their eternal estate
to the one who commanded that the children be allowed to "come un-
to me, for such is the kingdom of heaven." Never has this answer
been met with a negative response from a Christian. (It should also
be noted that the time for teaching this truth is not when someone's
child has just passed away. Rather, it should be addressed in syste-
matic teaching of Scripture as it arises naturally from the text. Like-
wise, children who die - and adults for that matter - do not become
angels. Angels are a specific class of created beings extant in the
both the spiritual and physical realm. People do not become angels,
but as long as one is denying predestination, one might as well propa-
gate such heresy, right?)
So, the gist is this. Since the fall of mankind in the Garden, human
"free" will has only meant the ability to displease God. In other
words, God, whose universe obeys His every command and in Whom
all things consist and have their being, (think about that for a
moment) allows His human creation to defy Himself...for a reason.
Omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent GOD allows us to rebel against
His holy will: this is the essence of "free" will for humanity. If one is
exercising free will, one is invariably exercising insurrection against
God. Sorry to burst the pride bubble of those who boast of their free
will, but that's all it is, post-fall.
What are we to do, then? If this is the case for humanity, what can
we possibly do to overcome this dreadful condition of being separa-
ted from God that we can in no way make Him pleased with us, but
can only displease Him even though our desire might be to try to
please Him? Though it won't fully resolve the issue, the first thing
we should do is to stop asking the wrong questions. Like: What can
"we" do? Instead, we need to look to the Word of God to see what
has already been done. Herein lies the Good News!
Remember, these comments are not an extensive treatise of pre-
destination. There have been many scholarly volumes produced on
the subject and I do not intend to re-invent this theological wheel.
My comments are a mere synopsis intended to provoke further bib-
lical research on the matter. With the perspective offered by these
comments in mind, I commend an immediate refresher-reading of
Ephesians and Genesis 1-12, followed by a thorough reading of the
gospels as a good place to start. Remember to let the text speak
for itself in context, in spite what you "know," whether you come to
an understanding of the Christian doctrine early or late in life, the
result will be the same - a staggering humility coupled with unboun-
ded praise and thanksgiving to God.
-Eric
Thanks for looking; donporter 2.26.14
