Hey Michael,
Love your podcasts…and your take on Christianity in general…so, in 3 sentences or less, what is your take on the Doctrine of Election?
Can’t wait to read what you have to say.
bobby
Scripture teaches it in the context of God’s overall redemptive purposes and in the Christian doctrine of assurance.
When it is abused, it is almost always in the context of evangelism, ecclesiology or Christian experience.
It’s a doctrine that is expressed in revelation, but is understood only as a mystery, so quit explaining it.
Michael: I believe in the doctrine of election with all my heart. I believe it to be in scripture. I will teach it, I will explain it. I will not however, argue over it. What one believes affects how one lives, reads scripture, and teaches. It does me, I won’t hide it.
Before we get too far, I’d like to pose a question to those who might disagree with me:
In a children’s sermon on election, which of the following would you say to all the children gathered around you?
1) God chooses some and not others for salvation.
2) Some of you may not be elect.
3) You can never know if you are elect or not.
Hi Michael,
“It’s a doctrine that is expressed in revelation, but is understood only as a mystery, so quit explaining it.”
I like that point a lot.
“It’s almost always abused in the context of evangelism, ecclesiology or Christian experience.”
This part, however, might be slightly exaggerated. I agree that the vocal minority that emphasizes it is so overwhelmingly vocal that it SEEMS to be a majority. But I think it’s the caricatured extremists that create an illusion of the whole. Similar to radical Muslim extremists who make people think that all of Islam is radical.
I didn’t mean it was always abused. I mean when it is abused, it’s almost always in that context. Will edit.
I do teach (1) God chooses some and not others, but never (2) Some of you may not be elect. If God has arranged it so that you would be in front of me, hearing the gospel, there’s a huge chance you’re elect. Otherwise why would He stick you in a room with an evangelist?
As for (3) You can never know if you are elect or not, that’s crap. We know that we’re His because He’s given us His Spirit. (1 John 4:13) When we perform the works of the Spirit, or display His gifts or HIs fruit, or obey Him out of love instead of manipulation, we’re His.
“A huge chance.” Why wouldn’t that sow the seeds of a lifetime of fear that a child is not elect?
And on 3), many reformed teachers make obedience the only sign of assurance. If that isn’t despair, I don’t know what is. It’s one of the very reasons I’m not RC.
interesting stuff, thanks for posting it. i’m not sure what “abused” means in this context, perhaps it’s a bit undefined (okay, a lot). i’m not a calvinist, but i have to admit, the most evangelistic people i’ve ever personally known are some of my friends who are thorough-going calvinists. the individuals i have in mind have a rigid doctrine of election AND an evangelistic zeal that i often wish i could muster within myself.
thanks for giving us some good things to think about
I may be overstating on this topic but here we go, over the years in my experience Christians that take a strong 5 point position often make election the center of the faith, or at least it takes on a sort of life of it’s own, me included. I wonder if this doctrine is some how related to personal narcissism. God doesn’t love all humanity but rather me me me me, the elect of which I happen to be amongst. I was in a Christian bookstore years ago over hearing this guy rant against Tozer’s soft position on this topic but the guy was filled with a smugness even arrogance. I thought to myself even though somebody may believe this doctrine it does not necessitate that they are amongst the redeemed, if election is true the only assurance we can have is that we are being conformed to the image of Christ in true faith, hope, and love. I think we would do well to work out our salvation in fear and trembling, rather than hang our hat on a doctrine steeped in historical debate.
K.W. Leslie said, “As for (3) You can never know if you are elect or not, that’s crap. We know that we’re His because He’s given us His Spirit. (1 John 4:13) When we perform the works of the Spirit, or display His gifts or HIs fruit, or obey Him out of love instead of manipulation, we’re His.”
Whew. I can feel the despair and darkness closing in already.
But what happens when we fail to “perform the works of the Spirit”? Now we are left wondering if we are elect. Fear, despair, and anxiety begin to settle upon us in that moment. Maybe my Christian confession, faith in Christ, and walk with God are all a sham? Maybe I’ll end up at the end of my life finding out that I was never really elect? Perhaps my life was one big lie and now I am damned and there is nothing and never was anything I can do about it! I am not elect!
Anytime my works are the assurance of my salvation and/or God’s election of me, this is a recipe for disaster. I can already see all those people who want off at the next stop and the empty seats from those who got off the bus already.
Everyone, please listen to Rod Rosenbladt’s “The Gospel for Those Broken by the Church.”
iMonk, I like your summary and find quite a bit to like.
For some of the comments, let me put in a bit from another viewpoint, but very brief. Why should a person whose only commitment to Christianity is that they attend church on most Sundays, give some, and behave correctly (by and large) not feel a little concerned?
Dietrich Bonhoffer said, “cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline. Communion without confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ. . . costly grace confronts us as a gracious call to follow Jesus, it comes as a word of forgiveness to the broken spirit and the contrite heart. It is costly because it compels a man to submit to the yoke of Christ and follow him; it is grace because Jesus says: “My yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
I fear that too many who worry about works-righteousness creeping into the Church are setting their churches up for a significant problem with comfortable “Christians” who can always find a reason why they do not have to get involved or do anything, and yet can be comfortable in the mansion that awaits them.
“And on 3), many reformed teachers make obedience the only sign of assurance.”
OK, I’ll ask. Obedience to who or what? I can think of multiple answers.
Ross: It doesn’t matter. My obedience to Christ is never sufficient to provide assurance. People who who issue assurance based on things like church attendance and reading the Bible are promoting a religion of works.
Leaving aside the question of why anything created Image Deo could not, would not, should not possess free will:
If I can’t tell the difference between the elect and the non-elect based on someone’s actions or behaviors, then the distinction seems meaningless to me.
I would also add that when it is abused it is abused by those who, through emphasis upon God’s ‘glory’ or the particularly kind of sovereignty that is expressed in his ‘will,’ neglect the far more fundamental dimension of his relationship with us — creating and sustaining love.
Michael: In answer to your question, none of the above as that is not the doctrine of Election.
Debbie:
Not being snarky here.
How is that not the doctrine of election?
Westminster Confession III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.
IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it can not be either increased or diminished.
VII. The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.
If I’m in most reformed churches, I am required to teach this to children.
peace
ms
Huh. Interesting. I hadn’t read these in the confession before, but am noting now formally the disconnection from love and the strong connection to will and sovereignty.
I prefer to keep the doctrines in the context of creation, covenant and restoration.
Let’s start and stop with Jesus: the incarnation, life, cross, rez, teachings, mission, exaltation and Kingdom.
For the record, I don’t care if a person believes this, because it usually turns out fine. But for more than a few, that sort of theology ruins the recipe. Instead of smelling like Christ…..let’s just say “it stinketh.”
“Westminster Confession III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.”
If ‘no knowledge of election, i.e. cannot be assured beyond all doubt that I am one of the Saved and cannot lose my salvation’ is one of the many reasons you’re not RC, this is one of the reasons I’m not Calvinist
At first, my instinctive reaction was “No! No way election!” but then I reconsidered. Catholicism has no problem with the first part – “some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life” – and I thought to myself, “Okay, so what about the saints? Surely those are the visible elect in this life?” (which is not to say that only those formally canonised are the elect; we believe that there are countless saints whom we do not know about).
It’s the second bit where we part ways: “(O)thers foreordained to everlasting death.” We do not consider that, before ever one of us was created, God said “You. You’re damned. No chance at all.”
That’s tied up with (1) God’s omniscience, which includes foreknowledge, does not mean that God *knowing* who will fall or turn away means God *makes* them fall or turn away (2) free will; otherwise, Adam and Eve cannot be held guilty of disobedience, since God knew what they would do and created them to be disobdient, which makes a nonsense of the whole thing. Either our first parents had a free choice to be obedient, and their Fall involved us all through the change of our nature from what it was intended to be, or they had no choice and so we do not deserve their punishment of exile.
I’m also wondering, from the various viewpoints expressed here, if there hasn’t been a little ‘development of doctrine’ going on in Reformed circles regarding election and double predestination?
After all, we RCs got the rap for Limbo – how could we be so heartless as to say that unbaptised infants might not see Heaven? – yet on the other side there appeared to be no difficulty in saying some unborn infants could be ordained to be damned from all eternity through no deed of their own?
I think Election is your Limbo
Aquinas was pretty much a Calvinist on this one
I’m not a Catholic on this one because the church seems to have taken away the clear assurances of scripture and replaced them with the doctrine of purgatory and the sacraments. That view of the doctrine of the keys seems to confuse the clear statement of Jesus that he has the keys with the missional use of the keys by the church. Christ gives assurance in the Gospel, by the HS. The church’s pronouncement that I am forgiven, accepted is important, but secondary. The church is frequently wrong on who is in heaven. I plan on introducing all my Catholic friends to Luther when we get there
Let’s start and stop with Jesus: the incarnation, life, cross, rez, teachings, mission, exaltation and Kingdom.
But I think the thing about going wider (Creation, Covenant, Restoration) is that it makes Jesus all the more beautiful and actually does provide a better path for bringing the Incarnation, Passion, Resurrection into conversations about ‘election’ and other matters that are usually handled as if they were only accessible through precise systematic theology and dogmatics.
I don’t know if you were suggesting these things be “left out” or not … but that’s my two cents worth.
Given your three choices I would remain silent. None of them give the true whole picture. John 10 says all who enter Me will be saved. Our choice. Again Acts 2, all who call on me I will save, Our choice. My favorite is 1st Timothy, God our Savior who wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of Him. God’s desire that not one be lost was evident in His very ministry. He left the choice to us. A friend of mine once described it as having to work very hard to be lost. He have to repeatedly reject Christ’s wooing to be lost. He gives us every opportunity to accept Him and be saved. I tell my children the story of Christ and let them know that their choice determines their salvation. I die daily.
Would you still love Him if He gave you know assurance. Many years ago I prayed the sinners prayers higher than I’ve counted, quoted all the typical text, If you confess and believe …. but it wasn’t until I forgot about by self and said God even if you slay me in hell I will still love and follow you in this life, at least I will have the joy of being with you in this short time. Freedom and consolation was mine in abundance. Love is the key to freedom. Holding on to text or doctrine or are very life can entangle our freedom in Christ. Heroic self giving love is what makes us free, this is the assurance that surpasses mind, will, and emotion.
Martha,
What if God elected all Roman Catholic and none of the Evangelicals??
>God even if you slay me in hell I will still love and follow you in this life….Heroic self giving love is what makes us free…
I’m pretty confused here. My own love for God is not of heroic porportions. The Good News for Michael Spencer isn’t that I am going to become some kind of great example of loving God as he tosses me to hell. Now tell me that Christ went to hell for me and I am alive to that announcement. Tell me that God is for me when I am more Judas than Jesus and I may have some hope.
Yep Luther has ruined me
Sue,
You have just been pardoned for many small irritations.
Cha-ching.
peace
ms
I’m not Reformed Calvinist. And I have to admit, I just don’t understand it (philosophically, I mean). The other day I was flipping through Wayne Grudem’s “Twenty Basics Every Christian Should Know” and he has a section on Election (he is a Calvinist). In trying to explain how God’s unconditional election means that he predestines some to eternal torment can possibly be true when the Bible says that God wants all people to be saved and he has the power to do so…. Grudem answers:
Both are true, but God is more concerned with His glory than with saving people. (paraphrased).
That… my friends.. is not the Gospel I hear when I read through God’s words…Nor is the one I will teach to my children.
You just nailed it. It’s the triumph of an either/or. Who cares how Jesus deals with this? We apparently have a better revelation.
I recently heard this in a Piper sermon, though I believe he was quoting somebody else.
It was something about how there is a gate in heaven through which all who enter must pass, and on the top of it it reads, “Come whosoever will,” but that is on the outside. Once you pass through, that same sign from the inside says, “Predestined from before the foundations of the earth.”
Piper’s point was that God would have us understand what is said on the inside, not just what we can see from this side of heaven.
I am very not educated in these issues, but could it possibly be that they are two sides of the same coin?
“If God has arranged it so that you would be in front of me, hearing the gospel, there’s a huge chance you’re elect. Otherwise why would He stick you in a room with an evangelist?”
KW Leslie, This begs every question ever, for instance:
-Your definition of ‘evangelist’ and evangelism
-The difference between an evangelist and a false teacher
-The koan-like question series starting with ‘if people weren’t around, would you be sharing the Gospel with anyone?’, and ending with ‘if ‘election’ is sure, then it’s a risible illusion to maintain the conjecture that there is a ‘huge chance’ that any of your hearers are elect, or that your efforts have anything to do with their salvation’
-The.. lets call them “theology-free” demographic realities behind who is and isn’t Christian, when they are or aren’t Christian, and how Christian they are
-etc..
Miguel: That was one of Spurgeon’s anecdotes. I like it, but I’d say let’s take his advice and not talk about election in most instances until we get to heaven.
Ok. This is just darned confusing to me. Does election say that our decision to accept or refuse Christ is predestined, our our resulting destination based on our own decision is pre-ordained by God who sees the future?
Miguel:
Westminster Confession III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.
Your first statement is classic Calvinism. Your second statement is Arminianism.
ms
1 Timothy 2:1-4 works for me:
1I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— 2for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
“…God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.”
Sounds like we are all elect, but some have chosen not to accept the offer.
“Sounds like we are all elect, but some have chosen not to accept the offer.”
I agree to a degree, but I’m more inclined to believe that “the elect” is not about individual salvation, but rather about the church. That is, the church has been predestined, not you or me as individuals (eg just as Israel as a nation was, but not necessarily, Jews individually). I believe that’s how Arminians read that also, but I don’t really claim either side. I just know what I’m not.
Imonk I never said that the love was coming from my human weakness, I said love is what sets us free. I think the love we share is the love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit, I simply quit loving my own salvation so much and opted to just started loving God. Of course the cross is the center of all are hope I just focused on Christ crucified once for, the powers of darkness have been broken and rejoice in this love. Rather than asking God if I am saved a thousand times, or trying to quote some passage to console my doubts.
imonk,
Only small irritations? Without irritations you would never grow a pearl. But I will accept the pardon. It is good to be on the right side of a clergy person at least once in awhile.
You lost me with the last sentence. However, I am completely squashed by working in the yard today so you get a free pass.
I should have lost you sooner than that, considering I’m not one of you.
That sentence is too short. I am all for explaining it as it refers to Jesus. Beyond that, I think the humility zone needs to kick in. I am tired of listening to twenty something Calvinists with a Wii in one hand and Piper book in the other explain that the Christian life is more about election than it is Jesus. Jesus is a minor character in their saga of God justly damning most everyone.
peace
ms
I have always gone along with Luther on this one and IMONK if understand correctly. I think the only thing we should discus about predestination is that it is a mystery that we should not discus, anything we say about it, is bound to be wrong. I really think Calvin should have left it alone.
Sue, there are Evangelicals who are elected (probably) and there are RCs who are not elected (pretty sure on that one).
Because we don’t have the corollary of “and X number of you are damned, bwahahaha!”, we don’t have the same necessity(?) of the doctrine of assurance.
Because it does make God sound unjust to say something like “If you’re sitting here in front of an evangelist, you’re probably the elect, because God wouldn’t have arranged for you to be sitting in front of an evangelist otherwise.”
What of those who don’t have the opportunity to sit in front of an evangelist? God did not see fit to arrange it for them, because God decided they should be damned?
Which only emphasises, of course, the urgency of the Great Commission: “Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all nations.”
And yes, even if we don’t have the doctrine of double predestination, there is still the problem of “If you say no-one who has not accepted Christ can be saved, how about those in distant lands who never heard of Christ? Is it just that they be damned, for no fault of their own?” which needs its own explanation.
For me, some scriptures that clarifies the matter of election besides I Tim 2:1-4, are Rom 5 the whole line of Paul’s reasoning is that death came to the whole human family by ‘one man’ and that Life is opened up to the whole human family also by ‘One Man’ Jesus Christ because His death made atonement for ‘ALL’. Jesus was not only man’s substitute in death but also by His perfect LIFE we can be accepted as being perfect as we accept HIM (Rom 5:10,17-19) That is the ‘good news’ worthy of our trust and over & over again scripture puts the decision upon the human to respond by accepting it, believing it, obeying it,(Rom 6:16). Our confidence is in Him from beginning to end. He works in us to ‘will and to do’ but He is appealing to EVERY person and does not do the choosing FOR us. He is FOR everyone to believe and be saved. Norm
Well, I think the doctrine of the keys is possibly our version of the doctrine of assurance
It is not saying “We/the Pope/the Spanish Inquisition can save you by declaring a fiat of forgiveness, no matter what you have done”; it is saying that, by the authority of Jesus, the Church in His name can say “Your sins are forgiven you” but only by exercising His power, the power delegated. It is a means of reassurance for those who say “But how can I know I am forgiven?”. If the Church ‘forgives’ someone who is not truly repentant, that does not bind God. If the Church condemns someone who has repented, that person is saved.
Purgatory is not a second chance after death; it’s only the saved who enter in there, but to be purged of the lingering attachment to sin or stain on the soul. Very few people, after all, will have either lived a perfect life or died a perfect death.
As to Luther in Heaven? Well, since he stuck up for Our Lady (in regard to her perpetual virginity), he has an advocate there
As an aside, has any one of those twenty-something Calvinists with the Wii and the Piper ever assured the congregation that the doctrine of election is proven since he personally knows and is convinced that he is one of the Reprobate?
>Very few people, after all, will have either lived a perfect life or died a perfect death.
Martha….you just stated the reason neither one of us is going to a place called purgatory. One person did both, perfectly, for all those who trust in him.
I would never say, because I don’t see the Bible itself saying, that works should be the *basis* of any Christian’s assurance of salvation. Christ’s perfect obedience and sacrifice, and our trust in His work, are the basis of our assurance. Having said that, do works not play some *role* in our assurance of salvation? 1 John seems to speak to this issue.
Honest question here– I’m unsure as to what it means to say that we should “quit explaining” the doctrine of election? If the doctrine of election is *ever* presented and/or preached on, by definition, there will some sort of explanation. The explanation might be “Catholic,” “Reformed,” or “Arminian,” (or possibly something else, if there is anything else), but it will be there, won’t it?
I should have said, “…stop trying to exhaustively explain it” or “stop making it the center of scripture.”
Calvinists are attracted to this doctrine like a moth to the flame. Sometimes for good reasons (humility) and sometimes for not so good (explanations for lack of evangelism, reassurance they are the true elect.)
Martha,
I was making a kind of joke. But God works in mysterious ways and I received a pardon from imonk!!!
Being Lutheran the whole point is moot. I just believe in God’s Grace. His ways are too wonderful for me to understand. I will just love and trust in Him as my Father and your Father and Jesus’s Father knows best.
The elect is man’s attempt to conquer the problematic paradox of free will and an omniscient
creator. It is also purely a literary problem by one’s own interpretation of biblacal text. Exercise your frontal loabs people but stay on the boat. Not to sound Marxist but the waters are pretty cold and dark. Life is a wonderful opera except it hurts. Jesus loves you all. Be the miracle.
correction biblical