Thursday, 20 December 2007

Hand-Picked

Apologies for not writing for a couple of weeks. I currently don't have home internet, and with my recent move I've had the joy of transferring my details from one location to another and this has meant interacting with one of the banes of my existence: call centres.

I like to speak with people. I figure that with six billion or so of us on this planet, it is a good thing to be able to interact comfortably with others. This means conversation - and by that, I mean dialogue. So when I phone certain unnamed corporates who provide telecommunications services to me - lets call this company 'Satsuma' - I would ideally like to speak to a person.

However, my experiences this week have been little more than a painful negotiation of an endless number of automated voice menu's, each one requiring me to listen to a computerised sales pitch. Pressing a seemingly random combination of numbers in sequence finally allows me to deal with a person. However, this wasn't the end of my angst. Oh no. Upon trying to find out when my home service - that I am still paying for - becomes active, I was informed early January. I then asked how I would be informed that I could go online. The response?

"Oh, we'll send you an email."

So, my incommunicado status is temporary but still very frustrating.

In other news, my small group this week was pondering the doctrine of Election. Wayne Grudem, in his 'Systematic Theology' defines Election as "the act of God before Creation in which He chooses some people to be saved, not on account of any foreseen merit in them, but only because of His sovereign good pleasure."

Ephesians 1:4 tells us that "(God) chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him" and Galatians 1:15 says "(God)... set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace..." These verses, amongst others, are used to support the notion of God handpicking individuals purely as His choice, to be His and with Him forever.

In some ways, Election is a hard doctrine to believe. For me, I have questions about why certain people haven't been chosen - family members for example. Ultimately, Election is a belief that requires faith - faith in the righteous justice of God, and faith in his sovereignty. It is also humbling, because it means my freewill is, has, and always will be subject to the sovereign will of God.

Election also has many pastoral applications to it. These are some of the streams of blessings that spiral from this doctrine:

1. The goodness, kindness and grace of God is demonstrated to me. Why did He chose me? I did nothing to persuade God to choose me, because He made his selection before I was even born!

2. If God chose to save me and have me forever, it is his work. I cannot lose my salvation, because my power to sin can never triumph over his saving power.

3. I can see God desires relationship, friendship and intimacy with me. Because He chose me, called me and pursued me!

4. The pressure is off when it comes down to mission and evangelism. Mission becomes a matter of seeking out who else is Elect, and we partner with God in seeing people saved rather than cajoling or persuading them. There is a place for persuasion, but ultimately out of a place of security because salvation is born from God and not from Man.

5.I am delivered from earning God's favour through law and empty religion. It is more about His choices, actions and work than my choices, actions and works. I'm still elected, whether I feel it or have 'earned' it!

There are undoubtedly more, and of course not everyone would see Election like this. But I've been blessed this week by thinking simply this: In justice and fairness, I deserve Hell. But God so loved me, He chose me as one He would rescue from the fire. Simply because He is passionate about me. And there are many more He has rescued. Its just some don't know it just yet.

Wow.

24 Comments:

Jingle Bell Teebs said...

I adore being pursued by God!

:-)



..yet another thought provoking blog from you Anthony. I've missed them, but not you of course ;)

Natalie said...

Boooooo to stupid internet, I miss talking to you! Or insulting you...whatever.


Have lovely Christmas, antpants! x


There's a rude word in my word verification :(

oliver said...

As you know I'm completely against anything to do with election. There are so many things wrong about it you could fill up an entire blog. I think if people who say they believe in it really followed through what they believe, they would have to give it up.

The biggest problem IMHO is that it's so narrow, selfish and insular. It is an attitude summed up by the ditty:

"We are the Lord's anointed. All others will be damned. We've got no room for you up here. We can't have heaven crammed."

We may not be able to love our neighbours as ourselves fully in this life. But that should at least be our ideal. And therefore we must care for the eternity of others as much as we do for ourselves. It should be no more important to us that we personally are saved than that other people are. And any notion of election is cultic, concerned only with "the few" and unable to care any less if all the rest go to hell. This is completely opposed to everything Jesus stood for.

Some such theologians actually became misanthropic and psychotic, helped along by these beliefs. This is Jonathan Edwards in the 18th century:

"The seeing of the calamities of others tends to heighten the sense of our own enjoyments. When the saints in glory, therefore, shall see the doleful state of the damned, how will this heighten their sense of the blessedness of their own state. When they shall see how miserable others of their fellow-creatures are; when they shall see the smoke of their torment, and hear their dolorous shrieks and cries, and consider that they in the mean time are in the most blissful state, and shall surely be in it to all eternity; how they will rejoice!"

Give up these heresies, Anthony, and believe in the love of God given to all creation.

Ant said...

Thanks Oliver.

Interestingly, I believe that the Jonathon Edwards quote could be attributed to Mission, not Election. I'd also be really interested in any scriptural support on your view.

Of course, I could be wrong. If you can show me from scripture, I will happily re-evaluate my position.

oliver said...

It refers to how those in heaven will get pleasure out of the misery of those in hell. Either way it's completely disturbed.

I think the clearest evidence from the Bible is the attitude of Jesus. Look to the one who said "Come to me, ALL who are weary and burdened, for I will give you rest." Can you imagine Him turning anyway, saying "I did not mean you"? That could never be. He asked us to repent (and Paul says that God "commands ALL people everywhere to repent" Acts 17). Repentance literally means to change your mind, that we may be made new and come to know God.

Now repentance is clearly our prerogative, as in Luke 13 "unless YOU repent, you will perish." Yes God gives us grace but He does not force us. And is clear that we are to consider the salvation of others as important as our own, as when Paul in Philippians says "I would prefer to die and be with Christ, but it is better for that I remain. " This should be our attitude to everybody and not just to the supposed "elect", as in Matthew 5 "Love your enemies." Why? Because God loves ALL, "the goodness of your Heavenly Father is without limit."

Ant said...

Thanks again Oliver, for your gracious and intelligent comment.

Interestingly, I'm not sure I can agree. Neither Jesus' call to come to Him to rest, and Pauls command for repentance, contradict the idea of Election. One could argue it is God who puts in in the heart of an individual - through the revealing work of the Spirit - the desire to repent and approach Christ.

Indeed, Jesus and Paul both share thoughts that could suggest they both believe in Election. Doesn't Jesus Himself talk about "those the Father has given to me?" And Paul himself writes Ephesians and Galatians, which contain outright statements about God choosing individuals for himself.

How do you biblically reason Ephesians 1:4 and Galatians 1:15 if you don't believe God chooses individuals?

I fear negating these verses, even in a heart of compassion, leads to a poor biblical understanding that can lead us to Universalism (everyone gets saved, no matter what they believe) or Syncretism (all paths lead to God).

Neither of these ideas are biblical, as Jesus Himself says "I am the Way, The Truth & The Life. No one can come to the Father except through me."

Helen said...

Stop just replying to theological comments. I miss all the banter!!!!!

Ant said...

OK OK....

Helen, you smell. And there is a picture on Facebook of me in a skirt.

Nat, Thanks for the lovely message. Yes, smelly internet. And I hope you had a splendid Christmas.

And everyone, I hope to back online properly by 5th Jan. I'm suffering from Cold Turkey. And not just leftovers from Christmas Day!

oliver said...

I don't have a problem with speaking of being chosen by God. That is true from God's timeless and eternal perspective: before we were born, God planned our destiny.

What I am against is using the language of being chosen to say that God's love is limited and unfairly distributed. This seems to be done by many of those who talk about election. And I am against this because it is small-minded and cultic, like the JWs who would limit the people who can go to heaven to literally 144,000.

I think we need to be very careful about the kind of language we use when talking about election (but I believe we can use that language) because it is easy to produce a petty, limited and narrow image of God. That is what I am really taking issue with.

helen said...

YAY! You insulted meeeeeeee! *celebrates*

It has been far too long since such words were passed between me and you, I'm gonna kick some Internet company BUTT. Tis a shockin' display of behaviour...

Anyway, roll on 5th of Jan. Oh, and, see you next Tuesday!!! ;-)

Ant said...

Thanks Oliver.

Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly are you disagreeing with me about, and what is your scriptural response to the views in my original post you have issue with?

Paul said...

The Bible paints, very clearly I believe, a God who longs to have a relationship with each one of us.

“For God so loved THE WORLD, that He gave His only son”

For God so loved the WHOLE world! He didn’t just love a select chosen few, but the whole world! It’s the good news of Christianity and is celebrated as such throughout the whole of the New Testament. Can you really explain this verse in the context of election? Can you really, truly love the whole world and then send the vast majority to eternal condemnation, through no fault of their own? It’s all very well for the teacher to set an exam for her class and tell them that she hopes and longs for them all to pass, before revealing that she failed half of them before they even enrolled! Such a teacher would be labelled a tyrant! The only way that a just God who loves the WHOLE world can logically meet the concept of hell, is that people had the free choice to accept or reject Him.

The Bible is very clear that God longs to be loved by humans who choose to do so by their own free will. Jesus, whilst in the desert ‘temptation showdown’ with Satan, is tempted with the concept of having the whole world bow down to him following one show of His abundant power. But Jesus turns this down – sure it would be easier to make the whole world grovel and stoop underneath his awesome might – but instead, he wants to get alongside us, give us chance to get to know Him and to let US choose whether we love HIM.

I don’t think that there is any need to pick out individual verses that do or do not support election because the whole concept undermines the very philosophy of Christianity. The very reason that sin and suffering exist in this world in the first place – the reason that the very need for our salvation exists - is because God gave us the chance to turn away from Him. If God, as you say, is sovereign over our free will then why is there any need for this drama of sin and salvation to play out? Why not wrap it up in a much less violent and wasteful manner?

I know that I’m liable to be challenged with questioning the moral authority of God, but if you truly believe in election, surely there comes a point where you have to question why you believe in this religion at all? Why believe in a religion that teaches that a just and loving God presides sovereign over millions of impoverished, sick, suffering and sinful people that didn’t even have the chance of redemption before they were born? When you throw verses around that could argue one way or another are you not missing the wood for the trees? Are you not missing the wonderful and startling revelation of a God that passionately pursues us, but counts our love as worthless unless it comes of our own free choice?

Finally, by insisting that I have freedom of choice in my salvation, am I implying that I have earned my salvation? I don’t see that this necessarily follows – I know that this gift is not deserved or earned – such is made clear. And what’s more, I love and desire God more because I am utterly humbled that the awesome and powerful God of this Universe has given me the choice to reject Him! What humility, mercifulness and grace! I marvel at what a wonderful, gracious God we do have!

Jon said...

Just wanted to say HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Jon

Glennsp said...

Oliver, it would appear that you do not treat the Bible as authoritative in this matter.
Ephesians 1: 4-5 & 11 makes it abundantly clear that we are chosen by God even before creation.

If our decision to follow Christ is, as you seem so desperate for it to be, the outcome of our 100% free will then some merit would attach itself to us in that choice.

The Bible makes it abundantly clear that it is by grace alone and not due to anything in us or done by us.

The Bible is equally clear that we have limited free will.

Do you not realise that if we truly had the 100% free will that you so desire then none would be saved....ever.

Allow the Bible to guide and inform you and when, as we all do, you reach the parts that are unclear or confusing (they are not, but it is down to our limited abilities) then pray and seek the Holy Spirit to illuminate the Scriptures to your spirit, heart and mind. Always a salutary endeavour.

Paulo de la Marchio said...

Oh yeah... and happy new year!

I was in danger of being caught after hours at work and forgot my manners!

This is a nice little site that you have here! Liking it a lot.

Oh and yeah, we still have to have a Pro Evo bash Ant!

tobiwan said...

"Oliver, it would appear that you do not treat the Bible as authoritative in this matter."

Or perhaps he interprets it differently than you do Glenn.

Glennsp said...

Arghhh Tobias, Sorry, but this is not one of those esoteric areas where there is even the slightest possibility of misunderstanding.

The Bible is very, very clear in this area.
This is not about interpretation, this is about letting the Bible speak for itself, which it does with unequivocal clarity in this area.

(Just a quick aside, at least 99% of so called "differences of opinion" regarding what the Bible says will boil down to one side wanting the Bible to say what they would prefer as opposed to what it actually teaches)

tobiwan said...

I haven't studied this for a while so I'm on a little bit of a limb, but I think that church history would disagree with you on that. My understanding is that this has been quite a hotly contested issue through the ages. Perhaps not in our 'tradition' though.

Regardless, the point I was trying to make was not actually about the debate either way (ie. I'm not saying I disagree with you or agree with Oliver) I was more trying to say that assuming someone's position on the authority of scripture from one or two comments on a blog about such a hotly contested issue is a bit unfair.

I could be wrong though. That has happened a lot.

(I'm willing to bet that of those 99% of differences of opinion 100% of both sides of the debate will claim that the other side is seeing it as they wish to see it and that the bible actually teaches their position. Not proof of anything, but food for thought.)

Glennsp said...

If you read what I actually wrote you will see that I said "It appears...", this would indicate that I am open to him explaining otherwise and does not predicate the absolute decree that you seem to have decided was the intent.

Glennsp said...

Also be a little careful when appealing to 'Church History'; as you may be aware there were those in 'Church History' who doubted or denied the divinity of Christ. That and many other errors can be found in 'Church History'.

As such, many issues were disputed in the early years of Christianity and quite a few would have met the criteria of 'Hotly Contested', but were nonetheless very, very wrong and were proven so by letting Scripture speak for itself.
Exegesis as opposed to eisegesis.

tobiwan said...

Sorry fellow. Not trying to turn this into a slanging match on poor Anthony's blog. I saw that you said 'appears'. I didn't mean to imply that your comment was 'an absolute decree'. I'm also guessing that Oliver can defend himself and doesn't need me sticking my size 11s in.

I am aware of the pitfalls of referring to church history as a guide of theology, and again am not trying to take a side as to my position on election. My purpose in bringing up that point was more to illustrate that I don't find it easy to think that the scriptures have been 'abundantly clear' on the issue as there has been, and remains, enormous debate with neither view being accepted by all of what we would consider to be 'mainstream' christianity. Indeed, even when one comes to a 'conclusion' (or such a conclusion as one could make in this life) this very issue remains one of the greatest mysteries of faith.

Hope I've got my point across coherently. Never sure if I have.

But yeah. Sorry and I hope there's no bad blood..

Glennsp said...

Of course there is no bad blood and I am sorry if you thought there was.

I remember you when you were at Kings :-)

I know I come across a bit strong at times, but that is in part because I absolutely believe that the Bible is not as obscure as some would prefer. (I don't mean you)

I have found so often that what people claim as 'obscure' or 'hard to understand' is, more often than not, because that is what they would prefer. It allows them to impose their, or society's, desires on the Bible.

There are some, ummmmm shall we say, hard truths in the Bible which some find just a little unpalatable for there delicate constitutions. (again I am not referring to you)

When the Bible is allowed to speak for itself, in its entirety, then much that is supposedly unclear becomes clear.

Ant said...

Interesting debate people, thanks to everyone who contributed including Oliver, Paul, Toby and Glenn, Helen, Nat and Teebs!

The subject matter of my next post may be of interest to you, especially in light of the direction the comments took towards the end.

Rachel said...

You need a BlackBerry!

Design by The Blogger Templates

Blog by Anthony Hilder