Theology – Page 9 – LOVE | ACCEPT

Baptism in the Holy Spirit

Spirit Baptism is a doctrine on which entire movements in the Body of Christ are established while being totally ignored or mentioned in passing by other parts. While it is not among the essentials mentioned by Augustine when he said “In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love”, the belief in a second baptism and the resulting display of charisms can become a divisive issue. After recently sharing worship and fellowship with a Pentecostal church in which the gift of tongues was practiced, I’ve been moved to do a series of posts on this doctrine. I’ll look at how various groups within the Church view the work of the Holy Spirit and specifically, how they view the belief in a second Spirit Baptism.

As with all things, it’s important to define terms. Pentecostal and Charismatic are often lumped together but there are important differences that all should recognize in terms of how they view Spirit Baptism and the practice of the spiritual gifts. Pentecostals trace their lineage back to the lat 1800’s or early 1900’s in either the U.K. (Keswick) or the United States (Topeka, Kansas) depending on their historical reach. This movement holds to the doctrines of a second baptism in the Holy Spirit subsequent to conversion, evidence of that baptism through the practice of glossolalia (the Gift of Tongues), and the pursuit and practice of all of the spiritual gifts mentioned in the Bible. Charismatic congregations are a more recent addition to the Body, forming during the charismatic renewal of the 1960s and 1970s. These brothers and sisters seek to practice all of the spiritual gifts mentioned in Scripture including prophecy, healing, miracles, tongues, interpretation, and distinguishing between spirits. They differ among churches on their positions on Spirit Baptism. A third movement has appeared on the scene since the 1980s led by C. Peter Wagner that is often labeled the “third wave.” While spiritual gifts are the focus of this movement, their position on Spirit Baptism is that it is a common event for all Christians and occurs at the moment of conversion.

Spirit Baptism is defined as a dramatic second experience that occurs after a Christian’s initial conversion. Following a water baptism of repentance, this second baptism results for the believer in a new infusion of spiritual gifts, most frequently the gift of tongues. Scripturally, it is supported by John 20:22 which tells of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearance and reads:

And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”

and verses in Acts such as 1:4-5:

On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have hear me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

The namesake event occurs after the disciples had obeyed Jesus and waited in Jerusalem for ten days. On the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:3-4):

They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.

This event is linked to the gifts of the Holy Spirit mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12.

Should all Christians be reading these passages as normative? How should we consider the experiences of those who claim a second baptism? Glossolalia? We’ll explore these questions and many others in the weeks to come.

Be blessed.

Acts 13:48 An Exegetical Study

When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed. (NIV)

Acts 13:48 is a verse that has drawn much attention both as a proof text in support of a theology (e.g. Steele, Thomas The Five Points of Calvinism pp 33, 35, 60; Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion Book III Ch. 24) and more specifically, the doctrine of unconditional election. This verse is often pointed to as “the divine side of evangelism” (Bible Exposition Commentary), saying that one of the key words, variously translated as Ordained or Appointed, connotes those who are written in the Book of Life (Phil 4:3, etc.) and destined to everlasting life, saved from perdition.

This same verse which is said to emphasize God’s sovereignty in election and salvation is also many times is seen as a mandate to evangelization so as to draw people to our Savior. Greg Laurie (Growing Your Church Through Evangelism and Outreach pp. 139), for example, says that by evangelism people must be persuaded to come to the work of the Spirit. Sometimes, he points out, two invitations are necessary in order to give people an opportunity to make a choice for Christ.

In the debate of continuous interest–Calvin versus Arminius–this same verse is said support both the monergistic and synergistic points of view. The Calvinist reads it as a declaration of the election of certain of humankind to salvation and the Arminian agrees. Those who interpret scripture through the Arminian-Wesleyian framework say yes, individuals are appointed for life eternal and that this appointment is made by God but, contrary to the Calvinist position, this gift must be received by a man or woman in order to be effectual.

Can this Word of God be rightly divided in such a way that it means everything that is attributed to it? Or, when placed back into its larger context and read in its original Greek form, does it lean heavily to one side or the other. The purpose of this study will be to help you decide the meaning of this verse and how it affects our reading of other verses and passages in God’s revelation to us. Though you may be tempted to read this simply to find affirmation of your particular theological framework, I urge you to approach this (and the study of all Scripture) prayerfully and with a heart open to movement and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The Lukan Corpus

Proof-texting can be a disingenuous practice if the verse or passage that one chooses to utilize as support for a specific doctrine or practice has a different meaning when it is extracted from the larger context in which it was written. In order to properly evaluate a section of Scripture, it is critical that we locate that section within its surrounding material. Examining Acts 13:48 then requires us to look at the verse in the context of its immediate pericope, Luke’s description of Paul and Barnabas’ ministry in Pisidian Antioch, then the entire book of Acts and finally, the corpus of Luke’s writing, the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.

If we read Luke/Acts with the common focus of its historicity it is easy to miss the emphasis that the author places on the way of salvation and the work of the Holy Spirit. The progress (cf. Liefeld, Interpreting the Book of Acts, pp 41-42) of the gospel is recorded in a series of summary verses:

Acts 2:41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

Acts 2:47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

Acts 4:4 But many who heard the message believed, and the number of men grew to about five thousand.

Acts 5:14 Nevertheless, more and more men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their number.

Acts 6:7 So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.

Acts 9:31 Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria enjoyed a time of peace. It was strengthened; and encouraged by the Holy Spirit, it grew in numbers, living in the fear of the Lord.

Acts 9:42 This became known all over Joppa, and many people believed in the Lord.

Acts 11:21 The Lord’s hand was with them, and a great number of people believed and turned to the Lord.

Acts 12:24 But the word of God continued to increase and spread.

Acts 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.

Acts 16:5 So the churches were strengthened in the faith and grew daily in numbers.

Acts 19:20 In this way the word of the Lord spread widely and grew in power.

Acts 28:31 Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ.

Salvation is a major theme in both Luke and Acts (Marshall, Luke: Historian and Theologian). In Luke, the verb “save” appears some seventeen times and thirteen times in Acts. “Savior” appears twice in each book and “salvation” shows up seven times in Acts (cf. soteria in 13:47-48) and two Greek words for “salvation” appear six times in Luke. In Luke the emphasis is appropriately placed on Jesus as the one who brought (was) God’s salvation. The focus in Acts is the extent of this salvation, open to all classes of people — Gentiles, sinners, and the disenfranchised across all supposed geographic boundaries. Many Jews believed but the gospel did not end there; it went afar into the Gentile world where it was gladly received. Intertwined with these themes we find the related word “grace” in its theological sense of God’s work in an individual.

Liefeld (ibid. pp 93) suggests a further theme that runs through the twin volumes that is easily overlooked, the sovereignty of God and divine necessity. Necessity is defined as “what must be done to complete God’s sovereign plan.” Luke’s use of the word dei (“it is necessary”, “it must”) is frequent enough to warrant notice of a thread of divine intention running through the books. God is at the foundation of the kerygmatic impulse that propels Acts that finds two matching ideas that should not be separated: divine providence and the summons to obedience. As Fernando says (Fernando, NIVAC:Acts, pp 343) “Those who do seek after God , then, do not do so entirely by their own efforts but by the enlightening of their minds and the energizing of their wills by the Holy Spirit.” An example of these ideas is seen in the conversion of Lydia where the gospel message is first presented to this successful woman and God then “opened here heart to respond to Paul’s message. (Acts 16:14).” An evangelistic principle is extracted from the Lukan examples. There is an interplay between human initiative and divine quickening which leads us to understand our responsibility and emphasizes that it is God who ultimately gives the results (ibid. pp 451) [cf. vv 26:18, 29].

Context Within Acts

It is generally recognized that Acts divides into two parts; the first (Chs 1 to 12) half having to do with Peter and the beginnings of the Church within the Holy Land and the second (Chs 13 to 28), with Paul and the movement of the gospel from Antioch to Rome. Recording Paul’s missionary journeys, the verse of interest occurs within the context of his first missionary adventure. To outline the immediate context of chapter 13 we can utilize clear breaks in the movement of narrative as our guide.

Vv 1 to 3 – Paul and Barnabas are commissioned and sent
Vv 4 to 12 – Ministry on Cyprus
Vv 13 to 52 – Ministry in Pisidian Antioch
1. vv 13 – 41 : Preaching Ministry
2. vv 42 – 52 : The Effect of Paul’s Sermon

The nearest context of interest in this narrative locates Paul and his companions ministering in Pisidian Antioch. On the Sabbath they enter the synagogue and await the movement of the Spirit. They don’t wait long as the synagogue leadership asks them to share a “message of encouragement.” (v 15) Paul delivers much more than they bargained for. He rehearses the history of God’s dealings with Israel and now His movement to the Gentiles leading up the death and resurrection of the Savior Christ. Paul proclaims the good news that forgiveness of sins through Jesus is available to “everyone who believes.” (v 39) The power of the gospel message and dire warning that Paul issues at the close garners him a second invitation to preach on the next Sabbath.

Paul returns to the synagogue to find nearly the entire population of the city gathered to “hear hear the word of the Lord.” (v 44) This surge in attendance did not sit well with the Jews who abused Paul and the gospel message that he delivers. Paul, never one to cower in the face of a challenge, speaks “boldly” (v 46) pointing out that the Jews were the first to receive the revelation of the justification available through Jesus but, he continues “since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life” (v46) Paul is guided to take the message to a new people. When the Gentiles hear their place in God’s plan “they were glad and honored the word of the Lord;” resulting in their belief. This movement of the Spirit caused a stir in the whole region resulting in further abuse by the Jews driving Paul’s band on to Iconium. “The disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.” (v52)

A careful reading of the verse being examined finds that it is a necessary counterbalance to the emphasis on human will and choice that precedes it in the passage. It does not abrogate the previous references but reinforces the the divine imperative that regenerates the human soul and makes repentance and belief possible. “All those who believed “were appointed for eternal life” It is never merely a person’s own choice that saves them, it is always God’s love and mercy.” (Fernando, NIVAC) Williams has a similar view of the verse (NIBC) “The idea of appointment in this verse is not meant in a restrictive sense. The thought is not of God limiting salvation to the few, but of extending it to the many, in contrast to the exclusiveness of the Jews. And of course this divine choice did not obviate the need for personal faith.”

Word Study

Irving Jensen has said, “Just as a great door swings on small hinges, so the important theological statements of the Bible often depend upon even the smallest words, such as preposition and articles.” (Jensen, Enjoy Your Bible) A single word is often at the center of the life giving doctrines of the Bible and, in order to understand them, we must study the specific words in their original context. We begin then by examining Acts 13:48 in its Greek form:

Acts 13:48 akouonta de ta.eqnh ecairon kai. edoxazon ton logon tou/ kuriou kai.episteusan osoi hsan tetagmenoi eij zwhn aiwnion\

Translated:

akouonta de ta.eqnh ecairon

And hearing the nations rejoiced

kai. edoxazon ton logon tou/ kuriou

and glorified [honored] the word of the Lord

kai.episteusan osoi hsan

and believed as many as were

tetagmenoi eij zwhn aiwnion\

having been disposed to life eternal

The word of most interest to this discussion is tetagmenoi (tetagmenoi), a form of the verb tassw (tasso). Before parsing the verb, let’s establish the root definition. [Highlighted phrases and sentences added to point to references of the verse being examined.]

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament – Gerhard Kittel

The basic definition of this word means to appoint, to order, with such nuances as to arrange, to determine, to set in place, to establish, and (in the middle form) to fix for oneself.

LXX: senses are to appoint, to prohibit, to ordain, to set, to draw up, and middle to command, to make disposition, to fix, to turn one’s gaze, to set one’s heart, and to make.

NT: in Acts 15:2 – to determine / Acts 28:23 to appoint / Mt 28:16 to order. Christians are ordained to eternal life in Acts 13:48; conferring of status rather than foreordination is the point.

The NIV Theological Dictionary of New Testament Words – Verlyn D. Verbrugge

tasso – Arrange, appoint / protasso – command, appoint / diatasso – command, order / diatage – ordinance, direction / epitasso – command, order / epitage – order, injunction

This word is common in classical Greek. Its first meaning is military: draw up troops (or ships) in battle array. From this verb it came to mean direct or a appoint someone to a task, arrange, setup , put things or plans in order. All these verbs and nouns imply an acknowledged authority and power residing in the person from whom decisions or directives issue.

In the LXX the words in this word group are used with both God and humans as the arranging or directing agents.

NT: tasso is used 8 times and means some order or arrangement that has been made. It denotes God’s appointment of the “authorities that exist” (Rom 13:1), of Paul’s career assignment (Acts 22:10) and of individual persons’ “appointed” for eternal life through believing the gospel (Acts 13:48). In the middle Voice it means to make a mutual arrangement [Taxamenoi] (Acts 28:23)

Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains – J.P. Louw & E.Nida

37.96 τάσσωa; ὁρίζωb; ἀναδείκνυμιb; τίθημιb: to assign someone to a particular task, function, or role—‘to appoint, to designate, to assign, to give a task to.’

τάσσωa : ἐπίστευσαν ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον ‘those who had been designated for eternal life became believers’ Ac 13.48. Though τάσσω in Ac 13.48 has sometimes been interpreted as meaning ‘to choose,’ there seems to be far more involved than merely a matter of selection, since a relationship is specifically assigned.

ὁρίζωb : ὁ ὡρισμένος ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ κριτής ‘the one designated by God as judge’ Ac 10.42.

ἀναδείκνυμιb : ἀνέδειξεν ὁ κύριος ἑτέρους ἑβδομήκοντα δύο ‘the Lord appointed another seventy-two men’ Lk 10.1.

τίθημιb: ἔθηκα ὑμᾶς ἵνα ὑμεῖς ὑπάγητε καὶ καρπὸν φέρητε ‘I appointed you to go and bear much fruit’ Jn 15.16.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature – Frederick Danker / Walter Bauer

To bring about an order of things by arranging, arrange, put in place
1. Of an authority structure passive
2. Of a person: Put into a specific position, used with a preposition. (in the passive, belong to, be classed among those possessing) (Acts 13:48) Mt 8:9 Lk 7:8 1 Cor 16:15

When we parse the verb, we discover that it can be read in two forms. This is because “in the present tense, the middle and passive forms of the verb are identical” (Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek). Accordingly, many lexicons and other language tools will show two parsings side by side:

1. participle perfect passive nominative masculine plural

2. participle perfect middle nominative masculine plural

A little grammar to begin that you can skip if Greek is second nature to you. A participle (in English and Greek, a verbal adjective) has the characteristics of both a verb and an adjective. It has a tense (present, aorist, perfect) and a voice (active, middle, passive) like a verb and as an adjective it agrees with the word that it modifies in case, number, and gender. The tense describes the type of action denoted:

present – describes a continuous action
aorist – presents an undefined action – the participle describes the action without commenting on the nature of the action
perfect – describes a completed action with present effects

The voice refers to the relationship between the subject and the verb.

active – the subject does the action of the verb – Bob threw the ball. Threw is active because Bill did it.
passive – the subject receives the action of the verb – Bob was hit by the ball. Was hit is passive because Bill was hit.
middle – the action of the verb in some way affects the subject – The closest we can come with Bob and the ball is Bob hits himself with the ball.

It is an important footnote to this discussion to note that Luke is aware of and uses a variety of Greek words having the same meaning as the verb in question (appointed, ordained). See his usage in Luke 2:23, 10:1 and Acts 3:20, 6:3, 10:42, 12:21, 14:23, 15:12, 17:31, 22:10, 22:14, 26:16 & 28:23.

[Note that the discussion of middle versus passive voice is also a component of the Cessationist debate over the spiritual gift of tongues. The verb that Paul selects is pausontai which can also be parsed in the middle or passive voice. In 1 Cor 13:8, the verse can be read to indicate that the gift of tongues will cease or the gift of tongues will cease in and of itself.]

Conclusion

As I stated at the outset, the purpose of this study is not to present to you a conclusive reading of this important verse. What I have done is survey the scholarship and presented my findings to you in an orderly manner so that you can prayerfully decide what the appropriate reading and application of this verse is. Do not allow your theology to be determined solely on the word of others and a proof-text list. God has provided his revelation so that each of us can determine, given the entire scope of Scripture, the appropriate rendering of his Word and the aspects of His character and action that each reveals. Proof-texting that inappropriately “helicopters” in (as my beloved Dr. Carroll used to say) and pulls a verse out of its surrounding context is an incorrect way of dividing the Holy Word.

God bless you all in your study.

Update:

A fine analysis of this passage by William Birch can be found here.

The Legacy We All Hope to Leave

This tale of a life lived rightly was just the reminder I needed to carry on toward the prize. The theological debates, the bigotry on parade, the sacrificial struggles; they all mean nothing if we are not letting the glory of Jesus shine through our lives. In the end, Jesus will ask, “Did you give me a drink, did you visit me in prison, did you patch my wounds when I was ill,” and so on.

Gracism and Racism

Anderson defines racism as ‘speaking, acting or thinking negatively about someone else solely based on that person’s color, class or culture’ in Gracism. It is productive to add an aspect of power on the part of the racist that extends over the oppressed but we can continue in our discussion of David’s book without it. In beginning to lay the foundation of his ideas, Anderson begins by making the case logically and theologically that inclusion within the body of Christ makes sense in this day and age. Not only does the Bible make a clear case for reaching out to all people but it also makes clear our reliance on one another.

The excursus of 1 Corinthians 12 begins with an observation of Paul’s insertion of a reference to race and culture in verse 13:

For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body–whether Jews or Greek, slave or free–and we were all give the one Spirit to drink.

The apostle didn’t casually mention the union of all members of the body and then toss in this reference to race and culture. In fact, it can be argued that this applies a filter through which the remaining verses of this pericope are to be read. A new reading of the verses 14-27 points us to action; anyone who may feel, look or truly be ‘unpresentable’ or ‘weaker’ must be handled, and even honored, differently. The Church body should never be content with those that surround them, they must constantly be looking toward the fringes looking to include other parts of the body who something to contribute to God’s mission.

We as the body are confronted with questions that derive from this idea. We must ask ourselves first if our church, small group, or Bible class represents a group that Christ would assemble, being inclusive as He was. We must confront our choices by asking if we are perpetuating segregation among Christians and simply justifying it with my preferences and comfort? Those who militate for multi-ethnic churches within the Body must prepare for disagreement. Anderson recounts an attack from an African American man who felt that his message was against the black church, calling him a menace. His reply is stark where he says:

I’ve never read a text of Scripture that outlines God’s design for a one-race church….As much as I love the black church and at times miss it, there will be no black church in heaven. There will be one church and it will be multicultural. One bride, not a harem, is what Jesus is coming back for.”

A sobering thought for those who insist on continuing in unicultural ministry. Are you truly reflecting your Lord?

Doctrines of Love versus Doctrines of Grace?

A bit of semantic infiltration has become the norm in the Calvinism-Arminian discussions in which Calvinists have taken to referring to their theology as the ‘doctrines of grace.’ It’s certainly nothing new but it is used now in order to infer that the Arminian theology is anything but rooted in grace, which of course is not true. Perhaps the Arminian theologians and writers should begin a ‘re-branding’ campaign of their own and follow Mrs. Wynkoop in emphasizing God’s love. Arminius would be proud to hear his theological system referred to as the Doctrines of Love.

This, of course, would simply perpetuate the never ending debate between these camps, but still…..

A Quick Word Study from John 6:44

This brother over at The Everyday Christian is working his way through the TULIP tenets and, in his discussion of Unconditional Election, he mentions that he is wrestling with John 6:44. This verse is often discussed in this context, specifically because of the (English) word draws. To draw someone or something in English implies either an attraction or a compulsion in the form of forcibly pulling the object toward a target location. To derive meaning from our Bible, especially where there can be multiple meanings, we must turn to the original Greek.

Here is the verse in English:

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. (NIV)

And now in Greek:

οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ πέμψας με ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν, κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ.

And here is the Greek with the English translation beneath it:

οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐλθεῖν πρός με ἐὰν μὴ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ πέμψας με ἑλκύσῃ αὐτόν, κἀγὼ

No one can [to] come to me unless Father having sent me should draw him and I

ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ.

Will raise up him in the last day

The word we are most interested in is helkō. [Kittel – Theological Dictionary of the New Testament] The basic meaning is to draw, tug, or in the case of persons, compel. The Semitic world has the concept of an irresistible drawing to God ( ie: Hos 9:7) Here it expresses the force of love. This is the point in the two important passages in John 6:44 and 12:32. There is no thought here of force. The term figuratively expresses the supernatural power of the love of God or Christ which goes out to all but without which no one can come. The apparent contradiction shows that both the election and the universality of grace must be taken seriously; the compulsion is not automatic.

[Bauer: Danker – A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature] Bauer lists three meanings:

To move an object from one area to another in a pulling motion – draw with implication that the object being moved is incapable of propelling itself or in the case of persons is unwilling to do so voluntarily, in either case with implication of exertion on the part of the mover (cf: James 2:6, Acts 21:30)
To draw a person in the direction of values for inner life. This is the usage in John 6:44 and 12:32 – Well testified outside of NT
To appear to be pulled in a certain direction

[Louw-Nida – Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains] LN leans toward the use of force, but there is little testimony about alternative usage.

My purpose here is not to reinforce my chosen interpretation of this key word in the verse. Theologically, we must place this word into its immediate context, the context of the book of John, and then the New Testament as a whole in order to decide which of the possible translations is most appropriate. In this verse, the theologian is faced with this question: does God draw persons to himself by force or does He move them toward himself by His love?

Updated 08/21/07:

See this brother’s discussion of this important verse in the post “Does John 6:44 Teach Irresistible Grace?

Theological Balance

As I prepare a lesson on AVL trees (a form of balanced BST), I notice the similarity of the imbalanced tree and the least God-honoring thing that occurs in theological discussions within many blogs. For example, many adhere to a Calvinist theology and in support of that they have read much of the standard corpus on the topic and can quite handily post quotes from these works on their blogs. Many times, the posts are without comment, I suppose to confer some finitude to the quote that is posted as if to say, here is a statement by John T. Ulip which says that Calvinism is right, all other theological constructs are wrong and no analysis is necessary.

While the pursuit of truth is noble, the true pursuit of truth requires the engagement of opposing viewpoints to the same degree as you pursue those you agree with. In other words, the Calvinist (or Arminian) library should be nearly equally filled with works representing both theological schools. This is far different from presenting a quote by Mr. Ulip who says Arminianism is false and heretical; you honor God in your pursuit of the truth by reading deeply from both schools before presenting something as fact. In matters of theology, it is not acceptable to believe something is wrong simply because someone else told you it is wrong. God gave you a mind and the ability to use it to discern truth, and you honor his gifts in you by coming to a decision from the fruits of your own labors.

Because, after all, the Arminian is also going to say “the Arminian view is correct because the bible teaches it.” How will this argument go? Is, is not! Is, is not!

Views on Divine Election: Corporate & Open

The view that election in the Bible is corporate in nature is one of the least discussed and considered positions when this topic comes up for discussion. William Klein, one of my seminary professors, wrote the seminal book on this topic in The New Chosen People. In order to understand this view of election two terms must be inextricably linked in your mind: corporate and vocational. Any discussion that purports to refute this view without this pair of terms front and center should be dismissed out of hand due to its ill formed argument.

Election as Corporate and Vocational

1 Peter 2:9 provides a starting point from which to work: “But you are a chosen people , a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” (NIV) The challenge to the predominant belief that election is about a number of the fallen being unconditionally or conditionally chosen for salvation begins with the reading of plurality found in this body of scripture. Rather than election as individuals, election is seen as a people group. Thus, when Peter writes that ‘you are a chosen people’ (cf. NASB – race, KJV – race, RSV – race: race confers community better than the NIV choice of ‘people’) he is speaking corporately and he assigns their God given mission in saying ‘that you may declare the praises of him’. Election then,is about a people and their God-given task. God’s objective in a corporate election is found in the calling given to this people: not the salvation of a few but the gathering of the nations into an eschatological fellowship. The election of the community is a component of God’s comprehensive will to save humankind.

The Corporate view developed out of theological struggles with what Calvin himself calls a dreadful decree (Institutes 3.23.7) in which God who on one hand exclaims His love for the whole of the world while simultaneously electing some to salvation and choosing others for destruction. Barth (himself one of the greatest Calvinist theologians) diverged from his mentor as he considered the Augustinian double predestination that the theological framework demands and found it unacceptable saying that makes God out to be two-faced saying ‘that it makes it sound as if God were saying to humanity, not “yes” but “yes” and “no”‘ (Church Dogmatics)

Theologians Paul Jewett and William Klein, among others, point out that when the topic of election is raised in the Bible, it is consistent in referring to the elect as a class, not individuals. The plural language puts election into corporate terms, Klein saying “The biblical data present an impressive case that election is not God’s choice of a restricted number of individuals whom he wills to save but the description of that corporate body which, in Christ, He is saving.” (New Chosen People) This notion is most clearly portrayed in the election of Israel as a people through which the world will be blessed. The Church continues in this tradition as those elected in Christ to carry on the blessing of the world. This election is not for privilege however, but for vocation. God calls a people to himself in order to change history. The corporate entity elected by God would be His covenant partners in the salvation of the whole human race. The called community has the potential to be an advance representation of eschatological future, attractive and welcoming those still outside the community (1 Cor 7:29).

Conclusion

This view of election is little discussed in the shadow of the ongoing Calvinism-Arminianism tussles but it presents a substantial enough body of texts and logic to prevent it from being dismissed out of hand. Though it can sometimes veer into the areas of Open theism and Unviversalism, it is representative as a whole of the loving character of God presenting Him not as capricious and arbitrary but as desirous of the salvation of all of His children and His willingness to use the Church to to fulfill this desire.

Alternate Views:

The Calvinist View

The Arminian View

The Supralapsarian Calvinist View

The Sublapsarian Universalist View

Views on Divine Election: Sublapsarian Universalism

The doctrine of limited atonement (the L in TULIP) states that Christ’s work on the Cross was effectual only for the elect, who in God’s sovereign will were chosen out of the mass of humanity for salvation. This is represented by the infralapsarian and supralapsarian order of decrees. The sublapsarian sequence of decrees broadens the scope of what was accomplished by Jesus Christ through His death. The order of divine decrees reads:

Creation of human beings
Permit the Fall
Provide salvation sufficient for all
Election to salvation and reprobation

Universalism

As you notice upon comparing the infralapsarian and supralapsarian decrees, the salvation made possible by Christ was only for the elect. The Universalist searches the whole of Scripture and finds a different idea; that Christ’s work on the cross was sufficient for all people and made effectual upon their exercise of faith. This is the view of an interesting union of Arminians and some Calvinists and it makes the gospel message of John 3:16(-17) come to life:

For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him.

Election, for the universalist, is neither limited nor conditional but is rooted in merciful character of God. As portrayed in the well known passage above, election is an expression of God’s love for the world which is unconstrained in scope and unconditional in application. In other words, the universalist will point out that the New Testament declares that God at a minimum wills or desires the salvation of all humans and is not will that any of them should perish. To link these ideas to scripture:

This is good, and pleases God our savior who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim 2:3-4)

The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. (2 Pet 3:9)

God’s mercy is fixed in his love, and God is love. Universalism will dispute that God’s love is evidenced by the Augustinian God who separates in His mysteries one from another for salvation. This unconditional election is incompatible with the God of love described by 1 John 4:8-16 whose very essence is love and the object of that love is all the world. The Arminian who is able to thwart God’s desire, thus His plan, is also considered to be incorrect because, though God’s love may be resisted, it cannot be denied or challenged. God does not stop loving those who reject them and this brings Him ever greater glory.

Conclusion

Christian universalists believe that, apart from a corporate salvation of the human race as a whole, there is no real grace and no worthwhile salvation for anyone. Limited election replaces mercy with a decree, and an arbitrary one at that, while conditional election grants the human agent who exercises their free will to choose God a kind of moral superiority that outshines God’s grace. To quote Thomas Talbott, “For no power in the universe, not the power of death itself and not even the power of our own recalcitrant wills, can finally ‘separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.'” (Rom 8:30)

Sola Scriptura

Other Views on Election

Views on Divine Election: Supralapsarian Calvinism

Within the Calvinist soteriological discussion, there exists an intramural debate regarding the order of God’s sovereign decrees for redemption and reprobation. Specifically, the question to answered is this, when the decrees of election and reprobation came into being was humankind considered to be fallen or unfallen. In other words, what did God have in view when His decrees were issued. Did He contemplate humankind as collective members of a corrupt, fallen mass or, were they seen as simply as beings that He would create. In the earlier discussion of the traditional Calvinist view, the majority Infralapsarian position was detailed. Briefly, the Latin infra locates the decree for election after the Fall and makes the objects of that decree fallen and corrupt. The complete ordering of decrees (as detailed by Boettner in Reformed Doctrine of Predestination) reads then as:

Creation
Permit the Fall
Election to redemption
Decree the work of Jesus Christ as atonement
Sending of the Holy Spirit for the application of redemption

Supralapsarianism

Those who order God’s decrees in a Supralapsarian fashion place the decree to election to redemption and eternal life and reprobation and destruction prior to the Fall. Thus, the reordered decrees would be:

Election of some of the future creation of humankind to life and others to death
Creation
Permit the Fall
Send Christ to redeem the Elect
Send the Holy Spirit to apply the redemption

With Beza as his teacher, Arminius was exposed to this plan’s ordering and it became one of the primary factors in the development of his theology. He vehemently disputed this idea as, for Arminius, it made God the author of sin and ran completely contrary to His holy character. By placing the discriminating decree in the first position, God exercises His sovereign will to elect humans as humans, not fallen humans.

The debate between the infralapsarian and supralapsarian positions is very speculative as scripture does not provide an overwhelming body of evidence confirming one side or the other. The choice is largely made along the lines of procedural logic (the rational planning principle.) Placing God’s will over the lives and eternal destinies of His creations in the forefront of all of His succeeding decrees manifests His sovereignty in what some theologians call the greatest example of soli Deo Gloria. They are convinced that this exercise best brings glory to God, the predominant aim exhibited in Scripture for all of God’s activities.